# The Future of Writing?



## Book Cook (May 23, 2018)

I've stumbled upon this article: https://www.theguardian.com/books/2011/aug/22/are-books-dead-ewan-morrison

To me it sounds rather convincing, particularly after seeing how many people on this forum are self-publishing. It seems that writers themselves are killing the industry. Any thoughts?


----------



## Kyle R (May 23, 2018)

Interesting article! (And yes, a bit frightening, too.)

Though, I don't share the same "doom and gloom" mindset that the article's author has. A lack of spending isn't the biggest hurdle that written fiction faces—the real hurdle is competing with other forms of entertainment (specifically film and streaming shows).

Consumers will always pay for what they want. In today's day and age, it's so easy to _one-click_ purchase our immediate access to content. As technology advances, spending won't vanish. Instead, it will just become easier and quicker. (Eventually we'll just have our accounts "auto-purchase" similar content without even needing our own approval.)

The real hurdle is making written fiction desirable in the wake of visual fiction. It's a tough battle, especially with people reading less these days. But I believe the secret will always be _free_ content—in order to entice readers into paying to unlock the rest of it.

Just have to make sure your free samples/excerpts/stories are juicy enough to earn that "click here to keep reading!" purchase.


----------



## JJBuchholz (May 24, 2018)

Book Cook said:


> It seems that writers themselves are killing the industry. Any thoughts?



I would think that it's the publishers who are killing the industry. In a time where technology has encroached on just about everything, publishers are way too picky and finicky about what 'they' think merits being published. If they'd ease up a little and perhaps stop being such fuss pots, things might improve.

-JJB


----------



## moderan (May 24, 2018)

JJBuchholz said:


> I would think that it's the publishers who are killing the industry. In a time where technology has encroached on just about everything, publishers are way too picky and finicky about what 'they' think merits being published. If they'd ease up a little and perhaps stop being such fuss pots, things might improve.
> 
> -JJB



Hahahahaha. I read this as "I can't get published". Anyone else?


----------



## Phil Istine (May 24, 2018)

moderan said:


> Hahahahaha. I read this as "I can't get published". Anyone else?



I read it as "publishers are too picky."
In an era where financial belt tightening is the norm, they have become more risk averse.  Their money so their call.


----------



## Pete_C (May 24, 2018)

moderan said:


> Hahahahaha. I read this as "I can't get published". Anyone else?



And I read this as 'petty'.


----------



## bdcharles (May 24, 2018)

Gosh. I find these sorts of futurological prediction porn articles tend to be a good indicator of exactly how things will not turn out. Generally, I'd say if you write something popular or engaging that piques the public interest for whatever reason, you can charge for it. Its not as if film stars and pop singers are suddenly becoming skint. They still sweat their talents, but what I would say is that they use free content as a loss-leader. You see a youtube video of a band, you might download their music or go to a gig. Writers do the same, in blogs and whatever little bits of freebie online content and whatnot. It's branding, advertising. That's not usually even free but incurs a cost to the creator, but still, it's pretty important.

Yes, there is some writing that has slid towards being produced and consumed for free. It's called crap writing. Blogs and articles. Some self publishing also. There is film and music and games for free available in bars and dodgy internet servers and social media platforms all over the world. The solution? Don't be a producer of junk. Quality and mass appeal still command a premium and so it should. Consumers know that and wear their excellence or "what's-hot" tags with pride.


----------



## Terry D (May 24, 2018)

Book Cook said:


> I've stumbled upon this article: https://www.theguardian.com/books/2011/aug/22/are-books-dead-ewan-morrison
> 
> To me it sounds rather convincing, particularly after seeing how many people on this forum are self-publishing. It seems that writers themselves are killing the industry. Any thoughts?



I've been reading that same article -- written by different people and published by different sources -- for at least the last 10 years. Here's a simple graph that shows the trend has actually been increasing steadily since 2012.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/422595/print-book-sales-usa/


----------



## moderan (May 24, 2018)

Pete_C said:


> And I read this as 'petty'.


Don't mean it ain't true.
I don't think publishers are picky enough. Still too much utter crap getting to market. Sturgeon's Law and all that...if an agent can make a case for sales figures, out it goes. Big Five don't care about art. The public thinks James Patterson is art. 
Small Press is the future. Always on the make means best possible quality.


----------



## Book Cook (Jun 2, 2018)

bdcharles said:


> Gosh. I find these sorts of futurological prediction porn articles tend to be a good indicator of exactly how things will not turn out. Generally, I'd say if you write something popular or engaging that piques the public interest for whatever reason, you can charge for it. Its not as if film stars and pop singers are suddenly becoming skint. They still sweat their talents, but what I would say is that they use free content as a loss-leader. You see a youtube video of a band, you might download their music or go to a gig. Writers do the same, in blogs and whatever little bits of freebie online content and whatnot. It's branding, advertising. That's not usually even free but incurs a cost to the creator, but still, it's pretty important.
> 
> Yes, there is some writing that has slid towards being produced and consumed for free. It's called crap writing. Blogs and articles. Some self publishing also. There is film and music and games for free available in bars and dodgy internet servers and social media platforms all over the world. The solution? Don't be a producer of junk. Quality and mass appeal still command a premium and so it should. Consumers know that and wear their excellence or "what's-hot" tags with pride.



Music has become cheaper and a lot of it is pirated. With Kindle, books are pirated and have become cheaper. But singers and bands have a mother lode that will never be depleted: concerts. Somehow I don't see writers filling up stadiums, charging a 100 bucks a head so they could read a few chapters from their new novel.


