(This is the third and final installment of my article on modern writing and publishing. As always, I welcome feedback from my readers).
WHAT FUELS THE MACHINE?
In his book, Wheels, Clocks, and Rockets: A History of Technology, Donald Cardwell maintains that the explosion of inventions that led to the Industrial Revolution was largely the result of patent law reform. With the modernization of such laws, the inventor could now benefit from his inventions, both financially and in societal status. Cardwell argues that unless an inventor can so benefit, he is unlikely to spend much time or money in the pursuit of creativity.
There is obviously a great deal of truth to this argument. For instance, people in ancient China invented many things - among them gunpowder and movable type - long before such innovations saw light in the West. However, it is unlikely that many of these Chinese inventors made much money from their creations. The system was simply not friendly to personal gain, even if that gain would have been the logical result of new and better ideas.
It was only in the Western World (Europe and later the U.S.), where individuals could benefit from their inventions and the resulting increased productivity, that such inventions led to an economic revolution. Innovative and creative people, from Samuel Colt to Thomas Edison, saw a chance to make a buck with a new invention and a patent, and thus modern capitalism was born and capitalism strengthened.
So, most people would agree, strong patent laws have served us well. They brought about about nothing short of an expansive technological revolution and produced a standard of living in the West (especially in the U.S.) that is the envy of the world.
However, to quote the character of Howard Beale in the film Network, "I think that was it, fellas. That sort of thing is not likely to happen again." We are now living in a post-Industrial Revolution world, one where ownership of ideas and inventions are, at best, tenuous. The person who, to borrow an idea from Star Trek, ultimately creates transparent aluminum or some other similarly strong and clear material, may or may not become rich. He will likely have to fight tooth and nail for his patent rights and employ an army of lawyers to keep a monopoly. Even if he is partially successful and is able to hold on to part of the societal benefits from his invention, such as fame and historical acknowledgement, his financial benefits will be diminished, if not lost outright. He will never garner the wealth that inventors from the Industrial Revolution era were able to accumulate and ultimately he will be lucky to hold on to a relatively small portion of the money resulting from his invention.
Why? You may ask. What brought about this change? The answer is simply that societal evolution did not stop with the Industrial Revolution. It instead moved on to what Alvin Toffler calls the "Third Wave," an era where ideas have largely replaced money as the "coin of the realm." And, in this era of the World Wide Web, iPods, laptops and cell phones, ideas are very hard to hold on to; they have a habit of moving on to other people at the speed of light. The Internet spreads ideas, and thereby modern capital, around with very little regard for the originator.
What holds true for patents and industrialists will also hold true for copyrights and writers. Authors and, to a slightly lesser extent, artists will be lucky to hold on to the societal benefits (status, name recognition, etc.) derived from their works. The financial benefits will be diminished - just as with inventors - and could quite possibly be lost altogether. An author will produce a novel and fight to keep a monopoly on the work. But ultimately, that novel will find its way into cyberspace, where anyone with a computer can read and enjoy the author's writings.
This is bad news for the people who would, in an earlier era, have made money off of the author - the publisher, printer, book store owner and maybe even the literary agent and lawyer - but it may not necessarily be bad news (or at least disastrous news) for the author himself. He may still benefit. Indeed, in the realm of public acclaim, he may even benefit more than he would have back in the days of PandI books. Remember, back in those olden days, unless the author was one of the chosen few, that one percent who got to see their works in print, he would die unknown and unread. Even if he was one of those lucky enough to actually be published, his work might be read by a few thousand people. But now, his writings could potentially be enjoyed by millions, perhaps even billions, of readers.
As an example that someday has already arrived, at least for this author, I need only to turn to the Google Book Search (previously known as the Google Print)project. This project places sizable portions of one's book online without compensation to the author. I have noticed that my novel, Year of the Rat, has been included in this project. So, people can now log on and read most, though not quite all, of my book.
Does this help me or hurt me? The jury of course is still out, but I doubt that it has hurt me. I now have some exposure and name recognition that I would otherwise not have. Some people may read the online portion, like what they see, and go ahead and buy my book; I doubt that few, if any, would intend to purchase my book, but instead just read the portion online. But, has it helped me? Quite frankly, with my sales as anemic as they are, I believe the answer could well be "yes," but, of course, I can't prove it.
