Lorraine Holloway-White first came to my attention on Harper Collins' site Authonomy for the very silly but very obvious reason that we share a surname (you can read more cool stuff about Lorraine and her really rather good writing at the end of the interview). I soon realised how much more there is to a person than a name, and it was no surprise when, earlier this year, she announced she was setting up the website Authors on Show, a showcase for talented writers seeking representation (there's also a super Facebook Group and a great blog that's constantly full of informative, fresh material). Utterly unpaid, and by sheer force of will, hard work, generosity, and passion for her writers, Lorraine has attracted a super team around her on the website who work tirelessly to expose their writers to the people that matter, and shine teh spotlight each month on a few of their finest.
As I've just started my own press, the site is now even more of interest to me, and I was delighted to speak to her about the site and how it can benefit writers, agents, and publishers. Before you take a closer look at what Lorraine has to say, why not go and look at this month's featured writers on the site:
Margaret Callow
SueAnn Jackson Land
Craig Saunders
1. How and why did Authors on Show come about?
My agents said I needed to be seen and get my name and books known. It made me think about how other authors had to do the same and I thought we could help each other with that by me promoting their book, them promoting mine. The snowball effect if you like.
That isn’t what happened though is it? I don’t think this is what my agents had in mind. My book is rather lost on the way somewhere in all this, but I love what we’re doing for others.
2. What do you offer authors that other sites don't?
Well for one, our authors can’t dump their books and walk away. We expect more off them than that. We offer a quiet, friendly, calm place to visit where everyone supports, promotes and encourages each other.
There is often voting, which readers can take part in
We hope to get agent interest for our authors and have already been working on that for one author in particular.
We are mailing all agents and publishers informing them about the site and hope the fact we have so few books to look at each month means they can spare the time to look at them. The big sites have so many there, that it takes forever going through it all.
By keeping it select, there is more chance someone will be ‘spotted’
We promise to promote those we showcase as much as we can and wherever we can in order that they may be seen further afield. We hope those showcased at any one time will do the same for each other as well. That way, word spreads and more people see them.
We offer editorial advice, competitions, interviews from authors, publishers and agents, help and advice where able and there is more planned for the future.
3. As a writer, you must have an elevator pitch for your book. So what's the elevator pitch for the site?
Authors on Show is THE site for all agents and publishers to find their next big best sellers. Small enough to look through quickly, but big enough to make a huge impact in the literary world. Come to Authors on Show if you want quality not quantity
4. You describe the site as a showcase. To whom are you showcasing, and how do you go about reaching them?
We are showcasing to people around the world, fellow authors, readers and more important agents and publishers. As I already said, we are contacting agents and publishers to ask them to visit and take a look from time to time. We know this has already been done by some, but we want to make it THE place for them to come first when looking for new talent.
5. Could you say a little about the website networking principle you operate? How do you get around the usual problem sites have of being by writers and read mainly by writers?
Mainly because, we aren’t a site where anyone can upload their books and then walk away hoping someone will read it. It is by submission and selection process only and judging is very strict and rigorous.
Also one of the conditions of being showcased, is that our authors use their social networking sites to help promote us as well. Instead of just other authors looking, we reach their friends, family and work colleagues. In other words, people who buy and read books. Even authors do that you know. They in turn tell others and so it goes on. Again, the snowball effect. On our FaceBook page I know there are quite a few following Authors on Show who aren’t authors themselves but are readers. Also we have agents and publishers following us, which is rather good
6. What is the unifying factor for the work on your site? Are there any kinds of book or material that you wouldn't have? And is there a kind of book you're looking for?
We accept all genres and hope to have a good mix each month. We wouldn’t show outright pornographic material or needless violence, but are willing to look at all submissions with an open mind.
Like any agent and publisher, we are looking for books where the quality of writing stands out from all others, but we especially support authors who promote and help themselves. Books we are likely to turn down would be from authors who expect to dump their book, walk away and expect others to do their work for them. That is something Authors on Show won’t accept or tolerate.
Show us you’re serious about yourself and us and we’ll be serious about promoting you.
7. How do you ensure that all your authors get coverage whilst maintaining quality levels to keep people looking?
By keeping the numbers down of those we showcase it is easier to be more selective. Each month we aim to showcase six authors and they are chosen by the three main team members of AOS. We each like different genres, which helps tremendously when it comes to reading. One thing we all agree on though is to only show the books that are well written, edited properly and have an author willing to work hard to achieve success.
8. You would be most happy in one year if...
On the personal side good health is the most important thing to me as mine has been pretty bad for the last 2 years and I’m just coming out of it all. On the writing side, to see my book accepted for publication.
Professionally, I (and the team) would be thrilled beyond belief to have one or two of our authors from Authors on Show get representation or a publishing deal from having been on our site. That would be incredible. Finding a way of getting paid for all our hard work on the site would be nice too.
9. How do you think the publishing world is changing, and how do you see what AOS offers fitting into the new landscape?
Things are changing a lot in the publishing world, but I firmly believe books with pages will never stop being very popular. That said, I think some of the ways forward now are excellent and we, at AOS, will be offering advice and having people from all aspects do articles and give interviews where they can advise our authors on all aspects of publishing..
We are even looking at maybe acting as literary agents ourselves at some point and maybe arranging publication in conjunction with others, such as yourself, for those who want it.
10. Can, and if so how, do people approach you to join?
There is no membership or signing up necessary to be a member of AOS. All you need to do is follow us on Facebook, Twitter, our blog or Authors On Show.com and promote us wherever possible. If anyone wants to be showcased, there are Q&A’s on the main site, which talk about submissions, how to contact any of us and what is required.
11. As a new publisher, how would you suggest I go about using your site to find great writing?
We would be happy to see you there and hope you will be from time to time. If there were specific genres you were looking for, we would be willing to mail you when those were due to be showcased. Likewise, if a publisher/agent contacted us asking if there was anything in particular we thought truly stood out in a field they were looking for, we would be happy to keep an eye out for them and notify them when we found something we thought fitted the bill (as we have already done).
--
Lorraine Holloway-White is an author of two books and is presently working on her third. Becoming well known throughout the world for her mediumistic photographic readings and absent healing, she is also the Founder and main Team Leader of Authors on Show, a writing site showcasing authors from around the world. In only two months, the site is already very popular and is being viewed in over 60 countries. That number is growing steadily each day.
Within a couple of months of placing her first book, A Guide’s Guide to Mediumship and Healing on a well known writing site, she secured a Literary Agent. Her book is presently with a well known publishing house under consideration.
Her third book, and editing of her second, is presently on hold as she works full time now promoting others on Authors On Show. She is joined by permanent team members and fellow authors, Nicole Scheller (editor) and L Anne Carrington (blog and entertainment news). As well as these permanent members, there are also AOS helpers and friends, Robert Dean (Bobby’s Blog), Louise Wise (Interviews) and Sessha Batto (Ongoing Flash Fiction Competition).
It says something about Authors on Show, that these people give their time free of charge and willingly work so hard in order to help promote their peers. It is the combination of this team, which makes Authors on Show such a success. Lorraine hopes that they too in time will achieve success with their own books and hopes by working on the site, it helps their own exposure.
Work by the Team Members can be seen on the AOS Blog
More can be seen about Lorraine and her books on her private blog
Showing posts with label publishing. Show all posts
Showing posts with label publishing. Show all posts
Wednesday, 28 July 2010
Monday, 5 April 2010
A Small Press says "Yes"
More and more that's something I'm hearing writers say - their ms has been accepted by an exciting new small press. They're not asking money up front like a vanity publisher. So this is fantastic! Isn't it?
We are at a time when the publishing industry is catching up much of the rest of the world in realising that aggregation and merger are outmoded business models, and small, independent and flexible are the way forward. This is creating fantastic opportunities for new small presses. But, like all booms and bubbles, 95% of these new presses will fail, and do so quickly - through plain natural selection (in many cases, where they have not thought out a new business model that isn't successful/lucky, the issue will simply be - as always - undercapitalisation).
The future failure of so many new presses creates a very real problem that writers need to be aware of - when the business goes bust, their book (or the rights thereto) will be one of that business' assets - the chances of the author getting their rights back in a hurry are minimal (and the assurances of the lovely people who run the press are irrelevant - once they're wound up it's not up to them, it's up to the banks)
It's so early that we really don't know who the charlatans and incompetents are, and who will emerge victorious, so all we can do if considering a new small press is be as savvy as we possibly can. I would recommend considering the following checklist of questions:
1. There are many many more books than shelf slots. You may have experienced rejection after rejection. If someone approaches you it's flattering, but PLEAS, be self-aware enough to ask why. Have they really spotted what everyone else missed? Quite possiblyso, but almost certainly not.
2. Following on, if I were approached, i would want to a. make sure the contract protected my rights so they reverted to me in certain timeframes/scenarios and b. look at their business plan. You should, of course, discuss the publisher's business plan before signing even if they're HC, but in cases like this I'd want forecasts and figures, and if I didn't feel confident analysing them, and didn't have a manager/accountant to do it for me, I'd walk away.
3. Remember that submission followed by instant acceptance can amount to the same thing as being approached directly - like a cynical, jaded lover ask yourself, and them "why so keen?"
4. Always always always go to sites like Writer Beware and Absolute Write. DO remember that negative feedback can be as unreliable as positive, but consider any comments.
5. Use google - for two reasons - to find out what people are saying about them that may affect your decision, and to see just how wide their web footprint is
6. Consider approaching a reputable independent editor like Maria Schneider or Nicola Morgan. Ask them if they consider your book shelf-worthy, and if they say no, think carefully.
7. It's hard in a global age, but meet these people if you possibly can. This is a people business, and as a writer your instincts about people aer probably fairly good.
