Backward-Looking Authors' Guild Faces a New Challenger

[Ninjalawyer]

Ah the Authors Guild, notable mainly for its fear and hatred of anything new (Amazon text-to-speech, Google book scanning, etc.), or that isn't entirely aligned with a small number of top authors and big publishing houses. If only there was an organization for authors in the U.S. that actually embraced the future for the benefit of its members, rather than one that has to be dragged kicking and screaming into the present.

Well, now one is launching. The Authors Alliance is launching May 21st, with a plan to "further the public interest in facilitating widespread access to works of authorship by helping authors navigate the opportunities and challenges of the digital age. We provide information and tools designed to help authors better understand and manage key legal, technological, and institutional aspects essential to a knowledge economy of abundance."


https://authorsalliance.org/intro.html

[Apache]

Apache

[SteveEisenberg]

Originally Posted by Ninjalawyer

Ah the Authors Guild, notable mainly for its fear and hatred of anything new

Looking at the names at the bottom of this page, it seems that the Authors Alliance is geared towards the interests of university professors who get nicely paid for being reviewed authors, regardless of book (and journal article) sales:

https://authorsalliance.org/intro.html

Authors who are eager to share new works may feel torn between publication outlets that maximize public access and others that restrict access but claim to provide value in terms of peer review and prestige, or even fame and fortune.

This sentence is dizzying.

Now, if they want to put their articles out for free on the internet (AKA "maximize public access") rather than behind a scholarly journal pay wall (AKA "fortune," albeit not much of it), I wish them well.

[Ninjalawyer]

I think there's probably a middle-ground between putting up your work for free and locking it up completely behind a paywall. Their goal seems to be to help authors navigate the present, not to make everything free.

[Prestidigitweeze]

Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg

This sentence is dizzying.

You might be underestimating the significance of the word claim in that sentence. The idea, I think, is that the author might seek prestige mistakenly through restricted access in supposedly credible places. That idea is reinforced by the Authors Alliance's commitment to the opposite approach -- wider access -- as stated below the bit you quoted.

I know exactly what they mean by "signed-away copyrights for out-of-print books," which was the fate of a story collection of mine six months after publication, when it sold out unexpectedly and the publishers refused to print any more -- nor have they allowed another publisher to reprint since.

Also, note that most of the academics behind the Authors Alliance specialize in law; the one person involved in writing as a profession teaches journalism, not literature. I don't think they can be accused of promoting an ivory-tower agenda when the intended effect is populist.

Just look at their advisory board. Do Cory Doctorow and Jonathan Lethem seem to you to be academics with no experience or interest in commercial markets?

[fjtorres]

Here, straight from the inbred old grey mare:
http://www.authorsguild.org/general/...hors-alliance/

If any of you earn a living as a writer, or hope to, I strongly urge you not to join the Authors Alliance. If you think authors should be the ones to decide what is done with their books, then I strongly urge you not to join.

However, if you are an academic, or scorn the idea of making a living from writing as a quest for “fame and fortune,” the Authors Alliance may be the organization for you. If you think, in our digital age, that the biggest problem facing authors is how hard it is to give your work away for free, it’s for you. If you think you’ve got too much power over people who copy and distribute your work without your permission, by all means sign up. Even if you agree with one or two things advocated by the Authors Alliance, if you join you lend weight to its entire agenda.

Prep the munchies.

Oh, if anybody cares what actual authors think, here's what the bystanders say:
http://www.thepassivevoice.com/05/20...ance/#comments

Snark central.

[Prestidigitweeze]

Speaking of people who aren't authors primarily, here's a bit of info on the man behind your blog:

Passive Guy is an attorney, entrepreneur, former tech executive and writer. Prior to reopening his law practice, PG's business involved high-stakes intellectual property litigation. He started The Passive Voice as an anonymous blog so his snarky remarks would not show up when opposing counsel performed a Google search.

As you can see, he's not an established writer. He's a lawyer with a professional agenda and a career background in intellectual property. His perspective might be interesting, but he's probably less of an "actual author" in your sense than the self-professed academics who started AA. The most popular part of his blog (by his estimation) has to do with contracts and self-publishing, which contains the sort of advice that a self-publishing writer without an agent might Google -- esp. someone without a great deal of experience.

Originally Posted by fjtorres

Oh, if anybody cares what actual authors think, here's what the bystanders say:
http://www.thepassivevoice.com/05/20...ance/#comments

So by your estimation, Lethem and Doctorow are academics and not "actual authors," but all of the self-publishing and friend-of-publishing writers in that blog queue fit the description? The magazine I co-edit has published actual professors with more solid histories of conventional publishing and sales than the lot in that queue. And in terms of the writers we publish most of the time, they're in the minority. We publish far more non-academics than the reverse.

Samuel Delany is an academic, BTW. After winning every SF award that can be won, and after writing Dhalgren, a book that sold a million copies, he's spent the greater part of his middle and old age teaching in universities while continuing to write and publish. Before you buy into false dichotomies between academics and real-world writers, consider that. Our magazine has published him, but so has Harper-Collins.

You'd be on firmer ground if you were balancing the professional career of T.J. Stiles (the author who wrote the AG response quoted in the blog) against that of various writers associated with the Authors Alliance. Even so, do you really consider Stiles to be more of an "actual author" than Jonathan Lethem?

Also consider that anti-intellectual arguments with a pseudo-anti-elitist slant can be applied equally to the myriad of university-educated programmers on Mobile Read -- esp. if they've ever worked for a university themselves. Just because someone reads genre novels doesn't make their background any less suspect in the world of the accusing anti-academic.