----------



## Theglasshouse (Jun 2, 2018)

Bookstores haven't disappeared. Used book stores are a thriving market. I'd be willing to spend my time researching places that can promote books if you can be innovative in this regard. I know there are less Barnes and Noble stores most likely because of Amazon. It will remain in demand just because people have an itch to read a book rather than simply turn on a kindle. It's an alarmist article but is false for me since books are printed and digital sales don't "seem" higher than print sales. But I don't know since we still have people who seem to be computer illiterate. Both will go side by side for a long time. They market one another. Visiting a book store to buy a book or read it in a sitting is still a customer practice. 

What I hate about kindle is you can't preview much of the book.

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2...sales-outperform-digital-titles-amazon-ebooks

https://www.inc.com/glenn-leibowitz...oy-of-reading-an-old-fashioned-hardcover.html

This is a market trend.


----------



## JJBuchholz (Jun 3, 2018)

Theglasshouse said:


> Bookstores haven't disappeared. Used book stores are a thriving market.



Indeed. I have a small shop like this in the plaza nearby. Great place! So many books, in so many different genres! I find myself nowadays visiting said store more frequently, happy to spend some small $$ on a two or three books at a time.

-JJB


----------



## Jack of all trades (Jun 3, 2018)

I think it is the price of books that is killing the business. I know the costs of editing and printing must be recovered, but it has gotten too expensive to buy new books. (And authors make zero money off resales.) Between poorer quality and increased price, there's less reason to buy print books.


----------



## Bayview (Jun 3, 2018)

Jack of all trades said:


> I think it is the price of books that is killing the business. I know the costs of editing and printing must be recovered, but it has gotten too expensive to buy new books. (And authors make zero money off resales.) Between poorer quality and increased price, there's less reason to buy print books.



I don't feel like books are more expensive than they used to be (take a look at https://www.theawl.com/2011/12/how-much-more-do-books-cost-today/ for some data). I just think e-books and cheap self-published books have made us expect all books to cost less.

I try to fight that mentality. My time is valuable, and I don't want to waste it on something I don't really enjoy. So I'll pay for good reading, for sure. (I prefer e-books just for convenience, but I'll pay for the full priced ones from publishers I trust, no hesitation).


----------



## Jack of all trades (Jun 3, 2018)

Bayview said:


> I don't feel like books are more expensive than they used to be (take a look at https://www.theawl.com/2011/12/how-much-more-do-books-cost-today/ for some data). I just think e-books and cheap self-published books have made us expect all books to cost less.
> 
> I try to fight that mentality. My time is valuable, and I don't want to waste it on something I don't really enjoy. So I'll pay for good reading, for sure. (I prefer e-books just for convenience, but I'll pay for the full priced ones from publishers I trust, no hesitation).



I think a more meaningful analysis would be looking at the prices of a new book by an unknown author each decade. Let's face it, popularity drives up the cost. So to get a real feel, not to mention being more relevant to hopefully up-and-coming authors', the emerging authors books should be used.


----------



## Ralph Rotten (Jun 3, 2018)

I believe what the author was saying is that writing has now entered the gig economy.  It has been Uber-ized.
That is our future state.


----------



## Bayview (Jun 3, 2018)

Jack of all trades said:


> I think a more meaningful analysis would be looking at the prices of a new book by an unknown author each decade. Let's face it, popularity drives up the cost. So to get a real feel, not to mention being more relevant to hopefully up-and-coming authors', the emerging authors books should be used.



Yeah, I don't have data on that, but I don't feel like there's a huge difference between the price of a book from an established author and a new author in the bookstores, do you? Like, there's no "new author" discount that I've noticed. Can you think of some names of new authors and we can compare their book prices to the big names? Or you're saying there _used _to be a new author discount and isn't anymore? I don't recall that, but it's harder to test for, I guess.

Oh, no, wait... how about... _Player Piano_ came out in 1952, and the hardcover cost $3, according to this listing. And in the article I linked to above, it said _The Caine Mutiny_ cost $3.95 in 1951. I haven't read that, but Wouk tends to write _long_ so I'm going to guess the difference in price was due to the length? Based on Amazon's listings for the current versions, Vonnegut's book is 354 pages and Wouk's is 673, so... yeah, Wouk's is almost twice as long.

So I don't think there was a new author discount back then.


Unless the up-and-coming authors you're thinking of are self-publishing, in which case I'd say their books probably cost a hell of a lot less than the best sellers from established authors...

Do you have something to suggest otherwise?


----------



## Jack of all trades (Jun 4, 2018)

[SUB][/SUB]





Bayview said:


> Yeah, I don't have data on that, but I don't feel like there's a huge difference between the price of a book from an established author and a new author in the bookstores, do you? Like, there's no "new author" discount that I've noticed. Can you think of some names of new authors and we can compare their book prices to the big names? Or you're saying there _used _to be a new author discount and isn't anymore? I don't recall that, but it's harder to test for, I guess.
> 
> Oh, no, wait... how about... _Player Piano_ came out in 1952, and the hardcover cost $3, according to this listing. And in the article I linked to above, it said _The Caine Mutiny_ cost $3.95 in 1951. I haven't read that, but Wouk tends to write _long_ so I'm going to guess the difference in price was due to the length? Based on Amazon's listings for the current versions, Vonnegut's book is 354 pages and Wouk's is 673, so... yeah, Wouk's is almost twice as long.
> 
> ...




First, it's not about new author discounts. It's about inflating the price of popular authors. Publishers can inflate those prices, simply because they are popular.

