Even More Metaphorical Jars...

Yesterday I talked about a hypothetical ideas jar and my opinion of the usefulness of such a thing. My friend Brian commented by referring me to a different metaphorical jar--that of a possible online tip jar for literature. The article Brian referred me to is here, but this is by no means the first time I've heard this idea.

I have to say that I'm firmly on team skeptical. It's not that I'm completely against the idea. Obviously, as a trained librarian, I believe you should be able to read books for free. Clearly, libraries also haven't killed the book during the course of their existence, so the ability to read something for free isn't the primary issue. I just don't see this business working, at least not for people like me, and there are many reasons for this:

1.) Marketing. For this sort of model to work for beginning authors, they would need some way to market their work. If you're reading this blog, you're probably computer savvy enough to know that you can't just putting up a random website in the abyss of cyberspace if you want people to notice you. If I started serializing a novel on this blog, for instance, I'd probably get nothing unless one of you was feeling particularly generous.

I actually did try to sell my artwork online once from my own website. It admittedly wasn't every well set up, but I never even had any inquiries. The authors in the article Brian found are also already established fantasy authors and, therefore, probably would not need to work as hard at marketing themselves in this sort of endeavor. They may even have agents helping them or a core group of fans following them. Some writers, like Scott Sigler, might even have the necessary background in marketing, or just innate skills, that allow them to know the best and most effective ways to promote their work.

I am not one of these people. It has always been my plan to send my work to an agent. The idea that the agent would have a percentage of my earnings has never bothered me because, if they are doing their job properly, I believe they completely deserve that money for a task I do not desire and am not personally equipped to do. If they're not doing their job properly, they'll suffer more than me. As long as they aren't a complete criminal and run off with all my money or more than was agreed to, I will probably love my agent, or in the very least, appreciate them immensely. I believe an agent is necessary for any writer who just wants to be a writer and not a businessperson. And I know there are plenty of those out there. J.K. Rowling is a very prominent example of an author who looked for an agent first because she said that the marketing always sounded like a lot of trouble to her. But really nearly every successful author I've personally read has an agent, so I take that as a sign. It doesn't mean every successful author needs an agent. Not everyone needs them or wants them. But all successful authors do need SOMEONE marketing them, whether that's themselves or a mommy and daddy who own their own publishing company (*cough*cough*Christopher Paolini*cough*).

2. Computer literacy. Those who are reading this blog are all privileged in computer literacy. This is not the case for everyone. It's also not just old people, contrary to common belief. Working in the library, I encountered people of all ages who struggled with computers. Certainly, it is often older people, but there are plenty of others who have, for whatever reason, not had the inclination or the resources to educate themselves in computer use. I do not believe this is a generational problem, instead simply a case of people all being different. Are these people all stupid? No. Do they read? Yes. There are also plenty more who may be able to operate a computer but would never do it for anything outside absolutely necessary tasks. I could probably go on for ages about my theories on the social and economic reasons for this, but that would be another argument. Here it's enough to say that computer literacy is not yet universal enough for me to view online publishing as viably lucrative. Could it be in the future? Maybe. When? Heck if I know. One of my favorite authors and people in general, John Green, predicts the face of publishing will change in the next ten years. I can't say I feel as certain of this, but maybe I'm just too old fashioned at heart.

3. Donations. When you get right down to it, I'm probably the worst person to talk about the economics of donations, particularly those for artistic endeavors, because I don't donate to the arts. I mean, about four years ago, I dropped a handful of change into the violin case of a small string orchestra playing in the metro in Paris. That's my only donation to the arts in recent memory. I rationalize this by the fact that I don't have a lot of money myself. Could I still donate a little. Yeah. But when I do donate to others, it tends to be for things like food or medicine. This is not because I don't believe that art is important. Okay, maybe some days I waver on that, but as an artist myself, I have to believe that what I am doing is important and not just something that makes me happy. But when it comes right down to it, if I was in need, food would be the first thing I'd want.

Now, you'll probably say that's mostly what the artists you donate to are going to spend it on. Feeding themselves and whatnot so they can continue to do art. Yes, but the other part is my own personal preferences. The idea of anyone giving me anything like charity has always chaffed at me. And the idea of people donating money to support my writing would probably never be one I'll be comfortable with (though I'd consider it if I honestly thought it would work. I just don't). This feeling is probably because I have such a tumultuous relationship with the utility of my craft. I feel if art is turned into a charity, that is devaluing it. I'm not saying money is everything, but it's the standard tool by which we value goods. Some art may be priceless, but that usually just means people would pay a heck of a lot of money for it if the museum would just give it to them.... Many of you are probably going to disagree and think that's horrible. You might be right, but hear me out. Yes, I believe in libraries, but libraries buy books. If they're any kind of charity, it's one to the people, and not the authors. If art is important, why shouldn't we expect people to pay for it? I won't debate a fair price here, but look at it this way. Would you expect a farmer to run on donations only? Would you expect a computer engineer to run on donations only? A mechanic? A teacher? A carpenter? If art is as important to life as these things, shouldn't artists be able to work in the same economic world?

Of course, if art's not as important, a lot of us are going to have to reevaluate our lives....

Anyway, you can probably tell this is a subject I've thought about a lot. I have plenty more thoughts on it that I'd be happy to share if any of you have questions about what I've already said. But I'd also love to hear your thoughts on it. Leave them in comments or email, whatever your preference. Oh, and Brian, you never answered my first question!