A Rant of Possible Merit
Saturday, June 11th, 2005 10:35 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
rolanniThe abscessed tooth, she's still a bitch; I've caught ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
kinzel's con cold; it's hot -- and muggy -- and the ants are winning.
But that's not what I wanted to rant about. I wanted to rant about the decline of publishing, and the writers who buy in to their own destruction.
I've been off and on away from email, but as near as I can tell a call for submission for a particular anthology went out on two different writing lists of which I'm a member (at least for a little while longer) some time the middle of last week. The subject matter of the anthology doesn't really matter, nor does the publisher's name, actually. The important points are these: Projected pub date is some time in '08; cover artist, layout person, and of course the printer will be paid; all proceeds will go to a charity (it has not yet been decided which charity); the authors will not be paid, nor will the editor, who is reported to be doing the antho because they've always wanted to do an antho with this theme. But wait! All is not lost. The publisher is willing to sell copies of the anthology to contributing authors at cost+$2, so that the authors can sell the books at cons and book fairs and whatnot, and thus earn money for their work.
I gave as my opinion that the antho publisher was Taking Advantage of their prospective authors, which was ...not a popular viewpoint.
To her credit, the person who had posted the Call did try to clarify matters. Her press is usually a royalty-paying publisher, acquiring novels, which it then publishes in electronic and paper editions. Paper editions are produced via POD. She justified not giving authors an advance by stating that the house only buys the rights it intends to exploit, leaving the writer with the rest. She also pointed out that the publisher had not named a charity in its Call because it did not as yet have a charity in mind; they wished to remain flexible, should there be another disaster such as the recent tsunami near the publication date that might benefit from the profits earned by the antho. She even said that it was entirely possible that the publisher would have enough money to pay the authors by the time the book was published, and if that were the case, why then, of course they would do so.
All very nice. All very reasonable.
Except.
I am co-owner of SRM Publisher, which by any measure is a teensy-tiny press. We do publish some work by authors who are not Sharon Lee and Steve Miller, and we are a royalty-paying publisher, i.e. we pay a percentage of cover price to the author up-front when their book goes to press. Should the book go back to press, we cut the author another check, and so on. We only acquire works we can pay for. If someone comes to us with a project we'd really like to do, but we're in a cash-flow crunch -- we don't acquire the project with a promise of paying later. Life is uncertain, and until the money is in the bank, we can't know that we'll be able to make good on our promise. We have in the past raised money for projects by selling subscriptions, the money collected to be returned should we not gather enough to get the project off the ground. These are the sorts of things that small presses do, in order to stay viable.
Consider: The anthology in question isn't even going to be published until '08. Surely, there is some way the publisher can raise a tiny bit of money to make a token payment -- fifteen bucks flat; a penny a word; something -- to the person without whom there would be no project. After all, they're paying the artist and the layout person and the printer. A bake sale or two at a couple cons ought to be enough to cover the authors' piece of the action.
Two: The charity-to-be-named-later. What if the publisher, after it accepts my story, chooses a charity which is anathema to me -- the Republican Party, say?
Three: The issue of the house's general policy of not paying advances for the properties it acquires, justified by the fact that they allow authors to retain all the rights the house does not intend to exploit. On the face of it, this seems reasonable; those rights do, in theory, have value and ought to be exploited to the benefit of the author. But, how many of this publisher's authors go on to sell their foreign language, movie, game, or audiobook rights? Furthermore, the sale of those rights is, in the usual way of things, extra income, not meant to replace an advance withheld by the primary publisher.
Note that I am not throwing stones at those presses which pay royalties only. That would be hypocritical, since SRM is also a royalty-paying publisher. I mean only to point out the logical flaw in the argument: "We pay no advance because we allow authors to retain the rights we don't want to use." "We pay no advance because we're a micro-press and we can't afford it" may be lame, but it's at least intellectually honest.
As I said, these views and comments were not appreciated. So much so that one list member took it upon herself to write to me off-list, informing me of my ignorance; and stating that the publisher in question -- which was (surprise!) her publisher -- was a wonderful publisher, very author-friendly, with a beautiful contract. All of which may be so; I honestly don't know.
