Death of the [Good] Writer

As the previous sentences illustrates, anything can be published instantly these days.

Whereas it formerly took a number of steps to get something published, anyone anywhere can throw something up that is "published" as long as they have Internet access. No longer do writers have to get through the gauntlet of gatekeeepers that previously created a small, elite force of writers, who had the only published works.

So now that everyone can technically be a published writer, what are the implications for those who thrived in the old system -- the writers and authors talented enough to navigate through the gatekeepers?

"Basically, I think we're fucked," said Christopher Moore, author of multiple international bestsellers, including Lamb, A Dirty Job, and You Suck.

In the former system, everyone had to at least pass through some kind of filter. Newspaper and magazine staff had to go through editors and to a lesser extent owners. Publishing a short story required query letters and editorial selection.

For an outsider/newbie to publish a book, it was even more difficult. The steps previously included:

• Creation (and making sure the book was really good)
• Getting the contact information for agents (often from the annual Novel & Short Stories Market)
• Discovering each agents submission guidelines (font, format, pages, etc.)
• Submitting a cover letter with summary of work & prior experience
• Possibly sending the first three chapters or first 50 pages depending on the guidelines
• IF....IF the cover letter/beginning was accepted, then send the entire manuscript to an agent for shopping out to publishers
• Only then, if someone likes it, does the work go to an editor, publicist, etc.

Though still used with very few people's work even being read, the system is on its way to being obsolete.

Instead, we are currently in an era of instant publication and instant access with blogs, podcasts, Twitter, and aggregated content streaming straight to readers.

Instead of the select vanguard that once decided the worthiness of something, in regards to publishing, the unknown online audience now is responsible. The same audience that finds hilarity in viewing LOL Cats or strange YouTube videos now determines worthiness...a scary thought at the very least.

Online, thousands upon thousands of e-books are available. Some blogs have several staff members covering news on a daily basis. Musicians have been uploading their songs onto Myspace for several years. All content that is free.

Not everything produced online is trash, but then again, a lot is.

With so much inferior content online, it could be assumed that readers will eventually come to a realization and only view the quality works, essentially weeding out the crap.

Moore relayed a message from his good friend and colleague Neal Stephenson in which Stephenson suggested novelists would have to go work at Burger King until people realize if they don't pay for content, they aren't going to get quality content: "There will be books, but they'll be shitty books. The market will figure it out."

Moore's reponse to Stephenson's remarks?

"I wanted to blow my fucking brains out."

Moore brings up a good point in refutation of Stephenson.

"[The wisdom of the markets] is all well and good when it works, but Neal ignores one major thing in his prediction, 'that quality will drive the market'. It won't; it doesn't. McDonald's hasn't sold billions because it's the best, they've sold them because they're the same. You can get the same crap Micky D's in Baltimore that you get in Seattle. Exactly the same."

"James Patterson is putting out a dozen novels a year! It's obviously in demand. Does that make it good?  American Idol is the highest rated show on television. Does that make it good?"

As people continue to be entertained by the latest slew of VH1 reality shows centered around who can be the biggest bimbo, the market seems to be less and less wise each day, so trusting the wisdom of the markets is a scary thought for those that rely on the market to make their living.

Writers once made a substantial living writing only short stories, but Moore said that avenue dried up over 20 years ago. The fear is now, with the technological advances of electronic readers, whether the same fate awaits novelists.

"No one is going to pay for books they can get for free, once they adjust to the e-book reader," said Moore. "There's a whole generation to whom the idea of paying for music is nearly abstract."

"The revenue model for musicians completely changed, and not to iTunes, but to performance. Musicians make their money touring now, when they used to tour at a loss just to sell the album."

Unless authors learn to juggle, swallow fire, or perform magic while discussing books, they aren't going to be able to follow that path. Moore believes there to be less than a dozen authors in the country who "can make a decent living performing."

Moore also predicted that publishing "will downsize hugely."

"When you don't have to move physical books, all the people involved in making, selling, merchandizing, designing, and moving physical books suddenly have to go do something else. The editorial end will be the same, but I can't even imagine what marketing will look like."

Will the rise of instant access, citizen journalism, and self-publishing lead to the demise of the classic novelist? Unfortunately, it could happen, and we would be without an entire genre that has enlightened and entertained men, women, and children for ages.

For more information on publishing and how it has changed due to the digital revolution of the past 15-20 years (plus my name being made fun of), read Christopher Moore's comments in their entirety: Christopher Moore Interview.doc.