How It's All Changed

David Morrell and his many works.

Last weekend, I was fortunate enough to listen to David Morrell speak* about the current state of publishing. If you're not familiar with Morrell, then perhaps you're more familiar with a certain troubled and misunderstood Vietnam War veteran who was the main character of Morrell's fist novel forty years ago. First Blood, starring the titular character Rambo, spawned a successful 80s film franchise that most men still stop and watch in awe when flipping through the local cable channels.

I'm not here to talk about Rambo, but I am here to highlight some of the main points David Morrell makes concerning the past, present, and future of publishing. Morrell, himself, has seen numerous changes in the publishing industry over the last four decades, but none quite as dramatic and rapid as what he's seen in the past few years with the rise of e-books, the closing of major bookstore chains, and self-publishing.

To begin, let's take a trip into the past, way back to the 1980s. In 1986, the model for the promotional tour was invented. Before this time, authors didn't tour from major city to major city in a ten-week promotional tour that left them functioning in a haze and wondering when sleep would finally come. Most cities had their local authors and that was about it. The local bookstore (if there was one) was about the only place in town a person could find a book to purchase. The idea behind the book tours was to introduce new authors to other regions of the country. Initially, it was a grand success. But since the idea wasn't to make money off the tour, publishing houses knew they had to balance out the $15,000 price tag. This was to come through sales and recognition (i.e. an author finding his/her way to the top of The New York Times list). Eventually, the tours ground to a halt because the numbers weren't matching up. Book tours were not driving up sales, so by the late 1990s the extravagant city hopping came to an end.

The top ten publishers represent 72%
of the total market.
(2009)

About this time, 'The Big 5' was born. Major corporations thought it a good idea to buy into the publishing world. (I'm not sure why they thought this to be a good investment.) Basically, 'The Big 5' gobbled up all the little guys creating the top five publishing houses (recent data shows these to be Random House, Pearson, Hachette, Harper Collins, and Simon & Schuster). This meant that most other publishers out there (i.e. Doubleday, Knopf, Little Brown, Pocket, etc.) became divisions or imprints of the large publishing houses. For the author, if a book was/is submitted to the publishing house and is turned down, then it is turned down by every imprint or division under the publishing house's umbrella. This, of course, has made it harder for the author to get his/her work noticed by one of the major publishing houses.

Along with the birth of 'The Big 5,' came chain bookstores. They started in the mall environment where numerous people shopped everyday. (Who doesn't remember going to a Waldenbooks or a B. Daltons? On a side note, check out this sad article on a closing mall bookstore.) Because the bookstores had grown in size from the little bookstore around the corner to a larger location with a larger clientele, the incentive to write grand, long-winded tomes became quite the trend (even Morrell professes to have written one of his own with The Brotherhood of the Rose). Bigger stores meant bigger-looking books, thus pushing the less than 300 page novels off the shelves to make room for the 500-600 page doorstoppers.

A Borders flagship store in Ann Arbor, Michigan
(2005)

Before long, large brick and mortar stores were conceptualized and Barnes & Noble and Borders became anchor stores in strip malls. When you look back at the history of these monstrosities, it's interesting to see that Borders's (which was acquired in 1992 by Kmart) history as a major bookstore lasted less than twenty years. But why did they go out of business? Morrell says that it has much to do with an unsustainable business model. Books were just a small portion of sales for a business that also sold CDs (downloadable music is slowly killing the CD industry), movies (same goes for movies as for CDs), toys, and nicknack stuff that really doesn't need to be sold in a bookstore. In essence, Borders couldn't keep their boat afloat. And the same is happening to Barnes & Noble, who recently stated that Nook would be becoming its own company. Doesn't inspire much confidence towards investing in B & N now, does it? 

Surprisingly enough, not all is lost. If anything, bookstores are reverting to where they were way back in the 80s. The local bookstores are once more blossoming. They can become important members of their communities by offering a knowledgeable staff (when was the last time you found one of those in Borders?) and author events that highlight local and national works. 