The list member went on to say that my comments regarding the anthology project had not only hurt the feelings of dozens of this house's authors, who were also on the list, but were an attack on the publisher which should never have been allowed into the list by the moderator. This now begins to get scary. A writers list which forbids discussion/criticism of publishers and their antics? What good is that to anyone?
My ...correspondent, I guess I'll have to call her, also allowed me to know that there are many anthologies out there nowadays which give the proceeds to this or that, and make a point of not paying their authors. My correspondent found nothing wrong with this; indeed, she considered placing work in such anthologies to be "good PR" which only cost her a day's work.
She then produced the phrase "people like you," and I'm afraid I stopped reading, kill-filed her, and went no-mail on that particular list. I'll give it a few days before I decide if I'll leave entirely.
Remember poetry, folks? People used to get paid for their poetry; nowadays, it's tougher to sell a poem (note: sell a poem, as opposed to place a poem) than it is to sell a novel. It seems to me that short stories are going the way of poetry. If enough people are willing to give away that "day's work" in the hope of garnering "good PR" or some other intangible goody, there will be no reason for anyone to buy short stories. Obviously, this will be good for publishers, who will have their choice of free content, but for authors and for readers -- not so good.
Here endeth the rant.
kinzel's con cold; it's hot -- and muggy -- and the ants are winning.But that's not what I wanted to rant about. I wanted to rant about the decline of publishing, and the writers who buy in to their own destruction.
I've been off and on away from email, but as near as I can tell a call for submission for a particular anthology went out on two different writing lists of which I'm a member (at least for a little while longer) some time the middle of last week. The subject matter of the anthology doesn't really matter, nor does the publisher's name, actually. The important points are these: Projected pub date is some time in '08; cover artist, layout person, and of course the printer will be paid; all proceeds will go to a charity (it has not yet been decided which charity); the authors will not be paid, nor will the editor, who is reported to be doing the antho because they've always wanted to do an antho with this theme. But wait! All is not lost. The publisher is willing to sell copies of the anthology to contributing authors at cost+$2, so that the authors can sell the books at cons and book fairs and whatnot, and thus earn money for their work.
I gave as my opinion that the antho publisher was Taking Advantage of their prospective authors, which was ...not a popular viewpoint.
To her credit, the person who had posted the Call did try to clarify matters. Her press is usually a royalty-paying publisher, acquiring novels, which it then publishes in electronic and paper editions. Paper editions are produced via POD. She justified not giving authors an advance by stating that the house only buys the rights it intends to exploit, leaving the writer with the rest. She also pointed out that the publisher had not named a charity in its Call because it did not as yet have a charity in mind; they wished to remain flexible, should there be another disaster such as the recent tsunami near the publication date that might benefit from the profits earned by the antho. She even said that it was entirely possible that the publisher would have enough money to pay the authors by the time the book was published, and if that were the case, why then, of course they would do so.
All very nice. All very reasonable.
Except.
I am co-owner of SRM Publisher, which by any measure is a teensy-tiny press. We do publish some work by authors who are not Sharon Lee and Steve Miller, and we are a royalty-paying publisher, i.e. we pay a percentage of cover price to the author up-front when their book goes to press. Should the book go back to press, we cut the author another check, and so on. We only acquire works we can pay for. If someone comes to us with a project we'd really like to do, but we're in a cash-flow crunch -- we don't acquire the project with a promise of paying later. Life is uncertain, and until the money is in the bank, we can't know that we'll be able to make good on our promise. We have in the past raised money for projects by selling subscriptions, the money collected to be returned should we not gather enough to get the project off the ground. These are the sorts of things that small presses do, in order to stay viable.
Consider: The anthology in question isn't even going to be published until '08. Surely, there is some way the publisher can raise a tiny bit of money to make a token payment -- fifteen bucks flat; a penny a word; something -- to the person without whom there would be no project. After all, they're paying the artist and the layout person and the printer. A bake sale or two at a couple cons ought to be enough to cover the authors' piece of the action.
Two: The charity-to-be-named-later. What if the publisher, after it accepts my story, chooses a charity which is anathema to me -- the Republican Party, say?
Three: The issue of the house's general policy of not paying advances for the properties it acquires, justified by the fact that they allow authors to retain all the rights the house does not intend to exploit. On the face of it, this seems reasonable; those rights do, in theory, have value and ought to be exploited to the benefit of the author. But, how many of this publisher's authors go on to sell their foreign language, movie, game, or audiobook rights? Furthermore, the sale of those rights is, in the usual way of things, extra income, not meant to replace an advance withheld by the primary publisher.
