Forum / WAG on wheels

Barry Friesen
Mar 23, 10:08am

I've admired a lot the insights of so many people about this issue of writers taking some sort of united action to increase the chances of being paid for writing.

I have a query, though, and this isn't meant to be critical; I'm just asking.

The topic has to do with writers supplying free content to literary markets which, themselves, largely offer that content for free to the public (although in the case of stories, it seems to be accepted that the audience for literary magazines, such as it is, is almost exclusively other writers). The action premise seems to be that if writers withhold the stories they now give away for free, that may result in getting paid for them instead. A laudable result.

One part of the discussion I've found difficult to follow is the implication that the main reason "consumers" get away with reading our stories for free is that we give them away for free, and if we didn't, someone would be willing to pay.

I'm curious to hear if anyone has any information to suggest this is true. Literary magazines have tiny circulations and no budget, and consumers have a drillion options for free content on the web. If every literary magazine in the country stopped publishing, would anyone notice, other than writers? DO members of the public seek out stories to read on literary magazines? My impression--and I may well be wrong--is that litmags are rather like Fictionaut: here we have an abundance of energized writers, writing for the love of it, and being read by each other. As far as I can tell, members of the public with bucks in their pockets to spend on entertainment don't read stories now available for free, let alone pay for them. I'm just wondering where this untapped "millions of consumers" ARE, who are reading stories for free because writers just give them away.

This post is evoked because on a writers' group I belong to, people were recently asked to post bios about themselves, so we'd get to know each other better. What struck me were people's day jobs--lots and lots of people writing technical stuff for a living, or writing programing, or business or administrative publications for pay, all yearning to write fiction but unable to make a living at it. I mean, it's not as if it's a mystery as to what kinds of writing the culture IS willing to pay for, and it's surely a perfectly legitimate choice for a writer to "monetize his art" by writing commercial entertainment targeted to a paying audience. Really, acting collectively to somehow get pay for writing amounts to aiming to monetizing our art, too, doesn't it? But it seems to mean that we wish to continue to write "art for art's sake" and get paid for that, rather than writing commercial material that has a paying audience.

I guess I'm trying to understand how uniting to write fiction that has no paying audience now will somehow create a paying audience. But I mean no offence by posing the question; it would be great if artists were funded to produce art for more than its own sake.

Ann Bogle
Mar 23, 10:54am

Barry, I'm willing to pay for certain stories I read, though not all.

Ann Bogle
Mar 23, 11:01am

I might read title and first paragraph and decide whether I want to read the rest of the story based on my understanding of that writer's other (previously free) stories. The same might work for essays and opinion writing. The fee might be a dollar or less.

stephen hastings-king
Mar 23, 11:36am

i think there are more ways to get more writers into positions where they can devote more time/attention to their work than they now can. Moving into more diverse/innovative modes of presentation might be one. Diverting funding from other sources in order to become generate something like project funding resources or grants would be another (whence my focus on the Lilly bequest to the Poetry Foundation--but there are other options as well). I don't think that trying to get small presses/magazines to pay for content or access to content is going to do anyone much good, really under the present circumstances. But raising the profile of writers as craftspeople, as artists, could change things about those circumstances. I figure it's worth a shot.

To answer the other part of your question as best I can---I do some piano-based music as well (less over the past year or so than in the past, but the jones is kicking in...) Something parallel to what's happening in publishing happened in music, effectively taking out the old small-label business model in its material-object oriented form. This erased the imaginary trajectories of many players, particularly in more experimental forms. So they organized at local levels, did lots of stuff in terms of exploring the net as a tool for getting out their work and kept going, doing what they love, playing gigs, building audiences etc.

People make what moves them. They write what they imagine in the act of writing, I think. People who hear post-12 aren't likely to suddenly start writing pop songs unless they find themselves in a collaboration that moves in that direction--that is unless it makes sense to them in terms of their own process. People know what writing forms sell but don't see in those terms, don't work that way. Which is fine. And in both music and writing, there are people, and lots of them, out there in the world for whom pop forms are a primary means of expression, who can make pop songs (teenage symphonies to god) or make action-filled thrillers or linear introspections or whatever is the flavor du jour and mean them. And that's also fine. Because for most of those folk--at least those whom I know or have met---working in those forms is art for art's sake. They just happen to get paid, and often quite handsomely.

But the impetus is the same--each artist is a universe parallel to all others that way. I see it that way, anyway.