Kindle Fire

And, of course, the industry would not be what we know it today if not for e-readers. Amazon, who tends to be hush-hush about sales, says they move at least 1 million Kindles a week. (At $79 a pop, many people found these under the Christmas tree.) In the last quarter, Apple shipped over 11 million iPads. 1.5 million Nook and Nook Colors have sold in the last quarter as well. Morrell says that he believes roughly 100 million people in the U.S. alone own e-readers. But with so many of these on the market, Morrell sees the market reaching its highest levels of saturation this year and then leveling off in the years to come. So what does that say about the future of e-readers? It's a pretty healthy forecast. E-readers and self-publishing have changed the game when it comes to getting published. But in a good way? I'll let you be the judge!

Are you one of the 100 million people who owns an e-reader or tablet? Has it changed your reading habits and do you see it co-existing with physical books? Do you believe e-readers have revolutionized the market in a good way? Do you like the idea of the massive brick and mortar stores becoming, once again, the mom and pop places around the corner?

*David Morrell spoke at the SouthWest Writers monthly meeting on Jan. 7, 2012. His speech was entitled "The Current State of Publishing."


BTW ~ If you're interested to read any tips on preparing for the LSAT, pop on over to The Random Book Review and see what I have to say about my experience.

Five Reasons I Still Believe in Traditional Publishing

"That is one heavy bag of wishes you've got there!"

Nowadays, when it comes to getting your novel traditionally published, most writers believe it holds about as much merit as believing in Santa Claus. When we first start out, we dream of that instant success. We envision agents fawning over our manuscript, quickly signing us, even quicker yet getting us a publisher, the huge advance and, of course, that book tour we're going to take that goes from New York City all the way to the star-studded mania of Hollywood. But then we grow up. The shininess of this wonderland quickly fades into a swift-kick-in-the-pants reality. There is no shiny wrapped present under our tree, containing our fantastic masterpiece. This getting an agent thing is harder than we thought!

And so it should be.

Honing your craft as a writer is no easy task, to which just about any serious writer can attest. Sure, we write those first few crappy stories and we think they're brilliant, but then we do the one thing we were unprepared to do. We start querying agents. And we get rejection after rejection after rejection. Now, I'll admit, most agents give very little feedback anymore, which is a bit disheartening. And because so many first time novelists are either a) too scared to put their work out there for others to read, or b) so frustrated with the persistent rejections, they tend to turn to self-publishing in the e-book format.

I've stated before in previous posts that I have nothing against the wonderful world of e-books. I do, however, take issue with what's flooding the self-published e-market. If anything, a lot of what's out there is taking the writing world down a few pegs. Thus, why I still believe in traditional publishing. Yeah, you know -- the kind where an agent, editor, and publisher are involved. Here are five good things that come out of having an agent and being persistent when it comes to getting traditionally published:

1. Agents work as filters -- For a long time, I couldn't figure out what was really bothering me about self-published works, but then I attended a writers' meeting where the speaker spoke on how agents function. They are the filter to a seemingly endless line of aspiring work. We may not all agree on what constitutes good literature, but we can all agree that when we've read a satisfying novel we are happy to see it was published. True, some junk still gets out there when it's run through agents and publishers, but it was never so prevalent ten or fifteen years ago as it is today.
2. We are not all business men and women -- I cannot tell you how many blogs and websites I've read about those who took the self-pub route and just ended up frustrated. These authors came to realize that, although they may be good writers, they confessed that they knew nothing about balancing finances, keeping track of sales, promoting their book at every turn, etc. In one blog I read, the author confessed to so many sleepless nights over whether the book was selling or not that she became physically sick. Sure, we do have to handle much of the promotion responsibility now, but wouldn't it be nice to have someone extending a helping hand whenever you needed one?
3. Agents are contractually bound to root for you -- You get your own personal cheerleader, otherwise, the agent would never have taken you on in the first place. The self-pub route can be lonely. You (and usually your husband or wife) end up being the cheerleader for your team. Your agent wants your work to sell, so he/she will be pushing, pushing, pushing to get it out on the market. Encouragement always helps.
4. Other writers tend to take you more seriously -- Because the self-pub industry has become so flooded (and many of us have read some of those new "authors"), there's a certain kind of stigma that goes along with it. I've seen those looks some self-published authors get and I find it hard to take. And I'm just the bystander! The writing market is like any other entertainment market. We'd be hard-pressed to buy a low-quality rock album cut in someone's garage with horrible acoustics, and yet, self-published authors of all genres think their work should be taken seriously even if the work is filled with glaring errors. Until the self-publishing industry learns how to turn a filter on again, unfortunately, this stigma will always be there.
5. Deadlines make it feel like a true profession -- When we self-publish, we have no real deadlines. We make them up as we go along. A real agent or publishing house is going to set limits on our time. They will want things when they want them, and that means our butt is going to be in that chair each day pounding out a manuscript. If, as writers, we want our careers to be taken seriously, then we need to treat them as such.