Note that I am not throwing stones at those presses which pay royalties only. That would be hypocritical, since SRM is also a royalty-paying publisher. I mean only to point out the logical flaw in the argument: "We pay no advance because we allow authors to retain the rights we don't want to use." "We pay no advance because we're a micro-press and we can't afford it" may be lame, but it's at least intellectually honest.
As I said, these views and comments were not appreciated. So much so that one list member took it upon herself to write to me off-list, informing me of my ignorance; and stating that the publisher in question -- which was (surprise!) her publisher -- was a wonderful publisher, very author-friendly, with a beautiful contract. All of which may be so; I honestly don't know.
The list member went on to say that my comments regarding the anthology project had not only hurt the feelings of dozens of this house's authors, who were also on the list, but were an attack on the publisher which should never have been allowed into the list by the moderator. This now begins to get scary. A writers list which forbids discussion/criticism of publishers and their antics? What good is that to anyone?
My ...correspondent, I guess I'll have to call her, also allowed me to know that there are many anthologies out there nowadays which give the proceeds to this or that, and make a point of not paying their authors. My correspondent found nothing wrong with this; indeed, she considered placing work in such anthologies to be "good PR" which only cost her a day's work.
She then produced the phrase "people like you," and I'm afraid I stopped reading, kill-filed her, and went no-mail on that particular list. I'll give it a few days before I decide if I'll leave entirely.
Remember poetry, folks? People used to get paid for their poetry; nowadays, it's tougher to sell a poem (note: sell a poem, as opposed to place a poem) than it is to sell a novel. It seems to me that short stories are going the way of poetry. If enough people are willing to give away that "day's work" in the hope of garnering "good PR" or some other intangible goody, there will be no reason for anyone to buy short stories. Obviously, this will be good for publishers, who will have their choice of free content, but for authors and for readers -- not so good.
Here endeth the rant.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2005-06-11 09:16 am (UTC)You know who I am. I came up with a fairly good idea (US translation: kick-ass) idea for an anthology. I got a list of six interested authors who wanted to write something for it -- 70% of whom are Hugo winners or multiple nominees. My agent discussed it with an editor from a large Three Letter Name publisher that is known to do anthologies.
The editor's opinion was that it was indeed a great theme anthology idea, and that he could offer an advance of $7500 for it -- unless I could come up with, say, Neal Stephenson or Steven King.
What. The. Fuck?
That's $7500 for a 120,000 word lump of fiction. I'm going to charitably assume he meant $7500 for the editor and $7500 for the authors. If that's the case, then after deducting my agent's fee (I sure as hell couldn't negotiate the deal as well as she can) we end up with 5 cents/word to offer to people with names like V*rn*r V*ng*, Br*c* St*r*l*ng, **n McD*n*ld, R*ch*rd M*rg*n, K*m McL**d ...
All of whom I believe would expect at least double that word rate in the form of an advance for any novel they offered to that publisher.
no subject
Date: 2005-06-11 09:24 am (UTC)The received wisdom that "anthologies don't sell" feeds through to bookstore orders and feeds back to print runs so that they don't sell. Meanwhile, because they don't sell the squeeze is on us contributors to take less money. Money in short fiction is already merely a token payment (unless you sell to SciFi.com (http://www.scifi.com/)) and so the vicious circle is slowly killing the form in the same way that poetry died out as a commercial enterprise 50-100 years ago.
Frankly, it's no surprise that authors with any commercial ambition write maybe as many short stories as they do novels.
no subject
Date: 2005-06-11 09:31 am (UTC)I recall someone telling me that actually, some do sell, which is why houses keep buying them...even as they complain they don't sell.
I feel like I'm in tail-chaser mode here.
no subject
Date: 2005-06-11 09:48 am (UTC)The interesting thing is that Low Port is within a cat whisker of earning out -- three years after publication. This says to me that the argument "anthologies don't sell" ought to modified to "anthologies sell slow." Of course, publishers that are going to keep a book hanging around for three years aren't exactly easy to find, either...
no subject
Date: 2005-06-11 09:24 am (UTC)Good frelling grief.
no subject
Date: 2005-06-11 09:28 am (UTC)I always wonder about writers who defend situations in which writers are treated like crap. I get the sense that they have never gotten over the 'gee, I'm actually being published' stage,
no subject
Date: 2005-06-11 09:51 am (UTC)A list of which you were never a member, I believe.
