Article Review: Under Reporting?

Posted by on February 26, 2012 in Publishing | 7 comments

I am not endorsing this information, nor proposing any theory about it. But, I do think it’s important to be aware of what could be occuring. The Big Six is often shown in a bad light these days, but I don’t honestly think they’re “bad guys”. I think they are a business outside of art, and that doesn’t always mesh well with the love of art.

In short, they’re about numbers. The impact of this can range from not accepting great manuscripts because the risk is too large, to a delay in updating their infrastructure. Anyone who has worked in an office setting knows how this is first hand: that computer with a terrible personality no one will replace, the old fax machine that looks like the original time machine, and let’s not get started on the office chairs themselves.

Once you put publishing houses in the context of being a business, not a holy gatekeeper nor a fickle god, things begin to make a little more sense.

That being said, under reporting, and thus under paying, is not an option. I’d like to see more substantive evidence of this before anyone goes pointing fingers though.

Do you feel it’s sometimes easy for authors to lose sight that publishing houses are actually businesses, first and foremost?

Other Posts You Might Like

  • Natasha

    I certainly don’t think the big six are the bad guys. I won’t get into who I think the real demons of the publishing industry are, but I think writers are too quick to demonize the big guys and literary agents in general. I don’t get it, and I loved this article review.
    Twitter:

  • http://www.hardlimitspress.com/authors/vivien-weaver Vivien Weaver

    Funny, I was just having a tangentially related discussion on #writechat about the benefits/downfalls of selling through Amazon. A while back I wrote a blog post about Amazon vs. indie booksellers, though it could certainly apply to indie publishers as well. (You can find it here: http://goo.gl/Rwh9U ) They play on relatively different fields, and why shouldn’t they? Each has strengths the other doesn’t.

    In short: I think demonizing a business for being a business is a waste of energy. I think writers have a tendency to demonize the business end of writing in general. Being an arteest is all fine and wonderful, but in the current book market with so many avenues of publication, the writer really has to be savvy and forward-looking. Writers ought to focus on what kind of business people they want to be. Does an indie publisher suit your vision/style best? Do that. Do you want to do everything yourself? Then do it. Do you want the benefit of being under a “big name?” Go for it.

  • http://supernatural-suspense.com/ Rob Adams

    Writing is an art, and I think it’s sometimes difficult to reconcile the fact that those who have traditionally held the power to get that art into the hand of the public are corporations.

    It’s a fine line. Art is, as we writers know, a way to express what we feel and believe–the core of who we are. But, like the proverbial tree that falls in the woods unheard, can the art of writing exist if no one reads it? Or does this not apply as long as there are entities that decide who is worthy of publication and who is not?

    I think this is the issue that has propelled indi-publishing and self-publishing to the state they’re now in.

    I don’t think the big publishers–or any large corporation, for that matter–is inherently evil, but with extremely few exceptions, they exist to benefit their shareholders, and therefore are justified in making the decisions they do concerning who they do or don’t publish. They do, however, unless they are controlled by inept officers, want to publish what they think is the very best material available–or at least the most likely to sell in the current market.

    And they offer quite a bit to those who write to their standards: advances and royalties, professional copy editing, and bearing the costs of marketing, publishing and distribution. Unfortunately, a lot of great stuff goes unpublished. Yet even more really awful stuff does as well.

    Today there are options for the authors who are writing amazing stuff, yet for one reason or another haven’t passed muster with the big publishers. This is great news for writers, of course, but it’s a double-edged sword for readers, as it becomes more difficult to tell whether the book in your hand–or on your device–is really worth the time and money investment. I’ve read my share of self-published novels lately that have left little question in my mind as to why a traditional publisher would have passed it by, and even more that would at least have benefited from the professional copy editing provided by a major publisher.

    Then again, can anyone who’s been reading for any significant amount of time say that they’ve never read at least one amazingly awful novel published by a major house?

    I haven’t yet been published (unless you count my blog, and that really silly fanzine I was part of over twenty years ago), but I can say that when I have my first novel ready to go, I’ll be sending it out to the major players first. The advantages are too big to ignore. It’s just a matter of playing out my options from the top down. I think all true artists want to have their art experienced by as many people as possible, and right now, traditional publishing is the best way to meet that end.
    Rob Adams recently posted…Book Review: Seed, by Ania AhlbornMy Profile
    Twitter:

    • http://supernatural-suspense.com Rob Adams

      Whoa. After all that, I entered my Twitter account handle incorrectly. Should be @RNAdams2.
      Twitter:

    • Rainy Kaye

      Thanks for taking the time to post such a nice comment, Rob :) These are all great points. I am doing the same as you, starting with the big ones and moving onto others if that doesn’t pan out. I don’t see it as “top down” so much, but attempting to reach personal goals.
      Twitter: