Quote:
Originally Posted by fjtorres
That is zero-sum thinking.
What is *still* happening is that the market is growing; the pie is still getting bigger. Even the BPHs are growing revenue.
|
I don't dismiss this kind of possibility. It seems plausible that as baby boomers retire, they get more time to read, while tiring of video games, television and Facebook. But is it really true? Here's a data point that says otherwise:
U.S. Book Sales Declined in 2011 Despite Rise in E-Books
If someone writes a greatly loved book in a certain genre, this should help the sales of books by another author perceived to be similar. So individual authors aren't necessarily playing a zero-sum game. But, overall, when more books are released, the average sales per released book is going to go down.
Quote:
Originally Posted by fjtorres
The only people who insist gatekeepers are essential are the gatekeepers.
|
What about the many non-fiction authors who, I keep reading in acknowledgements, consider their agents and editors essential in keeping up the quality of their work?
There always have been lots of self-publication marketplace failures and, as shown here, some self-publication bestsellers:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-pu...d_best-sellers
To authors whose manuscripts get rejection letters, or are ignored, I can see how publishers can feel like gatekeepers. But to me as a reader, the real gatekeepers are the editors who decide which books will be reviewed in places like the New York Review of Books and New York Times.
Those editors tend to ignore genre fiction, regardless of publication type. One probable reason genre fiction does relatively well for self-publishers is that there never were any authoritative gatekeepers.