Amanda Palmer has a new blog post up responding to the storm of interest in her post explaining why she asks for money online. As expected she got a few idiots insisting that she provide music for them for free, or that she “get a proper job,” but the vast majority of the respondents appear to have made interesting points, and Amanda replies to many of them. I’d like to pick up on a few points that are relevant to us book people.
Firstly, lets get this out of the way:
ASKING FOR MONEY FOR YOUR ART IS NOT SELLING OUT
Sadly, it bears repeating, because people keep forgetting it.
And you know, this is absolutely a class issue. The idea that artists should not charge for their work presupposes that they are either independently wealthy or that they are supported by someone who is. It is exactly the same argument that was fought over professionalism in sport. Anyone who is good enough should be able to make a career in art.
Secondly, Amanda notes that what is right for her is not necessarily right for others. In particular she says that for people like Lady Gaga the big record company route is exactly the right thing to do. This is correct, and the same will be true for books. You won’t see Neil doing what Amanda does, except in support of her.
As markets become more global and more transparent, the power law effect becomes even more marked, and the number of major celebrities in each field becomes smaller. Amanda can’t compete with Lady Gaga in the celebrity stakes, and nor does she want to, because she doesn’t produce the same sort of music. It is the same with books. You won’t find M. John Harrison trying to compete with Dan Brown for the celebrity author market.
But market concentration means that the retail business is becoming less and less interested in mid list artists — whether they be in music or books — and that means that people like Amanda, or Cat Valente, or Tim Pratt, have to turn to more direct means to make a living.
One thing that didn’t come up in Amanda’s post was any accusation of “self-publishing”. Musicians self-publish all of the time. So is it right for them but not for us?
Well, not exactly. Like Cat and Tim, Amanda is not new to publishing. She has been through the record label process and worked with other musicians and producers. Tim and Cat have been through the big publisher process and have worked with editors. In all three cases the artist in question has learned enough to have a good idea of when something is polished enough to be presented to the public. If, on the other hand, your work has never been near a professional editor, and you only take feedback from friends and family, the chances are that your fiction probably isn’t ready for the public. Not always, but mostly.
So I don’t see anything wrong with writers self-publishing the way that Cat and Tim are doing. If they are good enough then it will work for them. Nor do I have any objection to them, or Amanda, asking for money. Because I think it is the way things will have to go in the future. We are already in a position where many of the really good SF&F novels that come out are produced by small presses that can’t get their wares into high street bookstores. Even big names like Tor can’t get their entire catalog into bookstores. It will only get worse from here.
So for good writers to make money we need to find other ways to get them paid. Self-publishing is one. Paying good rates for online fiction is another. Which is why Clarkesworld pays SFWA rates for its fiction. And why we, like Amanda, ask you to give us money. To quote our donations page: “Every dollar donated to Clarkesworld Magazine goes into our fiction, non-fiction and art budgets.”
I haven’t met an artist yet who didn’t have to eat once in a while. It’s not unreasonable for them to ask for payment for their work.
And you know, this is absolutely a class issue. The idea that artists should not charge for their work presupposes that they are either independently wealthy or that they are supported by someone who is.
That’s assuming there is any supposing actually going on. I doubt that one in a hundred of those who think art should be free have ever considered how, in that case, the artist is supposed to eat. Also, it seems to me that this is strictly an idea that applies to new media, and it’s espoused not because it assumes the artist is wealthy but because at some point, either legally or illegally, the work has been free and people now feel entitled to it being free in perpetuity. It’s the same as when freeware shifted to shareware: there was a considerable amount of disgruntlement displayed by the same people who would think nothing of paying for boxed software.
To quote our donations page: “Every dollar donated to Clarkesworld Magazine goes into our fiction, non-fiction and art budgets.”
My only quibble with this is why Clarkesworld feels the need to exclude the idea that money might go straight into pockets. What would be wrong with that? The people behind it are as entitled to make a living as Amanda Palmer.
Carolyn:
There’s a certain amount of nuance here. If someone says “I won’t give you money for your art” that may be because they don’t think it is worth it, or that they can’t afford it. On the other hand, if they say, “You mustn’t ask money for your art, that’s EVIL!” then they are making a moral judgment, and in my view an incorrect one.
As to Clarkesworld, the simple truth is that editing, building web sites and the like are not viewed as valuable by most people. Making a living from fiction magazines is incredibly difficult. So those of us involved in Clarkesworld, Strange Horizons and so on do so largely on a volunteer basis. The same goes for running conventions. A whole lot of people work very hard for free because otherwise the event would not happen. And if there is any suggestion that people might make money from it then all of fandom erupts in outrage.