8. This should be obvious, but it may not be - ask to see the other books they're publishing. For new presses there may not be any on the shelves - ask to see the mss. Consider the following factors - 1. Does your book fit alongside these? It would be pointless, for example, for me to have The Man Who Painted Agnieszka's Shoes published by DIIArts - it just doesn't fit with their other books, and would get lost amongst them. It would fit very nicely in the portfolio of To Hell With Publishing, though - if a press is REALLY new, you need to talk serious turkey with them on this - it may be too early to tell what the feel of the press is (their website's "look" will tell you a lot, though - take a look at www.moxiemezcal.com for example - I KNOW my book would fit there) 2. Are the books any good? I would never really feel comfortable joining a group where I wasn't the weakest member (at Year Zero, I've got very lucky - because I do the tech donkeywork they let me hang out and put my writing up), but I do have a Groucho Marx approach - if they're right for me because it's such a strong portfolio, why would they think I'm right for them.
9. If you still like the idea, ask yourself: could I do what they're doing myself and would I want to? That doesn't mean, for example, "could you edit your own book?" You couldn't. It means "could you find an editor suitable and work with them?"
For me, number 9 is the one that clinched it. I know I can do as good a job as anyone I've come across for my particular brand of weirded out underbelly scuzz. And I love doing it. I REALLY love it.
We are at a time when the publishing industry is catching up much of the rest of the world in realising that aggregation and merger are outmoded business models, and small, independent and flexible are the way forward. This is creating fantastic opportunities for new small presses. But, like all booms and bubbles, 95% of these new presses will fail, and do so quickly - through plain natural selection (in many cases, where they have not thought out a new business model that isn't successful/lucky, the issue will simply be - as always - undercapitalisation).
The future failure of so many new presses creates a very real problem that writers need to be aware of - when the business goes bust, their book (or the rights thereto) will be one of that business' assets - the chances of the author getting their rights back in a hurry are minimal (and the assurances of the lovely people who run the press are irrelevant - once they're wound up it's not up to them, it's up to the banks)
It's so early that we really don't know who the charlatans and incompetents are, and who will emerge victorious, so all we can do if considering a new small press is be as savvy as we possibly can. I would recommend considering the following checklist of questions:
1. There are many many more books than shelf slots. You may have experienced rejection after rejection. If someone approaches you it's flattering, but PLEAS, be self-aware enough to ask why. Have they really spotted what everyone else missed? Quite possiblyso, but almost certainly not.
2. Following on, if I were approached, i would want to a. make sure the contract protected my rights so they reverted to me in certain timeframes/scenarios and b. look at their business plan. You should, of course, discuss the publisher's business plan before signing even if they're HC, but in cases like this I'd want forecasts and figures, and if I didn't feel confident analysing them, and didn't have a manager/accountant to do it for me, I'd walk away.
3. Remember that submission followed by instant acceptance can amount to the same thing as being approached directly - like a cynical, jaded lover ask yourself, and them "why so keen?"
4. Always always always go to sites like Writer Beware and Absolute Write. DO remember that negative feedback can be as unreliable as positive, but consider any comments.
5. Use google - for two reasons - to find out what people are saying about them that may affect your decision, and to see just how wide their web footprint is
6. Consider approaching a reputable independent editor like Maria Schneider or Nicola Morgan. Ask them if they consider your book shelf-worthy, and if they say no, think carefully.
7. It's hard in a global age, but meet these people if you possibly can. This is a people business, and as a writer your instincts about people aer probably fairly good.
8. This should be obvious, but it may not be - ask to see the other books they're publishing. For new presses there may not be any on the shelves - ask to see the mss. Consider the following factors - 1. Does your book fit alongside these? It would be pointless, for example, for me to have The Man Who Painted Agnieszka's Shoes published by DIIArts - it just doesn't fit with their other books, and would get lost amongst them. It would fit very nicely in the portfolio of To Hell With Publishing, though - if a press is REALLY new, you need to talk serious turkey with them on this - it may be too early to tell what the feel of the press is (their website's "look" will tell you a lot, though - take a look at www.moxiemezcal.com for example - I KNOW my book would fit there) 2. Are the books any good? I would never really feel comfortable joining a group where I wasn't the weakest member (at Year Zero, I've got very lucky - because I do the tech donkeywork they let me hang out and put my writing up), but I do have a Groucho Marx approach - if they're right for me because it's such a strong portfolio, why would they think I'm right for them.
9. If you still like the idea, ask yourself: could I do what they're doing myself and would I want to? That doesn't mean, for example, "could you edit your own book?" You couldn't. It means "could you find an editor suitable and work with them?"
For me, number 9 is the one that clinched it. I know I can do as good a job as anyone I've come across for my particular brand of weirded out underbelly scuzz. And I love doing it. I REALLY love it.
Wednesday, 20 January 2010
Dear Publisher
Thank you for sending me your contract for consideration. I am sure you will appreciate that talented authors receive many unsolicited contracts. Nonetheless, I am aware that a publisher like yourself relies upon discovering new talent in order to keep its lists fresh and win new readers, so I hope that you will not be too disappointed that in this case I am declining your kind offer. I wish you all the best in seeking exciting new talent elsewhere.
I understand that it is frustrating to receive a form rejection from an author, without any elaboration on specific areas to work on in your contract. I hope that the following general points may help you in your future submissions.
1. An author relies for their living upon a day job. They write, edit, and network in the evenings, at weekends, and in lunch hours and teabreaks. A publisher's advance, the largest incentive for an author to sign a contract, is not sufficient for them to give up their day job with any security.
2. Many talented, exciting authors write work that will not appeal to large readerships. Publishers need to sell large amounts of books. The result of this tension is that many of these authors will fail to recoup publishers' outlay within their first two books, and it will not be viable for publishers to keep them on board.
3. Without a publisher, a writer is under no such pressure, and will not be junked if their initial books "fail".
4. Should a writer achieve initial success wit ha publisher, they will be expected to produce similar works, and not explore or develop their talent.
5. Without a publisher there is no pressure to change for a writer the way they write in order to fit market needs.
6. Without a publisher there is the freedom to experiment, change genre at will, try, fail, try again, fail again, and devlop one's talent, voice, and potential to the full.
7. With a publisher a writer must concede control over cover design, the way their work is presented to the world.
8. The long cycle of the publishing industry means that the time from pen to audience inevitably freezes some of the initial energy and excitement of the creative process, leading to a less real and invigorating feedback process between writer and audience, and a less meaningful feedback loop.
9. With a publisher, a new writer loses editorial control. Not just total control of final cut, but control of which editor to use in the first place. An editor must have two qualities - the ability to be utterly ruthless; and absolute sympathy with an author's aims. An author needs to be free to select their own, trusted, editor.
10. Pricing - whilst unsigned, the author is free to set the price for all their books - and other merchandise. This includes setting the price at free should the author wish to do that with, for example, their ebooks. It also means the freedom to create and price specila and limited editions of their work.
In conclusion, I am afraid that an author must consider not just their short-term but their long-term future. And whilst I am sure that your kind offer, were I to accept it, would put me in a financially more advantageous position one year from now, and possibly three years from now, compared to that if I reject it; I am afraid that the models I have run show that in five, ten, and twenty years - that is, over the course of my career - there is no financial advantage, and in many models financial disadvantage, in my accepting.
I wish you every success in your future publishing career.
I understand that it is frustrating to receive a form rejection from an author, without any elaboration on specific areas to work on in your contract. I hope that the following general points may help you in your future submissions.
1. An author relies for their living upon a day job. They write, edit, and network in the evenings, at weekends, and in lunch hours and teabreaks. A publisher's advance, the largest incentive for an author to sign a contract, is not sufficient for them to give up their day job with any security.
2. Many talented, exciting authors write work that will not appeal to large readerships. Publishers need to sell large amounts of books. The result of this tension is that many of these authors will fail to recoup publishers' outlay within their first two books, and it will not be viable for publishers to keep them on board.
3. Without a publisher, a writer is under no such pressure, and will not be junked if their initial books "fail".
4. Should a writer achieve initial success wit ha publisher, they will be expected to produce similar works, and not explore or develop their talent.
5. Without a publisher there is no pressure to change for a writer the way they write in order to fit market needs.
6. Without a publisher there is the freedom to experiment, change genre at will, try, fail, try again, fail again, and devlop one's talent, voice, and potential to the full.
7. With a publisher a writer must concede control over cover design, the way their work is presented to the world.
8. The long cycle of the publishing industry means that the time from pen to audience inevitably freezes some of the initial energy and excitement of the creative process, leading to a less real and invigorating feedback process between writer and audience, and a less meaningful feedback loop.
9. With a publisher, a new writer loses editorial control. Not just total control of final cut, but control of which editor to use in the first place. An editor must have two qualities - the ability to be utterly ruthless; and absolute sympathy with an author's aims. An author needs to be free to select their own, trusted, editor.
10. Pricing - whilst unsigned, the author is free to set the price for all their books - and other merchandise. This includes setting the price at free should the author wish to do that with, for example, their ebooks. It also means the freedom to create and price specila and limited editions of their work.
In conclusion, I am afraid that an author must consider not just their short-term but their long-term future. And whilst I am sure that your kind offer, were I to accept it, would put me in a financially more advantageous position one year from now, and possibly three years from now, compared to that if I reject it; I am afraid that the models I have run show that in five, ten, and twenty years - that is, over the course of my career - there is no financial advantage, and in many models financial disadvantage, in my accepting.
I wish you every success in your future publishing career.
Friday, 23 October 2009
Crystal Kindles: what does 2010 hold in store in the literary world?
It feels like I've been away for an age. In reality it's been a week in Northern France eating rillettes and thinking about all things literary.