This doesn't mean an author should never fight for his rights. He needs to be sure his published works are properly copyrighted and even registered with the federal government. I always have done so on my major projects. For this purpose, you can start by visiting the United States Copyright Office at www.copyright.gov. I also recommend having an ISBN number added to any printed work and perhaps even to your major online creations. Most PonD publishers will do this for an added fee. The number makes it easier for readers to find and purchase your book and adds a degree of legitimacy to any claim you may need to make about your ownership of your creations.
But, in the end, the author needs to be realistic. Technological history, and therefore literary history, are not on his side if he wishes to monopolize his creation. He therefore needs to take this seeming disadvantage and somehow turn it into an advantage.
SO, WHERE WILL THE MONEY COME FROM FOR SCRIPTWRITERS?
Money still speaks, even to authors. I've already cited examples of web sites asking for contributions, or selling advertisement. These approaches could work, perhaps even work well, for writers of short stories, articles and even novels. But what about scriptwriters and, by logical extension, other professionals involved in the movie and television industry? Here the problem becomes a bit more sticky. It takes a huge investment of time and energy to write a novel, but it doesn't require a great deal of capital. Not so with movies; you need the big bucks to turn a movie idea into a reality.
Now, how does the scriptwriter fit into the current state of affairs that I described earlier for the modern author? Can the scriptwriter, if he is wise, retain his good name, literary fame and perhaps even a little capital? Will he, like the author, have to fight hard for what little money he can garner from his work by somehow asking for contributions, selling ads and/or holding his works hostage until the members of the audience pay up? In other words, what does the world of movies hold for the "dream and idea" people in an industry that is facing declining ticket-buying audiences, digital piracy and easily available downloads?
Obviously, just as in music, cheap downloads can probably work for movies. Music aficionados will currently shell out 99 cents for a music download; movie fans will probably do the same for a movie download. And of course, there is always advertising. It worked for broadcast television and, I personally believe, would have worked for satellite television. That is why it always struck me as funny that the cable TV industry chose to use a different paradigm when it began to worry about people with satellite dishes picking up their broadcasts. The image of Bubba Boomershine, living out in rural America with his huge satellite dish, pulling in "free" images of the Tonight Show from Burbank, California, seemed to terrify the industry. The fact that Bubba was also being exposed to advertisements from Burbank seemed to be lost on the TV officials. They chose to scramble his signals and make him pay for decoders. I suspect that movie officials are considering a similar plan for movies.
But, what if the satellite television people had chosen instead to not only allow people to pick up their signals, but had actually encouraged them to do so? They could have, for instance, offered inexpensive satellite dishes to Bubba and his neighbors. Wouldn't the satellite people then have had a vastly expanded version of broadcast TV, which had been, at least in its heyday, extremely profitable. Surely, if WalMart and McDonalds and Victoria's Secret will pay $1,000,000 for a one minute commercial being broadcast to 20 million viewers, they will pay far more for an audience of a hundred million.
But logic aside, I'm afraid that the online movie industry will follow the satellite TV industry's model and try to block, restrict and hold hostage their movies. I'm also reasonable sure that the movie industry's profits will diminish as a result when, in my humble opinion, they could have instead followed broadcast television's example and have watched the online movie industry's profits eclipse those of satellite television.
This brings us back to the initial question. Will the Internet democratize the movie industry the same way it is democratizing the writing and, to a slightly lesser extent, the music industries? My answer would be yes, but to a far lesser extent. Once again, the financial cost of writing a story is low. Even the cost of recording a song to the web is relatively low. The cost of producing a movie, on the other hand, is high. But, as with astute authors, modern film writers and film makers just might see that there are also advantages to creating during the Third Wave. We may, therefore, see more independent movie makers be at least successful enough to stay afloat. We will also probably see more "small," homey movies (Think Little Miss Sunshine)that concentrate on character development and less on spectacular effects. We will likely see more plays, with their relatively low production costs, on the web. And we will almost assuredly see more animated movies, which are also relatively low cost. One artist can create a dozen characters; one actor can create a dozen voices.
But still, the big movies - the Titanics and Ben Hurs of the future - will probably still need to be made by multi-million dollar studios. So, if you're going to write a script for such a movie, be aware that you are going to be swimming in very rough waters and that space in the lifeboat will be extremely limited. New tech may help you, but not much.
AMATEURS, PORN AND CHANGING TIMES
I'm sure by now most readers have realized that this article's themes are two fold. They are: (1) technology has democratized literature and art. And (2) this process has had a leveling effect on payment. Whereas a few professionals used to make the big bucks and most made nothing, nowadays less professionals make the big money, but many struggling writers and artists make some, albeit relatively little, money.
