Author’s Note: This is a piece written for the book review section of a large commercial website. You may see it published there in the future, but I’m interested in the message now, so I’m putting up here today. If they choose not to run it there because I offered it to you in advance, selah… When I have an idea in my head, I want it published. And I don’t like waiting.
The Internet Isn’t Killing Books (In Reality, It’s Probably Going to Create a Huge New Market for Them)
by The Philadelphia Lawyer
I write online, at Philalawyer.net, and I’ve also written a book, Happy Hour is for Amateurs, and I’m writing here today to tell you this: From what I’ve seen, the Internet will never kill books. To the contrary, the book industry will not only have a long and healthy life, but ultimately, the Internet, and the text-based forms of communication embraced in its wake, may be on the verge of creating a huge, new resurgence in it.
How? Let’s deal with the commercial issues first. High quality internet content cannot be monetized, or least not monetized for sufficiently profitable margins under any of the models available. I’ve written perhaps 1,000 pages of text online – serials, editorials, bits of satirical journalism. The time invested in the process could never be made back on the advertising dollars collected. The fact was, as much as I love the freedom to write whatever I like online (and Lord knows I’ve done that), I had to write a book to make money from the endeavor. It’s simple math. No widget to sell, no revenue. For almost all serious writers, Internet content works as a loss leader. I only keep pumping it out because, well, I like my audience. And I like writing.
This leads to a second, noncommercial point. When you like writing, when you’re told you have talent for it, you’ve no choice but to tackle the concept of a book. It’s the White Whale. No one who’s put pen to paper or fingers to a keyboard hasn’t envisioned a two or three hundred page book as the ultimate destination. In this regard, the Internet works as a natural minor league for the major league of publishing. A driving range of sorts.
Of course, many critics disagree with this notion. Their chief complaint is, as much the Internet encourages writers to put out books, it works an opposite effect on the audience. That the premium it places on brevity conditions online readers to a rapid form of consumption incompatible with the detailed narratives offered in books. As someone who’s sold a decent number of units for a first book that came out in the midst of last year’s financial meltdown, and received zero media attention, I reach the opposite conclusion. The internet readers I’ve encountered want a more detailed narrative. Why? Because anyone who reads online knows – the Internet can become predictable. The push is always to get to the end, to the punchline. Give the harried workplace reader something he can digest between the time his boss passed his cubicle and the time he’ll pass again. Too much of that, and too many competing choices, providing similar reductionist fare, become exhausting. With a book, the reader has no choice but to marry himself to the story. A full fledged book’s greatest attraction is its ability to allow the reader to forget his world for a time. This doesn’t happen so easily reading a five hundred word blog post. And it’s hardly worth noting, in this economy, many people want a vacation from their minds.
That isn’t a criticism of blogs, or any other internet content providers. It’s a distinction that outlines the complimentary differences between websites and books informing a final, most important point. We are in a new age where writing is the default method of communication. Email and Blackberries never fully replaced the spoken word, but that was before texting. Before social networks. We don’t call each other anymore, at all. We instant message, Tweet and comment on each other’s blogs or Facebook pages. And as we do that, though some of us will further debase the lexicon with horrible all caps abbreviations and cringe-inducing expressions, many more of us will have no choice but to become better writers. We’ll embrace the medium young, and as one who spoke publicly for a living would want to hear others in his trade speak, the texter will look to the blogger for hints on how to write with more expression. The blogger will look to producers of more detailed content, like this site, or mine, to determine how to create more comprehensive work. And people like me will hone our craft to write books. It’s just a question of how many take that natural path. But rather than view the glass as half empty, assuming the Internet threatens books, why not look at how the mediums naturally compliment one another? Look at the fact that millions of new potential book buyers might just be falling in love with the written word?
Do you think digital media will replace print media?
PL: Yes.
This reminds me of what Clive Thompson of Wired is calling the ‘new literacy’ movement. Essentially, technology is reviving the written process, rather than killing it, which as you argue, could create a new market for books.
“”I think we’re in the midst of a literacy revolution the likes of which we haven’t seen since Greek civilization,” she says. For Lunsford, technology isn’t killing our ability to write. It’s reviving it—and pushing our literacy in bold new directions.”
