Good points all around. One thing I'd add to publishers is distribution. You can technically self-publish a print book of course, but it's essentially impossible to get it distributed to bookstores for a variety of reasons--one is that it's not worth it to distributors to deal with a press or person who only has 1 title--so nearly the entirety of the self-publish market more or less exists on Amazon ebook ecosystem.
Because of this, and the points you raise, almost all the successful self-published authors seem to really be hybrid authors who are doing self-publishing on top of a traditional career. E.g., Sanderson pulls in millions with his kickstarter but only because he built up a readership in traditional publishing first. (Sometimes it goes the other way, with authors getting buzz in self-pub world but then jumping to traditional publishing because of all these reasons). Maybe that will change soon but
This was a really interesting piece, which gives much-needed context to the stats being shared (for example, 90% of books sold fewer than 2,000 copies) to suggest that book publishing is in a death spiral. Having worked (admittedly briefly) for a small book publisher in the 2010s, much of the dynamics
What seems to get lost in the conversation is that for any creative endeavor like writing a book, starting a band, acting, entertainment, etc, the economics are pretty brutal. Having the backing of an established book publisher still has enormous value in navigating the hard realities of putting your work out into the world. https://ryanclarkself.substack.com/p/the-shocking-truth-about-book-publishing
Mr. Barkan omits the primary function of major publishers, which these days is to pay Amazon to recommend their books. (A pity the money isn't spent on proof-readers and fact-checkers.) And I'm afraid the article misses the primary obstacle to that new and better book culture: we're awash in books, and have no functional sorting system. If you set out to read a review of all this year's new fiction, next year's would be out before you finished, let alone read any of the books. Most, of course, are not reviewed, which I do not regard as a solution. The method of releasing a novel or short story into the world matters much less than connecting it with a readership, and for that, we're still using a system which wasn't working terribly well in the 1950's. (A review in the New York Times? How quaint!)
I think the long-term answer is going to be cybernetic and involve a subscription, but I no longer expect to see it. Good luck to those who do!
I can't say Amen loud enough. I want all that as well for our culture, and believe (stubbornly/idealistically/naively) that bold, truthful fiction can and does and must still matter. That it can help us "endure and prevail" as Faulkner appreciated, and can also channel an exuberant Whitmanesque love of country and everyone - and really everyone - who walks and breathes in it. For my part I've had a tremendously positive experience with the indie Wild Ink Publishing - their door opened when it felt like none others would. Keep these coming, Ross, they're stirring and vital, and I look forward to ordering your book!
>A writer recently asked why it seemed like so many short story writers and novelists were publishing less than their predecessors of the last century.
Null hypothesis -- the same that should be applied to every "why are people xing less" question -- is that their time, like that of students, parents, congressmen, etc, is being lost in modern distraction. Your reasoning here would seem to imply that this current generation has some huge backlog of material that they haven't been able to get out. That would seem odd, since, as you say, self-publishing is easier than ever. If, on the other hand, the current generation of which you speak only reaches for the pen in pursuit of a dangling dollar, I would like to object to the use of "writers and novelists" and offer as an alternative demonym "hacks."
A lot of writers don't want to self-publish, myself included. I could self-publish a new novel every year if I wanted. I don't want to. I like the idea of having a publisher because I can't do cover design, typesetting, editing etc.
Good points all around. One thing I'd add to publishers is distribution. You can technically self-publish a print book of course, but it's essentially impossible to get it distributed to bookstores for a variety of reasons--one is that it's not worth it to distributors to deal with a press or person who only has 1 title--so nearly the entirety of the self-publish market more or less exists on Amazon ebook ecosystem.
Because of this, and the points you raise, almost all the successful self-published authors seem to really be hybrid authors who are doing self-publishing on top of a traditional career. E.g., Sanderson pulls in millions with his kickstarter but only because he built up a readership in traditional publishing first. (Sometimes it goes the other way, with authors getting buzz in self-pub world but then jumping to traditional publishing because of all these reasons). Maybe that will change soon but
This was a really interesting piece, which gives much-needed context to the stats being shared (for example, 90% of books sold fewer than 2,000 copies) to suggest that book publishing is in a death spiral. Having worked (admittedly briefly) for a small book publisher in the 2010s, much of the dynamics
What seems to get lost in the conversation is that for any creative endeavor like writing a book, starting a band, acting, entertainment, etc, the economics are pretty brutal. Having the backing of an established book publisher still has enormous value in navigating the hard realities of putting your work out into the world. https://ryanclarkself.substack.com/p/the-shocking-truth-about-book-publishing
Mr. Barkan omits the primary function of major publishers, which these days is to pay Amazon to recommend their books. (A pity the money isn't spent on proof-readers and fact-checkers.) And I'm afraid the article misses the primary obstacle to that new and better book culture: we're awash in books, and have no functional sorting system. If you set out to read a review of all this year's new fiction, next year's would be out before you finished, let alone read any of the books. Most, of course, are not reviewed, which I do not regard as a solution. The method of releasing a novel or short story into the world matters much less than connecting it with a readership, and for that, we're still using a system which wasn't working terribly well in the 1950's. (A review in the New York Times? How quaint!)
I think the long-term answer is going to be cybernetic and involve a subscription, but I no longer expect to see it. Good luck to those who do!
Do not forget libraries. Or speaking at conferences of librarians.
I can't say Amen loud enough. I want all that as well for our culture, and believe (stubbornly/idealistically/naively) that bold, truthful fiction can and does and must still matter. That it can help us "endure and prevail" as Faulkner appreciated, and can also channel an exuberant Whitmanesque love of country and everyone - and really everyone - who walks and breathes in it. For my part I've had a tremendously positive experience with the indie Wild Ink Publishing - their door opened when it felt like none others would. Keep these coming, Ross, they're stirring and vital, and I look forward to ordering your book!
>A writer recently asked why it seemed like so many short story writers and novelists were publishing less than their predecessors of the last century.
Null hypothesis -- the same that should be applied to every "why are people xing less" question -- is that their time, like that of students, parents, congressmen, etc, is being lost in modern distraction. Your reasoning here would seem to imply that this current generation has some huge backlog of material that they haven't been able to get out. That would seem odd, since, as you say, self-publishing is easier than ever. If, on the other hand, the current generation of which you speak only reaches for the pen in pursuit of a dangling dollar, I would like to object to the use of "writers and novelists" and offer as an alternative demonym "hacks."
A lot of writers don't want to self-publish, myself included. I could self-publish a new novel every year if I wanted. I don't want to. I like the idea of having a publisher because I can't do cover design, typesetting, editing etc.
I write for free and earn my keep elsewise. I guess what we're looking at is the gap between artists and professionals.