This latter theme is readily seen on the Internet in "open source" materials. In online literature, this is seen in free articles, stories and books offered on the Web. This article, I suppose, is an example of that. When it comes to other, less artsy items offered on the Internet, so-called "open source" materials such as the free software platform Moodle, are also offered free. Moodle, has allowed many individuals and even schools to create online, e-learning classes. The company apparently makes its money by charging for service for, and add-ons to, the software. This has led some cynical individuals to say that, "open source is free. But if you want it to work the way you want it to work, it will cost you money."
Perhaps the most interesting form of open-source is the Wiki, as readily seen on Wikipedia. Here many individuals work on a single project, such as an "encyclopedia" article. One person writes and then turns it over to other people to do their own thing. The result can be interesting and even informative but from what I've seen, it often lacks continuity and high quality writing. Still, Wiki offers some interesting possibilities for the online literary world. I can easily see websites appearing that feature ongoing stories; anyone who wants to can add or subtract from the story, plot line and/or characterization.
(In fact, there are probably such websites already out there on the Internet right now. Does anyone know of any examples they would like to share?)
As with many of my observations, I have trouble seeing how anyone makes money from a Wiki story, with the possible exception of the website owner. However, back in the PandI world, at least one such project did make money. Naked Came the Stranger was somewhat of a literary hoax, written by 24 journalists under the pseudonym of Penelope Ashe. Each writer created a separate chapter for the book, with only the barest knowledge of plot line, characterization and the other writers' chapters. The brainchild of Newsday's Mike McGrady, the book went on to make a great deal of money and to even make it onto the New York Time's Best Seller List.
I feel that the Internet is an excellent platform for such projects. However, once again, I suspect the profits will be small since the competition will be huge.
A NEW ERA
Another interesting phenomena to come along as a result of the Internet is "crowdsourcing." This ongoing phenomena was well noted and documented by Jeff Howe in his article "The Rise of Crowdsourcing" for Wired magazine. Howe explains how services once handled by a few, relatively well paid professionals are now, more and more, being handled by many, lesser paid individuals. His article describes the dilemma of professional photographers, especially those who made a large portion of their living from so-called "stock photography," pictures of often nameless people and places, generally used in advertising.
Such professionals, according to Howe, used to charge around $200 to $300 dollars per image. However, now competition has virtually eliminated that source of income for these photographers. And where has that competition come from? From amateur photographers, people who are good with a camera and are willing, even happy, to part with their creations over the Internet for as little as $1 per image.
In other words, photography is now experiencing the same phenomena that is rapidly changing literature and non-fiction writing. Due primarily to the Internet, the very nature of the craft is changing. Whereas, a few professional used to make a relatively large amount of money, now many "amateurs" are making small amounts of money. This evolution has now led to what Howe calls the "age of the crowd." Others have described this as the "age of the talented amateur."
Reading Howe's article, it struck me that one industry in particular will be especially hit hard by this change in eras. The pornography industry has made the transition from live action (think plays during the Roman Empire), to still photography, to movies, to pay per view television and finally to the Internet. However, the players remained the same: a few professionals - both in front and behind the camera - made the money. Now, however, a good many amateurs are willing to do the same thing - publicly expose themselves and have sex for the pleasure of others - for a great deal less money. Heck, there are doubtlessly those out there who will do it for free.
CONCLUSION
Modern writers - for that matter, anyone involved in creative work - need to be aware of changing times. They have entered an interesting and perhaps even profitable new era, but it is one very different from that of their predecessors. Whereas, in bygone times, most writers would never be published, now virtually anyone can be published. On the other hand, whereas a few professionals once made a large amount of money, nowadays that multitude of amateurs out there in cyberland will now spread the wealth around. They will, in other words, take the money that would have gone to those few professionals, pocket a little of it themselves, and send the rest on to other amateurs.
In summation, publishing in the current era can be a great thing if you're seeking recognition and wish primarily to have your works read. But, it may not be terribly profitable unless you can use your creativity for other purposes than for your stories and articles. However, there may still be money out there to be had for your writings, if you can recognize the changes in the publishing industry and take advantage of them.
(This concludes my article. However, I intend to include an annotated bibliography and webliography with my next posting).
(This is part 2 of my series on publishing in the modern world. I hope you enjoy it and, as always, I encourage you to email me and offer feedback).
