@BayView : That was an interesting read, thanks for sharing! I have only come as far as the initial offer of contract, I didn't take it because I wasn't interested in publishing that work, but I found them bossy in all sorts of ways. They had very specific ideas of how to market the book, how to 'spin it' even, and I was looking at formatting it in a way that suited their marketing agenda, next book, translation rights (belonging to them) etc. I only dipped my toes in it, and I realised one must have an agent in these things, it's not a good idea to go at it alone.
If you read my post (and actually read it this time), then you might notice I said that the international bandwagon is recent, not that the invention of copyright is recent. The bandwagon, of course, is the Berne Convention. 128 years ago is pretty recent if you ask me. If you read my post (and actually read it this time), then you might notice I referred to the "importance of compensating artists". That is, a minority of people care about the issue at all. A minority of people would pay for copyrighted material purely out of the goodness of their heart. I said nothing about expecting artists to work for free or about expecting them to do anything. I see. "Majority" does not mean "more than half"; it means "numerous groups". You learn something new every day! @FrankieWuh yes, I have heard the "if no one paid for creative works, then no one would create them any more" argument ad nauseam already, outside this discussion. I will not contradict it. I have no need to.
Can you back up the minority/majority claims? You're writing as if this is all established fact, but has it actually been established, or is it just your impression?
I've signed a lot of contracts with e-pubs without an agent, but for NY? Even if I hadn't needed one just to get my foot in the door, I'd definitely have wanted one for the contract negotiation stage. The initial contract was asking for a lot more from me than I was ever asked to give to an e-pub. Now, they're also giving me a lot more in terms of an advance, support for the book, etc., so... obviously I think it's a fair trade or I wouldn't be pursuing the opportunity! But I'm very glad I have someone with more experience working out the contracts for me!
@daemon : I read your comments carefully the first time, and I told you what I think. There was no misunderstanding.
So how does that reconcile with your argument? Unless then, you expect artists to create purely for your benefit and remain penniless? Or do you expect someone else to subsidise that art, of which you are not prepared to pay for? If this was a society where no one had to pay to eat, or be housed or have medical care etc, you know, I'd almost agree with you. But such a society doesn't exist and to believe it does or will, by pirating works of art, is utterly naive. Either way, there are words to describe that kind of person in any society, and none of those are pleasant. And in this case, it does not reflect well on the writer and their integrity.
No, I have no expectations of them whatsoever. I do not care what they do with their lives. Did I give the impression that I care?
That's quite different from the publisher dictating to the author. What you're describing is the author writing something that the publisher doesn't feel will do well, due not to the publisher's feelings but to reader expectations for that author. And yes, authors do move to pseudonyms in that case, often with the same publisher, sometimes with a new publisher who handles that type of book.
I guess that's the problem, convincing another publisher, one that you are not with, while not ruffling the feathers of the one you are with. Some publishers are okay with that, but the fine print usually has the "next book" clause which your agent believes you won't need to honour. And they are right, you can get out of that clause, but not usually in any way that will improve your relationship with the publisher, in my experience. As for hard data, there is only experience, my own and those I know (no hard data - publishers don't tend to broadcast these instances for obvious reasons). In one example, a writer I know became a fairly successful crime author embarking on a series of books. He was contracted for books, not a series, but the moment he suggested about sending them something different, they weren't interested. In the end it took the threat of self-publishing it, for the publisher to publish it themselves, but digitally only. That book became a Kindle bestseller for twelve weeks (top ten) and they decided to give it a print run and sparked another series of books, which are actually better than the first series. Other examples are not as successful, alas, with one writer who became a bestselling author in Germany having to self-publish another book because it was set in World War 2 and the UK publisher didn't think they'd get the rights sold in Germany, and didn't think about their domestic market. And they were with one of the Big Six and with a decent agent. Having an agent helps. Having a strong agent is better. But ultimately it's up to the publisher what they publish. If you have a formula that sells, they might see deviation as a risk to your branding, so a pseudonym is a good idea. The only problem with that is that you will be building a reputation on each pseudonym, and that takes time and a lot of effort which could be spent writing. I have a pseudonym, which I'm using here, by the way. So yes, some of what I'm saying is from personal experience.
This is the thing so many writers don't understand - contracts are negotiated. The publisher wants what's best for them - but so does the writer! And unless you're already a skilled negotiator who understands the implications of various publishing clauses and terminology - you'll probably get screwed. But that's how contracts in most business applications work - each party gives and takes so everybody is, if not totally happy, at least satisfied they aren't getting screwed.
Every once in a while, someone so blatantly misrepresents what I say that I cannot even bring myself to be frustrated, because I am too busy being amused (and a bit impressed) by the fact that it is possible to be so far off the mark.
But what you're describing is much different from the publisher dictating what the author can write! This is just... it's just the publisher dictating what the publisher will publish! That's not the same thing at all. It sounds like you think the author should be able to dictate what the publisher will publish? Which surely makes no sense... In the end, nobody's 'dictating' to anybody. We're negotiating contracts and then being held to the terms we agreed on. (And, no, my agent isn't telling me we "won't need to honor" the clause about the next book, she's telling me we can get it modified/removed from the contract. Totally different thing).
