I have to agree with Steve's point here, but there's a pattern emerging,
and we've seen it before. The basic model hasn't really changed that
much - after all, walk in a bookstore, scan the shelves, buy books,
and we're still in the world we've been in for a long time.
The 'but' becomes clearer when we look at the recent (and rather
extensive) changes in that same bookstore in the music section. Borders
has gutted their music CD offering. B&N still has theirs, but they seem
to be tilting their space more toward DVD films and TV shows. Popular
music in stores, in hard form, is disappearing, replaced by song-by-song
downloads.
The comparison between music and print isn't a close parallel, but I think
it illustrates the abruptness of the transformations, driven by digital
advances, that we're seeing in a lot of places. Everything will
continue to
look as it always did right up to the threshold point where it gets
cheaper,
easier, and faster to do the new thing, and then the old thing will recede
into the background, to become just one of a widening range of options
for the adventurous buyer. As time passes, and the adventure becomes
commonplace, that fraction of a percentage point of the market Steve
mentions will begin to swell and then explode.
I think print publishers who track these developments and find ways to
accommodate the shifts in the markets will prosper, but I think those who
try to man the barricades and fight the shift will have a much harder time.
There might just be some amazing synergies no one has worked out yet
between print and screen. The publishers who find and exploit them will
stand a better chance.
I'll freely admit my biases toward the newer approaches - I've been digital
most of my life. And my writing finds very narrow markets on the best of
days. It makes me happy to be out there experimenting in the digital
jungle. I'm afraid that rather sets me apart. But it doesn't keep me from
wanting to engage with print publishers to try to find those synergies.
Dana
SteveC wrote:
In terms of pure numbers, the argument that the publishing world has
changed is as flawed as the chart that started the thread.
There is no question that authors do have an increasing ability to go
around the mainstream publishing filter. But the problem is again one
of base line. The base line against which we're comparing is close to
zero. (Not zero itself, because there have always been self-published
or tiny press books that caught on.)
We've seen a huge increase in that number. But we're still at the
stage where every single instance of such a success gets noticed.
There may be hundreds total, but hundreds are still less than 1% of
all the books published by mainstream publishers in a single year.
They are probably a smaller proportion of books than hybrid cars are
of cars sold in a year. Both get undue attention because they are the
supposed vision of the future but the overall model has not really
changed at all.
Steve
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "R-SPEC:
The Rochester Speculative Literature Association" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected].
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/r-spec?hl=en.
