Hmmm.....

[rolanni]

Cory Doctorow on why the Storyteller's Bowl model is Creatively Dishonest and Not Remunerative.

Funny, it's doing OK by us...

Comments

[kalimeg.livejournal.com]

It seemed to me it was not about storyteller's bowl so much as about micropayments. Remember King's Green Mile? A chapter for 3 or 4 dollars in paper? The total book came to an outrageous total in payments. He didn't do that twice -- and now his new books are almost unnoticeable. And his one "donations online" story failed utterly.

Your system is a lot more intelligent and structured. Scalzi actually originally did Old Man's War online for free. That is also not what Doctorow is addressing. The micropayments, microfeedback thing would get exhausting -- and I suspect that those overheads are what he's talking about.

[sartorias.livejournal.com]

He seems to be talking about people thinking that a small donation entitles them to dictate content.

[lagilman]

Yeah, and I don't buy it as an argument. The reader pays because s/he likes what's being offered. Don't like it, don't buy it. Market economy. If he has people demanding a certain kind of story, I suspect they'd be doing that no matter how or who they paid, and is more a reflection on the reader/author relationship than the means of payment.

If his main point rests on the reader feeling they have a direct communication connection if they pay directly -- he created that connection by having an interactive and open blog in the first place!

(I'm caffeine-deprived, so that may not be entirely coherent)

[ckd]

I think he undercuts his own argument when he says, in effect, "paying would create a sense of entitlement I'd have to deal with; just look at how much of one there is from people who aren't paying!"

Hmm, if there's a sense of entitlement issue with a free site, maybe it's not created by accepting payments....

[keristor.livejournal.com]

I don't think he's quite saying that. Other commenters made the point that micropayments are not economically viable (because of the costs imposed by the third-party finance people), but your model is macropayments which don't have that problem.

In respect of the creative aspect, which he seems to feel is infringed by having lots of 'customers' who all want to tell the author what to do, as anothe commentator pointed out it's about managing expectations. If the author makes it plain that the payment is to support the author (a "tip jar") and gives no extra rights to the payer then there is no problem (or no more than exists by making contact details public, email or LJ).

Since you are on LJ and read the forums anyone can join and start nagging you about what they want to see you write. We don't, in general because (a) you can get us thrown off, (b) because you might stop reading, and (c) because there are social pressures to behave (for instance, people who have started nitpicking spellings in the draft have been asked to refrain). I don't see that it would be any different whether you were taking payments or not.

[jelazakazone.livejournal.com]

Maybe it's because you are not asking for micropayments? Or you have essentially set up a contract in advance that is very clear? I dunno; I'm just glad it's working for you as well as it's working for us:)

[saruby.livejournal.com]

I'm going to aagree with just about everyone here and say that your model (at least as far as Fledgling and Saltation go, is not a micropayment system. We do not get charged for each chapter (in fact, we're not really charged at all, since we can choose to donate or not). I don't know whether others have felt entitled to dictate content, but you set the rules up clearly at the beginning that you didn't want that sort of comment or criticism.

I also don't think it is a particularly well-crafted column. I had to read it twice to get what he was really saying. It rambles and never really addresses the point head on. Is he concerned about negative comments or did he simply submit his first draft? Whatever. It isn't persuasive. If he were writing for an expository writing class, he wouldn't get a very good grade.

A sense of entitlement

[bookmobiler.livejournal.com]

I'm not sure how long the following quote has been up on the Salation page. I've made my donation and usually just pop in copy the current chapter and leave. I noticed it when I went looking for a current link to Korval (I apparently bookmarked an older page). "Note: The phrase "first draft" used in this context, by writers, does not mean "please send in corrections and suggested fixes," which is what I am told it means to scientists and engineers. When used by writers "first draft" means, "It's a mess. We'll fix it later." " This would suggest you've had some problems with this. For my part, I wouldn't want to interrupt the flow of your creative energies.

Re: A sense of entitlement

[rolanni.livejournal.com]

Actually, it only suggests that we had one (1) young person Very Certain of What "first draft" meant in his particular Tiny Pond, and offering ways to make it easier for people to "comment and correct" the draft. Since this represented a Dangerous Misunderstanding of What We're Doing Here, and if one person can get it Totally Wrong, there could be others, the note went up on the web page. I really didn't want to have that discussion again. Lazy Writer: I haz the t-shirt, the badge, and the 'tude :)

I do note that this young person was an anomaly. Mostly, y'all Get It and have been supportive, as opposed to destructive.