Well, if we are going to split hairs, then perhaps it is the publisher 'dictating' what the publisher will publish, but if that's not what the writer wishes to write, then under that relationship, the publisher is the one dictating, and the writer is the one having to decide whether to continue that relationship or if there is room for negotiation. The terminology can mean someone who orders something under that relationship, even if it's not contracted to, and in this case the consequences are an ending to the relationship. And that's both the choice of the publisher and the writer, if it gets that far. Usually the writer will write the work anyway and find another place for it, writing what the publisher wants in the end, but later, which happened in the above examples, and my own experience. So regardless of the term 'dictating', we're still back to the issue I raised at the very beginning, that some published authors will look at self-publishing because the publisher won't publish due to author-branding or commercial concerns (they might even like the book they just don't want to change the author's direction - and yes, that has happened, both to me, and others), and contractual reasons. But I sense some real anxiety here. I'm not saying or predicting this will happen in your case, and every writer's experience is different. Your agent may well have the clause removed. Not all agents will or can, depending on the nature of contract, the publisher and so many other factors. Contracts in publishing vary from house to house, from writer to writer, so please, do not worry unnecessarily. Up to my comment, the post was discussing reasons as to why anyone would want to self-publish, and this is still one of those reasons regardless of the term I used and whether it was the inaccurate use of that term. As with many of these threads the discussion has strayed off-topic, which can be useful. But does anyone care to bring it back on-topic?
No, you're sensing wrong - I'm not anxious about it. I know what the contract says, so... nothing to be anxious about. But I am still confused by your track of thinking. A writer has a contract with Publisher A for a certain book or books. I think we're both agreeing that the writer will fulfill that contract. And then you're saying the author may want to write something different, in a different genre, and the original publisher may not want to publish the writer in that genre. Right? I'm with you so far. But then the next step for you seems to be self-publishing, and that's where I get confused. I mean, if someone wants to self-publish, great. But I don't see why it would be a choice between Publisher A and self-publishing. I think it would be a choice between Publisher A, any of the other hundreds (thousands?) of publishers in the marketplace, and self-publishing. Can you clarify why the writer wouldn't just submit the work to a different publisher?
Okay, well it might be that when looking for another publisher, Publisher B, for example, they see you are already contracted to a major publisher. Publisher B may make some money out of you, but not enough when taking on a new name, which is what a pseudonym would entail. A publisher would be trading on the book, not the reputation of the author, and probably a book that is too niche to be commercial without the author's real name. If the author keeps their name but not their branding, publisher A has no authority to dictate they do, true, but that can make future contract negotiations tricky if they have a particular direction for you in mind. Especially if you are new writer. So, if Publishers B think they won't get a big return, nor the promise of future books from that writer because you are under contract elsewhere, it's trickier to get a publisher who is willing to publish (not impossible - merely stating what might and has happened in some cases). In those cases, writers can, and do, go the self-publishing route. Some even go that way and the publishers pick up those books commercially if they have proven to have done well. But every experience is a different one. I suppose I should have originally mentioned the middle-step of "Publisher-B", but my initial comment was to add another reason, and not spend the next hours explaining it
What it seems to boil down to is that an author has successfully trade published with one publisher; they have a new book, new genre, new style, whatever, and their original publisher doesn't want to publish that book. The author is then free (based on their contract with the original publisher) to seek a different publisher or self-publish. I disagree that Publisher B would be reluctant to take on a successful author based on their having a contract with Publisher A. They would, of course, look at the original contract to make sure they (and the author) are not violating any terms of that contract - but otherwise they're looking at a 'proven' author and this author has a new book that presumably is written as well as the first were. I don't see a problem.
Answer this question: "What is the most important thing about creating something (a novel, a painting, a photograph, what have you)?" ETA: This question is not directed at a particular.
When I create it? I am a perfectionist and an architect at heart, so generally, the most important thing is that I create something elegant. Something to be proud of. Something I can look back on and think, "wow, I really knew what I was doing when I designed that thing." Which bears little resemblance to what I look for in other people's creations. We tend to judge ourselves differently from how we judge others.
I didn't either, nor did the other writers I know. But there was. But that's publishing. It doesn't happen to everyone, and your example is where it works best. But as I've stated before every experience is different.
I agree with this answer. I would nearly suggest it as my own, too. I would say something of the sort: To create something that accurately assessing the point I'm trying to get at and satisfies my bullshit creative eye. If I fulfill that, then I care little for anything else. (Obviously, there's the want to have others read, but this is not the primary.) ETA: Actually, I guess mine is practically the same as yours.
I think the complication may come from the "too niche to be commercial without the author's real name" part of your scenario. If the book is too niche to be commercial, it's going to be hard to get published. If it's more commercially attractive, it'll be easier to get published. Nothing to do with publishers trying to dictate to authors, just... reality.
I should probably add, this isn't the reason why I'm dabbling in self-publishing. My reasons are both to satisfy my own curiosity about self-publishing as well as looking at a marketplace for shorter, less commercial works. These a works that have not gone to either publisher A or B. And under advice from my agent, she agreed that I should give self-publishing a go but under a pseudonym. This pseudonym, actually.
So basically, what you are saying, is that 1. You steal art through piracy and other methods, while deluding yourself that those who are opposed to such behaviour are a 'vocal minority'; 2. You don't give a rat's ass about artists who are being financially damaged by your and similar behaviour; and 3. You are hoping your behaviour of disrespecting other people's intellectual property will be legitimised by the society removing the right of copyright holders to protect their copyright, so people like yourself can continue consume artist's efforts for free, ad nauseum, whatever the consequences. I'm glad we cleared that up.