Like many of you out there, I've struggled with getting my work published. It's no easy task. The thought to self-publish has crossed my mind, but every time I feel there is something holding me back from doing so. And I think that "something" relates back to the five things I mentioned above. I want to be taken seriously, not just by an agent or publisher, but also by my peers and the writing community at large. Personally, I don't believe self-publishing is what it's all trumped up to be by the hard-core believers. If it was, then why do so many self-pubbed authors still crave traditional representation? Because one of these five points causes this craving. The luster might wear away the more "grown-up" we become with our writing, but there still remains a wish. And don't all of us want our wishes to come true?

Some basic light literature all would-be authors need in in his/her arsenal:

I'm asking for it! Give me your feedback when it comes to self-publishing and the e-book market. Do you still believe in traditional publishing? Why or why not? Would you add any useful points to my list?

Content vs. Craft: The Dumbing Down of the Literary World

"The years passed, mankind became stupider at a frightening rate." (Narrator from Idiocracy)

What's a guy of average
intelligence to do
in the dumbed down future?

I have something that has been bugging me lately. I've often wondered if perhaps it's just me, but I don't think so. With many things I read, and most often times conversations in which I happen to get involved, there is a remarkable lack of attention paid to grammar. Now, I know as an English-speaker in the United States that we tend to have a certain pride when it comes to our overall English language. But that's pretty much where our pride stops. Having studied a second language for much of my college career, it didn't take me long to realize that when it comes to grammar, American English speakers, for the most part, couldn't care less. This lack of attention and enthusiasm is reflected in the way literature is being written today. Don't believe me? Well, let's take a look at some recent activity going on in the publishing world.

Let me preface this article by first saying I have nothing against the wonderful industry of e-publishing. I believe the ever-increasing popularity of publishing books in this format is due, largely in part, to the fact that it makes novels more available and easy to access on just about any mobile platform. (Hey, I have a Kindle and I enjoy it!) However, I do take offense with some authors who believe just about anything is publishable and, yeah, anyone should be happy with it and not rip it apart. Those who believe this way, believe the content (i.e. their story, the creative idea behind his/her work, the saturated genre) is fine the way it is, and that the craft (i.e. the wordcraft, the language, the actual plot, the beauty in which one creates the story, the actual prose) isn't all that important. In other words, if the story is dumbed down for the reader, who cares? I care, and so should any serious writer/reader out there.

Why have my hackles been raised? For two reasons:  firstly, celebrity (or celebutante) authors, and secondly, a recent article pertaining to a poorly written e-book series getting snatched up for traditional publication.

