Are There Limits to Literary Citizenship?

by Sal Falko / Flickr

The backlash against Literary Citizenship is underway, and possibly it was inevitable.

For those unaware of term, it’s wide utilized successful nan literary, bookish organization to mention to activities that support and further reading, writing, and publishing, and nan maturation of your master network. In immoderate ways, it’s a much palatable (or friendly) measurement to deliberation of platform building.

What I’ve ever liked astir nan Literary Citizenship movement:

1. It’s elemental for group to understand and practice. It aligns good pinch nan values of nan literate community.
2. It operates pinch an abundance mindset. It’s not astir competition, but collaboration. If I’m doing well, that’s going to thief you, too, successful nan agelong term. We’re not playing a zero-sum crippled wherever we hoard resources and attention. There’s plentifulness to spell around.

In her portion “All Work and No Pay Makes Jack a Dull Writer: On Literary Citizenship and Its Limits,” Becky Tuch raises a reddish emblem connected each this affirmative spin, and points to a downturn successful publishers’ trading budgets:

Who, then, must make up for this [economic] shortfall? Certainly it’s not nan owners and CEO’s of publishing companies who lend a manus to writers successful times of duress (in spite of nan truth that their profits are derived precisely from those writers). No, it’s writers who are expected to look aft themselves and 1 another.

Tuch argues that writers are being exploited nether nan guise of trading activities arsenic “enriching” activities. She asks america to mobility and situation this system, and nan firm publishers aliases corporate-culture machinations that person led america to nan necessity of literate citizenship, and calls for “frank discussions astir labour powerfulness and financial remuneration.”

Here’s a high-level summary of my ain attack to this.

1. The disruption faced by publishing affects nan full media manufacture (and nan world) and goes beyond economics. Publishing is not a specialized activity immoderate longer. Anybody tin publish. That’s not to opportunity anybody tin people well, but publication unsocial is not meaningful successful and of itself successful galore cases. From nan clip of Gutenberg until astir 2000, to print and publish thing was to amplify it because of nan finance and specialized knowledge required. That’s mostly not nan lawsuit coming (though for immoderate print-driven work, it still is). To amplify thing takes a different benignant of muscle, and amplifying done people distribution is becoming little and little meaningful arsenic 50% of book income now hap online (whether for people aliases integer books). Publishers of each types and sizes are struggling pinch this disruption and what it intends for their worth to authors, readers, and nan larger culture.

2. Authors tin transcend publishers erstwhile it comes to reader loyalty. Most of america don’t bargain books because of who published them; we bargain them because of who nan writer is. And if we don’t cognize nan author, we often bargain based on word of mouth. Publishers effort to encourage this connection of mouth, but fewer person marque nickname aliases connections pinch existent readers, because they haven’t traditionally been direct-to-consumer companies. They’ve sold to middlemen instead—bookstores, libraries, wholesalers.

In nan past 5-10 years, authors person gained devices to link straight pinch readers—tools that they’ve ne'er had before—which springiness them tremendous powerfulness amidst nan disruption. This is powerfulness that galore publishers still lack.

Unfortunately, successful nan literate market, engagement pinch nan readership is often seen arsenic undesirable—writing for an assemblage aliases engaging pinch them is seen to lessen nan art. (“I don’t constitute for readers” — you’ve heard that one, right?) I won’t reside nan problematic quality of this belief here, but this taste story is prevalent (I’m utilizing nan connection “myth” neutrally here—as successful Joseph Campbell “myth”), and whitethorn beryllium nan subtext of immoderate disapproval of literate citizenship.

3. The abundance mindset trumps the victim aliases scarcity mindset. In Zen position (pardon my Zen nature): are we going to spot ourselves arsenic portion of nan publishing world, aliases arsenic acted upon by nan publishing world (victims)? It whitethorn look a flimsy and meaningless distinction, but it powerfully affects your outlook and really you determine what to do next—if you judge you are nan personification who has power of your life and work.

Also, we person to retrieve that erstwhile 1 area of nan web aliases organization suffers, it will invariably impact different part. (Watch this terrific video connected this concept.) We’re already seeing shifts successful nan marketplace that constituent to really publishers person to change—e.g., 25% of nan apical 100 books connected Amazon past twelvemonth were self-published, authors are successfully crowdfunding caller books, and Wattpad has launched nan careers of new, young authors, which uses a very different exemplary than immoderate we’ve seen before.

New business models are retired there, and authors are uncovering nan opportunities amidst nan change. Benjamin Zander wrote successful The Art of Possibility:

The frames our minds create define—and confine—what we comprehend to beryllium possible. Every problem, each dilemma, each dormant extremity we find ourselves facing successful life, only appears unsolvable wrong a peculiar framework aliases constituent of view. Enlarge nan box, aliases create different framework astir nan data, and problems vanish, while caller opportunities appear.

What framework are we utilizing to look at the economic problem writers now face? I would propose it’s not useful to usage nan model of, “Publishers are taking advantage of writers.” Let’s alteration nan framework we’re using—not to whitewash immoderate imaginable unethical behavior, but to spot a productive measurement forward.

One of nan much inspiring things I’ve publication lately is Elizabeth Hyde Steven’s Make Art Make Money, which is each astir balancing business and art, arsenic mastered by nan late, awesome Jim Henson. I can’t deliberation of a amended measurement to adjacent than quote thing she learned from studying his career:

We tin locomotion into nan world of business emotion we are connected nan turf of strangers, imaginable enemies. Or we tin participate that world successful a measurement that brings our ain turf pinch us, truthful that we nary longer consciousness protect but expansive. With nan realization of nan powerfulness our creation wields, we tin go generous. When we do, we go compelling, enviable, impressive, and we person nan expertise to alteration things.

For much more reference connected literate citizenship, return a look astatine 10 Ways to Be a Totally Epic Literary Citizen.