Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Jordan
In either model, there is the possibility (however slight) that the patron/subsidizer might influence the creative work, or stifle the author's creativity based on their own interests or bias.
|
Steve,
It's absolutely (well...<almost> absolutely) certain that the patron <will> influence the creative work. Patrons will not normally subsidize art that they don't like. That ends up acting as filter, the same as an editor does. Of course the filter is different for different patrons, so the author can shop around for a sympathetic patron, but that's still being influenced (think of lobbyist money and politicians,)
That doesn't mean the idea is bad, but the matching of not-yet-popular authors and patrons would be most difficult. (Remember Das Capital was written under a patronage system - that's not a sneer, just an example.) It would work much better for back-listed authors, where a fan (or fans) could act as a patron to keep out-of-print authors in print (and e-book) as patron. (This, in essence, is what Jim Baen did for the estate of Jame Schmidt - Witches of Karras, Telzy Amberton, ect.)
As far as new works go, I don't know. Would the writer give up significant ownership rights to the patron? Most of the patrons would demand it, as they are funding something without a track record, and besides, if the book does well, they would like money back so they can invest in more books.