UK Amazon Kindle Forum discussion
General Chat - anything Goes
>
Self-publishing is reactionary
date
newest »
newest »
Haha, yes, I just saw this article and thought I'd pop in to see whether people were spluttering over it indignantly yet.*grabs popcorn*
I started reading it but sort of got lost as I couldn't really see what point they were making.
Yea I don't get their point other than self-publishing is not revolutionary. So what?
Jud (Disney Diva) wrote: "Yea I don't get their point other than self-publishing is not revolutionary. So what?"
Apparently, the people who self-publish are writing books that people may want to read, rather than what the literary establishment/trad. publishers decide they should read, and that shouldn't be allowed.
There are surely 2 types of writer-the one who writes what they want and the one who writes what they think will sell. How is self-publishing different in this than before? And since when were readers not consumers?Pretentious bunkum, I'd say.
Darren wrote: "Pretentious bunkum, I'd say."AS with nearly all non-news stories in a broadsheet newspaper it is really about defining who their readers can safely feel superior to.
I have to say I've reader a wider scope of SPA books than trad pubbed. There are lots that might have some aspect which a trad pub house would have rejected but the SPA went with, and it worked.
A.L. wrote: "I have to say I've reader a wider scope of SPA books than trad pubbed. There are lots that might have some aspect which a trad pub house would have rejected but the SPA went with, and it worked."Yes. That is a good thing about self-publishing. So what if there is a fair bit/ a lot of dross out there? The good will rise as it did before.
Some have described the current self-publishing thing as a sort of public slush pile, where it is readers themselves who decide what is worthwhile and what isn't.
There is, of course, a streak of authoritarianism in Guardianistas, and others, though, who do not like ordinary people making choices for themselves as there is always the danger they will choose the wrong thing.
Anyway, the more interviews I come across with authors who've tried it on both sides of the fence, the less I'm interested in traditional publishers.
How can readers be REDUCED to the status of consumers, when trad publishers don't sell to readers anyway? The only sell to "the channel" i.e. distributers.Surely with SP selling directly to the reader, their status is ELEVATED!
90% of trad pubbed authors never earn out their advance, according to figure I saw somewhere. Most trad books don't sell, but some do. Most SP books don't sell, but some do. Now tell me, where's the news?
Okay, I've read the Guardian article three or four times. I'm not entirely sure that I've decoded it fully, but this is what I think it is saying...Self-publishing isn't revolutionary because self-published writers are writing what they want - what the article author calls "individual fulfilment".
Instead, he argues (in the last para) that self-publishing will only be a radical and revolutionary when groups of authors work together to contribute to each others' works across genres and literary forms.
What utter pretentious cobblers! History has shown that we can have revolutionary art from individuals as well as from collectives. Self publishing may not be automatically revolutionary, but then no-one ever said that it was. For every experimental work there are dozens if not hundreds of Twilight, Potter, Fifty shades, Tolkien clones.
But what's wrong with that? If folks want to write it and other folks want to read it, who the hell cares if it is revolutionary or not?
It's a blog, not the guardian proper. And it shows, I'm afraid.
I agree. There is a market for every book, even if the market is small. There will always be someone who loves it and someone who hates it. Most authors don't make much, but that is true of most artists, and a lot aren't doing it for the money anyway. Besides what is wrong with art being revolutionary? Conservatism means nothing will ever change. Change is what keeps life interesting.
I welcome the opportunity for everybody to get their voice 'out there', however, what I would really welcome is the opportunity for everybody to get their voice 'heard', which is another thing altogether. Although the article may sound 'snobbish', it does have a point: very often what is passed as a 'democratic' move, is, in reality, tyranny. The publishing world was badly hit by the recession, no doubt, and it never fully recovered. There is no doubt that there was a certain 'conservativism' in that world before that, however, what self-publishing has also done is shift the power from the publishers to the retailers. I want to point this out, the retailers, not the writers, nor the readers. It's a similar process to what has happened with huge supermarkets: we shoppers like to think we have 'choice', the reality is that farmers' returns have been squeezed on one side and the range of veggies has not increased, but decreased (there used to be more than thirty varieties of pears in the UK, now...four...that actually meant the extinction of some trees in the UK, the same applies to lettuce etc...)What the article is welcoming is a way of creating 'significant voices' within this new market. There are also areas in the market that have been skewed, quite literally, some books are being sold for what they are not, which is affecting the community that should be represented by such books.