LETS LEARN ANOTHER LESSON FROM THE MUSIC WORLD
Before we leave the world of pay per view writing altogether, let me offer one more observation. This one is again from the music world whose often self proclaimed representatives fought furiously against illegal music downloads during the early days of the current century. To hear them wail, you would have been convinced that Napster, with its access to free, albeit illegal, music downloads would be the end of the music industry. The kingpins in the industry - both well-known musicians and less well known (although probably more powerful) "suits" behind the scene - fought it all out in court, taking not only Napster, but also several of the amateur downloaders to trial. The music industry representatives, at least at first, seemed to win. Napster disappeared from the web and colleges across the country set policies against their students downloading music. But, in the end, it was a losing game for the industry, at least the way their lawyers were fighting it. Nearly at the speed of light, other downloading software and services appeared on the web, replacing Napster with hundreds, if not thousands, of substitutes. People who wanted to download music found a way. The music industry was ultimately on the wrong side of industrial history.
However, some companies quickly realized that many, if not most, of those people out in cyberland would actually pay for downloads, if they were cheap enough. WalMart currently sells tunes for 94 cents; iTunes for 99 cents. Selling it cheap is better than not selling it at all, especially if you're selling in large quantities. And nothing produces large quantities like the Internet.
That also goes for authors. In other words, "keep it cheap." Don't try to sell an ebook for the same price you would a paper and ink ("Pandi") book, or even (ala Stephen King) for anything nearly as expensive as a Pandi book. That doesn't necessarily mean you will never make any money from your ebook. After all, your expenses should be extremely low. You can use a free website, advertise cheaply online, and never need to pay for cover artists, editors or even for paper. Also keep in mind, you have the potential online to reach a much more vast audience than authors or publishers still dealing in the paper and ink world of traditional publishing. And, the money you take in with a self-published ebook is all yours. So, at least theoretically, instead of earning a $1 commission on a Pandi book that you sold to a publisher, you can now charge $1 per download for an ebook and whose rights you continue to retain. And, although your chances of selling ten thousand downloads are admittedly extremely slim, they are still better than you being published by a major publishing company and actually selling ten thousand copies of a Pandi book. This is primarily the case since, once again, 99 percent of authors will never be published by a major publishing house.
Of course, the question arises: What about that other one percent, the ones whose book actually "makes the big time?" Of that small number, there are doubtlessly a few who would have benefited far better with the old, Pandi style of publishing. Although, even for those lucky few, the difference may not be as great as one would suppose; think once again about the $1 commission vs. the $1 download example I cited above. Your chances of making the big bucks on a self published ebook are probably about the same as selling your novel to a large publishing house and having a best selling book: about 1 in 100.
Even if there is a sea change in the publishing world and online publishing becomes the norm, there will still be a small band of writers who make it big. And those people will still become millionaires. Once again, $1 is $1 and a $1,000,000 is $1000,000, whether you earned it through a book commission or from sales of ebook downloads.
And this, I suppose, brings us to the most important advantage of self publishing an ebook: at least some people will get to read it if you put it online. Of those 99 percent of online writers who never make the big money, they will still know that their works are being enjoyed by readers somewhere. That's not the case for those 99 percent of Pandi authors whose works never get published.
There were other lessons to be learned from the Napster vs. the Music Industry conflict, one of which centers on the fact that in the midst of that legal war, some musicians were actually happy that people were downloading their music for free. In fact, some went so far as to bypass Napster altogether and offer their tunes free on their own websites. These were largely either beginning musicians, trying to gather a flock of happy listeners and/or they were those who made the bulk of their money from live concerts, rather than recordings. Listeners who grew to like a particular group's music from free downloads were certainly more likely to pay for a ticket when the band came to their town. So, I suppose, the lesson can be stated as: "It's sometimes better to give it away, than to try to charge for it." Perhaps, you might be better to offer your writings for free online, rather than try to charge people for the privilege of reading your works. In fact, if you offer your works for free, you are bound to draw a larger audience and are therefore more likely to be able to sell advertising on your website, which is certainly one potential way to garner some cash for your writings.
This is a lesson that apparently was not learned by the satellite television industry. We'll speak more on this later, in the section on script writing. In the meantime, let's move on to another way of seeing your writings in print.
WHAT IF I WANT TO SEE MY WRITINGS IN A BOOK?