Ann Bogle
Mar 23, 01:01pm

I like the acronym WAG because of DOG. Years ago I named my first still unpublished story collection Hogging the Lady and because titles cannot be copyrighted I encrypted the title with an email address at AOL with the perfect anagram healthdogging that I had to shorten to healthydog. I wrote reams of emails to writers from that address. Two years ago I joined a poetry chapbook publishing collective based in Switzerland. I invested about $300 to publish 100 copies of a fellow poet's chapbook and another poet published my chapbook by hand. My 18 selected poems were written over 25 years. The chapbook I wrote is called dog barks up a tree at the apple left in it under a deerslim moon. A year ago at the AWP in Denver I left two copies of my chapbook at the Dusie Kollektiv table and they sold for $3 each. I went by the table to collect my $6. I experienced a weird joy at the sale, yet I was so thirsty, I couldn't leave the bookfair without buying a soda first. I explained to the vendor, a woman who could barely speak English, that the cash I was holding, the $6, was poetry money. When she at last understood, she was happy, too, and poured my Coke.

I didn't attend AWP this year. As things stand, universities pay hotels and airlines and restaurants so writers and publishers may meet. Hotels, airlines, restaurants, Coke profit. Publishers, universities, AWP adjust their budgets. Writers without universities pay or do not play.

Susan Tepper
Mar 23, 01:21pm

@ Barry's question about consumer purchase of books:

As the author of 2 published small press books over a 2 year period, books that have been widely reviewed, lauded, book-toured, advertised, etc, etc. My experience is that BOOKS ARE A DAMNED HARD SELL these days.

And not just my experience. Ask any small press how many books they are selling. Ask any small press author (without the advantage of a big press publicity dept pushing their book) and you will hear the same sad tale.

Here at Fictionaut, where there are several thousand writers/readers, you would expect to sell a fair amount of books, right?
Wrong. Only a handful of people have bought my books.

Yet I have bought quite a few books from Fictionaut writers who have not reciprocated by purchasing back from me.

So, really, what are we talking about here?

James Lloyd Davis
Mar 23, 01:23pm

Barry, I looked, but did not see your name on the WAG group list here at Fictionaut. You can join us if you wish and help us develop a useful agenda. Right now, we have no officers, no spokesperson and we have no vision other than this:

That we are uniting to build "...a coherent organization that advocate(s) for the interests of writers across genres." (An idea posed by Stephen Hastings-King,)

We have begun a conversation on what the group should adopt as a vision and you can access it at this location:

http://www.fictionaut.com/groups/wag-writers-across-genres/threads/1023

Of course, if you want to enter into the conversation there, you'll have to join the group.

Barry, I would love to answer your questions, but they pose a dichotomy that assumes our motivation. For instance, you wrote:

"But it seems to mean that we wish to continue to write "art for art's sake" and get paid for that, rather than writing commercial material that has a paying audience."

You say:

"I guess I'm trying to understand how uniting to write fiction that has no paying audience now will somehow create a paying audience. But I mean no offence by posing the question; it would be great if artists were funded to produce art for more than its own sake."

No offence taken, but I'm confused. Does the writer who writes under the flag of "art for art's sake" come from a more evolved species than the writer who wishes to be compensated for his work?

What meaning do you place on the word "monetize" in regards to art. I've heard people discuss the idea that artists who prefer to work for the cause of the art and eschew 'money' are somehow more pure and artistic in their motivation than those who want to be paid money for their work. I've heard that commercial success can only be served by lowering the art of writing to crass publican standards.

Personally, I don't believe that.

If we truly believe in some ideal of art for arts sake, then we should be working to achieve universal appeal and excellence in our art, producing works of quality that people will want to read it. AND we should be advocating the quality of our art in the universal sphere, not drawing inward into some excluded, exclusive and esoteric community that speaks another language altogether than 'common man.'

I mean no offence, and I enjoy reading many of them, have had some experimental work published in these magazines, truly apreciate the exposure and the opportunity they represent, but the lit mags and webzines that exist under the self-definition of 'literary' have become increasingly esoteric and insular in their offerings, such that the works rely heavily on obscure references that are lost on the average reader. There will always be a place for this medium, the avante garde of literature, but where is the movement to carry good writing to the masses, or is that somehow inherently wrong?

Not to attempt to bring quality writing to the marketplace, to aggressively promote that work and then to sit back and say "Oh, they don't want it" is a quite naive view on how the marketplace works.

By the same token, if the 'monetizing of art' is so repulsive to the artist, then we should work to ban bookstores and boycott Amazon.com in favor of public libraries.

What is the objection to money as it aplies to art? Why do we assume that the public at large does not want to read what we write?

Questions are easy. Doubt is an excellent starting point, since it creates these questions. Answers, responses, and solutions require study, analysis, implementation ... effort and action ... not so easy, but it's how things are changed.