Please do not read into my words; I never said that self-publishing is wrong, in fact, authors tend to 'ally' themselves with other authors, and publishers are allying themselves with other publishers, but this is still in the making, from what I can see.
From the point of view of readers, the comment 'this book is not for me' is becoming more and more common, which is a telling sign. What this process has never taken into consideration, in the name of god market, is the literary world, ironically. Tags and formats have replaced genres, and this has, it may surprise, made writing something 'outside' the tag almost suicidal. In a market where the search engine dictates the visibility of a book, creating something that does not fit what readers can search, and I stress can, because the search engine is in the hands of the retailer, not the reader, not the writer, has conditioned the market. Just type in 'original' in your search engine: it does not recognise it; books will crop up, maybe with the word original in the title, but not books that are necessarily original. Type in any particular craze and you will find a plethora of books that fit that description. That is something that needs to be addressed.
For those who really like to read and write something original, the search is long, difficult and full of obstacles: this does not mean that original books are not out there, but that they are difficult to find. Simply put, when you publish a book, you have to decide in which category you want it to be... Remember that, if this had existed at the time Pride and Prejudice, Wuthering Heights or Mrs Dalloway came out, they would not have had a category to be in, and they would have, by force of their own iriginality, ended in a category that does not describe them. Yet, literature needs mould breakers, the problem is that tags are moulds.
Finally, a point on the role of the writers: although I welcome the closer relationship between reader and writer (self-published or not) self-publishing has brought about, I wonder if the future of a book should be determined by the author's ability to market the book or the book's quality. This, again, does not mean that there are no good books out there: let us ask ourselves as readers whether we are encouraged to find 'odd', unusual, creative texts, though, or if the current market is drawing our attention towards a particular category, format, with similar covers and similar themes, structures etc... Whether self-publishing is reactionary or revolutionary depends on the readers. That is where the whole proposition of the argument is wrong: the market can create the circumstances where a revolution is possible, but the revolution is something only people can make.
A final plea, to all readers: the giveaway. If you read the suggestions, even here on Goodreads, on how to market a book, the very first, the most important, the one that can decide the 'fortune' of a book is the giveaway. It's like supermarkets inviting people in with a buy one get one free. I look at the music market: albums have been sold for pennies. Problem... How about if the album had costs? If you want a full orchestra, you'll have to pay for them... If you just need a PC, then it's cheap. When a book is published via traditional publishers, many people are involved... A giveaway is often out of the question. The giveaway may be for the kindle only, yet the cost of printing the paperback has to be backed up by the kindle: the in-pot is one. Then, let's consider what the giveaway really does, in the great majority of cases, going back to music, it has depleted the coffers of record companies in order to push their artists up in the charts. There are famous examples of even very, very famous music artists who have been costing their companies... How many of us have downloaded a book because it was for free or cheap, and it is still there, gathering virtual dust on our kindle? How much money do we waste, bit by bit, on giveaways? Let's remember that we are readers, not just consumers, yet the giveaway increases the percentage of us who act as consumers only, I have done the same myself... I, again, am not saying that one shouldn't buy a giveaway, but I would just like all us readers to think, 'Am I sure I will read this book? Or shall I skip three giveaways and buy one book I will really enjoy instead?' The giveaway, nice though it is, useful though it is in some cases, is a marketing tool to make us turn money into the pockets of the retailer, via sheer quantity, and make us forget, more and more often, that we are readers, not just consumers. Yes, the book market is a market, and we are consumers, but we are also readers, and we should consume as readers, not just buy. It is the positioning of readers as uncritical consumers that the current market is promoting which I do find worrying. I am sure not all of us do it, yet I have done it myself: it's easy to buy one and get one free that ends up in the bin...
P.S. There still isn't a 'tag' that fits Wuthering Heights. Nor is there a tag for, simply, avant garde.
A correction: type in 'original' in the search engine of one of the biggest book retailers and you'll find shoes and clothes... Not books. That says a lot.