Second, I did a little research of my own. Ten years ago I bought an Agatha Christie paperback book for $7.99 + tax. Today, that same paperback book is $16.99 + tax. Double the price.


----------



## Bayview (Jun 4, 2018)

Jack of all trades said:


> First, it's not about new author discounts. It's about inflating the price of popular authors. Publishers can inflate those prices, simply because they are popular.



But you don't want to talk about popular authors, I thought? It'd be a more meaningful analysis if we look at the prices for new authors? I mean, regardless of whether we call it a discount or inflated prices, I don't feel as if I've seen popular authors costing more than new authors, in general. I could be wrong, of course.



> Second, I did a little research of my own. Ten years ago I bought an Agatha Christie paperback book for $7.99 + tax. Today, that same paperback book is $16.99 + tax. Double the price.



Wow - is it possible you got a really good deal in the past, or a really bad deal in the present? Most of the Christie paperbacks on sale at Amazon seem to be priced much lower than $16.99... . Which title was it?

And, really, if we're working on the theory that publishers inflate the prices of popular novels - are you saying the Agatha Christie book is much more popular today than it was ten years ago?

Maybe this is a geographic thing - I know books are more expensive than I'd expect in Australia, for example (although I have no idea if they've become _more_ expensive over time, or if they've always been more expensive than I'd expect...). I'm in Canada, but using the .com Amazon for comparisons. What market are you thinking of?


----------



## Jack of all trades (Jun 4, 2018)

Bayview said:


> But you don't want to talk about popular authors, I thought? It'd be a more meaningful analysis if we look at the prices for new authors? I mean, regardless of whether we call it a discount or inflated prices, I don't feel as if I've seen popular authors costing more than new authors, in general. I could be wrong, of course.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



What I am saying is that Agatha Christie, whose popularity either remained consistent or declined during the past decade, has had a doubling of price, which supports my earlier remark that high prices are hurting publishing. Period.

As an aside, a moderator arguing reflects more on the site than a member. Good luck with your endeavours.


----------



## JJBuchholz (Jun 5, 2018)

Jack of all trades said:


> I think it is the price of books that is killing the business. I know the costs of editing and printing must be recovered, but it has gotten too expensive to buy new books. (And authors make zero money off resales.) Between poorer quality and increased price, there's less reason to buy print books.



That.

I remember when I could buy paperbacks brand new for $2.99, and hardcovers for $7.99. Lately, it seems closer to $10 for a paperback, with some hardcovers going anywhere from $17.99 to around $30. 

This is why I buy all of my books second hand at the neighbourhood book store. I'm tired of getting socked for big money just to read a book. I'm happy paying $4.00 for a paperback that's almost new, rather than full pop.

-JJB


----------



## moderan (Jun 5, 2018)

Allowing for inflation, book prices are actually lower than they used to be. Average wages haven't kept up with inflation either. That's the problem, not the price points.
I remember buying paperbacks for 50 cents and hardcovers for two bucks.


----------



## Pete_C (Jun 5, 2018)

The argument that 'something' is killing writing and/or publishing is a bit askew. Fundamentally it highlights that too many people in the world of writing have their heads up the arses. We're in a golden age and that prompts two reactions. The first is from people who think the world owes them something. They don't like the golden age; they want diamond encrusted platinum and they're just going to carry on doing what they're doing to get it because they 'deserve' it. Good luck to them. The second is that everything makes it not a golden age. Prices are too high, quality is slipping, the internet has stolen our dreams and everything is conspiring to make them a victim. Pity.

Think about music, film, fashion, art, anything creative really. There was previously very little choice and what was there was controlled by a few companies. Any 'underground' really was underground and gained little traction. An alternative was hard to find and rarely made waves. Technology has since made it more accessible and many people have started to give what they created away. As a result often the big boys put prices up because this new choice erodes their economies of scale. Those who give things away have instead found new ways to monetise what they do.

The world of writing/publishing is changing fast. The reality is that whilst I've always been a voracious reader, I haven't read many novels; I switched from non-fiction back to fiction recently because things are so much better today. In my youth, before the interweb and new working practices, it was hard to find books I wanted to read. Bookshops stocked the best sellers and few publishers touched alternative work. If there was something worth reading it usually took a four week order cycle to get it, and if it turned out to be something you didn't want to read you were stuck with it. No bookshops would order something ex-stock unless you paid up front. There were small presses but these were usually filled with academics writing Kafka rip-offs or fake Beat-Generation experimental writing.

Today there is real choice for readers, freedom of access to a world of writing and plenty of opportunities. If the quality is there, you do all the basics right and you persevere, there has never been a better time to write or publish. Sure, I see plenty of people decrying the state of things, but scratch the surface and often you'll find badly written and/or edited work, poor presentation, crap marketing and the only effort put in is to try and 'game' the system. That has significantly more to do with why things don't work out for them than the end of days for writing and publishing. Shit product equals shit sales.

Writing is lagging behind music, films, art, etc., in adopting because it's insular. Most writers sit in a room, write, pump it out in a half-arsed way and go back to writing. If some people put half the effort into innovative thinking that they put into moaning, they'd probably reap more rewards. For a creative community, writing has more Luddites per square foot than the church and that's saying something.

Publishers, like every other business in the 21st century, are getting leaner and meaner. They have to, because they've got an audience becrying falling quality and rising prices but not actually buying enough books. On the other hand you have self-published works riddled with errors being marketed by paid-for reviews and a parade of twitter posts saying 'Buy my Book', moaning that it's not fair because no one buys their books. Neither is representative of the potential on offer out there.