The ownership problems Cory complains about may be a function of boingboing having a quazillion readers; if you get enough mass, some of it will be critical...

Re: A sense of entitlement

[keristor.livejournal.com]

if you get enough mass, some of it will be critical

Nice pun!

And a lot of it will be total rubbish, links to porn and ripoff sites, and general irrelevance. Yes, some people can feel that they have a right to push their opinions on writers, but that's an advantage of LJ (and the FoL mailing list) they can be moderated and abusive commenters kicked off (or at least blocked).

[jhetley.livejournal.com]

Everyone keeps looking for the One True Way . . .

[laurajunderwood.livejournal.com]

One cannot help but wonder. Personally, I am looking at the storybowl method for a couple of works of mine, and as soon as I get them into good shape, I will give it a go...

Perhaps Cory is unable to make money in this fashion because people have come to expect him to give it away online???

As I said, one cannot help but wonder.

[shweta-narayan.livejournal.com]

I don't think Cory is at all worried about making money.

His worry is about the creative process, and about the obligation that some people think transfer of money creates.

Now, I do think he's wrong. I think it's about community, not money. People who are gonna misbehave that way think that the mere fact of being readers gives them that right, with or without money being involved. They're thinking about it as a commodity.

However. It's really unfair to decide it's just sour grapes on his part. He does get money for the stuff he puts up free online. His fans buy it anyway. But even if they didn't, he'd be okay with that. Cory is not the sort of person to have sour grapes, and jumping to that conclusion is deeply cynical in a way he just isn't.

Cory says what he does because he believes in it.

[rolanni.livejournal.com]

Cory is not the sort of person to have sour grapes, and jumping to that conclusion is deeply cynical in a way he just isn't.

OK, I'm going to babble a little about this (warning! undercaffeinated author ahead!)

I know Cory very slightly -- we served on a SFWA Board together, and I think I was the SFWA Executive Director who okayed his credentials for joining the organization, 'way back in the Jurassic. Also, yanno, seen him at conventions and occasionally read boingboing.

While Cory may not be the sort of person to have sour grapes, he does have a certain tendency not to let facts get in the way of a good theory.

Case in point, a couple years back, probably at the most recent Boston Worldcon, I was in the audience at a panel Cory was on with Steve and a couple of other folks who I have forgotten (mea culpa). Cory started things rolling by announcing that writers could not make a living from their art and that, furthermore, his copyrights had never earned him one red cent. This was his schtick at the time; I think he was working for the EFN or whatever.

Anyway, Steve countered that he was making his living from his art and that his copyrights were precious to him.

Cory then did everything possible to exclude Steve from the rest of the conversation, which he was blogging as it happened.

Now... if you're gonna be a famous webguy in order to sell people books, yes, you have to be provocative, you have to be over-the-top. I don't argue with that or with Cory's career choices. What does kinda crank me up is his insistence on pushing his choices on Every Other Writer on the Planet. As jhetley says upstream, there is No One True Way.

Part of this has to do with personal need. If you've gotta have a nice house in a good neighborhood in, oh, California, for instance (I'm off Cory now and into General You territory), then your measure of "success" is somewhat above those writers who are content to live in an aging country raised ranch in an impoverished state.

I'm sure I'm shocking no one by saying that writers are in the writing game for a buncha different reasons.

Some are in it for fame. This is, IMHO, a really BAD reason to be a writer, because, face it, nobody knows who writers are.

Some are in it for the money, a slightly less-bad reason. Because, yeah, the money is better at almost any other job you can name, not to mention things like benefits.

Some writers do it because they have to write, no matter what, and they love to tell stories. This is, IMHO, the best reason, because that love is gonna come right outta the page, grab readers by the eyeballs and flow into their hearts.

Most writers write for a greater-or-lesser combination of all three reasons. Many writers never want or expect to make a living from their art. Some few writers find a way. Their way, different for each.

...and that's probably enough pre-coffee ranting for one morning.

[shweta-narayan.livejournal.com]

Oh yeah, definitely not arguing that Cory's right in this case.

I'm just saying it's unfair to suggest he thinks the storyteller's bowl is a bad idea because "maybe it didn't work for him".

I have a general problem with people jumping to sour-grapes conclusions with no evidence at all. So when such a comment comes up, especially about someone I know is not that way, I make a point of mentioning that fact.

(For the record, I don't know Cory better than you do; I was one of his Clarion students last year, and that's about it.)