Comments on Shoryland: Bumperstickerisms (Updated)

DeAnna, I think that's a perfectly valid argument...

2010-04-13T21:59:37.658-05:00

DeAnna,

I think that's a perfectly valid argument, one I have trouble disagreeing with. I'm totally supportive of anyone who can find a formula that gets writers some compensation for their work.

As I said on Chuck's site, I generally agree with his sentiment. What I took issue with was his approach--and, I must admit, perhaps mine wasn't the best either. I see a fight breaking out on the Internet, I'm like a shark smelling blood. Fish are friends, not food, I should tell myself.

But I do have an issue with someone making a statement and then, when asked for solutions, shrugging and saying, "I dunno, not my problem, you figure it out." I don't know another word for that other than 'asinine,' and that's what got me worked up.

I just don't buy the argument that Steve & Co. chose to be "The Man," and so now it's working stiffs versus management, and that's just the way it is. Warner Bros., Harlequin, okay. And yeah, I do get the slippery slope point argument, I really do. But Steve wanted a conversation, and I don't think he really got one from Chuck, at least not after a certain point. Now maybe Chuck didn't mean to come across the way he did to me and others. I can certainly appreciate that. Been there, done that.

Like I said, I totally get where you're coming from. You hitch a ride on the labor of love, you're making a real leap of faith. You have a choice between that and some place that pays a decent amount, well, you're most likely a fool not to take the money. On the other hand, there's something to be said for getting in on something that's just beginning. Some, probably most, of those efforts are doomed. But there are some, like Needle, that have real professional polish, good and earnest people behind them, and just might get there.

But I don't have the answers. I sure as hell wish I did. In any case, I wish you the best of luck finding your way.

True that we're all going to have to find our own ...

2010-04-13T20:49:30.375-05:00

True that we're all going to have to find our own paths, and also true (though not part of your point, I think) that some writers just want to lie back and have things happen for them magically.

However, I think Chuck's point is that he's not the publisher in this case and shouldn't have to do the accounting. Publishers should care about funding; if you're self-publishing, by all means care about the funding. But the writers, who are not invested in the profit or loss, are working for a flat fee, which is fine - no risk, no percentage.

So why should any writer work for a flat fee of zero?

Unpublished writers need credits. Yay! Credits! I'm still at the point where the credits are possibly worth more than the money. However, the credits from a non-paying mag are almost zero anyway; credits from a paying mag, even one that pays $5, are worth more, because I'll be getting published in a place that has the money worked out to the point where there's some for the writer, and places like that are working to sell units for a profit, not as a labor of love.

Even $5 would make a difference.

I'm going to send my stories, no matter how perfect they are for a labor of love periodical, to the money periodical first. The labor of love periodical is my last resort, because it's new and it doesn't pay and it probably will disappear within a year. This has happened to me several times already, both with money-based and labor-of-love-based sites, but the labor-of-love sites tend to go first.

Am I sucking up the fruits of other people's labor? Yes. My editors have been godsends, each in their own way, and I am not willing to self-publish for just that reason. Are they working for free? They're working for money and love, and have worked out the money to the point where I get paid on time.

$5. Surely the new paradigm can spare $5. You can't make a living on it (you can't make a living on the sites that pay $400, come on), but the credits are ten times better than they are for free.

DeAnna, Thanks for stopping by. Those are good q...

2010-04-13T20:25:02.294-05:00

DeAnna,

Thanks for stopping by.

Those are good questions and I sure wish I had even partial answers.

The one thing I do know is that it's always been the rare writer who could actually spend all of his or her time writing while someone else handled the marketing and promotion. I suspect that will be even more the case in this "new paradigm."

While there are folks like Jeff VanderMeer out there with great advice for writers, I think that ultimately everyone will have to find his or her own path, and I don't believe in raining on anyone's parade. If you're just making money off someone else's hard work, well, chances are you may suck. But if you're like the rest of us--trying to figure things out, hoping to do no harm but inevitably making mistakes along the way--then I'm on your side.