Join us. Add your opinions. Ask your questions, be part of a movement that can make sense and reality out of the notion everyone seems to agree on, and Barry, these are your words:

"...it would be great if artists were funded to produce art for more than its own sake."

I hope I'm not quoting you out of context. I'm sincere in asking you and everyone who reads this to join us.

James Lloyd Davis
Mar 23, 01:30pm

Susan, I'd love to buy your book. I'd love to buy everyone's books. Truth is, I've retired in order to write full time. Currently, I'm on a fixed income, and can't really afford to buy books. We have a great library system out here in the boonies, so I get by.

If I can sell my own books when they're done ... if I can generate a little revenue thereby, your's is the first book I'll buy. That's a promise.

Susan Tepper
Mar 23, 01:35pm

James, that is my whole point. Nobody seems to be able to come up with 12 to 15 bucks to buy a book. So what is the point of WAG?

James Lloyd Davis
Mar 23, 01:51pm

Susan, go ask the rainbow why it bothers to bend sunlight in a way that so pleases the eye when much of mankind suffers in all the known world.

If you get an answer, let me know.

The point of WAG is to make answers and solutions to the problems that face writers today. That's all.

You can assume that I'll not sell my books and, subsequently, won't buy yours ... I'll be disappointed by the implication that the possibility is wanting, but I'll get over it.

Or, you can have faith in my talent, be patient, and believe that I'll be buying your book very soon.

Presumed defeat is a self-fulfilling prophecy. I try to avoid it when I can.

Join us.

stephen hastings-king
Mar 23, 01:54pm

Susan....To my mind anyway, the point is that thinking in retail terms might not be the only way to go about addressing the issue---which I see as primarily how to fashion ways to support writers at least for specific projects so they can devote more attention/time to what they're doing. There is no magic wand to be waved about that'll make commercially marginal objects suddenly less marginal---except by way of creating a sense of larger movement that situates these works. There was no market for conceptual writing before a sense of movement started to get generated around the idea of conceptual writing.

stephen hastings-king
Mar 23, 01:58pm

Now those folk can make dozens of dollars. Dozens I say.

James Lloyd Davis
Mar 23, 02:15pm

Dozens. He says. Dozens.

Susan Tepper
Mar 23, 02:16pm

I wish everyone at Wag the best of luck. And mean that sincerely. But as long as writers and readers continue not to buy books, you are wasting your own precious writing time discussing strategies.

Barry Friesen
Mar 23, 05:07pm

Thank you, all. Interesting spectrum here. I appreciate the time and thought people have put into this.

Ann Bogle
Mar 25, 02:56pm

@Stephen, I "heard" quite a while ago that the $100 million gift would finance a writers in the schools program in Chicago.

James Lloyd Davis
Mar 25, 04:21pm

Ann, I didn't see anything on the WITS Alliance web site, googled around, but didn't see anything. Maybe it's not been announced.

David Ackley
Mar 25, 04:39pm

Better get our hands on that gift quick; they've already used 25 million for a new Poetry HQ building in Chicago. When I think of all the starving poets( most of them) it's quite a giggle.

Ann Bogle
Mar 25, 05:49pm

Not WITS, James, its own entity if so.

Frankie Saxx
Mar 25, 07:17pm

I think maybe it is a mistake for writers to focus on selling books and stories to other writers. If you want to get paid enough to support your writing, I mean. Like, okay, when indie musicians talk about selling music, they talk about selling it to fans. Not other indie bands.

There's some crossover, writers are readers, musicians are listeners, but it's a finite group.

I think probably there is a place to sell writing in the great big world still, just like there is a place to sell music. The internet has made everyone into a writer, but it has not made everyone into a good writer, the kind of writer that non-writers get excited over.

(I don't actually know what WAG is. I just joined cause I was invited. But if you're talking Future Of Writing stuff, I'm down with that.)

James Lloyd Davis
Mar 25, 07:43pm

Frankie says, "I think probably there is a place to sell writing in the great big world still, just like there is a place to sell music."

Man, do I agree with that.

Yes, Frankie, we're talking about the 'Future of Writing.'

All writers should be down with that.

Frank Vander Rasky
Mar 25, 07:50pm

Frankie Sachs said, “I think maybe it is a mistake for writers to focus on selling books and stories to other writers. If you want to get paid enough to support your writing, I mean.

“I think probably there is a place to sell writing in the great big world still, just like there is a place to sell music. The internet has made everyone into a writer, but it has not made everyone into a good writer, the kind of writer that non-writers get excited over.”

