Good Authors that struggle

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Dickens wrote most of his works for money. Jane Austen supported herself and her family with her pen.

[Liadin]

Are we done feeding the trolls yet? Yes, of course many excellent authors need to be paid for their work, just as people in every other occupation do.

[fall787]

I wasn't trolling, believe it or not. It'S just my opinion is very subjective.

To address a few things:

1. The point of my first post was to encourage OP. Better authors WILL become more valueable/recognized in the future. As the price of "Story" drops, so will the number of people who want 2 write "cuz I like blogz and by day job sux". The authors who write because they HAVE to write, will no longer be clouded by hacks. Good? I think so.

2. Just becase "Story" will become free, it doesn't mean writers won't get paid. There are plenty of ways for writers to earn money besides getting advance + rights royalty.

3. Ebooks do suck. I have never read an ebook in my life. But anyone with all honestly believing physical books will remain the primary story medium in the near(let's say 100 years) future, is going to be very disappointed. This is a huge argument best left for another thread. Instead of arguing, I'd point to thousands of other resources already discussing this.

4. Yes, there are people who would pay the full tag for music CD from HMV and for a Ebook. These people are silly. Hint: if you think you support the artist by buying the CD in HMV or Amazon, you are wrong. If you wanted to support the artist, you'd download their music and donate the money to them directly.

5. Yes, plenty of authors supported themselves/their families through writing. However, just because someone can do something well doesn't mean they should be paid for it. The world economy is fucked up on so many levels that it's impossible to properly distribute money based on merit. I, for example, don't see why certain people on Wall Street should be paid the money they are paid. I don't see why SMeyer should be paid what she is paid. Returning to my earlier point, why should an author's designated salary should be justified? There are WAY too many books already. Unless they wrote something exceptional, I don't see why they should be paid. And that's where the name-your-price comes in. If what they wrote WAS exceptional, wouldn't the reader gladly donate?

6. Demand / Supply. Reader base is hardly increasing thanks to the internets/TV, while # of books is increasing, because book is permanent. Overwhelming supply = price down. Unlike music industry, authors don't need to stay alive to do concerts/promotions.

7. Publishing industry as it is now, sucks. Not going beyond saying this.

8. To reiterate 1., I'm looking forward with optimism. Less shitty writers, more good writers, pricing based on merit, and industry that will need to fix itself in order to survive. Hopefully e-book technology will keep up in my lifetime.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Fall,

I hate to say this but you are dreaming. Easily copied digital editions of books will mean professional writing will go the way of the Dodo. It means we will have to wade through volumns of crap on the level of fan fiction to find the few diamonds out there. Ebooks are going to kill publishing.

[Arthmail]

I'm not looking for hope, just a rational discussion on the merits of certain authors whose works are not doing as well as they should.

I'm not looking to get into another ebook discussion, because i think anyone that believes people are going to prefer ebooks in a hundred years is daft, as i think our civilization as we know it will actually contract as we continue to inhale our resources at an alarming rate.

But thats another thread.

[Gabriele]

And why should good writers put up their stuff for free just so you can read it? If I can't get published the traditional way, I may share my writing with friends for free or a sum that covers my expenses. But not going to share it for free with just everyone who's too tightassed to pay for it. :P

[fall787]

Fall,

I hate to say this but you are dreaming. Easily copied digital editions of books will mean professional writing will go the way of the Dodo. It means we will have to wade through volumns of crap on the level of fan fiction to find the few diamonds out there. Ebooks are going to kill publishing.

I don't think gatekeepers are going away. A mark of TOR should be a mark of quality, and a much more meaningful one in the future than it is now. Begs the question of how the publishers are meant to make money if the books are free. I actually have no clue. Publishers suck so much right now, it's hard to imagine them not sucking in the future. But I'll hope.

[Rakka]

Current gen ebooks suck. I refuse to buy into a technology that hates me. I hate that various industries dealing with digital goods presume, as their default position, that I am a dirty dirty pirate whose money they are only willing to accept on sufferance. Well fuck that and fuck them.

Million times this. Fuck DRM. At least there's project Gutenberg. Doesn't mean screen's going to beat paper though.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Fall,

If publishers can't charge for books how will they stay in business to be, as you say, "gatekeepers"?

[Cantabile]

I don't really understand the hatred for current book costs. Hardcovers can be expensive, certainly, but mass-market paperbacks are more than worth the money. Compare the amount of hours you get from a book to the amount of hours from other forms of entertainment, such as movie tickets, and books are quite cheap as is.