For those writers of a certain age (and I readily include myself in this group), there is no substitute for seeing your writings on paper, stuck between two hard covers with some professional, symbolic illustration on the front and your photograph on the back. We are the writers who grew up in the pre-Internet era, when computers were something only seen in a James Bond film and the World Wide Web was something Spider Man might strive for. Although, I suspect there are many younger writers who also believe that they will never be fully satisfied until they can sit at a table in a bookstore and sign their names on copy after copy of their book for a procession of fawning readers.
For such people there are still alternatives to traditional publishing. Print on Demand (I use the term "PonD" or "Pond") companies are currently springing up throughout the world and can readily be found on the Internet. The term "Print on Demand" simply means that the company prints up book orders when people want them. This differs from olden (and in some cases, not so olden) days when major publishers would print up thousands of copies of a book long before any sales took place, hoping that the books would actually sell. This latter style of business could obviously become extremely expensive for the publisher, especially if he had judged the public's tastes incorrectly and was stuck with a warehouse full of non-selling books. Because they abandoned this style, Pond companies take little or no risk on an author. They cannot lose money on the writer since, if his works don't sell, they simply won't print any of his books. These companies are generally divided into three categories: (1) those who are somewhat selective in their choice of authors (although not as selective as traditional publishing houses), (2) those who will publish anyone with the cash, and (3) those who will publish for free, making their money only from book sales.
There are probably advantages and disadvantages to all three alternatives. With the first, you have a few bragging rights. After all, "your" publisher doesn't accept just anyone. Whether that translates to anything you can actually put in your wallet is probably doubtful. For an example from my own experiences: I went with Virtualbookworm.com when I wanted to see my writings on paper. The Virtualbookworm officials maintain that they are selective in their choice of authors, although of course there's no way I could prove that. I will say however, that I have largely been pleased with the service I received, and continue to receive, from the company. I've paid a total of about $200 for their services through the years and (get ready to laugh) I still hope to someday actually sell enough books to recoup my expenses.
With category number two publishers, the biggest advantage centers on the fact that you're sure to get your book published. However, it could cost you more than going with number one and it will certainly cost you more than going with number three. In return, with number two, you will get help (for a fee) with editing, advertising and even with rewriting the weaker portions of your manuscript. I hesitate to offer an example of this category, since I have no personal experience with such a publisher. But perhaps, some of my readers can offer up their own experiences.
With category number three, the author provides the rewriting, editing, typing and almost anything else you can think of. However, if you do the work, you'll see the results on paper, even though you will probably need to purchase a copy of your own book to do so. The company makes its money almost totally from book sales. A well known example of this category is Lulu.
I fully realize that the boundaries between these categories are so fuzzy as to be almost nonexistent. For instance, all three categories offer editing services for a fee. In other words, it's simply the primary focus of the particular publishing company that determines its category. Virtualbookworm, for instance, probably makes more money per author from their fees than does Lulu, since the latter's focus is apparently on those authors who handle their own editing and other services.
"Vanity press" is a term associated with publishing houses who require an author's money before putting ink to paper, as opposed to traditional houses who cover the expense of their printing and promotional services without cost to their selected authors, that one percent of writers who have been selected as "sellable" by the houses. As a result of this difference, vanity press houses garnered a shady, or at least mercenary, reputation. This was largely a result of the fact that their services could be extremely costly to the author, to the tune at times of several thousand dollars.
To be perfectly objective, Pond houses (at least those in categories one and two) are a form of vanity press. However, the cost to the author nowadays is minimal. He risks relatively little and, if his book actually sells well, he could earn a goodly amount of money. Most Pond houses allow the author to set the price of the book and, at least theoretically, if his book is outrageously popular, he can charge an equally outrageous price, although I wouldn't advise it. Remember, "keep it cheap."
You, of course, will improve your chances of breaking even, or even making some money from your Pond book if you handle all your own services, such as editing and promotion. So, my advice: do everything you can yourself. When it comes to promoting your book, one of the cheapest ways can be online, with a web page or blog. Several online companies offer these free of charge, as long as you allow them to advertise on the page. Some, such as blogger.com, will even pay you a portion of the receipts received from those advertisers.
One thing you should be aware of: when it comes time to actually sell your writings, some bookstores will not handle Pond books. However, I've found that some small independent bookstores will offer you space for a portion of your profit or even, if they are especially kind-hearted toward struggling writers, offer it free.