I always wonder about writers who defend situations in which writers are treated like crap.
It's maddening. Sort of like the folks who will defend the known scam agents. We watched one of Penn & Teller's Bullshit DVDs last night; they had some fascinating things to say about the ability of people to delude themselves. I suspect it's the same dynamic in play...
no subject
Date: 2005-06-11 09:50 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-06-11 10:14 am (UTC)I have noticed this corrosion creeping in, but it still astounds me.
no subject
Date: 2005-06-11 01:53 pm (UTC)The other point, which hasn't much to do with your main rant, is that I don;t think poetry was ever much of a paying market. I have a strong impression that most poetry (at least in the 20th century) was published in non-paying, "little magazine" markets.
no subject
Date: 2005-06-11 04:53 pm (UTC)These folks are one step removed from the folks who have convinced themselves that Publish America is an honest to god publisher with their very best interests at heart..
no subject
Date: 2005-06-11 05:27 pm (UTC)There will always be authors willing to donate to a good cause -- sometimes they give money, sometimes they give time (those auctions where the winner gets their ms critiqued, for example), sometimes they give copies of their books...and sometimes they give new fiction.
But to expect that authors will donate to ANY cause, without knowing in advance what it is, is ridiculous.
And the appeal to not speaking the truth because it may hurt people's feelings is fine at a cocktail party, and completely inappropriate in a forum ostensibly promoting professional authors. But far too common, in my experience. That's right up there with "But I know that publisher, and she's a good person." Could very well be true. Has nothing to do with her ability to run a profitable business. Tons of very nice, good people go bankrupt every year because they can't turn a profit. But plenty of authors think that's enough of a reason to sign with a publisher and trust them with the fruits of their labor.
Worst of all, they will take any attempt to inject business wisdom into the equation as an assault upon the niceness of the publisher. Gah!
no subject
Date: 2005-06-12 05:52 am (UTC)But to expect that authors will donate to ANY cause, without knowing in advance what it is, is ridiculous.
Right; as
The key here is the author's control of her work. The folks proposing this anthology are not only not paying for the work they acquire, but they're also denying the writer the right of donating their work in support of a Cause they (as opposed to the publisher) believe in.
no subject
Date: 2005-06-12 05:24 pm (UTC)The first thing I would find wrong with this is that I sell my work to put food on the table. I find lots wrong with giving my work away for nothing. It's hard to eat air.
The second thing is that the only persons who are making a contribution to this charity-to-be-named-later are the authors, and they aren't even going to claim it as a tax deduction, for Christ's sake. It allows the publisher to look very good at no cost to them. That's bullshit.
no subject
Date: 2005-06-13 07:09 am (UTC)This was addressed by those who thought the antho Perfectly Wonderful: Selling one's work for money is "soulless," doncha know. Hard to argue with that...
no subject
Date: 2005-06-27 09:13 am (UTC)Only an author can decide how much a Work is worth...but if you keep giving it away, you have defined just how much you're worth. I decided to do a chapbook with people I trust--once they pay for the first 100 copies, the royalties, which are much higher than average, begin. But that was my decision, one I'd make with almost no other small presses.
And I want to know the charity up front, thanks, on those charity things. Three years out? Are they mad?
In the age of places like Lulu, and being able to meet up with good artists at conventions, I don't see any reason to do "free" just to get your work in print--any print--even electronic print. I know many people doing it, and I disagree with them, but it's their choice. I'd rather do a limited run as a holiday gift than sell something for 1 cent a word. I'd rather save them, and eventually do a limited anthology of my work, just for my novel readers who'd like a little something more and different.
I won't throw them away. Do you know that people who sell to YA fiction mags get something like 25 cents a word and up? I used to go to a now-defunct local writers gathering, and most of those people wouldn't touch our regular markets of 6-8 cents a word. FREE?
Excuse me, I don't want to hijack the rant.
Just saying...
PS--
Date: 2005-06-27 09:15 am (UTC)