[fall787]

I don't think there is a problem with book cost, personally. My problem is that 99% of new books are crap, and it won't stop until authors lose incentive to produce crap.

[fall787]

Fall,

If publishers can't charge for books how will they stay in business to be, as you say, "gatekeepers"?

As I already said, I have no clue. But they will have to evolve. Agents are saying this, editors are saying this, published authors are saying this. We'll just have to wait and see I guess.

[Liadin]

I don't think there is a problem with book cost, personally. My problem is that 99% of new books are crap, and it won't stop until authors lose incentive to produce crap.

I don't see any way that could happen, other than people's tastes changing. You're blaming the money here while losing sight of the fact that people pay money for bad books because those are the books they want to read. Even if some way could be found where money was not a factor, lots of people would still want to read Dan Brown and similar, and thus there would still be motivation for authors to write those sorts of books.

Really, all you can do is support authors you like and not worry about other people's tastes overmuch.

Also, I agree that paperbacks are quite reasonably priced. Doesn't mean I don't still borrow from the library a lot.... which hasn't hurt the industry much that I'm aware of.

[fall787]

I don't see any way that could happen, other than people's tastes changing. You're blaming the money here while losing sight of the fact that people pay money for bad books because those are the books they want to read. Even if some way could be found where money was not a factor, lots of people would still want to read Dan Brown and similar, and thus there would still be motivation for authors to write those sorts of books.

Really, all you can do is support authors you like and not worry about other people's tastes overmuch.

Valid point, but we went into "good author/bad author" territory from the OP. Would you consider Transformers Revenge of the Fallen a good movie when it outperformed pretty much everything?

No, people's tastes won't change. Shit with gripping hooks from page 1 and exploding holy grails and shit will still be popular... always. The difference is, in the future people will be able to pay AFTER they read it, not before. Consider reading Da Vinci Code after you paid and before. That's the difference.

And of course most people will still read shitty books. Thankfully, there was enough shit written in the past 110 years to last us a few billion years (if 3 books per year for 10% bell curve is right). So those people are still safe. So the winners are readers of "good" books, who won't have to

1) sift through shit

2) pay money before realizing the book is shit

[gladius]

Why do they struggle?

entitlement issues

[Foreverlad]

I don't think there is a problem with book cost, personally. My problem is that 99% of new books are crap, and it won't stop until authors lose incentive to produce crap.

I'm going to apologize in advance for the way this comes off sounding.

Fall, you do understand that taste is subjective, yes? "99% of new board members' posts are crap, and thread drift like this won't stop until their authors lose incentive to produce crap." You're here posting about this because you feel you have something worthwhile to say on this particular topic. Me, personally? I disagree. Nonetheless, the quality and value of your responses is not for me to decide. Some might love what you have to say, others might think your prose is horrendous, pretentious, and ill-conceived.

Each novel has its own voice, purpose; each author has their own message. You needn't agree with it, appreciate it, or pay money for it. Publishers do. Why? Because they see some form of value in each work they release. It's their investment to make and no bookstore, E-book repository or individual is required to buy into it.

[Liadin]

Valid point, but we went into "good author/bad author" territory from the OP. Would you consider Transformers Revenge of the Fallen a good movie when it outperformed pretty much everything?

I personally wouldn't, but that's not the point. As long as there are people who like something, there will be incentive to produce it. Lots of people found The Da Vinci Code to be worthwhile. (And I'll admit, I was entertained.... I just considered it very forgettable.) It's not as if nobody would pay for bestsellers if they knew what they were getting into. After all, we have myriad options to know what we're reading beforehand, from blogs and reviews to reading parts of it in the store before buying (and the online equivalent). And generally books sell because people have heard that they're good--from other people. Who liked said books.

Guess I'm not really sure what you're trying to say, and not entirely convinced this isn't just trolling.

[Spring Bass]

If you do find the link, please make sure it doesn't come from publishers. All of sudden they say that producing dozens thousands of printed books (obtaining paper, having factories for printing, people to work at factories), delivering them all over...the country/world, having a place where to store them, getting rid of unsold copies and tearing away the front cover, is negligible cost.

It might be, since the costs of printing have really gone down ("digital printing" and all that).

Do you have a break-down of costs in publishing a book, Wert? I remember I used to have one for college textbooks, but I lost it - and I don't know how applicable that is to publishing as a whole.