The Truth About
Diamonds
by Nicole Richie

Although there are a few who can pull it off (and I'm not talking about autobiographies, I'm talking fiction), for the most part, celebrity authors just don't have what it takes. Ones who make me cringe are those such as Lauren Conrad (according to Lisa Schwarzbaum of EW.com -- "Is there anything LC can't do? Well, uh, yes. Write a 'novel.'"), Pamela Anderson (according to Blogcritics.org, "Pamela Anderson's recent tome is unlikely to toll any bells in the halls of academia,") and Nicole Richie with her "reality fiction" (one commenter at Amazon.com said, "How this was published when real authors are struggling just to get their work read is amazing."). These "authors" lace their plots and storytelling with glitzy, superficial worlds that don't really speak to most readers. These "creations" are mostly "reality fiction," meaning the novel has become a vehicle they use in order to spill the beans about their own lives. These works are wolves in sheep's clothing and rarely do they carry any depth when it comes to crafting a great novel. And rarely do they last more than a few months on book shelves. For some reason, because someone like Snooki has an MTV audience, therefore she must make a great writer (here's an article about her novel A Shore Thing. Classy.). Hmm.

Virtue
by Amanda Hocking

I think the final straw that broke this camel's back is an article I read in *Entertainment Weekly. Two authors, Minnesota native Amanda Hocking and former insurance salesman John Locke, have been making waves in the self-publishing world. Hocking, who writes supernatural romance, recently signed a $2 million deal with St. Martin's Press, and Locke has moved more than a million downloads with his detective crime series. The quality of the writing is what really hit a nerve. Article writer, Rob Brunner, has this to say about Hocking's writing:

❝Hocking, it's safe to say, is not a stylist. Her work reads like a high school creative-writing assignment, full of typos and misused words and lifeless language. But while wordcraft may not be her thing, Hocking definitely does have something. Despite its faults, the trilogy zips along pleasantly enough, and although the books aren't remotely in the same league as Harry Potter or The Hunger Games, they do poke at the same pleasure centers.❞

And as to Locke? This is what Brunner has to say:

❝The latest, Vegas Moon, features characters with forced-funny names like Dr. Phyllis Willis and Fast Eddie Pickles, and a flimsy plot about a lethal computer chip implanted in Creed's brain gets padded out with a weirdly detailed pasta recipe and an impassioned defense of airport baggage handlers.❞

When, as readers, as purchasers of novels, did we start asking for dreck like this to be a proper representation of skill in an industry where almost anything goes nowadays? (After all, Hocking and Locke are at the top of the unrepresented self-published game.) When did we become complacent about shelling out those $3 or less for these e-books? We have a voice, and those of us who enjoy quality literature should use our voices by not throwing away our dollars on junk, because that's about all that some of this "literature" is -- junk. I don't know about you, but I'd rather keep visiting the local library where all my choices are free and I can usually see what I'm getting into.

In the case of Amanda Hocking, as a writer, I would have been excited to hear how oftentimes belittled self-publishing landed her a fantastic deal with St. Martin's (because I truly believe there are some great self-published works out there), but when I continued reading the article I felt disgust more than anything else. I often hear people say, "Why, I should write a book. I'd make soooo much money." I just shake my head. But then a story like this crops up and I think, "Yeah, you should write that book, Mr. I-have-no-idea-how-to-even-do-it. How much worse could your writing possibly be?" After all, if Hocking and Snooki can pull it off, then anybody can pull it off. Right?

In my opinion, anyone who wants to self-publish needs to do the same amount of legwork that one would do if he/she was going the traditional route. Have a critique group and beta readers, know your genre, get all the feedback that's necessary in order to have a finely crafted creation. If you want to be taken seriously, then treat your writing seriously. Then, it would be worth the few extra bucks people would be willing to pay to read something memorable.


What about for you? Are you wasting your dollars on a high caloric diet of literary junk? Do you feel there is an influx of badly crafted work hitting the self-publishing world? Should there be a better way of regulating it now that the so-called gatekeepers (agents) of the industry no longer work as filters? Feel free to point out any grammatical errors in this article!


* The article, "The Hottest Self-Published Books," can be found in the July 29, 2011 issue, #1165.


✿ Also, for an upcoming article I'm looking for anyone who has done work as a ghostwriter. Feel free to e-mail me at writing.sisterhood@gmail.com!