HOME | CATALOG | DOWNLOADS | LINKS | EDITORIALS | DISCUSSION | CONTACT

Reader As Publisher

Topics | Last Day | Last Week | Tree View | Search | User List | Help/Instructions | Log Out | Edit Profile | Register
Night Shade Message Boards » General » Reader As Publisher « Previous Next »

Author Message
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

des
Posted on Wednesday, December 28, 2005 - 04:28 am:   

If the raw text of a novel is provided on the internet for free so that anyone can print it, then bind it to their own design and then possibly send to author for signing, is this the reader acting as 'publisher' who effectively 'accepts' the work?
And is there any mileage in it?
des
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

des
Posted on Thursday, December 29, 2005 - 03:19 pm:   

Self-publishing - to me - is anathema, always has been. But, of course, that only applied to printed works. For example, I would never have dreamt of including one of my own stories in NEMONYMOUS.

Putting my novel on a blog (a blog which I was already using to republish all my old print-published work from over 20 years of being published) did not seem to be self-publishing at the time. It has now begun to seem *like* self-publishing - until I suggested readers print it out as a book, choosing themselves to 'publish' it (or not).

A dilemma? One with repercussions that need addressing, I feel.
des
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

des
Posted on Friday, December 30, 2005 - 01:09 am:   

There seems now to be five ways ways to publish a novel:
(1) Traditional publisher with all their services of distribution, marketing, review copies sent out etc etc, (either by POD or traditional printing).
(2) Publisher who simply prints book and facilitates distribution (usually by POD)
(3) Publisher who asks for money from author to publish it (vanity publishing, either by POD or traditional printing).
(4) Author self-publishes in print with whatever he wants to give to it as publicity impetus etc etc.
(5) Author makes raw text of novel available on-line allowing the reader to decide to 'publish' it by simply reading it there or producing as book for author to sign (or not).

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

des
Posted on Friday, December 30, 2005 - 04:44 am:   

I hereby name my method (5) above as Print-on-Reading as a method of publishing a novel (not self-publishing although it involves the author making raw text available on-line) - with the knowledge that it is now easier to print and bind things to one's own specification.
This may delightfully lead to many unique editions of one work -- and signed by the author if the logistics of getting the author to sign the hard copy are easy enough.

Or can you think of a better name for it?
Or do you even recognise it as a method of publishing a novel at all?
des
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Marcus Lewison
Posted on Friday, December 30, 2005 - 11:10 pm:   

des,
It sounds to me like you are practicing semantic aerobics of the highest degree just to avoid that landmine some have been known to call the denigrating label of "self-publisher."

Call it Print-on-Reading if that works better for you. Better yet, don't worry about the label. Do what feels right, and allows you to share your words with your audience. Or best of all, allow for the reality that self-publishing is neither evil nor necessarily unprofesional, whether it be done by web or by paper.

All the preceding is my oh-so-humble opinion, of course. Presented to be considered or disregarded as you see fit.

PS I won't publish my own works either in any magazine I help edit/produce. Yet I've noted that better writers than I do not follow such proscriptions.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

des
Posted on Saturday, December 31, 2005 - 12:34 am:   

I've not got nothing against an author 'self-publishing' a work by himself that repersents the whole book, cover to cover. I would never do it, however, myself.
Also, I hate more, however, writers editing a multi-authored anthology and including one of their own stories (where the editor is in sole charge of the choices etc.) I don't know why. But the latter always seems wrong to me.

My method (5) above does not seem to me to be self-publishing - but merely a facility to the *reader* to publish something, by simply reading it or printing it out as a sheaf of papers or even a proper book (where the reader could even choose the cover to best suit the novel he has already read etc etc.). If he does none of these things (eg gives up reading it or does not even attempt it after scanning it or does not click on the link to look at it at all), then the book remains unpublished for that reader.

But as you say. What's best for the writer to get his stuff out. And thanks for your time.
des
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

des
Posted on Saturday, December 31, 2005 - 12:37 am:   

Sorry about the typos and mis-expressions in the first paragraph above! But I hope you get my drift.
des
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

des
Posted on Saturday, December 31, 2005 - 01:05 am:   

Apparently, Cory Doctorow has been using methods similar to my method (5) above for some time.
des
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Tom B
Posted on Saturday, December 31, 2005 - 10:20 am:   

Doctorow puts his book up on creative commons license in addition to print publishing, not instead of; he still produces a revenue stream from each story he publishes.
His may be an unusual situation, as he is so widely known from his electronic rights work.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

des
Posted on Saturday, December 31, 2005 - 10:42 am:   

What does 'creative commons license' mean?
des
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

A.R.Yngve
Posted on Saturday, December 31, 2005 - 01:56 pm:   

Creative Commons License="Fair Use" under another name.

I've been posting my old novels on the Internet longer than Cory (bless him), but the difference is I don't use CC(Creative Commons) and I use the HTML format, not PDF, so I can edit the text whenever it suits me.

-A.R.Yngve
http://yngve.bravehost.com


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

des
Posted on Saturday, December 31, 2005 - 02:30 pm:   

I'm afraid I didn't understand any of that. But thanks,

I use a blog which I can also edit.
des
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

MarcL
Posted on Saturday, December 31, 2005 - 09:38 pm:   

Cory tends to make his books available free, online, simultaneous with their appearance in mass-market retail editions. I appreciate the fact that he doesn't just post whatever he writes, and when you embark on reading one of his online books, you know it's already had the full benefit of editing, proofing, etc., by professionals who felt that this particular work was worth paying for. In other words, the long-established and extremely useful (if commercial) filters that protect our tender eyes from slush, are in place, even though it's a free online edition. If you like what you read, you can seek out and pay for a mass market edition. Or not. I truly believe Cory doesn't care one way or the other, and would argue that online access has increased his audience and improved sales of his retail editions. The Creative Commons license incidentally allows fans to re-mix the book, make audio versions, and do all kinds of other things to the original material. I think. I haven't pored over the fine print. This all works for Cory, of course, partly because he is a good writer; I have seen plenty of other writers announce they are "releasing" their work under a Creative Commons license, but since they're not Doctorow, few of his fans care. I'm not convinced it works for everyone, but he has developed his readership partly due to being such an active promoter of the Creative Commons concept.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

des
Posted on Sunday, January 01, 2006 - 01:06 am:   

In other words, the long-established and extremely useful (if commercial) filters that protect our tender eyes from slush, are in place, even though it's a free online edition.

Thanks, Marc, for all the info. Fascinating. At the end of the day - if someone puts a novel on a public blog it won't easily be read because it's not perceived to have been filtered by a third party. If, however, people do read it, it has been filtered by third parties, ie the readers themselves by force of word-of-mouth.

I now see myself as a stand-up novelist! It's the way he tells them! ;-)
des

Add Your Message Here
Post:
Username: Posting Information:
This is a private posting area. Only registered users and moderators may post messages here.
Password:
Options: Enable HTML code in message
Automatically activate URLs in message
Action:

Topics | Last Day | Last Week | Tree View | Search | User List | Help/Instructions | Log Out | Edit Profile | Register

| Moderators | Administrators |