Reviews

[badgoodDeb]

Originally Posted by DMcCunney

it has the most important attribute: a link to the electronic edition so the reader can grab it on the spot.

I can look at the source code and see how the original link is made --- but I'm guessing maybe there's an easier way to do it than by manually typing in the URL link? I.E. How do I include a link to another post?

[carandol]

Originally Posted by badgoodDeb

I can look at the source code and see how the original link is made --- but I'm guessing maybe there's an easier way to do it than by manually typing in the URL link? I.E. How do I include a link to another post?

Go to the post you want to link to, select the URL in the address bar on your browser and copy it (double click on it, then hit Ctrl-C). Then select the text in your post that you want to attach the link to, click on the little icon showing a world with a chain next to it above the box you're typing in. A box will pop up. Delete the "http://" that's already there, then paste the URL you copied earlier, using Ctrl-V. Then click, and you'll have a link. If in doubt, use Preview Post button, and check it works before posting!

[badgoodDeb]

Ah, I see. The "ball & chain" icon. Guess it should have been obvious -- but I do more raw html coding than coding with a GUI. Thanks!

[April Hamilton]

DMcCunney wrote:
>>While people have various complaints against major publishers, they do perform a critical function: they're a filter. Getting published by a regular publisher is no guarantee of goodness, but it's at least less likely to be mind-numbingly bad.<<

I hear this argument frequently, and it's frustrating. There's lots of crummy, nowhere-near-ready-for-primetime stuff in the indie film and indie music world, but is that reason enough not to have an indie movement at all in those industries? I don't think anyone would say so, yet the same rationale is used time and again to justify stifling an indie author movement. The fact that there's *some* garbage out there does not mean that it's *all* garbage, nor that it must necessarily be a chore to seek out wheat among the chaff. My indie books are getting excellent reviews on Amazon, plus I offer free online excerpts for anyone to try before they buy. I realize not all authors do the same, but as they get smarter and realize their work must speak for itself in the indie marketplace, I think they'll follow suit.

>>Publishers make their living selling books, and at least try to pick books that can sell.<<

That is precisely the problem; now that the industry is dominated by a handful of megaconglomerates, it's all about not only what they think they can sell, but what they think they can sell in the hundreds of thousands. The midlist is all but dead, as major publishers seek out only 3 flavors of manuscripts: commercial bestsellers, prestige titles (i.e., potential Pulitzer winners) and genre/nonfiction fare that earns reliably. Lots of really great, well-written stuff has been shoved to the margins because just one person in the approval chain has had some doubt as to whether or not the book could sell in the hundreds of thousands.

Once upon a time, moving anything more than 10K copies was considered quite respectable. Nowadays, it's chicken scratch. But what of the 10K+ readers who would very much enjoy these 'smaller' books? If there's no indie movement in publishing, they're outta luck.

[DMcCunney]

Originally Posted by April Hamilton

DMcCunney wrote:
>>While people have various complaints against major publishers, they do perform a critical function: they're a filter. Getting published by a regular publisher is no guarantee of goodness, but it's at least less likely to be mind-numbingly bad.<<

I hear this argument frequently, and it's frustrating. There's lots of crummy, nowhere-near-ready-for-primetime stuff in the indie film and indie music world, but is that reason enough not to have an indie movement at all in those industries? I don't think anyone would say so, yet the same rationale is used time and again to justify stifling an indie author movement. The fact that there's *some* garbage out there does not mean that it's *all* garbage, nor that it must necessarily be a chore to seek out wheat among the chaff. My indie books are getting excellent reviews on Amazon, plus I offer free online excerpts for anyone to try before they buy. I realize not all authors do the same, but as they get smarter and realize their work must speak for itself in the indie marketplace, I think they'll follow suit.

I don't think anyone is saying there shouldn't be an indie author movement, and agreed, there's a lot of awful stuff in indie music and indie filmmaking, yet both of those arts have lively indie scenes.

>>Publishers make their living selling books, and at least try to pick books that can sell.<<

That is precisely the problem; now that the industry is dominated by a handful of megaconglomerates, it's all about not only what they think they can sell, but what they think they can sell in the hundreds of thousands. The midlist is all but dead, as major publishers seek out only 3 flavors of manuscripts: commercial bestsellers, prestige titles (i.e., potential Pulitzer winners) and genre/nonfiction fare that earns reliably. Lots of really great, well-written stuff has been shoved to the margins because just one person in the approval chain has had some doubt as to whether or not the book could sell in the hundreds of thousands.

