pixel-stained technokulak

[calimac]

Although I found Howard Hendrix's criticisms of professional writers who put work online for free a little misplaced, I'm not really interested in being part of the gang lined up to make organized ridicule of his phrasing. I think he raises some interesting points that are worth discussing, however overblown his language.

The evidence that putting one's work online for free increases one's sales income is plentiful, but entirely empirical. Theory doesn't seem to have caught up to it, and I wish it would. Are these works loss-leaders? (That certainly helps, and was a known technique long before the web.) Do readers prefer their fiction on the printed page so much that they're willing to pay for things they could read for free on their computers? (I would, and sometimes have. I don't like reading anything longer than a long LJ post online, particularly creative writing - as opposed to journalism - that's dependent on serious nuances of style - as opposed to wit.) Or are they just book collectors?

But I'm happy to see a flourishing literary culture online too, and spend a lot of time here. I do not put all of my published writing online, but then neither do the self-proclaimed "pixel-stained technopeasants". I'm happy to see some of it, though. In fact I started my own home page merely to collect links to writings of mine that were put online by their publishers. (At that time I was offered a free site by my employer, and I wasn't doing anything else with it.) Then I added some more items on my own: reviews, databases, bibliographies ...

And these days my main paid writing gig is the concert reviews I do for a website that gives them away for free. I even have a small fanbase. (A new review appears tomorrow afternoon, and no, it has nothing to do with the musicology conference.)

When the publishers dumped most of my appendices to Dr. Glyer's book on the Inklings because they objected to so much backmatter, did we despair? No! I took the booklist which should have been central to the short appendix we did publish, and put it on my webpage. And made sure its URL got in the book.

The other appendices, though, I'm turning into a book of my own, a chronological history of the Inklings as a group with a more detailed bibliography. (Further research on that bibliography is what I was doing at the Yale library last month.) I'm in talks with the publisher who produced my previous book (I love being able to say that: it makes me feel so ... prolific), and I hope the Inklings book will be out next year.

But you'll have to read it in print.

Comments

[mithriltabby]

I think it’s the convenience of the book— people can get hooked on a story online, get tired of reading it on a screen, and want to pick up something that’s easier on the eyes. When e-book readers begin to approach real convenience (my standard would be reading by reflected light, black text on a white background, at least 150dpi, on something I can comfortably hold in one hand while lounging in a hot bath), they might be more of a loss leader.

In the long term, I think we’ll develop new economic mechanisms to support artists who produce arbitrarily copyable media. One proposal I’ve seen is “distributed patronage”, where readers can spend a certain amount of money per month to get access to the creative output of the writers for whom they wish to be patrons. It smooths out the income stream for writers nicely, as well. The average print run is, what, 15,000 books? A writer who could get 5000 fans spending even $1/month could be doing nicely.

[kalimac.livejournal.com]

That's better than the idea that writers should make money by lecturing or doing other public activities. Some authors like doing such things, but most would rather stay home and write, which is why they became writers in the first place.

Philip Larkin, the British poet, point-blank refused to make public appearances in that capacity. He said, "I don't want to go around pretending to be me."

[randy-byers.livejournal.com]

I like this idea of distributed patronage, but what about new writers who haven't established an audience yet? I guess like new writers now, they'd have to make their money with a second job until they had sufficient patrons.

[mithriltabby]

There would also need to be patronage for the editors who select virtual manuscripts from virtual slush piles; that might be able to provide a basis for incentives to replace the function of a traditional publishing house.

[randy-byers.livejournal.com]

Hm. It's harder to see how a patronage system for editors would work. Who would the patrons be? The readers? (Based on what criteria?) The writers themselves? (They benefit most directly from a good editor.)

[mithriltabby]

Possibly both. In the role of editing the manuscript, the writers would have incentive; in the role of selecting good writing, the readers would.

[houseboatonstyx.livejournal.com]

As with any editors of any journal: they make an online journal with a table of contents and links to the stories they recommend. Readers who like Editor Jones's taste, check his page regularly. He may get paid by hosting ads on his page, or by the 'click-throughs' from his page to the author's page where the story is posted, or possibly by subscripton from the readers.

incremental

[houseboatonstyx.livejournal.com]

I think it will make a big difference when an author on her own website can put in a tag "fee area, $.01 for this page" or whatever -- and have the charges painlessly added to the readers' ISP bill or cell phone browser bill.

Thus the reader pays for what he actually reads. If he stops reading after a couple of pages, his cost is neglible. If the story is good enough to keep him reading, each page gets the author a penny.

If he'd rather download the whole thing with one click (for $.50 or whatever) that could be a button too.

This could be done from each author's own home page, or there could be some online journal that recommends the story, adds a blurb, etc, and gets a percent of the fee.