We interrupt our Christmas 2010 series of posts to talk about what today's world is like for writers, at least in terms of publishing and sharing writing, and this article from the Boston Review: Books After Amazon. The fact of the matter is, it's changing. Think about the two historically dominant ways of publishing your writing: Journalism (magazines, newspapers, etc.) and books. These two industries are in a time of crazy transition.
When I majored in journalism, I had a romanticized vision what I would be doing: Something more similar to scenes from All The President's Men, or at least my high school yearbook than what I actually found journalism to be. The invention of the Internet put the journalism world (as it's always been) in danger, because it's nearly impossible for newspapers to get the scoop in a traditional format when competing against major news sites, such as CNN, or even their own Internet sites.
And the writing has changed, as well. You want to make sure you get the story up as quickly as possible, and that leaves less time with the writing in terms of capturing a story and making sure facts are accurate. You're writing for an audience that doesn't actually want to read it; instead, they want the main points as quickly as possible so they can move to the next thing. Everything is available on the Internet, so fewer people want subscriptions, and thus, magazines and newspapers rely more on advertising, which in turn affects content. Rather than having a "watchdog" purpose, it's a "sponsored" approach. It's all about the money, which is like a double-edged sword: You need the money to continue producing content, but then you end up in a relationship where your content is affected by money.
The same goes for book publishing, according to the article:
One editor at a major publishing house, who agreed to speak on condition of anonymity for fear of employer sanctions, told me that agents of Barnes & Noble, Borders, and Target are frequent participants in meetings about potential books. Without their buy-in, the publisher is unlikely to go forward with a book. Ideas that excite independents might be scrapped if they don’t get a chain’s stamp of approval.
So, as the article continues, it means publishers are less likely to take a chance on a book from someone who might be talented, but unkown, because while independent bookstores might have, the chains won't, because the book may or may not sell as well as one from someone who's already well-known. And that's a scary thought, for all of us who have not yet published anything. It turns out writing the next great American novel might be easier than actually getting the next great American novel published.
Add to all of this the invention of the ebook/ereader, plus big Internet sites, such as Amazon (the main point of the article), subtract independent booksellsers, and you're left with a publishing world that seems to be up in the air a little bit, in terms of what it means for new writers, and I'm not sure how long that will last.
Of course, I think it's important to point out that this change can be positive. It's so easy to self-publish nowadays, because we have more mediums than just books and newspapers and magazines to get our writing out there. For example, this blog. Blogs let people "publish" their writing, if you go by the very basic definition in that you're getting your writing out there for others to read. There's self-publishing software available, if you want to create your own ebook for certain ereaders. So, despite the changes, there are options. They're different options, that's for sure, and it's just still unclear whether the impact of the Internet is good, bad, or just a change. Personally, I'm skeptical of letting ebooks take over books, amazon crushing publishing and book buying as we know it, and advertising dictating journalism, BUT on the other hand, I think there can be benefits of these changes if they're happening anyway. What do you think?
When I majored in journalism, I had a romanticized vision what I would be doing: Something more similar to scenes from All The President's Men, or at least my high school yearbook than what I actually found journalism to be. The invention of the Internet put the journalism world (as it's always been) in danger, because it's nearly impossible for newspapers to get the scoop in a traditional format when competing against major news sites, such as CNN, or even their own Internet sites.
And the writing has changed, as well. You want to make sure you get the story up as quickly as possible, and that leaves less time with the writing in terms of capturing a story and making sure facts are accurate. You're writing for an audience that doesn't actually want to read it; instead, they want the main points as quickly as possible so they can move to the next thing. Everything is available on the Internet, so fewer people want subscriptions, and thus, magazines and newspapers rely more on advertising, which in turn affects content. Rather than having a "watchdog" purpose, it's a "sponsored" approach. It's all about the money, which is like a double-edged sword: You need the money to continue producing content, but then you end up in a relationship where your content is affected by money.
The same goes for book publishing, according to the article:
One editor at a major publishing house, who agreed to speak on condition of anonymity for fear of employer sanctions, told me that agents of Barnes & Noble, Borders, and Target are frequent participants in meetings about potential books. Without their buy-in, the publisher is unlikely to go forward with a book. Ideas that excite independents might be scrapped if they don’t get a chain’s stamp of approval.
So, as the article continues, it means publishers are less likely to take a chance on a book from someone who might be talented, but unkown, because while independent bookstores might have, the chains won't, because the book may or may not sell as well as one from someone who's already well-known. And that's a scary thought, for all of us who have not yet published anything. It turns out writing the next great American novel might be easier than actually getting the next great American novel published.
Add to all of this the invention of the ebook/ereader, plus big Internet sites, such as Amazon (the main point of the article), subtract independent booksellsers, and you're left with a publishing world that seems to be up in the air a little bit, in terms of what it means for new writers, and I'm not sure how long that will last.
Of course, I think it's important to point out that this change can be positive. It's so easy to self-publish nowadays, because we have more mediums than just books and newspapers and magazines to get our writing out there. For example, this blog. Blogs let people "publish" their writing, if you go by the very basic definition in that you're getting your writing out there for others to read. There's self-publishing software available, if you want to create your own ebook for certain ereaders. So, despite the changes, there are options. They're different options, that's for sure, and it's just still unclear whether the impact of the Internet is good, bad, or just a change. Personally, I'm skeptical of letting ebooks take over books, amazon crushing publishing and book buying as we know it, and advertising dictating journalism, BUT on the other hand, I think there can be benefits of these changes if they're happening anyway. What do you think?
No comments:
Post a Comment