Which has given me time to think about the future - more important to get my foot in the door and be the first to ask what 2010 holds for the literary world. It wouldn't be a proper one of my blog posts if I just said "This and this and this will happen" so I'm putting a bit of a spin on things. First up, a few predictions about what I think the mainstream will be touting as the hot topics of 2010. Then a little something about the hot hot topics, the nascent waves they haven't seen coming. Not too much on the why and wherefore or I'll be here all night - just enough to get the conversation going; and maybe make some of it self-fulfilling...
Don't forget: when January 1, 2011 comes and I was wrong on every count, you can all have a good old laugh at my expense.
So:
Read the blogs, visit the websites, read the trade papers, flick through the magazines, and what will you see in 2010 (the bandwagons it's too late to jump on though many will try)
1. Google Wave, Apple Tablet, Wiki-software as my TECH no-brainers (and yes, sadly I DO think some people will still think the Kindle's news in 2010)
2. PUBLISHERS will be talking steampunk (yes, STILL - you only think it's passe already because you're ahead of the game) and post-recession (thrillers, dramas of the Full Monty ilk, and lifestyle books - both how-to and "how I survived"). They will lock horns with writers over advances and publicity (or, at least, the more foresighted ones will). They'll also suddenly catch on to serialisation - Victoria Barnsley got there this year, when it was still almost newsworthy, but very few have followed.
3. The LITERATI will probably, courtesy of Neil Gaiman and the fact literature always lags behind art and Gormley got there this year, be talking crowdsourcing
4. PUNDITS will be banging on about the success or failure of Richard Nash's Cursor. The freemium debate will, inevitably, linger on like a stale odour, and some people will still think the price of ebooks is a debate because ebook sales will rise apace, masking the facts that 1 - talking about ebook pricing will be by then a category error in terms of obsolescent business models, and 2 - ebooks will, by early 2011, already be on the way out (despite continued rise in numbers). Note - this is a dead topic for pundits, but very much not for writers - the year and a half the ebook boom has left is very much worth riding.
5. WRITERS be trying to ride the steampunk wave once they've sucked vampires dry. They will also be engaging in full-scale war over Creative Commons, ebook pricing, and how to make a living from content provision. We will see some real disgruntlement at publishers, too, over decreasing advances and increased marketing demands - with particular objection to the demand for authors to do webcasts and YouTube trailers. More writers will catch on to the value fo chapbooks and special editions - expect to see beautiful one-offs and companion pieces.
And here's where the action's really at in 2010 - the waves that are still way out at sea with plenty of time to catch them before they break:
1. in TECH, intelligent paper is a long way from being viable as a mass commodity, but for those who love the book, it's where the smart money is. And for those who like reading on the run, the iPhone is old news but it's still the only news in town, but expect a raft of new apps from serialisations to interactive reading to exciting blue-tooth functionality like random read-shares and collaborative reading (blue-tooth-operated collaborative writing harnessing flashmob appeal is the future of wiki-software, but I'm not sure even the good people of Silicon Valley have figured that out yet - the potential for creating geo-specific novels this way, meshing geocaching, LAN gaming, extreme tourism, flashmobbing, and wiki-creativity IS THE MOST EXCITING DEVELOPMENT I SEE COMING, but it may be for 2011). The only Tablet worth speaking of is the one for the massive hangover B & N and Waterstone's will catch when their e-readers go belly-up. I like ether-pad and the kind of stuff MCM did with 3D1D, involving the reader in the writer's real-time editing.
2. The smart book trends for PUBLISHERS next year are world fiction (come on, we have so much access to so much incredible global talent - we need imprints backed by quality translation teams to tap it); and post-environmentalism: in particular books focused on individualism and existentialism (fiction AND non-fiction) - yet another reprint fo Epicurus would fly off teh shelves, and anything else that debunks the delayed gratification model of environmentalism as people realise 1. we're screwed anyway 2. there are more immediate dangers than climate change and 3. saving things for the future is a philosophy that has serious emotional as well as logical flaws. On a related note, look towards historical fiction that captures the same spirit - the 1920s, fin de siecle, early 1960s and early/mid 1980s are hot for this reason (in particuar the hedonism of the period - Punk is passe, New Romanticism will be, for a very brief window, cutting edge).
3.The LITERATI to watch will be playing cross-genre games - fed up of Bunny Munro and Punk Fictin, writers will want a piece of the music/film/art pie - and they'll want to bend them in literary ways. Collaborations are out (sorry, Mr Gaiman, you're passe in very many ways in 2010, albeit still successful), and DIY is in. And, dare I say it, as people start playing around with form and genre - Modernism is back.
4. PUNDITS may finally sit up and start asking ethical questions about the global implications of the future face of publishing - in particular, how to embrace, expose but not exploit emerging talent.
5. WRITERS should stop locking horns with publishers over advances and push and embrace new contractual models like ebook only contracts and zero advance contracts. They should also consider direct outsourcing - and in particular look to start creaming top music industry PRs into the literary sphere.
Can't make up my mind:
I want to say something about self-publishing and print-on-demand espresso machines, but I really can't make up my mind where to put them. My personal feeling is self-publishing is just a non-topic now - it's about how not whether it's acceptable. Espresso machines are tricky. I thought 9 months ago they were the saviour of the Long Tail. I still think they have a role to play, but I didn't realise just how quickly intelligent paper would progress.
And the "hot topics" that are just stone cold
I think Indie will be a buzzword in 2010 - bookstores and collectives in particular - but I also think these are battles that have been won already. There may even be people who tout niche as hot - it's not. It wasn't this year when I was talking about it. It certainly won't be next year. Collective likewise. I'm afraid anyone who is going to succeed with any of these has already started.
PLAY THE GAME AT HOME by ticking them off one at a time as they headline - or rather, watch as the bingo card stays blank. Happy predicting :-)
Which has given me time to think about the future - more important to get my foot in the door and be the first to ask what 2010 holds for the literary world. It wouldn't be a proper one of my blog posts if I just said "This and this and this will happen" so I'm putting a bit of a spin on things. First up, a few predictions about what I think the mainstream will be touting as the hot topics of 2010. Then a little something about the hot hot topics, the nascent waves they haven't seen coming. Not too much on the why and wherefore or I'll be here all night - just enough to get the conversation going; and maybe make some of it self-fulfilling...
Don't forget: when January 1, 2011 comes and I was wrong on every count, you can all have a good old laugh at my expense.
So:
Read the blogs, visit the websites, read the trade papers, flick through the magazines, and what will you see in 2010 (the bandwagons it's too late to jump on though many will try)
1. Google Wave, Apple Tablet, Wiki-software as my TECH no-brainers (and yes, sadly I DO think some people will still think the Kindle's news in 2010)
2. PUBLISHERS will be talking steampunk (yes, STILL - you only think it's passe already because you're ahead of the game) and post-recession (thrillers, dramas of the Full Monty ilk, and lifestyle books - both how-to and "how I survived"). They will lock horns with writers over advances and publicity (or, at least, the more foresighted ones will). They'll also suddenly catch on to serialisation - Victoria Barnsley got there this year, when it was still almost newsworthy, but very few have followed.
3. The LITERATI will probably, courtesy of Neil Gaiman and the fact literature always lags behind art and Gormley got there this year, be talking crowdsourcing
4. PUNDITS will be banging on about the success or failure of Richard Nash's Cursor. The freemium debate will, inevitably, linger on like a stale odour, and some people will still think the price of ebooks is a debate because ebook sales will rise apace, masking the facts that 1 - talking about ebook pricing will be by then a category error in terms of obsolescent business models, and 2 - ebooks will, by early 2011, already be on the way out (despite continued rise in numbers). Note - this is a dead topic for pundits, but very much not for writers - the year and a half the ebook boom has left is very much worth riding.
5. WRITERS be trying to ride the steampunk wave once they've sucked vampires dry. They will also be engaging in full-scale war over Creative Commons, ebook pricing, and how to make a living from content provision. We will see some real disgruntlement at publishers, too, over decreasing advances and increased marketing demands - with particular objection to the demand for authors to do webcasts and YouTube trailers. More writers will catch on to the value fo chapbooks and special editions - expect to see beautiful one-offs and companion pieces.
And here's where the action's really at in 2010 - the waves that are still way out at sea with plenty of time to catch them before they break:
1. in TECH, intelligent paper is a long way from being viable as a mass commodity, but for those who love the book, it's where the smart money is. And for those who like reading on the run, the iPhone is old news but it's still the only news in town, but expect a raft of new apps from serialisations to interactive reading to exciting blue-tooth functionality like random read-shares and collaborative reading (blue-tooth-operated collaborative writing harnessing flashmob appeal is the future of wiki-software, but I'm not sure even the good people of Silicon Valley have figured that out yet - the potential for creating geo-specific novels this way, meshing geocaching, LAN gaming, extreme tourism, flashmobbing, and wiki-creativity IS THE MOST EXCITING DEVELOPMENT I SEE COMING, but it may be for 2011). The only Tablet worth speaking of is the one for the massive hangover B & N and Waterstone's will catch when their e-readers go belly-up. I like ether-pad and the kind of stuff MCM did with 3D1D, involving the reader in the writer's real-time editing.
2. The smart book trends for PUBLISHERS next year are world fiction (come on, we have so much access to so much incredible global talent - we need imprints backed by quality translation teams to tap it); and post-environmentalism: in particular books focused on individualism and existentialism (fiction AND non-fiction) - yet another reprint fo Epicurus would fly off teh shelves, and anything else that debunks the delayed gratification model of environmentalism as people realise 1. we're screwed anyway 2. there are more immediate dangers than climate change and 3. saving things for the future is a philosophy that has serious emotional as well as logical flaws. On a related note, look towards historical fiction that captures the same spirit - the 1920s, fin de siecle, early 1960s and early/mid 1980s are hot for this reason (in particuar the hedonism of the period - Punk is passe, New Romanticism will be, for a very brief window, cutting edge).
