A belated comment brought me back to this post. I tried for a long time to respond to this comment, and failed. I wasn't able to find a context that made your view of publishers versus readers make sense to me. I have no idea how a lot of this will sound because I'm not sure how to approach your position, so I apologize in advance for my inabilities.
[P]ublishers only contract with artists who are already working on what the publisher wants. They ignore authors, even good authors, who aren't producing something of immediate value.
But publishers don't themselves want the texts they license. They want to sell it to the readers. Publishers aren't looking for what they want; they have an identified audience, and they're looking to get money from they audience by providing what those readers want.
The support is always coming from the readers. Unless you actually have a patronage situation where a publisher is publishing purely for their own edification, the support that the publisher provides is the same support that the readers provide. Or rather, a portion of that support, since the publisher takes its cut.
Take the example of publishing a subscription-based magazine. There, an editor not only has an established audience, they literally know where that audience lives. The value that a story has is the value the story has to the magazine's readers, and the changes that an editor requests (or makes outright) are ones designed to preemptively satisfy the demands of those readers.
Since you're essentially suggesting that authors turn to readers to offer the same support that a publisher currently offers, why wouldn't those readers then expect the same degree of control? It would be irrational for them not to.
I've had a harder time getting my head around what you mean in terms of rational/irrational. Is it rational in the sense that any given reader will be able to have their demands met? Clearly not, if only because it doesn't happen. The reason is clear, each reader only wields power equal to 1/N the total market value of any given text (where N is likely to be a relatively high number, and 1/N is likely to be a relatively modest number).
Is it rational in the sense that it may be a low cost for a reader to make such a demand, but a very high return if the demand succeeds, even if the probability of success is low? Perhaps. But in cases like this, it's usually more often that the demand or complaint itself provides value to the reader. Does the guy being an asshole on the internet demanding that Martin finish the next SoI&F book really believe that his assholery is making the book come out faster? I doubt it. But the act of venting his rage provides enough value to him that his irrational action is rational for him. In that sense, because the reader's motivation is completely divorced from the economics of the situation (and really, from you as a creator in actuality) there's nothing you can do to either foster or prevent this kind of idiocy.
If you rationally want to take control of the text, you need to command more of the value. That's what a publisher does; they "buy out" all the contributions of prospective readers so that they can wield that power directly. In doing so, they give voice not to the actively pressed demands of individual readers, but to the desires of large groups of readers, which are more generally passive. That's why a publisher will always wield more control over any individual reader, because publisher represent themselves as all readers.
So what does a rational individual do to influence a writer's product? They increase their share of the market by offering enough money that they can represent themselves as a direct client. At the point where a reader goes from offering $5-$10 and starts offering $250-$500 dollars, well, they start becoming prospective employers. And that's the point of Mamatas's Fast Money vs. Good Money (which took a long while to find, since his journal isn't indexed). That with enough money—and not even that much money—up front, a reader can become an employer without much problem, and that in this regard, almost any professional writer is available for hire.
On the other hand, Mamatas wrote term papers on demand as part of being a professional writer. His argument there is that being paid upfront to spend very little time to anonymously write very simple essays is a potential source of aid to someone who wants to make a living by writing. There's definitely a slope, but since you as the author always retain control, it's not a slippery one. You can draw the line at any point, and maneuver it capriciously around points according to your whims and needs. Now, there's the personal value involved that "subsidizes" something like writing a novel when, looking purely at numbers, the time would be better spent writing another thousand words on Jane Eyre for a legacy admission.
To reiterate the basic argument of trad. vs. self-publishing: in one sense, the value that a publisher provides will always be less than what the direct audience can provide, since the publisher pulls from the same audience and takes a cut. But various other factors (discounted production and editing, the amount of cash involved, the schedule of payment, etc.) will make traditional publishing more or less useful to an author than self-publishing in a given instance.
Everything, everything you've suggested in this thread takes more time away from my writing, and for very minimal and uncertain returns. (I can't be sure, since not everyone tells me if they donate, but the "donate money if you like this story" links on my website have gotten very, very little in the way of actual donations. Nowhere near enough to pay my rent, or even my heating bill, for a month.)