In any case, working out book profitability in this new digital world seems particularly tricky. Music and Film/Television have been hit by the technology's effects on copyright, but they do have profitable models for making money off of content that seem to center around 1)selling access to channels for content, like Netflix, Hulu Plus, or the cable channels, and 2)selling songs/tv episodes/movies a la carte, like iTunes. These help them make money in an environment where the marginal cost of digital copies is approaching zero.

But what is there for books, by comparison? The closest I can think of selling books chapter-by-chapter in some other medium, like a magazine or subscription website. That's how a lot of authors made money writing in the early 19th century, before copyright protections became fairly effective.

[fall787]

I'm going to apologize in advance for the way this comes off sounding.

Fall, you do understand that taste is subjective, yes? "99% of new board members' posts are crap, and thread drift like this won't stop until their authors lose incentive to produce crap." You're here posting about this because you feel you have something worthwhile to say on this particular topic. Me, personally? I disagree. Nonetheless, the quality and value of your responses is not for me to decide. Some might love what you have to say, others might think your prose is horrendous, pretentious, and ill-conceived.

Each novel has its own voice, purpose; each author has their own message. You needn't agree with it, appreciate it, or pay money for it. Publishers do. Why? Because they see some form of value in each work they release. It's their investment to make and no bookstore, E-book repository or individual is required to buy into it.

Everything is subjective. I'm repeating myself all over the place, sorry if my posts come too disorganized. I guess I'm pretty emotional about the issue. To recap few last counter-arguments:

1. Taste is subjective. Books like Twilight and Da Vinci Code should be considered good because they too have some merit.

A: Certainly. It's just I think they are crap and I hope/believe that future reduce the number of books like these. This should have no impact on those who love these books because there are already a ton of books out there that should last a billion years.

2. Stories won't become free because someone who does something well should get paid.

A: Welcome to Design/Animation industry. Enjoy drawing orc feet @ minimum wage. Supply must equal demand. Add in the digital piracy and the overwhelming psychology that digital = free, and you have stories that HAVE to be free.

3. Even if stories become free, books won't be free!

A: Not going to argue that books will die out to ebooks. Not soon, anyways. Maybe not in our lifetimes. What I will argue, is that book reader base is dying out, thanks to Internet and TV. All the while, supply of books is rising (as once a book is published, it's forever, while people don't have the same quality). Once again, supply/demand problem.

4. Authors will make no money! This is Madness!

A: Once again, I believe a "donation" model will emerge. After reading the story, the reader will make the decision of whether to reward the author, and if so, then how well. I want to signify this argument... Would anyone in their right mind argue back that this would be bad? Being rewarded based on how well the author did, in reader's mind? Same model can't work anywhere else, really. You can't download a Jaguar on the internet, unfortunately.

5. But if Authors can no longer dream of million dollar deals, but instead assume that they will have to write stuff people will like AND want to donate after reading, they will stop writing!

A: Yes, most of them. Which will be a good thing. The people writing because they HAVE to, will keep writing, and I believe those are the best authors.

6. You are wrong! Fanfiction authors write for free because they say they HAVE to.

A: Fanfiction is another medium altogether. If you consider how much of it is sexual, you'll know why.

Will add more to the list when I think about it

[ipeefreeli]

1. Taste is subjective. Books like Twilight and Da Vinci Code should be considered good because they too have some merit.

A: Certainly. It's just I think they are crap and I hope/believe that future reduce the number of books like these. This should have no impact on those who love these books because there are already a ton of books out there that should last a billion years.

I don't quite understand this leap in logic. You think they are crap, but millions of people don't. I don't see how free stories would change the fact that the majority would still like stories like those. I fail to see how it would reduce the amount of those type of stories.

And the average person isn't gonna pay for something if they can get away with not paying, especially over the internet. The Radiohead example is extremely flawed because they are already a well-known band and they've already said they will not repeat that experiment again. They never released an official tally of the money they pulled in either. Examples like that are the exception, not the norm.

A small time author puts out his work on the internet for free and asks for donations. He'd basically be pissing in an ocean; and the internet is a very big ocean. Self-promotion and word of mouth only goes so far. There are a few exceptions, but you'd still have a need for advertising and promotion; something to reach the mass of people who don't spend a lot of time on the internet, or browse book forums. Advertising costs money, and you can't necessarily rely on donations to fund that. You could say that the author could as for preemptive donations, but that would realistically never work.

If books and music were free, many bands and authors wouldn't be able to devote all their time to their craft, whereas, now they can. For every Radiohead, there's a struggling band that relies on album sales and touring money. The free model isn't going to help them when they need to support families and pay for other expenses.