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.
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.
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.
Free software definitely needs creative people. Finding artists and designers is one of the biggest issues for most free software projects. Programmers have found creative ways to get paid by adding things like small consultant fees to lots of companies that use their work, so maybe artists should look to similar models. I bet a lot of people would pay to keep their software pretty.
"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.
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.
Counter-argument by Charlie Stross: Why I don't self-publish[0]:
"When you add it all up: if I'm as efficient as a trade publisher, it would take me roughly 3 months to produce a book that also took me 6 months to write. More realistically, I'm likely to be less streamlined and efficient than a publisher who specializes in this job."
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.
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.
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.
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.
