Publishing in the 21st Century (Part 3)

(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).