Writers: We are in a state of transition, a liminal state of words and phrases. The purgatory of writing, if you will. We are no longer betting on print publications, but we are not completely convinced of the Internet.
Today, because we are in between two major ways to get the word out, there are so many questions to ask. Is it better to publish yourself, or is it wiser to go with a publishing company that already has a tried-and-true system? Is it considered as credible to self-publish or use Web publishing? As our writing society moves in a new direction with the Internet, are we at the point where books published online are considered just as credible as their printed bookstore neighbors? Recently, I got into a debate about this very topic.
It seems that there are two main views:
Traditionalists see major publishing houses as being the highest importance in getting your book out there in public. These publishing giants, like Random House, Simon & Schuster and even places like Penguin already have perfected the process of publishing a body of writing. They have proven methods for weeding out garbage from gold, give great advances, organize book tours, and have more connections in the marketing game like old money versus new money in the millionaire’s circle. Traditionalists also have a respectable tie to an in-print product; something tangible on paper that doesn’t disappear into the 0s and 1s of the computer.
On the downside, these places take large percentages of profits, make decisions on your covers, edit and cut to cookie-cutter perfection (which may stifle creativeness), and in the end, can leave writers, much like musicians (in the hands of “the biz”), with the satisfaction of producing their art in hip thrift-store clothes without pockets (let alone jingling pockets). In this way, most writers don’t flourish in the fruits of their labor unless they are major bestsellers and kajillion-aires like J.K. Rowling, Stephen King and Danielle Steele, or have great entertainment lawyers that get them amazing contracts.
So when non-traditionalists believe that the Internet is the wave of the future and that print is dead, with the startling amounts of small presses and self-publishing places both on the Web and in real life it is hard to deny that the non-traditionalists don’t have a good argument. The non-traditionalists say that the Internet supposedly will exist “forever,” so the writer will automatically live on after death. Profits on clickable pay-per-links will always generate revenue that will go directly into the writer’s liquid bank account, so the artist can keep 100 percent the profits. This form of self-publishing can lead to more profits if you are a voracious marketer. With the right amount of hard work, you can slowly see yourself on the shelves of a multinational chain, like Barnes & Noble.
The only downside to the non-traditionalists’ beliefs is that there is an opinion that lingers about readers: They don’t read Web sites, they skim them. Avid readers know that there is nothing else in the world that feels as good as curling up with a good book; a laptop computer may generate heat when laid across your thighs, but there is something about the feel of the pages between your fingers, a permanence that lingers in your mind as you read the typeset, hear the spine snapping, smell the finely cut and sanded wood nuzzled into the pages.
And furthermore, the skeptic in me asks if we can trust what people say on the Web. Anyone can pretend to be anyone online. And I’ve realized after hearing many strangers making casual conversation that not everyone who says that they have a great idea for a book is automatically a novelist or a Web novelist. However, on the Internet, because someone wrote a jumbled group of words with text messaging shortcuts and bad grammar and call it a book review or a blog or a novel or a poem, they believe that they have the right to proclaim themselves a writer. So forgive me for my elitism and my distrust for more modern ways of publishing. I work with students everyday that are struggling to become better writers. They respect the fact that they are learning to write; they don’t claim that they already know how to be a writer because they can send an e-mail to their pals on MySpace.
Lastly, if we are in writing purgatory, than is print or Web heaven or hell? Until we get some better delineated standards up there on the Web, whether it is to show a distinction between writing and somebody fumbling on a keyboard, the Internet will come in second to good, old-fashioned print copies. I urge you to change my mind, non-traditionalists, because as Otis Redding says, “A change has got to come.”
w
| Tweet | Follow @wkdr |
|
|