----------



## Jack of all trades (Jun 8, 2018)

moderan said:


> Allowing for inflation, book prices are actually lower than they used to be. Average wages haven't kept up with inflation either. That's the problem, not the price points.
> I remember buying paperbacks for 50 cents and hardcovers for two bucks.



You're actually bolstering my point.

If books used to be 0.001 of a monthly income, and now they are 0.1, that's an increase that the general public won't accept easily. Hence, fewer book purchases!

As for remembering 50 cent paper backs... OK. No old jokes. Seriously, how much was bread, milk, eggs, peanut butter or some other food?


----------



## moderan (Jun 8, 2018)

Um, no. You have a comprehension issue if you think that. 


> Allowing for inflation, book prices are actually lower than they used to be


That means they cost less against your earnings. Foodstuffs, however, cost a larger percentage of income. 
Here, do the math. Mind you, that formula doesn't take into account income expansion. Here's a year-by-year account and forecast.
Let's say that I bought a 50-cent book when I was eight, in 1969. By 1982, inflation had already increased costs in general 100%. The average price (roughly 2.50) of a paperback outstripped that. That's a 500% increase. But book sales were on the increase then. So then what?
According to this data, prices in 2017 were 567% higher than in 1969. But 100 1969 dollars are 666.99 dollars in 2017.
Runaway inflation is a real thing. The average book on the stands is something like 6.95, my eye test tells me. Industry data is weird because trade-size paperbacks have become prevalent, and they double that cover price.
I can't find any numbers for total books sold in 1969 as opposed to 2017. But I'd be surprised if the number is greater in 1969. There are nearly 1 1/2 times the humans now that there were then. Shoulder to shoulder on Zanzibar would leave the population ascending the eastern African continent.
My surmise might be incorrect. But not for the reasons you cited. The data is hard to get at though.


----------



## Jack of all trades (Jun 10, 2018)

My comprehension is just fine.

At the very least, you are supporting my claim that book prices have increased. You say the *reason* for the increase is inflation. You also say that wages haven't kept up. So when an hour's work bought one book years ago, it might buy only 1/2-3/4 of a book today. That's going to cause more folks to pass on book buying in favor of other things -- like *food*. Just sayin'.


----------



## Ralph Rotten (Jun 11, 2018)

Writing is changing, and I agree with the article that essentially it is entering the gig economy. Right now we have many people feeding at the trough so none of us really makes a lot of money.

But the publishing industry is in flux; someone just invented a new printing press.  Things will be hectic, but I truly believe that getting in on the publishing Tsunami now is getting in on the ground floor of whatever comes next.  _But you need to already be on your board when the wave comes along_.  

When the dust settles, I'd like to be a player in the new market.  I've decided that I want to write full-time for a living, and the time will never be better to get in on the publishing revolution. The old czars will die and new ones will arise.  I wanna be one of those new guys.


----------



## Theglasshouse (Jun 11, 2018)

I know I have not yet published a novel, but here is my opinion, which can be ignored because of free will. To gather an audience, you might want to write about sensitive issues.

The industry and writers have a complicated sense of fear or worry. But that worry won´t stop them. Create a voice, be original. Be a father to a sensitive cause. Write a book on a forgotten cause, or piece of history. It might do you good. Try to be one of the first when that idea comes out like Rowling´s sucess. This bit of advice reminds me of a member who use to be more off an active poster called Morkonan. But reading what people buy will do you a lot of favors. Create a fresh new identity if it means you need to do lots of research. It´s a hobby where you must read. Not just for inspiration. But to grasp what people like and emulate writers. Emotion sells an audience. That´s a maxim. So why not. You might get noticed. If you can look at has won pulitzers I think its about making awarness about issues. Writing is entertainment but is also educational. That is how I would approach it. Voice is personality. But is also if I am not mistaken attitude. Create an attitude that could challenge people. That´s sort of what I like about plays, they are political and educational. But they have an attitude on issues. Novels need more voice than stories. I confess I got this attitude topic from a book. However it rings true about some classic works.

Some works would fall under voice automitcally when a writer tries to write about issues that turn into literary topics because of issues. I´ve seen environmentalism be on demand, and it will continue. Racism´s barriers have dissapeared somewhat but have not dissapeared. Writers are trying to educate us about the world so that attitude you put into a piece is a voice. That supposedly is one of the things publishers want to see.

Ursula k le guin had a strong voice in the left hand of darkness because of the issues she raised.

Just food for thought.


----------



## JJBuchholz (Jun 12, 2018)

Jack of all trades said:


> My comprehension is just fine.
> 
> At the very least, you are supporting my claim that book prices have increased. You say the *reason* for the increase is inflation. You also say that wages haven't kept up. So when an hour's work bought one book years ago, it might buy only 1/2-3/4 of a book today. That's going to cause more folks to pass on book buying in favor of other things -- like *food*. Just sayin'.



Book prices *have *steadily increased in the last two decades, and I think it's disgusting. Brick and mortar stores started disappearing a while back, with some book store companies going under because it was either, 'we can't compete with online sales' or, 'it costs money to make books'. I must say, as much as I love buying books, I don't feel bad for any of these companies. Stop charging well over $10.00 CDN for a simple paperback, and we'll talk. And some hardcover versions of the same book going for closer to $30.00 CDN?? Come on. Your companies either went under or had to merge because the public got tired of getting shafted left and right.

