|
@caleb72. Thanks for your thoughtful comments. I have always suspected that this nurturing of Australian talent argument relied upon so frequently by big publishing and big music and others is more illusory than real. I have only ever seen the odd high profile example trotted out, such as Richard Flanagan, an example which puzzled Murg for good reason. I suspect that big publishers are going to do what is good for their bottom line. And what is good for their bottom line is a little token expenditure on "local talent", the extent of which is not disclosed but is blown out of all proportion. A small investment to hold the Australian public to ransom. Bear in mind also that the large Australian publishers are mostly if not exclusively simply subsidiaries of the large multi-national publishers.
If a new author is able to convince a publisher, Australian or otherwise, that their work will be profitable, then traditionally published it will be. What may not be published traditionally are works, if there in fact are any, that are not expected to be profitable but which traditional publishers claim they take on simply for the prestige of possible awards or simply the advancement of learning in general. Works of purely local interst are going to become a much harder sell. But the author now has the option of self-publishing these works. Like it or not, we now largely have one world market for writing talent, as well as one world market for english language books.
I do not see a need to subsidise local writing talent. However, if there is one, I would rather see it done under Government supervision by an accountable body with a set budget rather than by way of an unaccountable group of multi-national publishers given a licence to rape and pillage the Australian book buying public.
|