Unless you're of a certain age, you have never heard the term "out of print." In the technological dark ages (twenty-five years ago or so), books were printed on paper. When a title stopped selling and reached the end of its shelf life, the publisher stopped printing it. It literally went out of print. At such times, the rights to the work reverted back to the author who was free to do with it as he pleased. Now, manuscripts are digital so they never go out of print. They are always available, either through print-on-demand or as an ebook.
This is a huge boon for dead authors. Read more about it here in a CNN article. As the anonymous agent said, dead authors never leave the marketplace. Their backlist is always available. That maintains name recognition and allows new work to be published under an old name. Ian Fleming died in 1964 but James Bond books bearing his name continue to appear. Same with Robert Ludlum who died in 2001. Another writer pens the Bourne novels but who can name him?
As we know, there is precious little opportunity for new writers to get picked up by the publishing establishment unless one is writing soft porn or the latest tell-all book about a celebrity. In the article, an agent laments that as long as old writers take up shelf space, there is no room for new ones. In the past, the old guard made way for the new. That is no longer the case. It makes getting noticed that much harder for newbies.
There is another side to this however. Some books are never printed on paper at all. I recently had to make that decision when the second edition of Dollars and Sense for Writers was released. Most of my sales in 2012 were ebooks. Therefore, did it make sense to publish the book on paper in 2013?
Ultimately my fans will decide. If they want a print version, they will tell me. In the meantime, Dollars and Sense is an ebook.
It is true that there is no room for me on a bookstore shelf. It is also true that there are fewer shelves available to me as bookstores continue to disappear. However, in this digital age, I, and others like me, are on the shelves that count. Our work is available to readers throughout the world. Doesn't that beat being on a local shelf?
Showing posts with label james bond. Show all posts
Showing posts with label james bond. Show all posts
Tuesday, November 19, 2013
Thursday, February 14, 2013
Chainsaw or Gun - What Difference Does it Make?
In the trailer for a current movie hit, we see people being tortured. An advertising spot for a television show shows patients beaten and abused. Is the violence on television or in film the same as going to the Coliseum and watching gladiators tear each other apart or lions shred Christians?
What does our obsession with violence say about us? What are we communicating to one another when we create entertainment that is centered on cruelty and brutality? We decry the use of guns but give tacit approval to movies that feature brutal exploitation of children or television that showcases torture and abuse. What sense is there in that?
Some years ago, we went to a James Bond film. A family of four sat next to us. The youngest child was a little girl about five or six years old. In the opening sequence, Bond was in bed with a lovely (of course) woman. The actors were under the sheets and less skin showed than what we would see on any beach. However, the father next to me covered his daughter's eyes. Later, as Bond shot or knifed his way through various scenes, the little girl was allowed to watch.
What the father was telling his children, the daughter directly and his son by observation, is that sex is bad and killing is good. How did we get to a place where we tell our children that killing is better than sex?
I don't get it. What a bunch of hypocrites we are. Violence is violence. Is slicing someone with a chainsaw any less violent than shooting that person with an assault weapon?
As the arguments about gun possession get louder, I wonder what all this violence says about us as a society. Where are we headed if sadism is a regular part of our lives? Sociologists have compared our society to Rome and warn of our inevitable downfall. I hope they are wrong but I fear they are right. If we tell our children that brutality and torture are OK, what difference does it make if they pick up a gun?
What does our obsession with violence say about us? What are we communicating to one another when we create entertainment that is centered on cruelty and brutality? We decry the use of guns but give tacit approval to movies that feature brutal exploitation of children or television that showcases torture and abuse. What sense is there in that?
Some years ago, we went to a James Bond film. A family of four sat next to us. The youngest child was a little girl about five or six years old. In the opening sequence, Bond was in bed with a lovely (of course) woman. The actors were under the sheets and less skin showed than what we would see on any beach. However, the father next to me covered his daughter's eyes. Later, as Bond shot or knifed his way through various scenes, the little girl was allowed to watch.
What the father was telling his children, the daughter directly and his son by observation, is that sex is bad and killing is good. How did we get to a place where we tell our children that killing is better than sex?
I don't get it. What a bunch of hypocrites we are. Violence is violence. Is slicing someone with a chainsaw any less violent than shooting that person with an assault weapon?
As the arguments about gun possession get louder, I wonder what all this violence says about us as a society. Where are we headed if sadism is a regular part of our lives? Sociologists have compared our society to Rome and warn of our inevitable downfall. I hope they are wrong but I fear they are right. If we tell our children that brutality and torture are OK, what difference does it make if they pick up a gun?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)