You would think that they would bring prices down, what with people able to buy kindle or e-book versions in the neighbourhood of $2.00 - $5.00 (or less) that it would serve as a wake-up call for book stores and such. I personally do not bother with e-books, because I like holding an actual book in my hand. This is why I frequent the local used book store. The books I like turn up often enough, and I'm paying around $4.00 CDN for a used paperback that's almost brand new.

-JJB


----------



## moderan (Jun 13, 2018)

Jack of all trades said:


> My comprehension is just fine.
> 
> At the very least, you are supporting my claim that book prices have increased. You say the *reason* for the increase is inflation. You also say that wages haven't kept up. So when an hour's work bought one book years ago, it might buy only 1/2-3/4 of a book today. That's going to cause more folks to pass on book buying in favor of other things -- like *food*. Just sayin'.



Look! The goalposts!

...


----------



## Terry D (Jun 13, 2018)

My experience is that books haven't changed much in price in the last 20 years. I just went through my Amazon orders comparing the prices I paid for books -- both reprints of classics and newly published -- and a new hard cover back then cost $20 - $25. I just bought Stephen King's new novel, _The Outsider_ for $17. In 1999 I bought Richard Matheson's, _I Am Legend_ in trade paperback for $10, it costs just under that now. 

I've been hearing that books are dead since the first Kindle was sold. Books are doing fine.


----------



## kunox (Jun 13, 2018)

[video=youtube_share;dj3EvdOJXMc]https://youtu.be/dj3EvdOJXMc[/video]

maybe it's not the novel that is dying but the writer. it's getting harder and hard to make a living writing books but it's getting easier and easier to sell them. that is if you are one of the big companies. if your an indie writer though then it's just harder. but like all technologies though. eventually no one will be writing books. that is unless your an a.i.


----------



## Jack of all trades (Jun 13, 2018)

moderan said:


> Look! The goalposts!
> 
> ...



zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz


----------



## kunox (Jun 13, 2018)

https://www.digitaltrends.com/cool-...-passes-first-round-nationanl-literary-prize/

I haven't read this article but it sounds interesting.


----------



## H.Brown (Jun 13, 2018)

Alright folks,

This thread has been taken off track and has become less of a discussion about the 'future of writing.'  One sentence and single letter comments add nothing to the discussion, so let's get this thread back on track by discussing the Op's topic.

Anyone got any thoughts about the furture of writing?


----------



## kunox (Jun 13, 2018)

tht It's going to be computerized or automated.


----------



## H.Brown (Jun 13, 2018)

Why does it have to either or? I know there is a lot of discussion around the whole robots will be doing everything. But how much can a machine be able to write without being able to fully feel human emotion? And writing is emotional, I would like to believe that writing will in the future remain a human persuit, however I do believe that more and more people read on tablets, computors and smart phones now than they read a hard copy of a book. 

So while I think that the future of reading is going to be ebooks, I believe that the furture of writing will be a human pursuit.


----------



## kunox (Jun 13, 2018)

H.Brown said:


> Why does it have to either or? I know there is a lot of discussion around the whole robots will be doing everything. But how much can a machine be able to write without being able to fully feel human emotion? And writing is emotional, I would like to believe that writing will in the future remain a human persuit, however I do believe that more and more people read on tablets, computors and smart phones now than they read a hard copy of a book.
> 
> So while I think that the future of reading is going to be ebooks, I believe that the furture of writing will be a human pursuit.



I kind of agree in  the short m but with a.i. almost wining a literary contest and the way computers can mimic humans on the phone now. i.e. the new google assistant that can sound human better than those old phone banks. on top of that know your taste better than you do. there will only be a patient few that actually write or maybe it may be a co-op experience with human guiding it the hole way.


----------



## JJBuchholz (Jun 13, 2018)

I still maintain my first comments in this thread. This is all on the publishers, and their holier-than-thou attitudes. They're too picky nowadays, and will either publish you or not, more so because they can and have the power, than the quality of your writing. The people, in reality, should have the ultimate say in what they want to read. If the end result is favourable/not favourable, then fine. But not before the public gets to read it and form their own opinion.

-JJB


----------



## Bayview (Jun 14, 2018)

JJBuchholz said:


> I still maintain my first comments in this thread. This is all on the publishers, and their holier-than-thou attitudes. They're too picky nowadays, and will either publish you or not, more so because they can and have the power, than the quality of your writing. The people, in reality, should have the ultimate say in what they want to read. If the end result is favourable/not favourable, then fine. But not before the public gets to read it and form their own opinion.
> 
> -JJB



Which publishers do you mean? Just Big Five? I mean, there _are_ publishers out there who will accept just about anything, but they tend to either charge the writer for the expense of publishing (b/c they can't make money by trying to sell random crap) or they go out of business quickly (because they can't make money by trying to sell random crap).

Publishing is a business. I don't think publishers are trying to be holier-than-anyone. I think they're trying to stay in business.

Self-publishing is always out there for those who can't find a publisher willing to take a chance on their work.


----------



## Hunter56 (Jun 14, 2018)

I admit that it does seem rather daunting to try and be a writer in this day and age. With a new decade right around the corner, it seems that technology is advancing rapidly and it's almost constantly at the expense of artists. Books, movies, music etc. are constantly pirated and downloaded/streamed for nothing. 

Even with all this in inconvenience, I still believe there's still a future for writers. It might be a tad tougher than in the 80's or 90's, but I do think that if your story is good enough and you work hard enough, that you will find success.


----------



## moderan (Jun 14, 2018)

From the article in the OP





> The digital revolution will not emancipate writers or open up a new era of creativity, it will mean that writers offer up their work for next to nothing or for free. Writing, as a profession, will cease to exist.