At last! The voice of reason. Welcome to Fnaut, Frankie!
Hmmm. For some strange reason I really like your name.

Marcus Speh
Mar 26, 09:23pm

here is <a href="http://jakonrath.blogspot.com/2011/03/ebooks-and-self-publishing-dialog.html">an article worth reading</a>, i believe. this dialog deals with the latest changes in the publishing industry and, different from most other articles, was conducted by and for two writers.

also posted at the <a href="http://kaffeinkatmandu.com">kaffe</a> where we like to keep visitors posted on these things. enjoy.

Frank Vander Rasky
Mar 26, 10:36pm

As the subtitle introducing this excellent dialogue between two forward-thinking writers says, “Is it possible to make a living as a genre fiction writer? Yes it is.”

Many thanks, Marcus, for posting and sharing.
http://jakonrath.blogspot.com/2011/03/ebooks-and-self-publishing-dialog.html

Marcus Speh
Mar 26, 10:45pm

Barry: "...overall, publishers look at authors as needing publishers more than publishers need authors."

Joe: "That's changed. And they don't seem to realize it."

James Lloyd Davis
Mar 27, 04:34am

A very long article. Internally redundant, but full of insight that makes perfect sense. Both of these men are gifted in the art of marketing as it applies to selling their books, each in his own particular way. Both men are successful. Both men are now into self-publishing.

If that's what it takes for a writer to succeed today, acquisition of the necessary skills that it takes to self-publish and make a living doing so, then what are we to do?

These are the facts as I see them:

1- Print publishing is a self-perpetuating medium becoming increasingly insular and obsolescent, driven primarily by the idea of lowering costs to increase profit. In so doing, it is losing its priorities and stifling its own access to new talent (who provide the product offered by the medium). Publishers used to boost new talent through development, took capital chances on unknown authors, a factor that made it perennially successful in decades past. These days, their lists are becoming inbred by investment in names and in formulaic patterns for genre. At the same time, it is not so much interested in capitalizing on emerging technology so much as fighting it.

2- E-publishing is an evolving, low-cost medium that has yet to develop the corporate skills that made print publishing successful in the previous epoch ... skills like talent development, editing 'technology,' and marketing 'machinery.' Instead of acquiring these attributes, it has itself become a product for the writer to consume. This forces the talent (you and me, the writers) to bear the burden of cost and development, requiring both print-ready manuscripts and substantial investment of our own resources in marketing, time we should be spending on writing.

3- MFAs and the programs and schools that produce them are not producing the agents, the editors, the marketeers ... indeed, they are not even providing research into how the technology can benefit the cause and the welfare of writers.

4- Scams abound out there.

5- Most of us do not possess the technical skills or the marketing savvy, indeed, most of us are not preternaturally disposed to these attributes like, say, Barry Eisler, one of the two writers in the dialogue to which Marcus gave us the link.

6- Agents exist, but as a rule, they are themselves becoming insular and obsolescent, victims of changing paradigms within the publishing industry.

The question is what do we do for ourselves in a world that seems to discount us as a necessary element in publishing through any media?

Besides becoming better writers and producing work that is both worthy and appealing; besides being optimistic and not giving up ... we can join Writers Across Genres.

Find out what we are about. Go to:

http://www.fictionaut.com/groups/wag-writers-across-genres

But don't just put your name on a list. Anybody can put their name on a list and wait for someone to tell them what to do. Let's talk. Let's make a plan. Let's do something ... together.

Or, you can sit around on your manuscripts, ship them off to Submishmash as free gifts for the welfare of the arts and wonder why you can't make a living doing what you love. You could sit around and gripe about how nobody wants to even read, much less pay for good writing anymore.

Yah. You could do that.

Yah. Lots of people do that.

Marcus Speh
Mar 27, 10:57am

@james: i think you summarised nicely. in the light of the blog post mentioned, i'd like to rephrase in the positive:

"The question is what can writers do together in a world that, through new media, provides more opportunities for us to form creative communities and shape the future of publishing than ever before?"

the future is golden, i tell ya. <a href="http://www.fictionaut.com/groups/wag-writers-across-genres">WAG it</a> (interestingly, the verb 'wagen' in german means 'to dare'). still only 31 members over at the group - that's not enough. sign up, folks!

Finnegan Flawnt
Mar 28, 08:04am

... and another followup article which summarises the points made by eisler/konrath (though again it is not short), which interests some of you perhaps:

Eisler’s decision is a key benchmark on the road to wherever it is we’re going – The Shatzkin Files http://bit.ly/fCVe41

Sam Rasnake
Mar 28, 12:13pm

Interesting view of self-publishing Marcus &, of course, the phoenix FF.