Made the mistake of going over to that guy's site ...

2010-04-13T17:56:05.824-05:00

Made the mistake of going over to that guy's site and reading comments.

Hoo, boy.

Gives a whole new meaning to the word oblivious.

Query - why should a writer submit to a non-paying...

2010-04-13T17:19:28.443-05:00

Query - why should a writer submit to a non-paying magazine when it's just as easy to self-publish? Are not the editors (unpaid) gatekeepers?

Also, what is this new paradigm? Spend all your time being an expert at writing who doesn't get time to write because she's spending all her time marketing?

The new publishing model has not settled down yet, and any new venture probably has a sparrow's chance in hell of making a profit - or even for staying open for a year. Not to say the old model was a good idea in all cases or that it's working now - the writing I get paid for doesn't follow the old model. However, it doesn't follow the new paradigm, either, whatever that is.

Dead on.

2010-04-13T15:02:59.832-05:00

Dead on.

One of the problems with debating an issue online ...

2010-04-13T14:42:36.433-05:00

One of the problems with debating an issue online -- something I've fallen victim to myself many, many times over the years -- is that it's a lot easier to be a leaking catheter bag from a distance than it is to someone's face.

Chuck's basic premise is correct, I think. Anyone who does any sort of work, whatever it happens to be, should receive compensation for that effort. Underlying his point of view, I think, is something Harlan said in the embedded video -- amateurs make things more difficult for professionals to make a living. And that isn't wrong, either, but it is also beside the point.

Chuck's position, from what I can tell, is that all venues, no matter how small or basic or poor, should pay for the writing or design or what have you that provides content for that venue.

Basically, what he's saying is "Amateurs, go away and let us professionals do this sort of thing."

I work for an organization whose members have been seriously affected by the rise of the Web over the past 15 years or so. Rather than deal with the implications of this paradigm shift, though, a lot of the organization's members are basically burying their heads in the sand and hoping this Internet fad will just go away. They are holding onto a paradigm that is simply untenable considering the advances in technology not only on the Internet, but things like the print-on-demand services that allow someone to produce a magazine like Needle.

Chuck is holding onto a paradigm that grew up through the 19th and 20th century, when the technology to allow relatively cheap publications came online, but was still expensive enough that you needed some sort of company to pay for things. If you wanted to get into print, you pretty much had to go through a limited number of gatekeepers, and those gatekeepers, more or less, were willing to pay for the privilege of publishing your work. Sure, you could scrape up some money and get a small fiction magazine published, or pay to have your novel self-published or whatever, but it was rare that such efforts had any sort of broad impact.

Unfortunately for people like Chuck, that paradigm, while it isn't dead, now has to compete with the new world of people being able to produce professional-quality print products and online content to compete with the work produced in the old paradigm. And that's just the way it is. Burying one's head in the sand and saying, "Go away go away go away" isn't going to do anything.

Basically, the new paradigm of self publishing forces those who want to conform to the older gatekeeper paradigm to be better than the amateurs, good enough that people will be willing to pay out their hard-earned shekels for the professionally produced content rather than spending their limited time and energy supporting amateur productions that are available for free or at a significantly reduced cost.

Is Chuck a better writer than I am? I have no idea -- I'd never heard of him before yesterday. I think he is certainly better at running through the hoops and obstacles traditional gatekeeper publications and publishers put in place to determine whose work they want to support. For that, sir, I salute you.

Just stop pissing in our corn flakes because some of us are trying a different approach.

L.

Christ, you're a douche, Chuck.

2010-04-13T13:28:06.826-05:00

Christ, you're a douche, Chuck.

Needle shouldn't be happy it has you in its corner...

2010-04-13T13:13:16.552-05:00

Needle shouldn't be happy it has you in its corner.

Nice Donate button, by the way.

You needn't respond. But hey, your blog.

-- c.