Because everyone thinks they can write on a professional level and entertain people on a regular basis, without any sort of training or apprenticeship, and it's been made easy for such worthies to put their efforts out in the marketplace, where they obscure worthwhile efforts and expect to be patted on the head and plied with filthy lucre, and to be called equals by people who have put years into their craft.
Creative arts in general are suffused with this idiocy.
It's similar in some ways to punk rock. Can't play, can't sing, can't write, want the adulation and the gurls.
The ones who learn how to do what it takes will survive. The ones who don't put in the time and effort will continue to be sad.


----------



## Ralph Rotten (Jun 16, 2018)

Although I agree with the article that our current trajectory takes writing into the gig economy, essentially writers will be uber drivers, I do not agree with the article that this is necessarily the future state of writing (down the road a few years, anyhow.)  Right now is the frontier days of the new writing revolution, things are still finding parity, companies like Amazon are still finding new frontiers in the revolution, there is still a lot of experimentation.  At this point in the internet revolution you could get free web space all over the internet, I had like 3 different accounts at places like Geocities and Crosswinds.  But the net changed and all that free web space dried up.  

The Indie publishing world is going to change, there will be barriers, entry into the self-publishing market is going to get more difficult. 
It won't always be like it is now.


----------



## JJBuchholz (Jun 16, 2018)

moderan said:


> Because everyone thinks they can write on a professional level and entertain people on a regular basis, without any sort of *training or apprenticeship*, and it's been made easy for such worthies to put their efforts out in the marketplace, where they obscure worthwhile efforts and expect to be patted on the head and plied with filthy lucre, and to be called equals by people who have put years into their craft.



What is this 'training and apprenticeship' you speak of? There is no 'training' to become a writer, that's utter nonsense. You either have a passion for writing, or you don't. You can choose to hone your writing skills to take your passion to a new level, enabling publishing and such, or you can choose not to. 

I've always been of the opinion that writing comes from within. No one wakes up one day and says, "I'm going to be a writer!" and goes merrily on their way. Myself, I've been writing since I was seven years old. I always had the ability to see stories play out in my mind, and to illustrate these stories, I either started writing, or drew pictures that were scenes of what my mind had created.

I believe that being able to come up with stories to tell and to write them is a gift. Whether or not the gift is nurtured and allowed to blossom is up to us.

-JJB


----------



## moderan (Jun 16, 2018)

JJBuchholz said:


> What is this 'training and apprenticeship' you speak of? There is no 'training' to become a writer, that's utter nonsense. You either have a passion for writing, or you don't. You can choose to hone your writing skills to take your passion to a new level, enabling publishing and such, or you can choose not to.
> 
> I've always been of the opinion that writing comes from within. No one wakes up one day and says, "I'm going to be a writer!" and goes merrily on their way. Myself, I've been writing since I was seven years old. I always had the ability to see stories play out in my mind, and to illustrate these stories, I either started writing, or drew pictures that were scenes of what my mind had created.
> 
> ...



Son, I've been writing since I was eight. My first published story was when I was sixteen. The second was when I was 22. In between I was learning my craft and churning out a boatload of flimsy material. Most of it was for the local papers, a good-sized packet of which helped enable me to go to the college of my choice at their expense, at which institution I earned a degree in journalism.
Some of my _training_ was at the hands of George Scithers, who ran Asimov's during part of that period. He wrote me quite a few things. Some more was supplied by the kind offices of the SFWA. I regret that I didn't get to go to Clarion, for that would have been both a beneficial training experience and a career boost. 
I _apprenticed_ at the Arizona Daily Star for a summer. That experience _trained_ me to write concisely and to apply my butt to the chair on a regular basis. I have done considerable other writing, both of fiction and non-fiction. At some point I learned to go without the extra wheels.
Not that I meant that phrase quite so literally. _Perhaps I should have italicized it_.
Now go dry your ears.


----------



## Jack of all trades (Jun 16, 2018)

moderan said:


> Son, I've been writing since I was eight. My first published story was when I was sixteen. The second was when I was 22. In between I was learning my craft and churning out a boatload of flimsy material. Most of it was for the local papers, a good-sized packet of which helped enable me to go to the college of my choice at their expense, at which institution I earned a degree in journalism.
> Some of my _training_ was at the hands of George Scithers, who ran Asimov's during part of that period. *He wrote me quite a few things.* Some more was supplied by the kind offices of the SFWA. I regret that I didn't get to go to Clarion, for that would have been both a beneficial training experience and a career boost.
> I _apprenticed_ at the Arizona Daily Star for a summer. That experience _trained_ me to write concisely and to apply my butt to the chair on a regular basis. I have done considerable other writing, both of fiction and non-fiction. At some point I learned to go without the extra wheels.
> Not that I meant that phrase quite so literally. _Perhaps I should have italicized it_.
> Now go dry your ears.



Please explain the bolded. Thanks.


----------



## Plasticweld (Jun 16, 2018)

JJBuchholz said:


> What is this 'training and apprenticeship' you speak of? There is no 'training' to become a writer, that's utter nonsense. You either have a passion for writing, or you don't. You can choose to hone your writing skills to take your passion to a new level, enabling publishing and such, or you can choose not to.
> 
> I've always been of the opinion that writing comes from within. No one wakes up one day and says, "I'm going to be a writer!" and goes merrily on their way. Myself, I've been writing since I was seven years old. I always had the ability to see stories play out in my mind, and to illustrate these stories, I either started writing, or drew pictures that were scenes of what my mind had created.
> 
> ...