There’s a certain amount of nuance here. If someone says “I won’t give you money for your art” that may be because they don’t think it is worth it, or that they can’t afford it. On the other hand, if they say, “You mustn’t ask money for your art, that’s EVIL!” then they are making a moral judgment, and in my view an incorrect one.
Oh, I totally agree. My point was only that rather than “art” per se, it’s actually “your online thing (whether art or some other category)” they’re saying this about. Nobody suggests CDs or printed books or boxed software or paintings should be free, just downloads.
And if there is any suggestion that people might make money from it then all of fandom erupts in outrage.
That’s a total shame and will certainly put a spoke in the wheel of the “paying the artist” movement. Clarkesworld and its ilk may not be the actual artists, but they are the ones getting the art out. I think they deserve my money just as much as the actual artist does. (But then, I don’t see any problem with paying conrunners either.)
And in certain limited circumstances, neither do I. For instance, I don’t resent the fact that San Diego Comic-Con (which I think is still the legal entity name of Comic-Con International) has a paid executive director and several paid full-time staff. Running a convention that size is a full-time job, and the staff aren’t especially well-paid — their financial statements are available for public disclosure because they are a 501(c)(3) charitable non-profit organization. However, for most genre conventions, the entire business model is built around mostly volunteer labor. If you started paying anyone, a bunch of the other people volunteering would say, “Pay me too or I stop working,” and the entire convention falls apart.
ConJose had a gross revenue of nearly $1 million. If you count the value of the volunteer labor, even at minimum wage — and most of our staff and committee make far more than that in their Day Jobbes — the “turnover” would certainly be much more than that. We didn’t track hours closely for that purpose, but I wouldn’t be surprised if there was at least another $1 million or more in volunteer labor involved.
Genre conventions would cost vastly more than they currently do if we had to pay people to run them.
This is an issue which interests me personally, since I self-publish online. For the longest time I was convinced that art ought to be freely available, at least in one form or another, and I’m still of that opinion, but … well, you can all guess guess the but. I’m nothing like independently wealthy but a big part of the but is the independence I gain in non-material terms: freedom to do pretty much what I like without worrying about one ‘fuck’ too many.
I’ve started offering a premium option for those who want to pay for the full e-edition of my latest novel before (free) serialisation is complete. And guess what? No takers so far. Not a one. And I’m getting loads of hits, plus even more downloads of the podcasts. So what does this mean? That people don’t want to pay? That my fiction isn’t the right sort, or good enough, for people to spend their money on it? That I’ve chosen the wrong financial model?
My fiction has never been near an editor (though once, a UK agent). The easy assumption is that it’s not polished enough for the public. Only thing is, I want to do it my way. Pigheaded? Stupid? Arrogant? Probably all three. I remind myself that the majority of edited writers can’t make a living entirely from their fiction and have to depend on teaching jobs, journalism jobs, any jobs to make ends meet.
@Kevin: I’m sure you’re right about the practical problems of paying con volunteers. I meant that I saw no moral problem with it, not no practical one.
@Lee:
For the longest time I was convinced that art ought to be freely available, at least in one form or another, and I’m still of that opinion
But why? I’m not trying to be contentious; I genuinely do not understand this point of view. If people deserve to be compensated for making shoes and cheese and insurance policies, why is art the exception?
So what does this mean? That people don’t want to pay? That my fiction isn’t the right sort, or good enough, for people to spend their money on it? That I’ve chosen the wrong financial model?
I can’t speak to the second one, but it’s a pretty basic economic law that people prefer not to pay if they can get something for free. The Freemium model for software generally gets around a 1% uptake for the paid version, and that’s when significant advantages are offered in the paid-for product. It seems your readers don’t see enough advantage in your paid product to make them take that over your free one.
Hi Carolyn,
I don’t mind contentiousness – it often helps me to clarify my thoughts, which are undoubtedly in a state of flux.
It’s not that I don’t think artists don’t deserve to be compensated for their contributions, though there is often a great imbalance between what the majority earn and the rare few with huge incomes. The marketplace is not always very smart, and I wish there were some way to redress this.
Rather, it’s that I see a difference between shoes/insurance policies/whatever and art – in other words, between what are products and what are, to me, essentially an escape, a release from product, with all that this may imply. Yes, I know that books are mostly spoken about as products, but it’s not my view – or at least, not my ideal. The best of them partake not just of the life of productivity or entertainment, but of reflection and contemplation, which are unquantifiable.
Perhaps part of the answer lies in the difference between craft and art, though the latter certainly requires the former, and there is never a clear boundary anyway.
As to the freemium model, there are online writers who are earning something this way, so what you say must be true: ‘It seems your readers don’t see enough advantage in your paid product to make them take that over your free one.’ I’m not really discouraged, just wondering how to pay for an e-reader or my next computer. Starve, I won’t!
Whoops! I should have said, ‘It’s not that I think artists don’t deserve …’