3.The LITERATI to watch will be playing cross-genre games - fed up of Bunny Munro and Punk Fictin, writers will want a piece of the music/film/art pie - and they'll want to bend them in literary ways. Collaborations are out (sorry, Mr Gaiman, you're passe in very many ways in 2010, albeit still successful), and DIY is in. And, dare I say it, as people start playing around with form and genre - Modernism is back.
4. PUNDITS may finally sit up and start asking ethical questions about the global implications of the future face of publishing - in particular, how to embrace, expose but not exploit emerging talent.
5. WRITERS should stop locking horns with publishers over advances and push and embrace new contractual models like ebook only contracts and zero advance contracts. They should also consider direct outsourcing - and in particular look to start creaming top music industry PRs into the literary sphere.
Can't make up my mind:
I want to say something about self-publishing and print-on-demand espresso machines, but I really can't make up my mind where to put them. My personal feeling is self-publishing is just a non-topic now - it's about how not whether it's acceptable. Espresso machines are tricky. I thought 9 months ago they were the saviour of the Long Tail. I still think they have a role to play, but I didn't realise just how quickly intelligent paper would progress.
And the "hot topics" that are just stone cold
I think Indie will be a buzzword in 2010 - bookstores and collectives in particular - but I also think these are battles that have been won already. There may even be people who tout niche as hot - it's not. It wasn't this year when I was talking about it. It certainly won't be next year. Collective likewise. I'm afraid anyone who is going to succeed with any of these has already started.
PLAY THE GAME AT HOME by ticking them off one at a time as they headline - or rather, watch as the bingo card stays blank. Happy predicting :-)
Saturday, 8 August 2009
From Pitch to Perpetuationof Privilege: why publishing MUST change its application procedures
The pitch is the publishing Industry’s equivalent of the University Entrance exam, a selection system that perpetuates disenfranchisement, and serves to narrow the pool of available applicants to a point where the literary world becomes nothing more than the chattering classes talking among themselves. As was the case for hundreds of years in our universities, no one has really noticed this until now, because the people the literary industry marginalise had been marginalised from other forms of communication. Worst of all, they have gone unnoticed because they have until now had no expectation or belief that literature is their world.
But as wider and wider portions of society become cultural consumers, so their hunger for stories by and about people like them grows. Television, through initiatives like the BBC’s My Story, is beginning to take notice, but the publishing industry is standing back and does not, it is my firm belief, even realise there is a problem.
This is just another example of an introspection that will in the not too distant future kill the industry off if it doesn’t do something. The fact is the internet is making culture by and for previously unrepresented voices (be they inner city teenagers, battered sex workers, refugees fleeing from, and would-be refugees trapped in, the world’s war zones, or the women of the world’s shanty towns) widely available. And it’s great. Millions of voices are being heard that would never have been heard before – hope that “I am not alone” is being offered to millions more who never heard culture spoken in their own voice before.
It’s a WONDERFUL thing.
And it’s a phenomenon that is going to kill publishing dead. Or rather, pass it by on the road whilst publishing kills itself. Unless the industry does something serious and soon.
There are many thins the publishing industry needs to look at if its isolation from the consumers of the majority world is not to prove fatal, and I’ve got time to talk about them all eventually. But today I want to focus on the flagship ridiculosity: the query.
This is NOT a piece about higher education. I am merely referring, in passing, to an allegation levelled at the entrance exam (because it IS true of publishing, and it’s a good analogy). The problem with the university entrance exam, the argument goes, like the problem with the 11+, is that you do better if you’re coached for it. Which means you do better if your parents have the money AND the inclination to pay for a tutor. Which means two children of equal “ability” will finish with very different marks. Which means, finally, that if selection is based on entrance exam performance alone children whose parents lack either the money or the inclination to pay for coaching will be disadvantaged when it comes to getting a university place. And to add to all this, the privilege this perpetuates means that those from marginalised backgrounds expect not to get places, so they don’t apply, furthering the divide.
That may or may not be true of universities, but I’m sure you get the logic. And if you don’t get where I’m going, then frankly, well, I can’t say in polite company.
At the moment (and especially in the US where you don’t submit ANY script with your query), whether you get an agent depends on the quality of your query, and a huge part of that is the synopsis and, even more, the query letter. There are many wonderful websites and books devoted to polishing your pitch, and I have benefited immensely from them (and still do). But the system reinforces the status quo in a way that is both shocking, and seemingly invisible to the industry.
How are those who do not currently read their voice in books, written by people like them, and who have stories to tell, and a talent for telling them, get published? They must submit a query – for which they have no training – not just because they have no access to the great query sites and books out there (they may well HAVE the internet), but because they are not surrounded by people who know about sites like this. They may not even know what the “application” method is. It is a mystery. So what happens? They don’t send off their stories – “people like them don’t write books”. And the divide is reinforced.
So what? Well one, it’s just wrong that people be denied a voice for their story – and the notion that the vast swathes of people underrepresented in publishing are underrepresented because there is no talent is just nonsense. Systemic barriers are wrong. Full stop.
Two, these are groups of society for whom the internet allows, more and more, instant access to the consumption and production of culture by and about “people like them”. Whole groups are realising that culture is for them. But books aren’t – and THAT is the problem for the publishing industry. A vast swathe of ever more powerful cultural consumer is ignoring books because books are irrelevant to them.
So what does publishing need to do? Well, more than anything else, what it needs to do is what the “Russell Group” of universities (the UK’s “old elite”) sort of tries to pay lip-service to doing. It needs to stop talking to itself. It needs to stop telling would be writers about “show not tell”. It needs to stop focusing on how to write a query letter. Stop focusing, mind, not stop doing – there is, and always will be, a very large, commercially and culturally important group who like books done that way. What publishers need to wake up to is the fact that this is a segment of the population – a segment whose share of wealth, purchasing power, and access to culture, is shrinking.
What the publishing industry needs to do is not try and “help” people on the “outside” to get to the “inside”. People don’t need it. They have other ways of telling their stories. IT needs THEM. And that is something I have NEVER heard someone on the “inside” admit. So what SHOULD the industry do? It needs to find ways to convince the new generation of storytellers that books are a good medium through which to tell those stories. It needs to think like an “outsider”.
Sadly, I really don’t think it can. Which is why more and more of us who would, ten years ago, have been part of the “trying to get inside” crowd, are ignoring it, letting it slowly eat itself to death, whilst we get on and enjoy the exciting future.
Half of me thinks it’s a tragedy. The more so because, like an animal walking to the abattoir, or a patient slipping gently from a coma, I really think most of the industry doesn’t recognise it. But half of me thinks that systems which perpetuate divide and exclusion SHOULD perish, and wonders if we shouldn’t offer a helping hand.
But as wider and wider portions of society become cultural consumers, so their hunger for stories by and about people like them grows. Television, through initiatives like the BBC’s My Story, is beginning to take notice, but the publishing industry is standing back and does not, it is my firm belief, even realise there is a problem.
This is just another example of an introspection that will in the not too distant future kill the industry off if it doesn’t do something. The fact is the internet is making culture by and for previously unrepresented voices (be they inner city teenagers, battered sex workers, refugees fleeing from, and would-be refugees trapped in, the world’s war zones, or the women of the world’s shanty towns) widely available. And it’s great. Millions of voices are being heard that would never have been heard before – hope that “I am not alone” is being offered to millions more who never heard culture spoken in their own voice before.
It’s a WONDERFUL thing.
And it’s a phenomenon that is going to kill publishing dead. Or rather, pass it by on the road whilst publishing kills itself. Unless the industry does something serious and soon.
There are many thins the publishing industry needs to look at if its isolation from the consumers of the majority world is not to prove fatal, and I’ve got time to talk about them all eventually. But today I want to focus on the flagship ridiculosity: the query.
This is NOT a piece about higher education. I am merely referring, in passing, to an allegation levelled at the entrance exam (because it IS true of publishing, and it’s a good analogy). The problem with the university entrance exam, the argument goes, like the problem with the 11+, is that you do better if you’re coached for it. Which means you do better if your parents have the money AND the inclination to pay for a tutor. Which means two children of equal “ability” will finish with very different marks. Which means, finally, that if selection is based on entrance exam performance alone children whose parents lack either the money or the inclination to pay for coaching will be disadvantaged when it comes to getting a university place. And to add to all this, the privilege this perpetuates means that those from marginalised backgrounds expect not to get places, so they don’t apply, furthering the divide.
That may or may not be true of universities, but I’m sure you get the logic. And if you don’t get where I’m going, then frankly, well, I can’t say in polite company.
At the moment (and especially in the US where you don’t submit ANY script with your query), whether you get an agent depends on the quality of your query, and a huge part of that is the synopsis and, even more, the query letter. There are many wonderful websites and books devoted to polishing your pitch, and I have benefited immensely from them (and still do). But the system reinforces the status quo in a way that is both shocking, and seemingly invisible to the industry.
How are those who do not currently read their voice in books, written by people like them, and who have stories to tell, and a talent for telling them, get published? They must submit a query – for which they have no training – not just because they have no access to the great query sites and books out there (they may well HAVE the internet), but because they are not surrounded by people who know about sites like this. They may not even know what the “application” method is. It is a mystery. So what happens? They don’t send off their stories – “people like them don’t write books”. And the divide is reinforced.
So what? Well one, it’s just wrong that people be denied a voice for their story – and the notion that the vast swathes of people underrepresented in publishing are underrepresented because there is no talent is just nonsense. Systemic barriers are wrong. Full stop.
Two, these are groups of society for whom the internet allows, more and more, instant access to the consumption and production of culture by and about “people like them”. Whole groups are realising that culture is for them. But books aren’t – and THAT is the problem for the publishing industry. A vast swathe of ever more powerful cultural consumer is ignoring books because books are irrelevant to them.
