NEWS: Book-Writing: The New Smart Financial Investment?

CULTURE: Book-Writing: The New Smart Financial Investment?

I love people who think of writing as a cute little hobby. “Oh, that’s fun,” they’ll say. “What a stress reliever! I like to write in my spare time, too. But what are you really going to do with your life?” It reminds me of the Bored Housewife archetype pointed out in Dan Clowes' Art School Confidential, the one that comes to pass the time and makes everyone else feel like a sucker. Such is the case of Alastair Anderson, to whom writing a novel is quite the financial... novelty? Oh-HO!

At first, it kind of sounded like old-school zines, self-published in bedrooms on the cheap and mailed out even cheaper out of interest and passion, but alas such price range and relatable motivations were not to be.

My initial reaction of this guy is probably too harsh -- sure it's a little grating, but just because some people take the art of writing seriously and struggle for years and years to gain backing by a respectable publisher, is it not Mr. Anderson's right (any more or less than anyone else's) to also see his dream realized, even if said dream is only the return of his $300 initial publishing investment? I mean, how bad could it really be?

Crouton? Oh, really?

Of course, the only answer is to let the man have his day and his malevolent croutons without too much griping. Let the world of free enterprise and laissez-faire publishing run its course. If he succeeds and holds precedent and all of bookmaking becomes an unedited internet-driven horrorshow free-for-all, well... just remember, we'll let that be on your conscience.


_DictionaryGirl_ wants you to know, she meant "your" in the general Time Magazine YouTube sense.

I think I'm terrified. I've thought up twenty or so different clever little things to write in response to this and discarded each one. So I'll simply say that I'm frightened, as a writer and a reader, for the world of publishing and go by the rule that if you don't have something nice to say...well, I just won't say much of it.

A malevolent crouton.....*walks away shaking her head*

We knew the art of writing was going to be destroyed as soon as Eragon -- a novel written by a 15-year-old -- was published. This cements it. Although it in no way means that anyone will buy your crap...But still.

I can't really pass judgement on this guy without reading what he's written, which I probably won't.
But internet publishing is the future and its as inescapable as music and film becoming internet-released phenomena.
As internet savvy people, I think we should accept that.

I understand the concern that a load of utter tosh will be released this way, but lets be honest here- a load of utter tosh is released anyway, generally by large publishing houses keen to cash in on whatever happens to be in the public conscioussness this week rather than 'great literature'.

The only difference in a world of internet publishing is that there will be more books.
That means there will be more shit books, but also more good books which would never have been published otherwise.
We'll just have to look harder for them, which is what we've had to do with music and film for decades anyway.

And yes, I've self published and its on Amazon; like most writers I can't afford to get people to edit it etc and some very well known writers were self published first, so hey?
... gladly my books don't involve croutons...

you really think that a 15 year old boy and a guy that finds a easier way to get published because he wants to see if he can make a buck will destroy hundreds of years worth of writing by people who are actually good?

^ Exactly. If our evolved canon of literature and the professional publishing industry becomes undermined because of this trend, then it deserves to become undermined. I doubt it will, mind you, but the point still stands. Personally I'm sick of big publishers trying to market the hell out of a rip-off, ghost-written piece of trend-copying crap and have me believe it's the next big thing and that the author is the next J. D. Salinger. If internet publishing allows me as a reader to decide what's crap and what isn't, rather than a bunch of promotors or some broadsheet erudite, then I'm all for it.

Writing was destroyed by the Interweb in 1993.

Help me out...

What is wrong with a child writing a children's book?
You know Eragon IS written for his own age group, right?

vanity pressing has always been around, and will stay a scam.

Writing will never be destroyed unless people stop reading all together. Not enough people read as it is but there are still some. While I'm terrified in a way at the prospect of a lot of crap getting published, others have pointed out (and quite rightly so) that there already is a lot of crap getting published.