There is a big difference between being able to pen a story your wife and best friend likes, verses having to put a story in to words because your paid to, with a dead line.  Watch your words get chopped up by an editor, watch content slashed because of space.  Work within the confines of free market and you will learn all about the apprenticeship and training that Moderan is talking about. 


I look at it this way.  It is easy to drive a car fast in an empty parking lot, turn when you want to, brake when you want to and choose you own path.  It is easy to fool yourself into thinking you can really drive. 

Take your car to the race track and have to brake and turn when the track tells you to.  Learn the fast line and the breaking points, the acceleration points and balance points.  Then learn to do it in traffic  under pressure. Then learn how to be fast out side the line so you can pass. 


The guy in the parking lot will tell you he can drive. 

The guy at the race track really can drive.   

Both are drivers. One is convinced it is a natural gift, cause he is doing it.  The other knows how hard he had to work to really learn the fine details of the sport, and master the car and the track. He will be quick to tell the parking lot guy he doesn't know shit....and he would be right!


----------



## JJBuchholz (Jun 16, 2018)

moderan said:


> Now go dry your ears.



Really now. I'm hardly 'wet behind the ears' so to speak, but..... unlike you, I'm not interested in a 'pissing contest'. I could list my own accolades and such, and go on about things I've accomplished in the world of writing, but I won't. I'm not you, I won't sink to your level, nor help stroke your ego.

I stand firm to what I said before about people using their gift to the best of their ability, honing their craft along the way. If my opinion has bothered you in some way, too bad. You've done nothing but ridicule me since I joined this community, as well as other people.

In the grand scheme of the world, you're just another gear in the machine, like the rest of us.

Remember that.

-JJB


----------



## Jack of all trades (Jun 16, 2018)

Flash fiction, short stories, novels, articles and news reports are all different. While some lessons may apply to all, others are specific to the particular type of writing.

What some of us are focusing on is novel writing. Slasher editors and fixed deadlines are not part of that scenario.

Going through some kind of university training and spending time as a journalist is not the *only* way to be an author, especially if you want to be a novelist.

I have seen some very questionable SPaG from persons with college educations in journalism and creative writing. College education does not guarantee success any more than belief in natural talent.


----------



## Ralph Rotten (Jun 16, 2018)

JJBuchholz said:


> What is this 'training and apprenticeship' you speak of? There is no 'training' to become a writer, that's utter nonsense. You either have a passion for writing, or you don't. You can choose to hone your writing skills to take your passion to a new level, enabling publishing and such, or you can choose not to.
> 
> I've always been of the opinion that writing comes from within. No one wakes up one day and says, "I'm going to be a writer!" and goes merrily on their way. Myself, I've been writing since I was seven years old. I always had the ability to see stories play out in my mind, and to illustrate these stories, I either started writing, or drew pictures that were scenes of what my mind had created.
> 
> ...





I'm gonna have to side with Mod on this one; There is far more to being a writer than just having an aptitude.  That's like saying that the guy who plays pickup games on the weekend is the same level of athlete as an Olympian.  Having an aptitude for writing, or a dream to be a writer wearing a beret in Starbucks does not a writer make.  Like I have said many times; the first 200,000 words are just practice.

Writing is like anything else; if you wanna be good at it then you have to practice and work at it...a lot.  The difference between a real writer and a hobbyist is about a half million words.  Here is an example: I like shooting, and I'm pretty good at it.  I may shoot a few hundred rounds a month.  But a sponsored shooter (a professional) will shoot thousands of rounds a week, spend 60 hours a week on the range, and another ten hours in the gym.  JJ, what you are asserting is that I could be on par with guys like Jerry Miculek just because I have a basic aptitude for shooting.  Maybe I could, but not until I put in the time and training, and shoot a half million rounds.  Until then I'm just a guy who shoots a little better than most folks, not a professional-grade shooter.


----------



## Jack of all trades (Jun 17, 2018)

Ralph Rotten said:


> I'm gonna have to side with Mod on this one; There is far more to being a writer than just having an aptitude.  That's like saying that the guy who plays pickup games on the weekend is the same level of athlete as an Olympian.  Having an aptitude for writing, or a dream to be a writer wearing a beret in Starbucks does not a writer make.  Like I have said many times; the first 200,000 words are just practice.
> 
> Writing is like anything else; if you wanna be good at it then you have to practice and work at it...a lot.  The difference between a real writer and a hobbyist is about a half million words.  Here is an example: I like shooting, and I'm pretty good at it.  I may shoot a few hundred rounds a month.  But a sponsored shooter (a professional) will shoot thousands of rounds a week, spend 60 hours a week on the range, and another ten hours in the gym.  JJ, what you are asserting is that I could be on par with guys like Jerry Miculek just because I have a basic aptitude for shooting.  Maybe I could, but not until I put in the time and training, and shoot a half million rounds.  Until then I'm just a guy who shoots a little better than most folks, not a professional-grade shooter.



The guy with the natural talent starts out ahead of the guy with desire and zero talent.

Which has better odds of getting to the Olympics? Someone with talent or someone with only desire? Can that question be definitively answered? I don't think so. It all depends on how much effort the talented guy puts into practicing.

This is supposed to be a place where wannabe writers are encouraged, isn't it? So why not *encourage* those with less experience, instead of putting them down?

I know, mods! The last is off topic. I'll step down off my soapbox and give myself a timeout.


