

The Free and the Antifree - wallflower
https://nplusonemag.com/issue-20/the-intellectual-situation/the-free-and-the-antifree/

======
idlewords
The question of how to get paid for writing has always struck me as a real
"insiders'" debate, that ignores the truly revolutionary effect of the
Internet. There is a group of people who self-identify as writers who claim to
speak for a much broader population of people doing most of the writing.

It's useful to separate three constituencies: readers, writers, and
publishers.

Readers have never had it better. Not only is it easier to find good new
writing online, as well as vast archives of stuff, but the Internet has made
it possible for millions of people who never would have made it through the
traditional publication system to write to their hearts' content. Most of it
is terrible and a small fraction is amazing. But when you multiply the small
fraction by the huge numbers of people who would not otherwise have published
anything, it's pure gain.

Similarly, writers have never had it better! It's always been hard to get paid
for your writing, and that hasn't changed. But you no longer have to fight to
get published. You can write on your own, or in collaboration with others, and
put what you've written in a place the whole world can see. We've grown used
to this revolutionary fact, so we don't appreciate what an advance it is over
what came before. Check out an old writer's guide from the 1990's and you'll
discover a world of stamp-licking, envelope-stuffing, and waiting weeks to get
a rejection letter from yet another obscure literary journal or in-flight
magazine.

Over the last twelve years, I've written about four hundred thousand words
that I never would have bothered with if there hadn't been a potential
audience. At the same time, I enjoyed the writing of hundreds of people who
wrote for the same reason. Some of them wrote as a hobby, some of them wrote
as a study aid (researching a technical article is a terrific way to really
learn something), and some were domain experts who had a knack for explaining
their work to laypeople, and got a kick out of doing it after hours. Some of
these people got 'real' book deals, but the books were inevitably watered down
versions of the kind of stuff I could find for free online.

That leaves the publishers, the people who are really getting squeezed. In
some cases, they are big companies that are easy to hate, analogous to the
record companies. In other cases, they are earnest magazines run by wonderful
people on a shoestring budget. My problem is that they present the debate as
being between giant corporations and the heroic small publishers, fighting for
the rights of the journeyman writer. This ignores the vast mass of writers
outside the system, and the many new forms of writing that the Internet has
created for us to enjoy. Writing is in much better shape than pieces like this
suggest. But it is just not a viable way to earn your living, unless you are
in a tiny group of truly extraordinary people. And that's perfectly fine.

~~~
hayksaakian
I think technology has obsoleted the role of publishers.

Transmitting text is so trivial for the average person in 2014, that
publishers are exclusively a marketing vehicle.

~~~
sdrothrock
I wouldn't say that they're exclusively a marketing vehicle.

Large publishers also hire, vet, and retain editors. It's hard as an
independent writer to find a good editor -- not just someone who can proofread
your manuscript, but someone who can offer serious constructive advice on the
flow of the story and tell you what should be fleshed out and what should fall
under the shadow of the hatchet.

~~~
avz
Internet is not only making it possible for writers to make it without
publishers, but without editors too since writers can involve their readers in
proofreading and get serious constructive advice this way. This also makes
readers more active and involved compared to traditional passive consumption
of content.

I've seen a number of technical ebooks and short sci-fi stories get very good
advice from HN.

~~~
kasey_junk
I think one of the biggest misconceptions (after cost being driven by
printing) about what the editorial process is in the case of large publishers
is that it is dominated by proofreading.

The traditional publisher editorial process does include proofreading (and
other QA processes), but it is more about what we would call project and
product management. Like a good product manager, a good editor doesn't get
involved with a book after it is written, they are a central part of the
writing process. They are the people who understand market trends, and are
experts in their publishing niche. They don't just make suggestions about
phrasing, they deal with high level complex issues like flow and structure.

Can you write good books without them? Of course, you can write good software
without product managers as well, but good ones are A) Hard to find and B)
very very valuable.

~~~
avz
Good to know, thx. Traditional publishing does indeed seem to require
cooperation of a number of different people and organizations to write the
text, design the cover, prepare the layout, proofread the manuscript, size the
issue, print the copies, market the book etc. Given the complexity of the
process and large number of participants the overhead of additional management
layer is necessary. However, a lot of these activities are being automated
and/or simplified by technology and can now easily be done by the writer
herself with a few online self-service tools. Once the process is streamlined
and made easier management is no longer necessary.

~~~
kasey_junk
Again, I think you are discounting the part a good editor plays in the
creation of the book (and by book I mean the text, not the finished artifact).

------
ewzimm
I appreciate such a thoughtful summary of recent history from a position I
completely disagree with. I think the $50 is really just $50. There was never
a time when regular writers and musicians had significant economic power, and
getting people to buy albums and magazine subscriptions won't give it to them.
That's not to say that art can't be powerful, it just historically has found
its power in affecting the thinking of people who do have economic and
political power. At a time when it can be difficult to see a long-term
strategy for getting paid for creative work, I think we have an opportunity to
come up with better models for creative people than exploitative contracts
with publishers.

~~~
fennecfoxen
I'd agree with the basic sentiment, but would like to add that n+1's long-term
strategy idea of "perhaps we could create and strengthen a union" is a think-
inside-the-box 19th-century solution to a 21st-century problem... and probably
won't work.

~~~
ewzimm
I took the ambiguity of that statement as acknowledgement of what I'm saying,
that just getting paid by traditional contracts is not the end-game for
artists. They need to find a way to collectively work toward common goals
outside of their employer's intentions for them.

------
adrianhoward
" _FOR A YOUNG WRITER who hopes to produce literature, the greatest difference
between now and twenty years ago may be that now she expects to get paid.
Twenty years ago, art and commerce appeared to be opposing forces. The more
you were paid for your work, the more likely you were to be a hack._ "

Being a… tad… older than twenty years this is just nonsense. Unless you
redefine any successful author — or author that receives payment — as, by
definition, not writing literature.

------
carlob
Yet another site that uses adobe typekit and doesn't work with ghostery.

