Comments on: E-Doldrums: A Book Publisher Confronts E-Books

By: Dr. Z. Smith

Dr. Z. Smith — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 22:31:50 +0000

I find it interesting that posters here think that authors will suffer from e-publishing. Quite the opposite, I think: publishers will suffer. A manuscript doesn’t need to be formatted and laid out to become an e-book, and, from the looks of most contemporary paperbacks, publishers have already given up proofreading. It’s quite easy now to self-publish an e-book, and I dare say that self-publishing will become the wave of the future, with publishers becoming as relevant as the “music industry.”

How will authors be paid? I don’t know. I don’t even know if they will be paid. Oddly enough, I suspect that we’ll end up with more being “published” than before. Will the quality be better, or worse? Probably about the same; publishers seem to have taste in inverse proportion to their size.

How will we find what books are good? Probably the same way we find them now: from reviews, from friends, from recommendations on web sites.

The future won’t be worse, but it will certainly be different.

By: Stephen Elliott

Stephen Elliott — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 17:39:09 +0000

Living in San Francisco isn’t basic. Living in San Francisco, like being an artist, also requires sacrifice. Smaller apartments and multiple roommates, for example. Good for anybody who can afford to have children and be a literary writer, that’s a neat trick to pull off. Just don’t tell me you’re entitled to it, because you’re not.

By: Zak Smith

Zak Smith — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 22:51:25 +0000

Damian:
I didn’t say I wanted the same amount of money as them, I said I will accept less if they accept less.

By: Damion

Damion — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 23:46:08 +0000

The thing is, rock stars and actors have, you know, fans. More than a couple hundred or couple thousand, and they’re willing to pay for the rock stars’/actors’ products.

Great point to Stephen about his >0$ though. I think it points out that Stephen (hi Stephen!) is operating in a commercial system too, just a different one.

Stephen @24:
“I disagree with people who think artists should have enough money to, for example, have children. To expect more than the most basic living for doing what we most want to do seems greedy, and I resent the entitlement that writers think they are owed so much.”

Isn’t this just taking your personal idea of what’s “basic” and what’s a luxury and imposing it on everyone? Not literally imposing it — I totally get and admire your basic stance that if you want money get a higher paying job, and if you want art make art — but acting like it’s an objective standard for what people should aspire to. (Living in the San Francisco instead of Podunk is “basic,” but wanting children (marriage? no roommates? a car? a bicycle? a nice pizza?) is “greedy.”)

By: Zak Smith

Zak Smith — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 22:45:30 +0000

I will totally accept less money once all the rock stars and actors do.

By: Andrew Altschul, Editor, Rumpus Books

Andrew Altschul, Editor, Rumpus Books — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 22:13:19 +0000

Right. Everyone is entitled to health care, but since artists are not considered productive members of society, we generally don’t get it. I know those hipsters you live with. They are 26 years old and write the dialogue for cell-phone video games. They, too, love what they do, and they get paid six figures for it. You, and I, work at least as hard as they do – my point is not about entitlement, but exactly the point you make above: Someone makes money off of what you and I do – but “most of it” certainly does not go to you and me. And as the publishing industry rushes to go digital, you can bet that we’ll get less and less.

Art is different from medicine, yes. But it does make the world a better place. And when artists romanticize their own struggle and poverty they just play into the hands of an industry that wants to get our labor for nothing.

By: Stephen Elliott

Stephen Elliott — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 21:24:52 +0000

Zak, it’s true it’s not 0$. Whenever anyone makes money from art most of it should go to the artist.

Also, I think art grants are great, etc. But I disagree with people who think artists should have enough money to, for example, have children. To expect more than the most basic living for doing what we most want to do seems greedy, and I resent the entitlement that writers think they are owed so much. It’s demeaning to what we do. And it doesn’t make sense. The idea that a literary writer who sells a thousand books should make as much as a doctor is absurd to me. Still, knowing that, I’d rather be a literary writer.

I’m only speaking of creative writers here. People who write for work, white papers, journalists, etc. should be paid as much as any other laborer.

And Andrew, the reason artists are entitled to health care is because everyone is entitled to health care.

By: Andrew Altschul, Editor, Rumpus Books

Andrew Altschul, Editor, Rumpus Books — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 20:55:44 +0000

And is someone giving you free health care? Can you put me in touch with them?

By: Zak Smith

Zak Smith — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 20:24:43 +0000

Stephen–
However much you’re making off your art, it’s not 0$.

By: Stephen Elliott

Stephen Elliott — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 20:09:52 +0000

I think I disagree with our esteemed and brilliant books editor Andrew Altschul here. To write is a gift. I write pretty much full time and I feel like I’m retired, sitting in a coffee shop half the day scribbling in a notebook. I’m 37 and dirt poor. After writing 7 books I still have to live with two young hipster roommates who play their music too loud and don’t do their dishes. Still, I feel so lucky when I remember: I don’t have a job!

I don’t think a writer is owed anything more than a small room and healthcare. We are not doctors, or farmers. We’re wrong to think society owes us something, because if we’re honest with ourselves most artists will come to the conclusion that we don’t make art to make the world a better place, or to feed people, or to heal people. We make art for ourselves. The rest is gravy.