So what does publishing need to do? Well, more than anything else, what it needs to do is what the “Russell Group” of universities (the UK’s “old elite”) sort of tries to pay lip-service to doing. It needs to stop talking to itself. It needs to stop telling would be writers about “show not tell”. It needs to stop focusing on how to write a query letter. Stop focusing, mind, not stop doing – there is, and always will be, a very large, commercially and culturally important group who like books done that way. What publishers need to wake up to is the fact that this is a segment of the population – a segment whose share of wealth, purchasing power, and access to culture, is shrinking.
What the publishing industry needs to do is not try and “help” people on the “outside” to get to the “inside”. People don’t need it. They have other ways of telling their stories. IT needs THEM. And that is something I have NEVER heard someone on the “inside” admit. So what SHOULD the industry do? It needs to find ways to convince the new generation of storytellers that books are a good medium through which to tell those stories. It needs to think like an “outsider”.
Sadly, I really don’t think it can. Which is why more and more of us who would, ten years ago, have been part of the “trying to get inside” crowd, are ignoring it, letting it slowly eat itself to death, whilst we get on and enjoy the exciting future.
Half of me thinks it’s a tragedy. The more so because, like an animal walking to the abattoir, or a patient slipping gently from a coma, I really think most of the industry doesn’t recognise it. But half of me thinks that systems which perpetuate divide and exclusion SHOULD perish, and wonders if we shouldn’t offer a helping hand.
Friday, 10 July 2009
Free is not a Four-letter word
Well, I couldn’t really stay out of the debate, although I’ve already blogged at length about the value of giving writing away for free. The release of Chris Anderson’s “Free” and resultant hoo-ha (http://www.publishersweekly.com/article/CA6670080.html?desc=topstory) is too much of a happening for me not to write again. I’ve already posted a few thoughts on
http://loudpoet.com/2009/07/06/free-is-wrong-for-writers-freemium-might-not-be/#comment-12230088
I’ll keep this brief as a result. The last thing I want is “Dan going on about free stuff” fatigue. I’ll also try and keep it opinionated because facts seem to be out of fashion in this debate. Personally, I just don’t understand the objection as a business model to so-called “freemium” promotion – offering a basic version of your product for free, and charging for a premium version. Music practitioners have used the model so successfully I’m not sure I can see the negative argument.
Which suggests to me the argument is ideological. People who are excited about the freemium model are, by and large, people who have day jobs and want the chance to give them up and be paid for doing what they love. People who object tend to be those who are already paid to write. I understand that people don’t want to lose their livelihoods. Of course they don’t, and of course none of us wants them to. But protectionism isn’t the answer.
Literature is a breeding ground of innovation, and should remain so. And the public should have access to as wide a range of culture as there is out there. I believe they should be able to access it for free, and decide, from a position of knowledge not ignorance, which of it they want to spend their money on.
The argument that this will pollute the cultural world with rubbish is just nonsense. If what’s offered for free outside the establishment is junk, the public will discard it, and no one in the mainstream will lose their paycheck. If some of it DOES turn out to be better, then why shouldn’t some on the “inside” take a pay cut so that some on the outside can have a slice of the pie?
My call to action is simple. Make your work available to the public for free download. Let readers decide what they want to pay for. It’s not the end of the world. It’s the beginning of an aspiration to take culture seriously. That’s why I started Free-e-day (www.freeeday.wordpress.com) as a platform to bring together givers and takers of free cultural content. I also see it across the web in great initiatives like www.jet-pack.net
Free isn’t a four-letter word. Free is good. For the producers of culture. For the consumers of culture. For culture itself. Come and embrace freevolution
http://loudpoet.com/2009/07/06/free-is-wrong-for-writers-freemium-might-not-be/#comment-12230088
I’ll keep this brief as a result. The last thing I want is “Dan going on about free stuff” fatigue. I’ll also try and keep it opinionated because facts seem to be out of fashion in this debate. Personally, I just don’t understand the objection as a business model to so-called “freemium” promotion – offering a basic version of your product for free, and charging for a premium version. Music practitioners have used the model so successfully I’m not sure I can see the negative argument.
Which suggests to me the argument is ideological. People who are excited about the freemium model are, by and large, people who have day jobs and want the chance to give them up and be paid for doing what they love. People who object tend to be those who are already paid to write. I understand that people don’t want to lose their livelihoods. Of course they don’t, and of course none of us wants them to. But protectionism isn’t the answer.
Literature is a breeding ground of innovation, and should remain so. And the public should have access to as wide a range of culture as there is out there. I believe they should be able to access it for free, and decide, from a position of knowledge not ignorance, which of it they want to spend their money on.
The argument that this will pollute the cultural world with rubbish is just nonsense. If what’s offered for free outside the establishment is junk, the public will discard it, and no one in the mainstream will lose their paycheck. If some of it DOES turn out to be better, then why shouldn’t some on the “inside” take a pay cut so that some on the outside can have a slice of the pie?
My call to action is simple. Make your work available to the public for free download. Let readers decide what they want to pay for. It’s not the end of the world. It’s the beginning of an aspiration to take culture seriously. That’s why I started Free-e-day (www.freeeday.wordpress.com) as a platform to bring together givers and takers of free cultural content. I also see it across the web in great initiatives like www.jet-pack.net
Free isn’t a four-letter word. Free is good. For the producers of culture. For the consumers of culture. For culture itself. Come and embrace freevolution
Monday, 22 June 2009
Who are Year Zero?
There are 20 of us, ranging from the shy who work behind the scenes for the time being to the media floosies amongst us like Oli and I. I think the number we have is about right for what we’re doing, and the way we work, which is as democratic as possible without grinding to a total standstill. Given that at any one time half of us will be busy, any fewer and nothing would ever get done (and we wouldn’t have the range of skills to draw on). Given that there will always be differences of opinion, any more and, er, nothing would ever get done.
So how did we end up with us? Well, there are two questions there. How did we end up with anyone? And how come it’s us 20 not another 20? And the most important thing, given this isn’t just a piece of navel-gazing but actually intended to be of some use if you decide you’d like to do something similar, is how should you go about choosing the members of your collective?
So let’s start with us. Well, as with 99% of these things, most of it just sort of fell into place a bit chaotically. So if you’re reading this for tips you’re already well ahead of where we were! At the end of 2008 a number of us on a couple of my favourite online writing sites, Harper Collins’ Authonomy, and the critiquing group The Book Shed, started talking about the future of publishing, and the possibilities new technology offered for outflanking the established industry (the exact ins and outs are another post altogether), and we realised there was a great chance for a group of niche-focused, motivated writers with some great books. Fortunately, because I was the gobbiest, I got let off the last of these requirements.
So when, in January, I announced I was going to start a collective, there was a preformed constituency to choose from, consisting of all of us who’d been talking. I seriously doubt, if any of us had simply announced we were starting something from scratch and begun approaching people, we’d have got anywhere fast. As with everything in the creative world, these things are built on relationships. And that’s a good thing, especially if you’re doing it online, because you’ve got to be absolutely sure you’re getting on board with the right people.
Most of our membership came by that route. But there were a couple of places left to fill, which meant approaching people. So how on earth do you decide whom to approach? Well, the obvious disqualifier is forum behaviour. I think I can genuinely say this didn’t affect us. Possibly because it was back in what now seem the halcyon days of beautifully-etiquetted threads, possibly because I’m a gullible twit, I didn’t ever think, “Ooh, I want their book, but no, they’re a prize plonker.” It’s certainly the main bit of advice I’d give, though. I’d never deal with someone I’d witnessed trolling or flaming or partaking in any other jargonese metaphor. No matter how good their book. It’s something I say a lot on forums when people moan and moan about not getting an agent. If I were an agent looking through the forums, that alone would rule out working with them. And if I were an agent – or someone starting a collective – I WOULD look.
So how did we decide? Well, it was quite simple. First off, like any agent or publisher, we wanted books that had a voice. Most important of all for a collective, though, is that you all fit quite a tight niche. The reasoning’s simple. The advantage of a collective is that you’ve got lots of people to work targeting the same market any one of you would have to reach on your own. You’re divvying up the chores, and building a brand people in that market can come to trust. As soon as you have books that push the limit of the niche, you’re expanding the workload not focusing it. And whilst there will obviously be books you like more than others in an imprint, in order to create brand loyalty you have to consistently hit the same buttons, so people know what kind of read they’re in for.
We already hand some brand identity because we had – if not at that stage a manifesto – a set of rallying principles: we were going to deliver books as the authors wanted them to appear, unedited to fit preconceptions of taste and market. We were, essentially, a bit anarchic and 100% indie. Which created its own problems – if you’re not dictating content, how do you ensure brand identity?
What actually emerged from some soul-searching was that we were all doing the same kind of thing for the same kind of people. We were writing slightly edgy contemporary literary fiction (the kind of book the publishing industry isn’t geared up to deal with because the market is just a bit too small), and we were writing it for an urban indie audience – the kind of book you’d see people reading while they sat on Camden Lock smoking; the kind of book people would take out of the back pocket of their skinnies on the Tube.
The authors we approached had to be the ones who wrote this kind of thing.
The reaction, at both stages, was mixed. Which was a good thing because we didn’t end up with 100 people in the group. But a bad thing because we missed out on a couple of the books we really wanted. The reason why was usually – and completely understandably – the same. People either wanted to see how we got on before committing. Or they wanted to exhaust other avenues first. So where does that leave us with regard to them? Well, my personal approach is the door’s always open. The right books, written by lovely people, are always welcome. Yes, I have a list. There are between 10 and 20 names on it. I hope for their sake they don’t come to us, because that would mean they’ve made it. But I hope for our sake they do.