Once upon a time, moving anything more than 10K copies was considered quite respectable. Nowadays, it's chicken scratch. But what of the 10K+ readers who would very much enjoy these 'smaller' books? If there's no indie movement in publishing, they're outta luck.

It's not quite that dire, but it is a problem.

One of the big issues is that book publishers got bought up by entertainment conglomerates that thought to see synergies in having all forms of content under one roof. Those synergies tended to be more imagined than real, as various conglomerates have found out. TimeWarner/AOL was never able to build a coherent strategy marrying web and print content, with lots of cultural divide between the two camps, and "What's in it for us?" questions and arguments over how revenues and expenses would be handled in any such combinations. TW is under pressure to spin off AOL and concentrate on its traditional assets, and AOL is struggling to reinvent itself.

Along more relevant lines, they sold off the book division to Hachette, who also owns Little, Brown, among others.

It's actually fairly predictable. Entertainment conglomerates think in terms of movie revenues and $100 million grosses. Book divisions are under pressure to be produce profits in line with the movie operations, but it's unlikely they can be that profitable. Their parent companies, meanwhile, are under pressure. They have a fiduciary responsibility to invest where it will get the highest rate of returns, and book publishing isn't that place.

Back when Tom Doherty put Tor Books up for sale, seeing that the environment for a smaller publisher would be increasingly difficult, he spurned higher offers and chose to be acquired by Holtzbrink because he thought they would be a better home for something like Tor. I believe the higher offers came from media conglomerates, so it appears Tom was savvy as usual.

The problem with going the indie route is making a living. I know a guy who is is a band leader, with a couple of major label releases and a batch of indie offerings. In his case, the band has a following and makes a living touring. Album sales are nice if they happen, but are gravy. In a reversal of the long-standing industry practice, which treated the gig as promotion for the album, his band sees albums as promotion for the gigs. If people rip the band's CDs and share the MP3s with their friends, he doesn't mind. The more people who hear the music, the more folks will come see them when they play.

That's fine for a musician who can make a living playing gigs. It's problematic for writers. I know an assortment of selling professional writers. Offhand, I can think of one who doesn't have a day job, and earns a living solely from writing. (His SO has a day job, but she doesn't subsidize him. Her regular paycheck simply helps smooth out the blips in the cash flow while he waits for contracts to be signed, advances to be paid, and royalties to be received.)

The others all have day jobs and write on the side, or are married to a spouse that is primary breadwinner, and aren't totally dependent on income from writing. And these are folks selling to major publishers, not indies and small presses.

The small press landscape got bludgeoned by the AMS/PGW bankruptcy, and an assortment of respected imprints like Carroll and Graf and Four Walls Eight Windows are no more.

An indie author movement is a fine thing, and the internet provides technology that will help indie authors connect with readers. The question is whether you can make a living as an indie author, or had better keep your day job.
______
Dennis

[Richard Herley]

Wise words, if I may say so, Dennis. But if you have to do a day-job in order to write, why not go the indie route? At least then you're free to write what you like, publish it how you like, and all that.

[DMcCunney]

Originally Posted by Richard Herley

Wise words, if I may say so, Dennis. But if you have to do a day-job in order to write, why not go the indie route? At least then you're free to write what you like, publish it how you like, and all that.

Oh, I concur. If you have a day job to pay the bills and write on the side, the indie route offers advantages.

The only question I see now is simply "Can you make a living writing as an indie author?". For the vast majority of folks, I'd say the answer to that question is no.

But the answer to that question is no for the majority of folks writing for major publishers, too, and is no for the majority of folks in any creative field.

Some old friends of mine had a band for a while called the "Don't Quit Your Day Job Players". All were writers, but all did other things. One was a software QA guy and reform rabbi. Another was a teacher, concert violist, and orthodox Catholic priest. (She was married to the rabbi.) The third was a composer and adjunct professor of music. The percussionist was the only full-time writer in the group.

They did a local bar gig, where they said "So a priest, a rabbi, and a professor walk into a bar...", the bartender said "Is this a joke?", and the response was "No. It's a band!"
______
Dennis