WSJ: Authors Feel Pinch in Age of E-Books

[Soldim]

Originally Posted by SensualPoet

I am calling these books "remainders" -- that may be the wrong term. My understanding is these are hard covers that have been returned to the publisher (or maybe "over-printed") and then bought back as remainders. The original price was $30; now they are $9.99 and the bookshop is still making some margin. Aren't these books royalty free as well?

I've always assumed those books pay little or no royalty to writers -- but the upside is that they might get read, however undeservedly so.

I have been rather surprised, in real live and while reading around here, how serious writers take themselves and how serious they are taken. As an analogy, I like to play soccer, a bit of training and some matches. I'd laugh at the very idea that anyone would want to pay to watch me play (heck, I pay for the privilege of playing). But, if there's a couple of handfuls of spectators, I am more than happy (as long as we win). Certainly, there are people that get payed to play soccer -- some of those rather handsomely; and there's those paying to watch them play. But, it is a rare minority of those playing soccer that get paid. And, fortunately, most people that play soccer don't expect to get paid for it.

Conversely, as soon as an aspiring writer puts the pen on the paper, or sits down behind the keyboard, they consider it their inherent right to be able to live from the proceeds (just overstating a tiny bit to get the point across ). I really don't mind paying for a well written, properly thought out book. But, most of the stuff that gets published is hardly worth my time and money.

It is therefor beyond me why more than say, the top 1 or 2% of writer expect to be able to make a living from it. If a writer enjoys writing, doing it in his/her spare time shouldn't be a burden. If it is perceived as not being enjoyable, well, find something more fun to do....

[J. Strnad]

It is therefor beyond me why more than say, the top 1 or 2% of writer expect to be able to make a living from it. If a writer enjoys writing, doing it in his/her spare time shouldn't be a burden. If it is perceived as not being enjoyable, well, find something more fun to do....

There is a lot of truth to what you say, but much is unsaid. Which I will try to remedy!

It's hard for me to say that writing is "fun," like playing soccer is for you. If someone thinks it's "fun" to sit in a little room by yourself for hours on end, tapping at a keyboard, that's fine, but those shouldn't be our only writers.

We also want writers who approach the work as, well, work. Like a plumber. Do you only want plumbers who root out pipes for fun? Isn't it better to have a lot of them doing this work, building their skill, and providing quality plumbing work as a paying job?

At one point in our history, a person could actually make a living writing short stories for magazines. Kurt Vonnegut Jr., Ray Bradbury and many others were able to write a story and pay their rent...or better, if it was a sale to The Saturday Evening Post. Before that, pulp writers made relatively good money, though they had to grind out a lot of material. TV largely killed all that (and now TV as a highly-paid enterprise for a writer is feeling the pain of reality shows and internet TV).

For a long time, one could be a "midlist" author with enough sales to get through to the next book. The conglomeration of publishing houses put the emphasis on the bestselling authors and the midlist has become an endangered species.

A beginning writer's prospects are dwindling. Now, it's pretty much, "Strike it rich as a bestseller or write as a hobby." I don't believe this is healthy for the industry or for society. It's like baseball without the minor leagues.

It actually has been possible in the past for a lot of people to make a decent living writing. Not everyone, of course, but a much wider array of authors than the few who make up the bestselling author list today. American literature has benefited from "writing as a job." As we approach the time (or it approaches us, like a freight train) where each new book competes with everything that has ever been written, the prospects for writers are getting dimmer. You'll be able to publish your ebook and sell a hundred copies, but the chance of ever earning minimum wage for your effort is lottery-esque.

Unless, of course, you're a star on a miserable reality show who's only read two books in your entire life.

[Fbone]

Originally Posted by J. Strnad

A beginning writer's prospects are dwindling. Now, it's pretty much, "Strike it rich as a bestseller or write as a hobby." I don't believe this is healthy for the industry or for society. It's like baseball without the minor leagues.

[/URL]

True. This is because there is so much demand on our time. If given the opportunity to read a few books a year (which is above average), who and what would you choose? A popular author you've enjoyed in the past or someone you don't know and may not enjoy? Would you prefer an FDIC-insured bank or one that isnt regulated?

[SensualPoet]

Writing novels as a living is tough ... but writing for a living is certainly possible and lots of folks still do it. Sometimes they call themselves PR, speech writers, journalists, magazine writers ... and folks still "write" for radio, TV and movies.

My fantasy is to retire into writing novels. Believe me -- it's a fantasy, having never written a novel or published one word of fiction (though I have written a good deal of published non-fiction, all of it some decades ago). So, alas, that puts me in the hobbyist market, doesn't it?

My point about the holy grail of hard covers, some messages ago, was that a significant number of those copies do NOT generate a royalty for the author whereas every single e-book version does. I really don't see the resistance to selling e-books, at a reasonable price, and at a discount to hard covers, upon the initial release of a title. They are somewhat different audiences and tapping the wave of interest at release seems much more profitable all round than waiting six months or a year till the title has been submerged in hundreds of other releases taking the spotlight away.

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by Fbone

True. This is because there is so much demand on our time. If given the opportunity to read a few books a year (which is above average), who and what would you choose? A popular author you've enjoyed in the past or someone you don't know and may not enjoy? Would you prefer an FDIC-insured bank or one that isnt regulated?

This is why I like to buy book in brick stores. There is a smaller selection and at some point I get bored with the popular titles that are in the front, and look for what else I can find. I think that online there are just too many options and you end up going for the ones that you know are good.

[speakingtohe]

True. This is because there is so much demand on our time. If given the opportunity to read a few books a year (which is above average), who and what would you choose? A popular author you've enjoyed in the past or someone you don't know and may not enjoy? Would you prefer an FDIC-insured bank or one that isnt regulated?

I read a fair amount at times and not at others. I have always preferred to get at least 1/2 or more books by authors I do not recognize. Who wants to read the same old thing over and over unless the author is really great. A lot of unnecessary cut and paste recaps in books today explaining the whole history of characters who are very marginal to the story.

I also think libraries should play a more agressive part in promoting new authors by buying their books.

I know that the majority want the newest best seller the day it is published, and that libraries feel they must spend 50% of their fiction budget on bestsellers, having five or six copies of copies of these in a small town library (adult population under 200 people) really cuts into the variety.

I have lived in many small northern Canadian communities and while feeling lucky to have a library as there are rarely any bookstores it makes me wonder at the reasoning behind it.