We’re not taking on new people at the moment (the exceptions being those on “the list”) partly because we’ve been through a huge amount together and – despite being based in the UK, USA, Hong Kong, Spain, Greece, Finland, and France – have knitted into an incredibly strong group. Now is the wrong time to unbalance that and risk losing focus. It wouldn’t be fair on newcomers either. Anyone joining up this close to a major release would have to just accept a whole lot of things we’ve agonised over and just aren’t up for negotiation any more.
But once the first books are out there and, I hope, flourishing, that’ll change. Our membership isn’t cast in stone. People are free to leave, and take their book with them, at any time. We are the antithesis of a record label. We are all self-publishers. We have no financial or intellectual property ties to each other. We can come and go as we please. We’ve made sure to make this freedom of movement clear in our Articles of Association.
How do I see us evolving? Well, people will come and go, and I imagine in 10 years we will look very different. I don’t even know if there will be a core membership. But Year Zero will be the same, and its strength will be the same – a commitment to giving readers the very best contemporary fiction, straight from the author’s keyboard; a commitment to building the trust and respect between writers and their readers.
So how did we end up with us? Well, there are two questions there. How did we end up with anyone? And how come it’s us 20 not another 20? And the most important thing, given this isn’t just a piece of navel-gazing but actually intended to be of some use if you decide you’d like to do something similar, is how should you go about choosing the members of your collective?
So let’s start with us. Well, as with 99% of these things, most of it just sort of fell into place a bit chaotically. So if you’re reading this for tips you’re already well ahead of where we were! At the end of 2008 a number of us on a couple of my favourite online writing sites, Harper Collins’ Authonomy, and the critiquing group The Book Shed, started talking about the future of publishing, and the possibilities new technology offered for outflanking the established industry (the exact ins and outs are another post altogether), and we realised there was a great chance for a group of niche-focused, motivated writers with some great books. Fortunately, because I was the gobbiest, I got let off the last of these requirements.
So when, in January, I announced I was going to start a collective, there was a preformed constituency to choose from, consisting of all of us who’d been talking. I seriously doubt, if any of us had simply announced we were starting something from scratch and begun approaching people, we’d have got anywhere fast. As with everything in the creative world, these things are built on relationships. And that’s a good thing, especially if you’re doing it online, because you’ve got to be absolutely sure you’re getting on board with the right people.
Most of our membership came by that route. But there were a couple of places left to fill, which meant approaching people. So how on earth do you decide whom to approach? Well, the obvious disqualifier is forum behaviour. I think I can genuinely say this didn’t affect us. Possibly because it was back in what now seem the halcyon days of beautifully-etiquetted threads, possibly because I’m a gullible twit, I didn’t ever think, “Ooh, I want their book, but no, they’re a prize plonker.” It’s certainly the main bit of advice I’d give, though. I’d never deal with someone I’d witnessed trolling or flaming or partaking in any other jargonese metaphor. No matter how good their book. It’s something I say a lot on forums when people moan and moan about not getting an agent. If I were an agent looking through the forums, that alone would rule out working with them. And if I were an agent – or someone starting a collective – I WOULD look.
So how did we decide? Well, it was quite simple. First off, like any agent or publisher, we wanted books that had a voice. Most important of all for a collective, though, is that you all fit quite a tight niche. The reasoning’s simple. The advantage of a collective is that you’ve got lots of people to work targeting the same market any one of you would have to reach on your own. You’re divvying up the chores, and building a brand people in that market can come to trust. As soon as you have books that push the limit of the niche, you’re expanding the workload not focusing it. And whilst there will obviously be books you like more than others in an imprint, in order to create brand loyalty you have to consistently hit the same buttons, so people know what kind of read they’re in for.
We already hand some brand identity because we had – if not at that stage a manifesto – a set of rallying principles: we were going to deliver books as the authors wanted them to appear, unedited to fit preconceptions of taste and market. We were, essentially, a bit anarchic and 100% indie. Which created its own problems – if you’re not dictating content, how do you ensure brand identity?
What actually emerged from some soul-searching was that we were all doing the same kind of thing for the same kind of people. We were writing slightly edgy contemporary literary fiction (the kind of book the publishing industry isn’t geared up to deal with because the market is just a bit too small), and we were writing it for an urban indie audience – the kind of book you’d see people reading while they sat on Camden Lock smoking; the kind of book people would take out of the back pocket of their skinnies on the Tube.
The authors we approached had to be the ones who wrote this kind of thing.
The reaction, at both stages, was mixed. Which was a good thing because we didn’t end up with 100 people in the group. But a bad thing because we missed out on a couple of the books we really wanted. The reason why was usually – and completely understandably – the same. People either wanted to see how we got on before committing. Or they wanted to exhaust other avenues first. So where does that leave us with regard to them? Well, my personal approach is the door’s always open. The right books, written by lovely people, are always welcome. Yes, I have a list. There are between 10 and 20 names on it. I hope for their sake they don’t come to us, because that would mean they’ve made it. But I hope for our sake they do.
We’re not taking on new people at the moment (the exceptions being those on “the list”) partly because we’ve been through a huge amount together and – despite being based in the UK, USA, Hong Kong, Spain, Greece, Finland, and France – have knitted into an incredibly strong group. Now is the wrong time to unbalance that and risk losing focus. It wouldn’t be fair on newcomers either. Anyone joining up this close to a major release would have to just accept a whole lot of things we’ve agonised over and just aren’t up for negotiation any more.
But once the first books are out there and, I hope, flourishing, that’ll change. Our membership isn’t cast in stone. People are free to leave, and take their book with them, at any time. We are the antithesis of a record label. We are all self-publishers. We have no financial or intellectual property ties to each other. We can come and go as we please. We’ve made sure to make this freedom of movement clear in our Articles of Association.
How do I see us evolving? Well, people will come and go, and I imagine in 10 years we will look very different. I don’t even know if there will be a core membership. But Year Zero will be the same, and its strength will be the same – a commitment to giving readers the very best contemporary fiction, straight from the author’s keyboard; a commitment to building the trust and respect between writers and their readers.
Monday, 8 June 2009
The Golden Commandment
This is the last in my 10 commandments for aspiring writers series. Whcih means I now have to think of a new column theme :-)
Networking is about looking for ways to do something FOR people, not get something FROM them.
This is my favourite commandment of all, and I’m delighted to save it till last in this series. We’re always reading about networking. Anyone who’s part of a writers’ site like Authonomy knows that success has so much to do with spreading your social tentacles, and we’re always being urged to use social media to increase our contacts and improve our chances of success – these days we even have sites like Ning that we can use to create our very own virtual social networks.
So why “network”? To get to know more people so there’s more of a chance of getting things done for us. Isn’t that right? Well, to the extent that’s most people’s motivation, it’s right, yes.
But it’s hardly the best way to go about it.
I’m not quite sure how the structure of this post will proceed. For me the truth of the “commandment” is self-evident, which makes it hard to write about. So apologies for structural vagaries.
I spent the first 30-something years of my life thinking not only was I the world’s worst networker, but that I hated the very idea of networking – it was inimical to me and to everything I, as a sensitive, shy aesthete thought the world should stand for. I associated it with men in suits with slick haircuts and shiny shoes; and I thought it meant the kind of self-aggrandising, pushy arrogance said men in suits seemed to indulge in as they boasted over their lagers about the size and speed of their silver BMWs.
Then I got a job as manager of a carpet shop, and fund myself spending at least half my time drinking coffee with company reps whilst we talked about colourways and product specs and interior design, and I very soon realised that the people who spent most time explaining the trade to me – all about jacquards and chlydema squares, and the acoustic properties of different underlays – were not only the ones I looked forward to seeing, but the ones whose products I sold more of. I’d start calling them up and ask if we could take more of their ranges, maybe put in a window display. They’d start calling me out of the blue and inviting me to go to nice places with them, and they’d start offering me lower prices for the products I was already selling plenty of at the higher price.
When I moved, after a couple of years, to one manage of the swankiest showrooms in the south of England, I was told one of the reasons I’d been headhunted was because I was a good networker, a statement I met totally blankly, until it was explained that was what I’d been doing all this time.
In my next set of columns, I’ll write about marketing and promotion. And one of the golden rules I’ll give you is this: never ask someone to do something for you, or tempt them with your amazing book, if you’re not prepared first to do something for them. So I’m not going to go into detail here about it. It also feels disingenuous as I think about it – because what you get out of helping other writers and people in the trade really is nothing to do with why you help them in the first place.
It’s hard to say much more without sounding either mercenary or a total hippy, so to conclude I’ll go back to anecdotes.
I’m a member of two “competitive” (to the extent that they hold out “prizes” of having your work read by people in the trade) writing sites, www.Authonomy.com and www.youwriteon.com Both these sites attract – from a vociferous, but smaller than their loud voices would lead you to believe minority – criticism for the way some people use the competitive elements of the site to get an advantage. Squabbles erupt about how writers “score” each others’ work, and about the mean-spiritedness of writers who fail to appreciate members’ masterpieces.
It never fails to amaze me what an uncollaborative bunch we writers are (see my previous post). If we go onto these sites to get “discovered” we will almost certainly fail. If we join in order both to learn, and to share what we’ve learned with as many people as possible, to help other writers through our comments, and to add to the educational and emotional value of the site, we will always succeed.
And I’ll close with an ambiguous anecdote. The editors at Harper Collins recently very generously answered a whole swathe of questions about the industry from Authonomy’s site members. Amongst the more illuminating answers was a reinforcement of what I’ve heard said and what I’ve seen done many, many times. When looking at a proposal, one of the things an editor asks themselves before deciding to proceed is what it’s going to be like working with this author.
What would it be like working with you? Does the way you conduct yourself with your fellow writers reflect that reality? Interesting questions. I wonder if we ask ourselves often enough.
