A friend directed me to this article on Salon.com by Laura Miller that speculates on the possible good (and bad) for readers when self-publishing becomes a matter of course. (After a rather bizarre intro, I have to say. Pinochet’s overthrow? Really?)
Depending on whom you listen to, traditional publishing may or may not be in its death throes. There can be no doubt that the industry is struggling with an array of challenges, and certainly it’s undergoing a transformation (willingly or not) in this world where change is measured in nanoseconds. One such challenge, electronic publishing, is one of the biggest — if not the biggest — threat to The Old Way Of Doing Things.
Electronic publishing means e-books, of course, and online delivery of content. But it also encompasses the world of self-publishing, wherein an author can bypass the traditional gatekeeprs of agent, editors, marketing, publishers, and retailers and offer their books (in any form they desire) to their audience. And it’s that world of self-publishing that’s the big question mark when it comes to just what dreams may come. (hee)
As Miller points out, self-publishing widens a reader’s choices unimaginably. No matter their predilections, there is guaranteed to be something for them to read.
Whether or not it’s readable is another question entirely.
She explains about the horrors of the slushpile so I won’t waste space on it here, but the point is important: whatever you may think about traditional publishing and its role as a gatekeeper, the fact is that they read the crap so you don’t have to. Which isn’t to say that crap doesn’t get published, because we’ve all read enough books that made us ball our hands into fists and pound them against our skulls while chanting, “HOW DID THIS GET PUBLISHED?” But as she points out, the signal-to-noise ratio of readable stories that get published versus what exists in the slushpile? A difference of incalculable proportions. And if the publishing industry goes the way of T-Rex, the slushpile gets dumped into the media delivery systems like a deep water oil well gushing light sweet crude into the community swimming hole.
Because I think what this period of evolution in publishing — and media of any sort, really — is really about is understanding the exact nature of what their product is. Now that their traditional role of delivering books/content is being usurped by the new waves of technology and innovation, it seems clear that delivering books/content isn’t their product. Rather, it’s the expertise and authority publishers bring to the table to help readers find something that’s worth reading. (The definition of “worth reading” being hugely subjective itself, obviously.) That is, their product is the very valuable bundle of services that include identifying potential, editing, design, and marketing. And in the brave new world of publishing that I think we’re entering, it will be their reputation that becomes the currency of the industry, and drives their sales.
The smartest and best will understand that just as Pixar has developed such a sterling reputation for excellent movies with terrific stories and unsurpassed quality for children (and a sizeable percentage of grownups ), a publisher’s branding will identify that This Book Right Here Is Worth Your Time. Publishers as a group are doing a stellar job of Not Getting It when it comes to that realization, but I think the ones that will survive the change are going to be the ones that move toward a model centered around the services they provide rather than the physical product they produce.
Which isn’t to say that there won’t be more successes that emerge from the self-publishing realm, or that self-publshing won’t become a viable, respectable, and lucrative route to success. I think self-publishing can indeed produce a book every bit as worth reading as anything produced by a traditional reputable publisher. There’ve already been such successes, though only a handful to date. That will increase with time, I think.
[I’ll just note that my focus here is on authors who want to be read by as many people as possible, whose goal is to become published — whatever the route is — and perhaps even make a living from their work. I realize that there are many, many, many people who write with no desire/intention of being published, and who may choose self-publishing as a means for sharing their material with a select audience or simply to be able to hold their story in their hands and be able to place it on a bookshelf. Obviously, I understand that. :) ]
But there are two factors to consider here. First, as Miller points out, such successes largely depend on the author’s willingness and ability to market themselves and their book. (We’ll assume for the sake of argument that they have some kind of editing resource, like a good beta reader or circle, or even paying a freelance editor, and that they can also pay for copyediting and layout expertise, or are capable of doing that on their own. We’ll also assume that they’re design-savvy or have access to and/or the funds for someone who can do a decent design of a cover if they’re selling print books. Templates don’t count.) There are authors who are willing to do this and have the ability to do it very well. There are many others who have either the willingness or the ability but not both. There are many who don’t have either one. (Guess which one I am.) Self-publishing is only a route for successful publishing if you’re willing to do the work that the publishing houses do and I remain unconvinced that the availability of self-publishing will magically confer these very special skills to the many authors out there who have something worth reading to offer.
The other factor to understand is that even if you are such an author with such a rare skill set to be both your own publisher (and all that it entails) and a writer, that’s still no guarantee that anyone but your parents and the neighbor across the street will ever read or even know about your book. This is something that the traditional publishers already struggle with, and their bottom lines are testimony to the incredible difficulty of enticing a reader to pick up that book, turn it over, and consider buying it. Actually buying it? The odds in favor are vanishingly small. Doing that over and over again so that the book pays for itself? Microscopic. If traditional publishers had a good sense of just what is guaranteed to sell, they wouldn’t be in the position they’re in.
So imagine the scenario where the reading market is flooded with hundreds of thousands of new options available every year. As Miller points out, consumers have a tendency to become overwhelmed with too much choice and end up selecting the same thing everyone else is choosing. Sure, there’ll be the readers willing to sift through, develop their own network of identifying what’s worth their time to read. Many of us do that already, especially if our reading preferences are for less popular material (i.e., we don’t tend to read items that appear on the NYT list, for example). But even those brave readers will spend an inordinate amount of time sifting and a lot less time reading.
I’m not saying that self-publishing is a bad thing. On the contrary, I think it’s terrific, and I’m excited about the possibilities for where books and other media are headed in the next few years. I love that people are getting their creations out there for others to read/experience, and the opportunity to share with the world is opening up for us all. I love the communal aspect of creativity it engenders, and the organic ways in which storytelling as an art form has grown and diversified as the internet and technology has allowed us the means to share those stories with each other. The democratization of information is a beautiful thing.
But I think it’s important to remember that it’s a messy thing, too, and just as we have gatekeepers now, we’ll have them in the future, too. Different gatekeepers, perhaps. Better ones, maybe. And though the future of publishing is a guessing game at best, the rumors of its death are greatly exaggerated.
(edited in a few places for typos and clarity)
Saturday, October 2, 2010 at 2:22 AM | 