Remember, with Pond publishers, you will only make money when you sell books. So, you will need to hustle if you want to profit from your writings. There are authors who travel across the country with a box of their Pond books and actually make money. In a former life, I was a librarian and I purchased a couple of books from such authors through the years.
(In my third, and final, chapter, I will offer some ideas on protecting your rights as an author by using such means as ISBN numbers and copyrights and by registering with the US government. As promised, I will also venture into the sometimes shadowy world of script writing, pornography and "crowd sourcing."
(The following is the first installment of a three part article that I wrote some time ago, but which has been gathering dust in my files. As always, I encourage feedback from my readers).
I can't take his money. I can't print my own money. I have to work for my money. Why don't I just lie down and die? --Homer Simpson
Want to be a published writer? No problem. Just get a free web page from some enterprise such as Yahoo, put your story, article or book into digital form, and post it on the Worldwide Web. Ta-daa. You're a published writer. Simple, huh?
Of course, there are a few problems with this approach. For instance, how will you make any money from your writing efforts? Will people actually pay for something they can get for free?
But these difficulties aside (don't worry, we'll return to them later) there's no doubt that the world of publishing has changed. No longer do writers - some of them, very good writers - need to live out their lives unpublished, with, at best, their families and friends enjoying their works. That's the way it was only a few short years ago; most writings never saw the light of day and most writers went to their grave without their work ever appearing in print. In all likelihood, many good, great, or even history-changing works were lost because editors and publishers couldn't, or wouldn't, see the potential of an author and his writings.
The 21st century author need never succumb to that fate. Today, in addition to the traditional publishing houses, there are also ebooks and print-on-demand publishing houses - both of which have allowed millions of writers to have their works read. We live in very exciting, and potentially profitable, times for creative people. Books, music and even movies are becoming democratized as the old priesthood (editors, publishers, movie and music producers) lose their grip on their industries. The person who creates can now be the same person who presents his work to the world. The gatekeepers are still guarding the gate, but the fence itself has disappeared.
Although a new phenomena, this is actually a variation on a very old paradigm. Back in the days of Benjamin Franklin, a master printer not only printed his own materials, but also interviewed, researched, edited and wrote. And now that day has come again.
YOU DON'T NEED TO BE FAMOUS TO LEAVE YOUR MARK
Indulge me for a moment, while I offer my philosophy on modern creative writing. I'll use an analogy from the music world, specifically, the Blues. In my opinion, most modern Rock guitarists learned their style from one or both of two schools that emerged in the 60s. These schools can most easily be categorized by their premiere practitioners: Jimi Hendrix and Eric Clapton, both of whom quite openly owed their style to Chuck Berry. Chuck Berry, that well-known early R&R man from the 50s, in turn, owed his style to fabled Blues guitarist Robert Johnson. Now, placing aside folklore that maintains Johnson owed his musical skills to a deal he made with the Devil, most people believe that Johnson largely learned his guitar style from Bluesman Sun House. But who taught House his chords and notes? That name has been lost to music history, or at least to me. But that nameless person (or persons) ultimately influenced Blues and Rock, as did all those other nameless people whose works and style Johnson, Berry, Hendrix and Clapton heard and tried to imitate.
Writing is a bit like that. A few famous writers - such as Hemingway and Fitzgerald -reach the top. But they are influenced and at times even set on a new and different path by a multitude of other, less known (I hesitate to use the term "minor") writers. Ernest Hemingway didn't just emerge from World War I and start writing the Nick Adams stories without ever having read a war story. Doubtlessly, his desire to write was lit much earlier - probably in school - when he read stories, books and plays by other authors and playwrights. If you were to look at a list of authors who influenced Hemingway, you'd probably recognize many names (I'm sure William Shakespeare and probably Edgar Allen Poe would be in there somewhere), but there would also be several names that you wouldn't recognize. Either the authors were well known at one time and have since gone out of style or perhaps they never were very well known; they just simply - at one time or another - created a masterpiece of writing. So, to sum up my philosophy, you don't need to be a famous writer to influence the literary world. If you are one of the fortunate ones who find wealth and fame with your writings, great. I salute you. But if not, you can still leave your mark on the world. However, to leave that mark, you do need to have someone read your work and that usually means being published. And "being published" today can mean something very different than it did in Hemingway's time.
Now, let me be the first to say: if you can get your work published by a traditional publisher, by all means, do so. Let's face it, for those lucky enough to have a major house print their books, there is still some serious money to be made and exposure to be earned from these old mainstays of the literary world. But, for the rest of us mortals, there are thankfully other avenues.
