Aren't you worried that giving writing away for free devalues an artistic industry where, at least for the artists, getting any money in the first place is incredibly difficult?

JB

Fair point but, in my view, the 3-for-2 commoditisation of books and the endless round of over-hyped, mediocre, unchallenging novels does more to devalue the writer’s art than giving something away for free.

Likewise, the extensive use of ghost-writers to produce books released by celebrities who’ve had zero input into them is, I think, wrongly promoting the idea that anyone can write.

Well, it's all subjective. There are still a great many wonderful books out there (sans most of the celeb ones, of course, I'm with you there.)

I just think as writers and authors we should focus more on being paid our due as craftspeople rather than campaigning for freedom of our art. I think you'd find publishers would love it if writers suddenly started handing out stuff for free because they'd quickly find a way to capitalise on that. They'd get writing for free and - hey presto - sell it! The general quality of fiction, as Terry pointed out, would drop through the floor, there would be absolutely no barometer of success, so people would become uninspired and unmotivated. Where would the challenge be? The strive to break through?

These are also things that should be taken into account.

JB

I think the problem for fiction, as opposed to music, is that there are very few ways, within the conventional system, for a writer to let people sample his work outside of it already being published so bits can be read in a bookshop or online. It's not easy, therefore, to build an audience prior to commercial backing of one's work. However, Sigler and Doctorow have shown that, if your work is good enough and attractive to readers, people will take it for free and then buy it again later when it's conventionally published. Okay, Doctorow already had published books behind him, and Sigler is very gifted at podcasting his own work, but we can all take lessons from their attitude and approach. One of the worst things about the conventional system is that it encourages the writer to be passive through most stages of post-writing production. For example, writers tend to adopt the role of interviewee when, say, meeting an agent who's interested in taking them on, when in fact it should really be the agent who's being interviewed by the writer. This passivity, I can't help noticing, has led to many published writers shaving off more and more creative quirks in their writing, fitting the product more closely to what the commercial machine requires.

Terry

JB, I think you are playing devil's advocate here.
If +95% of mss never see the light of day then what is the harm of putting some of it online for free? It does not devalue the work of other writers who have had theirs published, and if any publisher picked it up for publication, then the writer would get paid for it.

I just think as writers and authors we should focus more on being paid our due as craftspeople rather than campaigning for freedom of our art.

It's an interesting point. But where to start? How do we do it?

Dare I suggest that 90% of the MS mentioned are probably not fit to see the light of day?

It's this distrust of the industry that makes me feel a little uncomfortable Naomi, because it seems that a lot of the time it reads like writers' negative reactions to rejection. Ok, so they won't have it - I'll do this instead, I'll show them!

I'm not sure how positive that really is when one should learn and progress from these experiences, rather than swiftly rebel against a cruel world, God, the publishing industry, whatever. So yes, a touch of devil's advocate, a touch of inner qualm.

There is no real short-cut to success - you either work hard toward the goal or you don't. Sure, put your work online - I do on my website and I'm not saying don't - I just don't think, beyond a few 'friendly' readers, it will have much of an impact if it's not properly promoted and quantified by some outside professional source.

Terry, I agree about that passivity. You get to a point where you're just so grateful to have a foot in the door you forget you're the one who actually got you there.

JB

<Added>

Ned, I think a big part of it is just believing that what you do is deserving of some kind of exchange. People reading your work is a big part of it, yeah, nothing compares to that buzz. But then if I made a living from almost any other industry, and entertainment, is, after all, a public service, then you'd expect to get paid for your time and effort.

Dare I suggest that 90% of the MS mentioned are probably not fit to see the light of day?

I’m sure there’s a lot of truth in this. On the flipside, however, 90% of published stuff I read is horribly disappointing as well. What evidence, if any, is there that the right 10% is getting through?

The publishing industry is pretty plain about trying to publish what will sell, which only sometimes coincides with what’s good.

If the 90% of unpublished stuff really was rubbish and was put on the web for free, it seems to me that it will only serve to reinforce the reputation of the quality paid-for stuff. After all, following your entertainment analogy, if I see a busker in the street and they’re rubbish, it doesn’t undermine the value of what [insert name of good band] are doing. Quite the contrary, it reminds me that some things are worth paying for.

If the busker is really good, however, then I might give him a few quid and maybe even ask if he’s got a demo I can hear.

And what about the busker? Maybe he’s just enjoying playing his tunes, even if the record labels don’t want to sign him.

The only argument I can see for writers devaluing the work of other writers would be the writing equivalent of Radiohead or Prince – popular, well respected artists who no longer need the investment in marketing and can afford to distribute material themselves or give it away knowing they'll recoup costs elsewhere.

Like I said, I think it's all subjective. Most of the books I read I enjoy, so I don't really share that view. I think the bar is very high, actually, in most genres now. I also think it's incredibly diverse.

I wouldn't knock other published works, because it can be seen as a little sour, considering. It undermines that argument anyway, rightly or wrongly.

Likewise, I think the busker analogy falls down because a busker is there on the subway where people can see him. Your work on the internet probably won't be seen by a lot of people, to be honest, and I'd imagine that only a small proportion who do see it will read it. That's not to say anything about the quality of your work, just that it would be you and everybody else.
Most people seem to prefer to read off-line, and most people seem attracted to things that are advertised by word of mouth or promotion. To cap that, most people only really trust promotion that comes from verified sources. They won't go for something simply because you or anyone tells them to.

So, I suppose what I'm really saying is don't devalue your own art.

JB

The publishing industry is pretty plain about trying to publish what will sell

Very true, Ned, because, as one Booker judge observed, 'it subsidises the rest'.
Without the celebrity novels and autobiographies they could not afford to publish the bulk of the literary fiction currently to be found in the bookshops - not when they sell only a couple of thousand copies or less of each. If there was a thriving online readership, I suspect most of these works would go straight to the web to be downloaded at a small cost to the reader, and a large profit to the 'publisher' (they would only need to cover royalites, editing and marketing costs); it is only Tradition that is keeping them in the hard back format - although some are already turning to paperbacks, with a very limited number of collectors edition HBs.

Ned, are you uploading your novel on WW btw? Seems to me that you've already had agent and publisher interest, which we all know is a good sign, so maybe with another push at editing what have you, your novel could feasibly get where it was headed anyway?

JB

On a slightly different tack, I wonder if online books will ever totally take the place of paper ones? Personally, holding a real book in my hand gives me far more satisfaction than staring at the glare of a screen and pressing plastic keys. And the fact that I can read a real book anywhere, easily. A book is such a magic thing, so beautifully portable and reader-friendly.
Susiex

I agree. You can't lie on your back and read an online story, and I think with online work, something is lost in translation.

JB

Her's 14 reasons why we love books, courtacy of the Guardian:

http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/books/2007/11/the_kindle_doesnt_light_my_fir.html

Says it all really, doesn't it?

It will display to other people in coffee shops and on public transport the title of what I am reading, so as to advertise my erudition or quirky sense of humour.

Absolutely. I love peeking and seeing what people are reading. How many conversations - even relationships - have started because of that?

I can't see why some people are so enthusiastic. It's rubbish it really is, completely unnecessary. You can't fix what it isn't broken. Don't they know that?

JB