I suppose that something like this is inevitable and that I should be happy with the fact that it might just encourage more people to read and to write.

oh shit - i only wrote one book

maaaaan


MA

I desperately need a sarcasm tag that puts the enclosed text in a frilly font, impossible to be taken seriously.

lol u dont kno wut ur talkin bout butfag

Good, thought-provoking article, Dictionary-Girl. And PipGirl2000 -- your thoughts are right on. My only contribution: Almost all first novels lose money big time. Respectable publishers have to put out commercially-viable crap to be able to publish the better stuff.

100-1odds the writer of the original Financial Times article is a close personal friend of Alaistair Anderson. If I'm wrong, I'll buy all seven novels.

This sordid tale reminds me of what's happened in photography... how digital photography and a camera in every cell phone encourages anyone to call himself/herself a "photographer", while some of us still choose to labor in the darkroom to produce what we hope is real art. Hopefully there will always be writers who write books to satisfy the urge to be creative, whether or not their writing achieves a large readership. I know I'd rather read a book that's been written out of passion for writing, rather than some dreck that's been published merely to prove that it can be done. Or to make money.

Shit is still shit. Gold is still gold. It doesn't really matter where you find it.

I'm completely missing what's supposed to be bad about this.

This is a commentary on both previous comments.

The internet and technology have changed how and what people read. The same goes for music. The internet and technology have allowed everyone who wants to have a voice have a voice. In the past we read what publishers and record companies wanted us to read or hear. Now we have more choices about what we read or listen to, which I think is great! However, we have to wade through endless waves of bad writing or bad music to find what we think is great. So is it a bad thing to have to hear 1,000 voices to find the 10 who you connect with? I don't think so, but what bothers me is that so many are simply trying to make a buck. So I don't agree with this guys plan, but if he can connect with enough people to make a living then how can it be wrong?

The arts will always range back and forth between the elemental and the superfluous. Cubism became a trend. Vonnegut-ian language became a norm. There will always be people out there who try to make money from art, which is foolish and dumb, because that is not what art is about.

I've written 3 novels, haven't gotten one published, and my guts still churn every time I walk past the Nora Roberts section of the book store. But I have no respect for her work, and I have no respect for Mr. Amazon-print-on-demand, because they have done nothing to earn my respect.

The work that matters and the work that means something is out there, but it takes some digging. You have to go to poetry readings, and you have check out the small, off-set presses, the independent journals and the underground scene, and you have to support them there. Shit, Ulysses would have never been published if it weren't for Ezra Pound, and F. Scott Fitzgerald died with less than $14 to his name.

Let the investment bankers have their refined novelty writing schemes, I've got 600 pages of notebook paper scrawled with ink to type up.

I want to kick this guy's ego in the nuts.

It's a good thing I dont' know how to read.

Some of you are missing the point here. What he's done is take advantage of two things - (1) print-on-demand (a very good thing if you care about any form of art that is published, from calendars to niche genres to out of copyright works etc etc - which in turn relies heavily on the internet for marketing and sales purposes. Go and look at lulu.com for examples you will probably agree with (several well known graphics artists, for starters...))

The bit that people seem to be complaining about is (2) doing without the conventional publishing model, where the writer essentially signs away a minimum of 85-92% of the cover price for the kudos, expertise and muscle that a publisher can bring to exploit his copyright/work.

It's a fairly straightforward commercial decision to try and keep more of the pie. He'll need significantly fewer sales to achieve the same income as if he'd gone through the mainstream. Of course, 0* 40% is still 0, but that's his lookout.

Whether you agree with what he's done is moot. Have a look at Author Licensing and Copyright Society for some figures for the UK. The average 25-30 year-old writer earns £5,000 (c. $9.5k) per year. 60% of people who classify themselves as writers have a second job. Not all of us can be a hedge fund manager (whatever) as a second job. There. Are. Too. Many. Writers. And not enough Readers.

And as Rampage says above - gold is gold, shit is shit. If he's any good he might make some money and write some more. If he's not, then he's still to be commended for at least trying.

There's a much more interesting topic in here somewhere as to whether being any good as a writer actually matters. But that's for another day.

It takes the lock off the clubhouse door.

everyones a critic, i love it