Author: Scott William Carter

The Publishing Revolution Is Over: Indies Won

Bestselling author Hugh Howey and an anonymous “data guy” set off a bit of a bomb in the publishing industry last week when they released a report that used a sample of Amazon data collected from dozens of self-publishing authors and used some sophisticated sales rank extrapolations to paint a pretty interesting picture of where the money and sales are going.  If you aren’t up to date on the report and all the various reactions to it, Porter Anderson over at PublishingPerspectives.com has a nice summary on what many people are saying about it.  Read that, take a look at the report itself, and even download their extrapolations in Excel format.  I’ve been following the discussions pretty closely and I’m already exhausted by it.

Honestly, I didn’t find all that much surprising about the report, and regardless of any problem you might have with it (it is an extrapolation after all), it’s pretty hard to argue with the its bigger picture conclusions.  It confirms what most of us have believed for a few years at least, based on the anecdotal evidence we’ve been seeing all around us:  self-publishing, far from being a vanity fringe, is now a force to be reckoned with, and in fact, will only grow as the preferred option for writers over time.  This is why the insiders in the traditional publishing community are finally responding, some with near hysteria, which is how we know the revolution is over.

Writers have options now.  Real options.   Over time, those options should force traditional publishers to offer better royalties and contract terms, which have been abysmal lately and getting worse.  I say should, because the desire to publish is very personal and emotional for lots of writers, combining both the head and the heart, and most of the time that emotion overrides whatever a contract is saying in black in white.  Being able to say you were published by Simon and Schuster or Random House is always going to hold a lot of sway for a huge percentage of people.  I get that.  I feel it, too.  And under the right circumnstances, I’ll definitely work with traditional publishers again — but only under the right circumstances.

Which is the point.  The indie revolution was never really about self-publishing.  It was about being indie. Independent.  Having options, real options, not the store-boxes-of-books-in-your-garage-and-hope-for-a-miracle kind options, but options that allow you to make the same amount of money (or more) and reach the same amount of readers (or more) as if you went with a big traditional publisher, while still retaining control and copyright.  That revolution is over, and indies won.

Some Reminders for Folks Who Want to Argue on the Internet

Recently, when I inadvertently ended up reading a little dust-up between a couple of science fiction writers — boy, science fiction writers do like to argue, don’t they? — I went searching for a list of all the common logical fallacies and stumbled upon this (click to go to the site for a larger image):

It’s from yourlogicalfallacyis.com, which offers a great primer on the most common logical pitfalls that befall people when they argue.  Most people can’t help but use one or two — strawmen and appeal to authority, probably being the most common — but some folks manage to cover at least a dozen.  In fact, I’d say one of the immutable truths of arguing on the Internet is that the longer it goes on, the more of these fallacies will eventually be covered.

The Party’s Over for Higher Education

Clay Shirky, a leading thinker on the social and cultural effects of the internet, as well as a Professor of New Media at NYU, posted recently about “The End of Higher Education’s Golden Age.”  He provides a succinct history of how higher education got to its current troubles, then goes on to talk about possible solutions.  A key quote:

Many of my colleagues believe that if we just explain our plight clearly enough, legislators will come to their senses and give us enough money to save us from painful restructuring. I’ve never seen anyone explain why this argument will be persuasive, and we are nearing the 40th year in which similar pleas have failed, but “Someday the government will give us lots of money” remains in circulation, largely because contemplating our future without that faith is so bleak. If we can’t keep raising costs for students (we can’t) and if no one is coming to save us (they aren’t), then the only remaining way to help these students is to make a cheaper version of higher education for the new student majority.

If you have any interest in the future of higher education, I recommend reading the whole thing.

A Novelist Who Doesn’t Read Novels Is Like a Loud-Mouthed Drunk at a Party Who Loves to Talk But Never Listens

I was once in New York, and I listened to a talk about the building of private prisons – a huge growth industry in America. The prison industry needs to plan its future growth – how many cells are they going to need? How many prisoners are there going to be, 15 years from now? And they found they could predict it very easily, using a pretty simple algorithm, based on asking what percentage of 10 and 11-year-olds couldn’t read. And certainly couldn’t read for pleasure.

It’s not one to one: you can’t say that a literate society has no criminality. But there are very real correlations.

And I think some of those correlations, the simplest, come from something very simple. Literate people read fiction.

Neil Gaiman wrote that a couple months ago in The Guardian, and it’s well worth reading the whole thing. It’s the best case for the value of reading, and reading fiction in particular, that I think I’ve seen in a long time. He also has some very nice things to say about the role that libraries and librarians are playing in a world that transformed, in short order, from one in which information was scare to one in which information was overwhelming. Really good stuff.

But when I stumbled upon this article, it got me thinking about another group of people who don’t read fiction.

Fiction writers.

Yeah, you got that right. Fiction writers. Novelists. Not all of them, of course, and certainly not even a majority, but I’ve been surprised lately at how many writers who write fiction who don’t read much fiction.  Most of them read nonfiction, of course, or, if you ask them why they don’t read novels, they often get defensive and say they get their story fix in other ways, from movies or television shows.  Which is all well and good, but it’s not the same.   You see, I think of my fiction as part of The Great Conversation of Literature.  If I’m not engaged in a two-way conversation, then I’m like a loud-mouthed drunk at a party who’s telling you all about this antics but doesn’t hear a word you say when you ask a question.  My novel, The Last Great Getaway of the Water Balloon Boys, is part of a conversation that started when I read J.D. Salinger as a teen.  My book, The Gray and Guilty Sea, is my entry into a conversation that includes Dashiell Hammett, Raymond Chandler, and of course John D. MacDonald.  Heck, the title of that book is a direct homage to MacDonald.  My book, Wooden Bones, took a book that had entered the public domain, Carlos Collodi’s Pinocchio, and kept a conversation going that includes everyone from the Brothers Grimm to . . . well, Neil Gaiman himself, whose book, Coraline, and its wonderfully dark feel, inspired me to write something along the same lines.

I’m not the most voracious reader in the world, but I read a lot of novels.  I read a lot of nonfiction, too, but fiction is the coin of my realm.  It’s the ongoing conversation, the one that began long before I was born and will continue long after I’m gone.

If you’re a fiction writer who’s not reading fiction, you may have readers, and you may even have a lot of them, but I doubt you’re going to grow much as a writer.  And if you’re not growing as a writer, what’s the point?  Just paying the bills?  Sure, that’s important, and I can’t blame any writer for doing what they have to do to put bread on the table, but it’s so much more rewarding to engage in a two-way conversation rather than coming off as someone who’s just drunk on their own words.