Is it conceivable, then, that WAG function – in addition to whatever other goals may be in place - as some sort of support base or physical presence for self-publishing? I like this idea.

James Lloyd Davis
Mar 28, 12:38pm

Sam, why not? If circumstances create a tsunami that threatens to wash right over the publishing world, maybe we should each grab a surfboard, cry "Surfs up!" and take the ride of our lives.

If the WAG function takes the course of enlightened self interest, the development of a 'support base or physical presence for self-publishing' as Sam puts it, would be too attractive for me to express.

Validation and legitimacy are what the publishing institutions currently offer as a bulwark against the beauty and logic of 'self-publishing.' They have ceased to offer much in the way of services for the majority of authors they publish, so why not consider, through WAG, providing the validation and legitimacy that publishing institutions provide? But, that's not all. We could help our membership self publish in a way that will entirely remove the stigma that exists today.

"How?," you ask.

I have the answer to that and will gladly share it with WAG members and very soon.

Join us.

Thanks, Marcus/Flawnt & Sam. That article and Sam's question just woke up the beast.

Marcus Speh
Mar 28, 06:08pm

WAG has woken dead writers-what more can you expect. that is AMAZING! ;-))

crossposting for everyone from the WAG group: to join, go to http://wag.mixxt.org/ - you can apply for membership there and one of the admins will approve you.

this is a (free) platform has got a lot of possibilities: forums, wiki, file sharing, blogs (of members) and as and if WAG grows, we will open them up slowly. enjoy!

Marcus Speh
Mar 29, 09:53am

i've begun to post links to interesting stuff over at the forum there instead of here...enjoy.

Frankie Saxx
Mar 29, 12:10pm

"The question is what do we do for ourselves in a world that seems to discount us as a necessary element in publishing through any media?" -- James Lloyd Davis

I think it's interesting that you say that, because from where I sit, I do not see where big publishing houses, agents, MFAs, are necessary to me.

(Let's be clear, I'm a terrible little egotist.)

Publishing houses, agents, MFAs, will continue to dominate the arena for a long time. But I'm not interested in playing in their superbowl. I've got my own pick-up game going on in the parking lot that does me just fine.

I've been a fan of No Media Kings for a long time. (http://nomediakings.org) (Even before the bumper crop of Kindle Millionaires started sprouting. ;)

James Lloyd Davis
Mar 29, 01:13pm

Frankie, Frankie, Frankie. I like your work.

Hey. Ego's okay.

Anarchy's very stylish these days, quite contemporary, goes well with the whole 'indie' schtick, Chinese tattoos, blue jeans and black t-shirts.

If you're happy with a pickup game in the parking lot, that's cool.

A lot of writers, though, have taken the Kool-aid, paid for MFAs, paid their dues in literary circles for years.

Now, that's not my story. I don't buy the MFA 'license to write' mentality and publishing houses are not my friend, but I also don't have any tattoos and don't really feel a compulsion ... the inexplicable urge ... to move to Seattle.

But ... the whole self-publishing thing carries a stigma for me as much as for other writers who embrace the MFA and publishing house model ... because when I was young and an emerging writer, self-publishing was unnecessary if you were good, because the 'superbowl,' as you call it, was more accessible. Even little literary magazines tried to pay a little cash, if even for a token. Self publishing, on the other hand, was always referred to as the 'vanity press.'

If there's an alternative in publishing to what you call the superbowl, it doesn't have to be 'indie' in nature and doesn't have to have that in-your-face attitude. It could be something that is both inclusive and traditional, experimental and literary.

That's what Writers Across Genres is about, inclusivity (if that's a word) and helping writers get paid the work they do. Along the way, we want to elevate and advocate for the art of creative writing.

The distance between 'Indie publishing' and Writers Across Genres may be only a semantical divide, but if you have to be one or the other, it's a big one.

Frankie, you're welcome to join us, to bring your knowledge about alternatives. We could use it and would welcome your input.

James Lloyd Davis
Mar 29, 01:45pm

I am partial to blue jeans and black t-shirts, though.

Frankie Saxx
Mar 29, 02:41pm

You and me, James, I think we're a-okay philosophically. I prefer beer to Kool-Aid. And I am partial to yoga pants and black tshirts, myself. :)

James Lloyd Davis
Mar 29, 04:01pm

Smiling here.

Having a kumbaya moment.

Furiously and ultimately successful in sublimating the urge to call for a group hug while swaying to the rhythm, singing "We shall overcome." Just having the thought cross my mind scares the bejeezus outta me, but that's a generational thing, best overlooked and forgotten.
You must log in to reply to this thread.