PAY PER VIEW FOR WRITERS
If you choose to go the online, self-publishing route, you are immediately faced with the timeless question, "Can I made some money from this?" The answer, of course, is "Maybe, but probably not much." You can, of course, simply ask your readers for a contribution. I've seen author web sites that ask for a donation and there's no reason you can't too. Once again, there is nothing new about this. The troubadours of old visited the castles and ale houses of the countryside, played their songs and told their tales and then did the medieval equivalent of passing the hat. You can simply ask the reader of your web site masterpiece to send his or her check, cash or money order to your address or post office box. If you want to go a little more "high tec," you can utilize a service such as PayPal, which will allow your readers to contribute via their credit card. (If there are any online writers reading this who have experimented with this process, I would appreciate some input from them, since I've personally had no experience with asking my readers for contributions).
If the contribution plate method of payment doesn't appeal to you, you might try a slightly more sophisticated method that involves your readers making a payment before they see the work. You can do this on a individual basis, emailing your stories or articles to individuals after they've sent in their money. You can also simply parcel out your work to your website, a chapter at a time, holding each captive until sufficient funds have arrived and then displaying the next segment of your work for all the world to see, sinner and saint alike.
Well known horror author Stephen King experimented with a variant of this process. He reportedly got the idea when one of his earlier ebooks, Riding the Bullet, was downloaded by more than 500,000 readers from various sources, some of which were unauthorized. King reportedly got the idea for a "pay per view" type of online publishing when a reader who had viewed the book from an unauthorized web site sent King $2.50 out of guilt. So, in late July, 2000, King began placing his new book, a work in progress entitled The Plant, on his website as an experiment in Internet publishing. The book was available to anyone with an online computer. However, readers were asked to send in $1, on the honor system, for the first installment. He also charged $1 each for chapters two and three, and $2 each for chapters four and five. King maintained that, as long as 75 percent of the readers paid up, he would continue to offer future installments of the novel. At first, the experiment went very well. After one week, payments had been received or promised for 76.4 percent of the 152,132 downloads. At the time, King stated that those payments would bring him close to meeting his $124,150 in promotional expenses. So, it appeared things were progressing well and profitable for King. But, by late 2001, King had stopped publication. According to an article by Gwendolyn Mariano, in News.Com, paid readership had fallen to 46 percent with the fourth installation of The Plant and King - after a $2 fifth installation and a freebie sixth - stopped work on the serial to devote more time to "other projects."
So, was this a failure? Well, yes it was. But it was largely a failure of King's own making. King had covered his expenses and shown a profit. A sizable portion of his readers (though no longer a majority) continued to send in money, even after he raised the rates. But, King simply stopped publishing.
Let us "Monday morning quarterback" this endeavor. How could King's experiment in online, pay per view publishing have been more successful? First of all, we need to ask, "were his expectations too high?" Apparently not. He expected (or at least hoped)that 75 percent of readers would pay up. The reality, at least initially, exceeded that number. Did he spend too much of his own money? Well, again apparently not. He recouped his loses and then some. But, I can't help but wonder if he didn't spend too much money on advertising. After all, he was a well know author trying an experiment in online publishing. It would seem that the media would pick up the story, which they did. And where did he advertise? Primarily in "Publisher's Weekly" and "USA Today." Would Internet sources, such as online magazines, have been better as well as less expensive? After all, he was striving for an online, tech-savy audience. Wouldn't an online magazine have been the place to advertise? Likewise, wouldn't ads purchased on selected websites have better reached the desired audience? Also, did King charge too much? Granted, The Plant online was cheaper than it would have been in book form. But $7! That seems a bit high, especially for a novel that was never completed. Finally, King serialized a novel that he had not actually finished writing. I would advise fledgling writers against following this portion of King's example. Instead, you should make sure you have a work completed before putting it, or even a portion of it, online if you are charging for the service.
(In my next installment, I will get into the Nuts and Bolts of online publishing, namely, how do you obtain, and maintain, a web presence. I will also venture into another method of alternative publishing: "print on demand," a process with which I have some personal experience.
In my third and final installment, I will travel briefly into the world of script writing with a quick side trip into the world of pornography, a business that is currently flourishing on the Worldwide Web, but one that is being changed rapidly by the recent phenomena of "crowd-sourcing.")