Networking is about looking for ways to do something FOR people, not get something FROM them.
This is my favourite commandment of all, and I’m delighted to save it till last in this series. We’re always reading about networking. Anyone who’s part of a writers’ site like Authonomy knows that success has so much to do with spreading your social tentacles, and we’re always being urged to use social media to increase our contacts and improve our chances of success – these days we even have sites like Ning that we can use to create our very own virtual social networks.
So why “network”? To get to know more people so there’s more of a chance of getting things done for us. Isn’t that right? Well, to the extent that’s most people’s motivation, it’s right, yes.
But it’s hardly the best way to go about it.
I’m not quite sure how the structure of this post will proceed. For me the truth of the “commandment” is self-evident, which makes it hard to write about. So apologies for structural vagaries.
I spent the first 30-something years of my life thinking not only was I the world’s worst networker, but that I hated the very idea of networking – it was inimical to me and to everything I, as a sensitive, shy aesthete thought the world should stand for. I associated it with men in suits with slick haircuts and shiny shoes; and I thought it meant the kind of self-aggrandising, pushy arrogance said men in suits seemed to indulge in as they boasted over their lagers about the size and speed of their silver BMWs.
Then I got a job as manager of a carpet shop, and fund myself spending at least half my time drinking coffee with company reps whilst we talked about colourways and product specs and interior design, and I very soon realised that the people who spent most time explaining the trade to me – all about jacquards and chlydema squares, and the acoustic properties of different underlays – were not only the ones I looked forward to seeing, but the ones whose products I sold more of. I’d start calling them up and ask if we could take more of their ranges, maybe put in a window display. They’d start calling me out of the blue and inviting me to go to nice places with them, and they’d start offering me lower prices for the products I was already selling plenty of at the higher price.
When I moved, after a couple of years, to one manage of the swankiest showrooms in the south of England, I was told one of the reasons I’d been headhunted was because I was a good networker, a statement I met totally blankly, until it was explained that was what I’d been doing all this time.
In my next set of columns, I’ll write about marketing and promotion. And one of the golden rules I’ll give you is this: never ask someone to do something for you, or tempt them with your amazing book, if you’re not prepared first to do something for them. So I’m not going to go into detail here about it. It also feels disingenuous as I think about it – because what you get out of helping other writers and people in the trade really is nothing to do with why you help them in the first place.
It’s hard to say much more without sounding either mercenary or a total hippy, so to conclude I’ll go back to anecdotes.
I’m a member of two “competitive” (to the extent that they hold out “prizes” of having your work read by people in the trade) writing sites, www.Authonomy.com and www.youwriteon.com Both these sites attract – from a vociferous, but smaller than their loud voices would lead you to believe minority – criticism for the way some people use the competitive elements of the site to get an advantage. Squabbles erupt about how writers “score” each others’ work, and about the mean-spiritedness of writers who fail to appreciate members’ masterpieces.
It never fails to amaze me what an uncollaborative bunch we writers are (see my previous post). If we go onto these sites to get “discovered” we will almost certainly fail. If we join in order both to learn, and to share what we’ve learned with as many people as possible, to help other writers through our comments, and to add to the educational and emotional value of the site, we will always succeed.
And I’ll close with an ambiguous anecdote. The editors at Harper Collins recently very generously answered a whole swathe of questions about the industry from Authonomy’s site members. Amongst the more illuminating answers was a reinforcement of what I’ve heard said and what I’ve seen done many, many times. When looking at a proposal, one of the things an editor asks themselves before deciding to proceed is what it’s going to be like working with this author.
What would it be like working with you? Does the way you conduct yourself with your fellow writers reflect that reality? Interesting questions. I wonder if we ask ourselves often enough.
Monday, 11 May 2009
Readers and writers - restoring the lnk
A lot’s been made of the democratising effect of the Internet. We live in a world where we can all be producers of culture. Anyone with Internet access can set up a blog and pour out their soul. And it takes little more than a mobile phone and to that you can add sound, picture, and film to the “we’re all at it now” package.
But that’s not what I’m interested in. The sociology of our supply-heavy culture is fascinating, but what’s even more exciting, culturally, is the way technology has changed the relation between producers and consumers of culture. Sure the Internet is a large part of it, but so are developments like print on demand technology, allowing you to publish your own book on a tiny scale with little more than a pdf – and, more important, to bring out a new edition of the book any time you want to.
What’s so special about the new way of producing and consuming culture? The fact that as a reader, listener, viewer, I can go straight to the artist. And as an artist I can put my material out there to be accessed directly by my audience. We’re directly in touch with each other (to the extent we can add comments straight onto any piece of art to let each other know what we’re thinking) Gone are the days when focus groups and test screenings forced directors to change the endings of movies like Fatal Attraction, or add explanatory voiceovers (Blade Runner). Gone are the days when a record company tied you in to a gazillion album deal and forced you to churn out a gazillion copies of the same sound (Paul Young, George Michael).
What we’ve been less quick to pick up on as we celebrate the delightfully diverse creative culture, the fresh, untampered voices of musicians and directors, is the relevance of this new directness to writers.
We can all, for under £50, publish our own work on sites like Lulu. Gone are the days when editors, agents, publishers, reviewers got to dictate what the public could and couldn’t read. Gone are the days when if something’s not “on trend” it’s impossible to get it published. Gone are the days when an author has to turn their voice down, give us an uplifting ending, put in a little more of this and a little less of that because their publisher wants it.
We can now offer readers the prose we – and no one else – wanted to write. And as readers we can access prose as the authors intended it to appear, and not as we are told it should appear.
Traditionalists have attacked this uncut, unedited prose because, they argue, without editors it will be amateurish and – to be frank – shockingly poor, full of stodge and typos. And I have to say, when I read the later works of authors who’ve hit the big time and get to override their editors, I can see their point. The last few Harry Potters could have done with a good axe to the roots.
My answer is twofold. First – so what? Isn’t it actually up to the readers to decide whether they want typo-laden, raw, unpolished “rubbish” or not? And if they say they do, isn’t it up to anyone who cares about culture (as opposed to people who care about preserving a tradition) to accept that? Are there still people who would say punk should be excised from the history books because, let’s face it, 99% of it was bloody awful? Wasn’t the point of punk more than 30 years ago to give everyone to do it for themselves? And wasn’t the result a much-needed creative shot in the arm for the whole of western culture whose positive influence we’re still seeing today?
I fail to see the validity of the “but it’ll be crap” argument, the “it’ll devalue the proper stuff” argument. No, I’ll go a lot further than that. I find these arguments toxic, pernicious, totalitarian, downright frightening. Who these people think they ARE to define culture and value. Music had Johnny Rotten meets Ken Tynan. Art had Tracey Emin meets Brian Sewell. Literature is in serious need of a similar moment; a moment when the public see the veneer of ossification and decay ripped away from their perception of literature for good.
My second answer is that the argument misses the mark – it’s as though the traditionalists who claim to be preserving the industry as it stands don’t know the difference between editing and proofreading. If I don’t have an editor, agent, or publisher, I’m still perfectly free to have a graphic designer, a team of proofreaders, and an IT whiz producing my website. True, many of the self-published books out there are full of typos and stodgy writing. That’s hardly proof all self-published books have to be that way.
For me, it’s this aspect of writing today I find most exciting of all. I’m writing The Man Who Painted Agnieszka’s Shoes on Facebook, posting a chapter at a time. I post what I want, and readers tell me if they like it or not. What results is a book that pleases everyone, but more than that – the novel grows out of the direct, interactive relationship between me and my readers. THAT’S exciting.
But that’s not what I’m interested in. The sociology of our supply-heavy culture is fascinating, but what’s even more exciting, culturally, is the way technology has changed the relation between producers and consumers of culture. Sure the Internet is a large part of it, but so are developments like print on demand technology, allowing you to publish your own book on a tiny scale with little more than a pdf – and, more important, to bring out a new edition of the book any time you want to.
What’s so special about the new way of producing and consuming culture? The fact that as a reader, listener, viewer, I can go straight to the artist. And as an artist I can put my material out there to be accessed directly by my audience. We’re directly in touch with each other (to the extent we can add comments straight onto any piece of art to let each other know what we’re thinking) Gone are the days when focus groups and test screenings forced directors to change the endings of movies like Fatal Attraction, or add explanatory voiceovers (Blade Runner). Gone are the days when a record company tied you in to a gazillion album deal and forced you to churn out a gazillion copies of the same sound (Paul Young, George Michael).
What we’ve been less quick to pick up on as we celebrate the delightfully diverse creative culture, the fresh, untampered voices of musicians and directors, is the relevance of this new directness to writers.
We can all, for under £50, publish our own work on sites like Lulu. Gone are the days when editors, agents, publishers, reviewers got to dictate what the public could and couldn’t read. Gone are the days when if something’s not “on trend” it’s impossible to get it published. Gone are the days when an author has to turn their voice down, give us an uplifting ending, put in a little more of this and a little less of that because their publisher wants it.
We can now offer readers the prose we – and no one else – wanted to write. And as readers we can access prose as the authors intended it to appear, and not as we are told it should appear.
Traditionalists have attacked this uncut, unedited prose because, they argue, without editors it will be amateurish and – to be frank – shockingly poor, full of stodge and typos. And I have to say, when I read the later works of authors who’ve hit the big time and get to override their editors, I can see their point. The last few Harry Potters could have done with a good axe to the roots.
My answer is twofold. First – so what? Isn’t it actually up to the readers to decide whether they want typo-laden, raw, unpolished “rubbish” or not? And if they say they do, isn’t it up to anyone who cares about culture (as opposed to people who care about preserving a tradition) to accept that? Are there still people who would say punk should be excised from the history books because, let’s face it, 99% of it was bloody awful? Wasn’t the point of punk more than 30 years ago to give everyone to do it for themselves? And wasn’t the result a much-needed creative shot in the arm for the whole of western culture whose positive influence we’re still seeing today?