----------



## moderan (Jun 17, 2018)

JJBuchholz said:


> Really now. I'm hardly 'wet behind the ears' so to speak, but..... unlike you, I'm not interested in a 'pissing contest'. I could list my own accolades and such, and go on about things I've accomplished in the world of writing, but I won't. I'm not you, I won't sink to your level, nor help stroke your ego.
> 
> I stand firm to what I said before about people using their gift to the best of their ability, honing their craft along the way. If my opinion has bothered you in some way, too bad. You've done nothing but ridicule me since I joined this community, as well as other people.
> 
> ...



You've done nothing to convince me that you have a clue about writing. And you're doing everything you can to establish some kind of pissing contest, sunshine. I'm just providing shade for you to sit in.
It isn't about my ego -- I don't operate from there. I'm well aware of my small coghood. The examples I cited are just to support my initial statement. There are training grounds and apprenticeships available to people who are serious about careers in writing. Not all of them are involved with institutes of higher learning, but they all take considerable application.
To say that there aren't, or to deny that there are specific paths toward publication, is ignorant. I maintain that the best way to reach professional markets is to submit work to them, not to give copies of what you fondly imagine is passable work to your friends and family.



Jack of all trades said:


> Please explain the bolded. Thanks.



I have a good many critiques of the submitted pieces by the editor-in-question, who steered me toward more suitable avenues for a young writer. He did buy a couple that didn't make it into the magazine for one reason or another.


----------



## JJBuchholz (Jun 17, 2018)

moderan said:


> You've done nothing to convince me that you have a clue about writing.



I'm not here to convince anyone, nor do I answer to you. I joined this forum to learn more about different writing styles, how to improve my own writing, and being part of a community that shares the same passion I do.



moderan said:


> It isn't about my ego -- I don't operate from there.



The way you communicate with others on this forum that you consider 'inferior' shows otherwise, and I'm not the only one that sees it. You've done nothing but treat me poorly, and for no reason at all.



moderan said:


> I maintain that the best way to reach professional markets is to submit work to them, not to give copies of what you fondly imagine is passable work to your friends and family.



I have been submitting to all sorts of publications for over a year now, and have been working to refine my writing so that one day, I do get published. It's a never ending learning experience, one that I find most valuable. With every rejection, my resolve gets stronger, and I further refine what I do.

I thank you for your input, but I feel as if you are trying to make it personal, for whatever reason.

Have a nice day.

-JJB


----------



## Phil Istine (Jun 17, 2018)

*OK, guys.  I've let the odd little dig go up to now, but it seems to be getting a bit  personal at times.  There was an earlier warning on this thread about keeping to topic.  Put the handbags away please.  The thread topic is about the future of writing.  Please keep to that.
Some good points have been raised on this thread and it would be a pity to suspend it, but I will should I deem it necessary.*


----------



## Theglasshouse (Jun 17, 2018)

Has anyone tried book fairs? For independent and to be published? It could be useful for those who need exposure. More at the link, https://publishedtodeath.blogspot.com/2017/11/book-fairs-are-they-worth-it-for-indie.html.

Remember sometimes you need good contacts or just more, to submit a manuscript somewhere. You can even set your own table at such a place I think. There is a long tradition for it.
Of course, you need to develop talent. But I won´t state the obvious. Or you´d need to develop your writing skills.


----------



## Book Cook (Jun 19, 2018)

A.I., even if it is created, won't be writing novels. It is not possible for any A.I. to know more than we know. Even with the potential processing power of the A.I., it will still only have access to what humans have created, and any novel would be a rehash of the novels in its database. One can claim that humans are rehashing as well, and it would be correct, but we still have innovation and can, once in a while, create something original. The knowledge we acquire is mouldable, and the most important thing is that we have the ability to mould it ourselves, while the knowledge A.I. has, or would have, is static. You can program A.I. to exhibit emotion, on the outside, ostensibly, but it won't feel it. They will probably be able to program an A.I. to write a love story, but it will not have any understanding of it. Even if A.I. were to become auto-didactic, it would still not be able to understand love, while it will never, as a species, need love to reproduce and ensure the survival of its kind. Also, a joke told by a self-aware A.I. wouldn't be funny to us, but could be funny to another independent A.I. 

Anyway, it's all too speculative. The bottom line: if A.I. were to use human databases, its creativity would be dry and derivative; and if it were self-aware, then its creativity would be incomprehensible to us.


----------



## Jack of all trades (Jun 19, 2018)

Actually, someone has tried to have a computer write a book. Well, a chapter. It's hilarious!


Harry Potter and the Portrait of What Looked Like a Large Pile of Ash

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=VvpPxjCKTqc


----------



## Book Cook (Jun 19, 2018)

Jack of all trades said:


> Actually, someone has tried to have a computer write a book. Well, a chapter. It's hilarious!
> 
> 
> Harry Potter and the Portrait of What Looked Like a Large Pile of Ash
> ...



It sounds like fan-fiction by a die-hard, institutionalised Harry Potter fan.


----------



## kunox (Jun 19, 2018)

I want to read the one that almost won. it woulds be interesting to see why. it at least based a first round. you've got to remember a.i. is in it's infancy still butttt.... technological change is exponential. it will be able to write better in the future... now if it will have human like abilities I don't know. as for data bases it would have all of human knowledge before it ti draw inspiration from. as for emotions. what do you mean. the mechanical nature of our mind produces them. why can't a machine mind once we learn our own mind once e figure out how the human mind does so,

as for sounding natural. google already has a machine that can fool humans into thinking that it is human. it sets up appointments for you as a phone call.


----------



## kunox (Jun 19, 2018)

[video=youtube_share;D5VN56jQMWM]https://youtu.be/D5VN56jQMWM[/video]


----------