Adriano wrote: "I welcome the opportunity for everybody to get their voice 'out there', however, what I would really welcome is the opportunity for everybody to get their voice 'heard', which is another thing alto..."you've got lots of points there :)
S. wrote: "Adriano wrote: "I welcome the opportunity for everybody to get their voice 'out there', however, what I would really welcome is the opportunity for everybody to get their voice 'heard', which is an..."Thanks,
There might be a way forward though: when readers look for a book and find that the search engine misdirected them, they can ask online retailers to correct that, or create categories that match their interests. I'm not too keen on subdividing books into two billion categories, I stick to Oscar Wilde's statement that there are two types of books, well written ones and badly written ones, however, one should think about what one looks for in a book. For me, originality is a must. I want writers to have something new to say or a new way of saying it. My feeling is that there are so many readers who feel like me but have no way of finding such books easily. For example, I feel there should be a 'mould breakers' category, or 'avant garde', otherwise originality becomes a disadvantage. I know, there is the 'literary fiction' category, but it has been so heavily bashed, literally lying, by the media (if you are. Writer, you get told straight away that your book won't sell if it is literary fiction, yet, look at the all time best sellers, 95% are literary fiction, what they mean is that you won't have the average 2 week shelf life doing well and then disappear... Or maybe that marketing something new is a hassle? How many books have I seen that even copy famous books' titles? One, I remember was marketed saying that if you liked The Da Vinci Code you will like this... Cheeky, but easy. This encouragement of turning authors from creative writers into people in pursuit of money does not please me, it's easy to say, 'There is a market out there; I'll jump in,' how about 'Books are art and at the core of culture; I have something to contribute'? The latter is discouraged). Shall we then look at how 'similar books' are shoved in your face by the book you are viewing? Isn't this encouraging readers to be unimaginative in their choices? If we compare it to voting in elections, as we are talking about democracy in a way, it's as if all the flyers you get through your door are for candidates of the same faction within the same party... Not really what democracy is about... I want to hear what the Monster Ravey Loony Party has to say, I may not vote for them, but I still want to hear what they are saying before I make my choice. The whole of the modern world is based on the illusion of choice, but never the ability to influence such choice. Let's also remember the power of habit: we often pick up things just because they look familiar. This creates massive waves, till we get sick of it, and that has been the basis of marketing all along. That shows how we, as readers, are being treated as buyers. That for me is an issue: culture is a product, but not just.
Talking in simple terms, there are more than 6million books out there, but how many of these 6 million books have actually sold a single copy in the last year? Very often, self-published books have a smaller circulation than if you sold your book straight to your friends, only, the author makes a fraction of the money. At this stage, I wonder what 'voice' is given to such books: being 'available' may be a badge, but it is not a platform for one's ideas...
Adriano wrote: "S. wrote: "Adriano wrote: "I welcome the opportunity for everybody to get their voice 'out there', however, what I would really welcome is the opportunity for everybody to get their voice 'heard', ..."well the alternative will always find a way to undermine the status quo i think.
S. wrote: "Adriano wrote: "S. wrote: "Adriano wrote: "I welcome the opportunity for everybody to get their voice 'out there', however, what I would really welcome is the opportunity for everybody to get their..."I do hope so.
Just as an example, this is an article on how readers have affected the market by requesting Amazon to change the search engine structure: http://davidgaughran.wordpress.com/20...
I would say that they are open to suggestions, mainly because readers know what they want to read, the thing is that they also need to know how to request that their search is facilitated.
My gripe in general is with the media: how many articles are there that say that Literary Fiction is dead? Just do a search... Now, that is based on total incompetence: they can't read the 'data' they present. literary fiction is not dead, at all, there is of course the challenge that of one writes literary fiction one is against the biggest names and the most popular books ever published: it's hard to compete with Dickens, let me tell you. Literary fiction sells for a long, long time, while what is now commonly known as 'genre' has a shelf life of weeks very often (of which one is often a giveaway and the rest is a tail).
Yet, the assumption in the media is that only genre sells. No: the market is fast, and charts go up and down all the time... Books are like 'singles', nowadays, while literary fiction and mould breakers take a long time to get noticed. Personally, I would ask readers to 'explore' a bit, that would help, imagine you need to decide if you want to buy A Tale of Two Cities ( which, by the way, has sold 200 million copies) or a new book... It's hard for a contemporary lit fic author to be first on the list... On the other hand, you know that your 'to read' list won't be refreshed every few months when the new craze comes about. Sorry, going off a tangent.
My key point remains though, that if you are a reader who supports creative writing, innovative books etc, you need to be aware that you can make a difference, but don't expect the market itself to come your way. Democracy starts with claiming ownership of your rights, that applies to books as well. Any system becomes reactionary by nature, including self-publishing, Plato said so...
Self-publishing is not revolutionary - it's reactionary:
http://www.theguardian.com/books/book...