I fail to see the validity of the “but it’ll be crap” argument, the “it’ll devalue the proper stuff” argument. No, I’ll go a lot further than that. I find these arguments toxic, pernicious, totalitarian, downright frightening. Who these people think they ARE to define culture and value. Music had Johnny Rotten meets Ken Tynan. Art had Tracey Emin meets Brian Sewell. Literature is in serious need of a similar moment; a moment when the public see the veneer of ossification and decay ripped away from their perception of literature for good.
My second answer is that the argument misses the mark – it’s as though the traditionalists who claim to be preserving the industry as it stands don’t know the difference between editing and proofreading. If I don’t have an editor, agent, or publisher, I’m still perfectly free to have a graphic designer, a team of proofreaders, and an IT whiz producing my website. True, many of the self-published books out there are full of typos and stodgy writing. That’s hardly proof all self-published books have to be that way.
For me, it’s this aspect of writing today I find most exciting of all. I’m writing The Man Who Painted Agnieszka’s Shoes on Facebook, posting a chapter at a time. I post what I want, and readers tell me if they like it or not. What results is a book that pleases everyone, but more than that – the novel grows out of the direct, interactive relationship between me and my readers. THAT’S exciting.
Thursday, 23 April 2009
Publishing's in BIG TROUBLE
OK, so publishing’s in a bad way. Victoria Barnsley was speaking at LBF on the future of publishing. She’s the industry’s chief insider futurologist. And the best she can manage is what a couple of amateur dingbats sitting on a chatroom managed to knock up months ago. Serialisation (like Dickens, in fact) – sounds remarkably like the project one of my good writing friends has been working on for a long time – G, sort out the software, flog it to HC, and set up a press fro the rest of us with the proceeds.
And as for making money out of new tech – well, it’s hardly news is it – where it IS big news, of course, is for all those “insiders” who’ve been saying the industry doesn’t need change – the news is the biggest insider of all says otherwise. And like film and music first, when she comes a looking she’s going to be seeing what the indie innovators are doing, and see how she can spin it off to make gazillions if you shove a marketing shunt behind it.
So this is my last warning to the debunkers – the industry itself is won over to what we’ve been saying. Some of those of us who do our indie thing properly and innovatively now will have our doors battered down by execs with cheques in 2010. I intend to do everything I can in 2009 to make sure I’m one of them. If it doesn’t happen, I’ll worry about that next year. It’s not too late for everyone else out there to give it a go. I told you in January this was land grab time and no one believed me. I’m telling you again now. Come share the spoils. Because if you stick to the old way because there’s time for innovation later, you’ll end up discovering what the dot.com destitutes found out –a bandwagon’s a hell of a bumpy ride unless you’re the person driving it.
And as for making money out of new tech – well, it’s hardly news is it – where it IS big news, of course, is for all those “insiders” who’ve been saying the industry doesn’t need change – the news is the biggest insider of all says otherwise. And like film and music first, when she comes a looking she’s going to be seeing what the indie innovators are doing, and see how she can spin it off to make gazillions if you shove a marketing shunt behind it.
So this is my last warning to the debunkers – the industry itself is won over to what we’ve been saying. Some of those of us who do our indie thing properly and innovatively now will have our doors battered down by execs with cheques in 2010. I intend to do everything I can in 2009 to make sure I’m one of them. If it doesn’t happen, I’ll worry about that next year. It’s not too late for everyone else out there to give it a go. I told you in January this was land grab time and no one believed me. I’m telling you again now. Come share the spoils. Because if you stick to the old way because there’s time for innovation later, you’ll end up discovering what the dot.com destitutes found out –a bandwagon’s a hell of a bumpy ride unless you’re the person driving it.
Monday, 30 March 2009
10 commandments for writers in 2009
Anyone who knows me knows what I think about this. But there are plenty of you out there who have no idea. So here’s a list of one sentence, unexplained points to sum up my views. Over the coming weeks I’ll expand on each, but I hope this is enough to get a teeny weeny bit of debate going.
Call it my ten commandments for 2009
1.There is no stigma about self-publishing
2.Marketing is something small groups of like-minded writers can in many ways do better than big publishers
3.By the time the recession’s over the publishing houses will be playing catch-up with the new literary business models that emerge in the meanwhile
4.The internet is SOO much more than just another way of getting the same old type of book published
5.Don’t be afraid to give your work away for free.
6.Modern technology cuts out the barriers between readers and writers and brings prose back to life
7.Writing is not a zero-sum game – far from making my success LESS likely, your success makes it MORE likely, so cooperation between writers is a good thing.
8.Money follows innovation
9.Networking is about looking for ways to do something FOR people, not get something FROM them.
10.Writers need to think like musicians and artists; we need to be showmen and women, to work in the public eye.
Over the next ten weeks, I’ll take these one at a time as the subject of my “how to get ahead as a writer in 2009” column.
The Facebook novel where you can read and write it all for free
Twitter
My homepage
On YouTube
Read the book on Authonomy
e-mail me
Call it my ten commandments for 2009
1.There is no stigma about self-publishing
2.Marketing is something small groups of like-minded writers can in many ways do better than big publishers
3.By the time the recession’s over the publishing houses will be playing catch-up with the new literary business models that emerge in the meanwhile
4.The internet is SOO much more than just another way of getting the same old type of book published
5.Don’t be afraid to give your work away for free.
6.Modern technology cuts out the barriers between readers and writers and brings prose back to life
7.Writing is not a zero-sum game – far from making my success LESS likely, your success makes it MORE likely, so cooperation between writers is a good thing.
8.Money follows innovation
9.Networking is about looking for ways to do something FOR people, not get something FROM them.
10.Writers need to think like musicians and artists; we need to be showmen and women, to work in the public eye.
Over the next ten weeks, I’ll take these one at a time as the subject of my “how to get ahead as a writer in 2009” column.
The Facebook novel where you can read and write it all for free
My homepage
On YouTube
Read the book on Authonomy
e-mail me
Agenda
This blog is the radical wing of the Facebook novel, The Man Who Painted Agnieszka’s Shoes. It’s the place where discussion about the publishing industry stops and getting on with the future of literature starts.
It’s a place for frustration without spleen; for regret without bitterness; it’s a place for writers to come and suck energy from each other and their readers – to put to test the Adam Smith theory of culture – culture isn’t zero sum. It keeps on increasing as long as it keeps on flowing. Stop and it doesn’t stay still. It dies.
This is a place for short inspirational messages to fellow writers; for longs, slow group hugs; for drop dead innovative suggestions; er, and to help me write my novel, The Man Who Painted Agnieszka’s Shoes.
How to get published is yesterday’s debate. How to write at the limits is tomorrow’s project.
Coming next - The Year Zero manifesto
It’s a place for frustration without spleen; for regret without bitterness; it’s a place for writers to come and suck energy from each other and their readers – to put to test the Adam Smith theory of culture – culture isn’t zero sum. It keeps on increasing as long as it keeps on flowing. Stop and it doesn’t stay still. It dies.
This is a place for short inspirational messages to fellow writers; for longs, slow group hugs; for drop dead innovative suggestions; er, and to help me write my novel, The Man Who Painted Agnieszka’s Shoes.
How to get published is yesterday’s debate. How to write at the limits is tomorrow’s project.
Coming next - The Year Zero manifesto
Friday, 27 March 2009
Welcome to Agnieszka's blog
This is the official blog of the interactive free novel I'm writing on the Facebook group of the same name. Over the next week I'll be loading the blog posts over from there and blogging about it here.
please comment on anything you want. there are really no rules to this project
There is a synopsis, though, which I'll give you for now - and a bunch of links to look up over the weekend.
In 2009 one image became as iconic as the face of Che Guevara.
A story of art, politics, online communities, environmentalism, and the nature of celebrity;
Of the search for the truth behind a seemingly tragic death, that became the most watched YouTube video in history;
Of two personal journeys – a man whose daughter, missing for ten years, is fading from existence in a world he cannot reach; a schoolboy whose quest for beauty in mathematics has kept him locked in his room for three years; and the website that unites them;
Of the world’s most reclusive artist; of a dominatrix who uses other people’s pain to break down the doors to parallel worlds in search of the origin of her own agony; of an astrophysicist determined to preserve the moment of his wife’s death forever; of a vicious vigilante who spends his evenings composing haiku;
Of a novel that draws its life from the conversation between its writer and its readers.
Find Agnieszka:
The Facebook novel where you can read and write it all for free
Twitter
My homepage
On YouTube
Read the book on Authonomy
e-mail me
please comment on anything you want. there are really no rules to this project
There is a synopsis, though, which I'll give you for now - and a bunch of links to look up over the weekend.
In 2009 one image became as iconic as the face of Che Guevara.
A story of art, politics, online communities, environmentalism, and the nature of celebrity;
Of the search for the truth behind a seemingly tragic death, that became the most watched YouTube video in history;
Of two personal journeys – a man whose daughter, missing for ten years, is fading from existence in a world he cannot reach; a schoolboy whose quest for beauty in mathematics has kept him locked in his room for three years; and the website that unites them;
Of the world’s most reclusive artist; of a dominatrix who uses other people’s pain to break down the doors to parallel worlds in search of the origin of her own agony; of an astrophysicist determined to preserve the moment of his wife’s death forever; of a vicious vigilante who spends his evenings composing haiku;
Of a novel that draws its life from the conversation between its writer and its readers.
Find Agnieszka:
The Facebook novel where you can read and write it all for free
My homepage
On YouTube
Read the book on Authonomy
e-mail me
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)