Of course the Author's Guild doesn't like the Authors Alliance. You're looking at a war between copyright hoarders and publishing-house-hording skeptics, and the side you choose (if any) should be informed by more than the invective of one organization against another -- against a second organization that the first considers to be both a competitor and antithetical to its aims. That AG chooses to characterize AA as "an astroturf organization . . . not organized by authors, nor is it governed by them" is not surprising, nor is the anti-liberal epithet "Berkeley academics" a shock.

AG might make any number of valid arguments against AA, but those charges are clearly false. AA is not an "astroturf organization" that hides its true membership or significance. Here is what it has said publicly:

The Authors Alliance seeks to find a new balance that gives voice to authors who prioritize public access to their work. Founded by four members of the Berkeley faculty, we are an independent nonprofit organization launching this May. Our mission is to further the public interest in supporting authors who create in order to be read, seen and heard.

If their work were so terrifyingly antipodal to the aims of "real authors," then why does the publishing history of its advisory board dwarf that of the small-press-founding self-publishers in Passive Guy's queue of hyperbolic responses?

Tech Dirt's take on AA is far less reactionary, as is coverage by Publisher's Weekly.

The problem with certain academic presses is that they're defined by nepotism -- the academic careerist's fast track -- which means that the books they choose to promote in their roster tend to benefit people on or close to their boards, some of whom are professors who assign their own books to their own classes. I've heard stories of national media being interested in a book and contacting the academic publisher for information -- only to be either (1) redirected to those authors whom the publishers wish to promote or (2) discouraged from covering a book that the parent university deems too controversial.

That AA should be interested in breaking out of that sort of closed circuit suggests a specific agenda to me -- one that has been voiced by writers I know who have grown frustrated with academic presses. We have not seen (yet) that AA wishes to challenge every publishing relationship.

[fjtorres]

I just think it is funny that the academics behind the alliance, rightfully offended at the bestseller-driven guild portraying themselves as representing all authors, turn around and do the exact same thing. As if their interests are representative of all Authors. Or even a plurality.

If you look at the comments at TPV, most from hybrid commercial authors, their snarky take is both camps are irrelevant to their concerns and interests.

From my viewpoint as a reader, I see two gangs of politicians prepping to fight a thousand miles from me. Which is to say, a lot of sound and fury that will achieve nothing. But it might be amusing to watch the shoes flying by.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XHMrgwAuJ_U

[Prestidigitweeze]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

I just think it is funny that the academics behind the alliance, rightfully offended at the bestseller-driven guild portraying themselves as representing all authors, turn around and do the exact same thing. As if their interests are representative of all Authors. Or even a plurality.

I didn't read their mission statement that way at all. The four AA founders say they're interested in reaching writers who share their views, not inflicting their views on all writers.

From my viewpoint as a reader, I see two gangs of politicians prepping to fight a thousand miles from me. Which is to say, a lot of sound and fury that will achieve nothing.

It seems a bit early to characterize AA that way. For all we know, they could turn out to be beneficial or nefarious, but AG's reaction doesn't seem an accurate read on what they're doing either way. Time will show whether they're here to counterbalance certain kinds of monopolies or reinforce others by undermining the ownership rights of authors.

No amount of invective, inference or ranting will reveal the truth -- not just yet.

[frahse]

Well at least people are talking about the problems. That is usually useful.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by Prestidigitweeze

No amount of invective, inference or ranting will reveal the truth -- not just yet.

Or ever.
Those kinds of rants are just emotional venting at best.
(And, btw, I wasn't endorsing the AG position, just highlighting their fearmongering.)

Realistically, I don't expect anything meaningful to come from either camp. Not now, not ever.

[arjaybe]

I'm glad to see this thread. The first I heard about the Authors Alliance was in the notice I got on my Internet Archive account yesterday. I like what they're saying, but I want to hear all kinds of comment so I can learn more.

[crossi]

Some of the ranting sounds like they think the AA is some sinister conspiracy. What's wrong with helping authors to find all their options and offering advice to authors who want different terms for their book contracts? Surely not all authors are content with the currently offered standard contracts. Letting them know what possibilites they have while negotiating is surely a good thing. The only ones who might find this threatening would be publishers who prefer their authors to have as little leverage as possible.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by crossi

Some of the ranting sounds like they think the AA is some sinister conspiracy. What's wrong with helping authors to find all their options and offering advice to authors who want different terms for their book contracts? Surely not all authors are content with the currently offered standard contracts. Letting them know what possibilites they have while negotiating is surely a good thing. The only ones who might find this threatening would be publishers who prefer their authors to have as little leverage as possible.

The AG's recent history of kneejerk support for the BPHs has led some to refer to it as the Publishers Guild. So a similar kneejerk opposition to alternate voices is hardly surprising. They are very much creatures of the traditionalist establishment.

[Prestidigitweeze]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

Or ever.
Those kinds of rants are just emotional venting at best. . . .

Though I myself am an American, my father was from the UK. I'm not sure which of his verbal mannerisms were regional and which idiosyncratic, but I do know this: he had the habit of using not just yet to mean that's not very likely. It's a habit I picked up -- perhaps because of the phrase's tact and playful irony -- without even realizing it until now.

Realistically, I don't expect anything meaningful to come from either camp. Not now, not ever.

I reserve judgment on the Authors Alliance until such time as they say or do something specific enough to be judged.