I guess what I don't see in this example is how much time or energy the tip jar was taking from you. I'm not saying that it didn't; it's just not apparent to me. I know that the stress I feel from having a book on the shelf, unread and for which I paid full price, is a cost in buying books that's not apparent to others. But from my perspective, the small amount of time setting up a tip jar, which can then slowly collect contributions over a long period of time wouldn't be a drain on my time.
And since you're not willing to buy my novels, or even request them from the library.
I did request from LAPL in response to this last month, though it hasn't shown up in the collection yet.
no subject
The support is always coming from the readers. Unless you actually have a patronage situation where a publisher is publishing purely for their own edification, the support that the publisher provides is the same support that the readers provide. Or rather, a portion of that support, since the publisher takes its cut.
Take the example of publishing a subscription-based magazine. There, an editor not only has an established audience, they literally know where that audience lives. The value that a story has is the value the story has to the magazine's readers, and the changes that an editor requests (or makes outright) are ones designed to preemptively satisfy the demands of those readers.I've had a harder time getting my head around what you mean in terms of rational/irrational. Is it rational in the sense that any given reader will be able to have their demands met? Clearly not, if only because it doesn't happen. The reason is clear, each reader only wields power equal to 1/N the total market value of any given text (where N is likely to be a relatively high number, and 1/N is likely to be a relatively modest number).
Is it rational in the sense that it may be a low cost for a reader to make such a demand, but a very high return if the demand succeeds, even if the probability of success is low? Perhaps. But in cases like this, it's usually more often that the demand or complaint itself provides value to the reader. Does the guy being an asshole on the internet demanding that Martin finish the next SoI&F book really believe that his assholery is making the book come out faster? I doubt it. But the act of venting his rage provides enough value to him that his irrational action is rational for him. In that sense, because the reader's motivation is completely divorced from the economics of the situation (and really, from you as a creator in actuality) there's nothing you can do to either foster or prevent this kind of idiocy.
If you rationally want to take control of the text, you need to command more of the value. That's what a publisher does; they "buy out" all the contributions of prospective readers so that they can wield that power directly. In doing so, they give voice not to the actively pressed demands of individual readers, but to the desires of large groups of readers, which are more generally passive. That's why a publisher will always wield more control over any individual reader, because publisher represent themselves as all readers.
So what does a rational individual do to influence a writer's product? They increase their share of the market by offering enough money that they can represent themselves as a direct client. At the point where a reader goes from offering $5-$10 and starts offering $250-$500 dollars, well, they start becoming prospective employers. And that's the point of Mamatas's Fast Money vs. Good Money (which took a long while to find, since his journal isn't indexed). That with enough money—and not even that much money—up front, a reader can become an employer without much problem, and that in this regard, almost any professional writer is available for hire.
On the other hand, Mamatas wrote term papers on demand as part of being a professional writer. His argument there is that being paid upfront to spend very little time to anonymously write very simple essays is a potential source of aid to someone who wants to make a living by writing. There's definitely a slope, but since you as the author always retain control, it's not a slippery one. You can draw the line at any point, and maneuver it capriciously around points according to your whims and needs. Now, there's the personal value involved that "subsidizes" something like writing a novel when, looking purely at numbers, the time would be better spent writing another thousand words on Jane Eyre for a legacy admission.
To reiterate the basic argument of trad. vs. self-publishing: in one sense, the value that a publisher provides will always be less than what the direct audience can provide, since the publisher pulls from the same audience and takes a cut. But various other factors (discounted production and editing, the amount of cash involved, the schedule of payment, etc.) will make traditional publishing more or less useful to an author than self-publishing in a given instance.I guess what I don't see in this example is how much time or energy the tip jar was taking from you. I'm not saying that it didn't; it's just not apparent to me. I know that the stress I feel from having a book on the shelf, unread and for which I paid full price, is a cost in buying books that's not apparent to others. But from my perspective, the small amount of time setting up a tip jar, which can then slowly collect contributions over a long period of time wouldn't be a drain on my time.I did request from LAPL in response to this last month, though it hasn't shown up in the collection yet.