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

A big fat '+1'

Self publishing and vanity press are not the same thing.
Not by a long shot.
People who self publish often spend more time and effort on their books than 'paid' writers because they have to do all the boring donkey shit like editing themselves, for no reward.
Personally I believe this is a far more fitting 'evolution' of literature than formulaic ghost written bull crap 'by' celebrites...

And kids books are better written by kids than by fucking Madonna.

This thread has taught me that you win more artistic cred by not being published than by taking the initiative to publish yourself. Have I got it right?

All of the functions of a press as we know it now are useful. Aquisitions editors filter out crap, a good developmental editor can do wonders for the quality of the work, copywriters can fix the book's stupid mistakes, and so on. There really is a ton of crap out there, so having people notice the good stuff and help it to rise to the top is just as important now as it ever was.

But it's definitely true that the system of production of copyrighted works is changing. Where it will ultimately land is anybody's guess, but trends like one-off book production are real, and can't help but have some effect. So one alternative is to stick to your guns and stay with traditional brick-and-mortar publishing, and another is to see if there's some way for you to make money as a book editor that doesn't involve working for a publishing house. I suspect that a few people who follow this path will do very well early on, even if that doesn't turn out to be the paradigm that ultimately wins.

The deal that most people in the book production chain, including authors, get right now, is really crappy. I spent probably three or four person-months of effort on my book, and I got about the equivalent of a week's pay for doing it. It was worth it anyway, but you can see where that's not a very economical model.

One more thing, kind of in response to what WADO said: what makes a work good is not how many dues you pay, but whether or not the person who experiences the work is thereby enriched. Respect isn't the issue. If you just want to produce art that you enjoy, fine. But that's not really art. In order for it to be art, someone else, even one person, has to enjoy it as well.

I've not read anything by Nora Roberts, but if she's doing well, it's because something she's doing is working for people. My personal favorite is Dan Brown, who is a *terrible* writer, but doing very well. Why? Because people like his plotlines, and don't mind his bad writing. Something he's doing is true for them.

Right now, music can be published and sold by anyone incredibly easily, and I think that has done wonders for the consumer of music-as-art. I can go out and get music by Captain Beefheart, Christina Aguilera, Gil Mantera's Party Dream, The Box Tops, and Nusrat Fateh Ali Khan with the click of a button and I have plenty of resources to turn to to find good music. I firmly believe grass roots projects like Pitchforkmedia, Pandora, and SuicideGirls will always be there to assist in separating the wheat from the chaff, and opening the floodgates of self-publication will only enrich the lives of readers.

I'm waiting to hear what Oprah has to say about this situation before I form an opinion.

There is a significant difference between this and vanity publishing.

In any case, it was inevitable. Self-publishing has always been around. So it's the literary version of threadless. I can't imagine it will be all that harmful.

As far as Mr. StockBroker, it could be the onset of menstruation talking, but I'd really like to smack the glib out of his smart little mouth.

Do I get the last comment? Cool. Logophiles unite! The written word rules!