My concern is quality. Just because everyone is writing–texting, emailing and commenting a like–why does that make everyone an an author? And, one good enough to get published?
PL: I think naturally as people do something, they get better at it, and want to improve their skillset. As to “[g]ood enough to get published,” there’s an odd phenomenon taking place there. Publishing houses are dropping the advance system in favor of a system where everybody funds their own creation of a manuscript – a “let everyone write and have the market sort out what people want” sort of thing. In the future, it will be “good enough to get noticed,” which will create loads more gaudy, embarrassing shit for the mouthbreathing average consumer and different levels of good shit for more discerning consumers to locate in an even more crowded bookshelf. Word of mouth will remain the most important marketing for decent to great works, so I remain hopeful about the future of the higher end of the medium.
Forgot to include the link:
http://www.wired.com/techbiz/people/magazine/17-09/st_thompson
I’m a huge fan of your website, and have a hardcover copy of your book that I pre-ordered on Amazon.com when it came out. I can’t wait for you to come out with another book as I really enjoyed the first one and have told all my friends about it.
This isn’t really related to this article, but I wanted to know if you watch the TV show It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia? Its one of my favorite TV shows this season has introduced a new character. A lawyer in Philadelphia. I’ve often visualized the different stereotypes of Philadelphia lawyers you talk about on this site, and was wondering, if you watch the show, if you found this portrayal accurate and/or funny?
Keep up the good work!
PL: Yes, and it’s fucking hysterical. The lawyer needs a little loosening up, but the actor seems good and he’ll have opportunities to grow it into a more ridiculous character. His present incarnation is a rigid straight guy for jokes, so I can’t say he’s accurate, really. He’s a bit too two dimensional.
Aspiring writers have not totally figured out how to properly use the Internet yet. I don’t think that producing a typical blog will help anyone become a better writer. The nature of blogging itself doesn’t do much to polish ones ability to craft a good essay or narrative. And most bloggers themselves are more tied up with the number of readers than the content itself. I’ve found that they often think the number of readers they have is a good measurement of the quality of content they’re producing. In reality they should just be treating the Internet as a blank canvas used to practice and refine their writing style, nothing more.
I’m a twenty-two-year-old aspiring writer and I put together a site where I mostly publish 1000-1500 word pieces on a topic I love and can write passionately about. I could probably get more visits if I published more frequently and if my pieces were shorter but I don’t really care about that stuff. And I definitely am not trying to use my space on the Internet to make money. I just want to become a better writer.
Eventually I want to write a book. I also know that conventional blogging will never get me there. Instead of pushing to the punchline, as you say, Internet writers should be trying to contribute something of quality, something new, fresh, interesting, and worth reading. That’s what I’m trying to do.
Some people my age confuse communicating with writing, as a form of art and expression. In 2009, there are countless platforms with which people can communicate with others and if you’re an interesting person, you can build an audience. That’s essentially all that blogging is: communicating. There are a lot of people blogging on the Internet, but aspiring writers should be trying to create quality and something that has real recognizable value. What do you think?
Loved the book, BTW. Stay cool.
PL: I agree. Which is why I don’t blog. The stuff here could be, with a little editing, put into a book, much like Klosterman IV. Anecdotes and essays. I’d love to do that, but publishers want the narrative. Which is odd, because the audience wants essays as much as journalism or stories. When self-publishing becomes the norm, this will be repackaged into a book. I haven’t written this for nothing, and reading it online doesn’t do the work justice. It’s meant to be read in print.
I also agree 100% on emphasizing quality over all else. Perez Hilton will be looking for a job in five years and have few interested employers. And all this shit about internet marketing hucksterism gives me gas. The new paradigm is the old paradigm. Every now and again a PT Barnum will come along and make a mint off some novelty self-help concept, but that’s not a model to be replicated en masse, as we can see from the glut of self help crap overwhelming consumers, splintering the marketplace in endless directions. A quality show/movie/book/song will succeed. Maybe not like Mariah Carey or Creed, but like the Velvet Underground – slow, steady, respected and trading on its Quality.
This is a really interesting topic. It seems until the internet started to become a medium for the average man to put out their art, advancement in skill for the arts (writing, music, drawing, etc..) were largely limited to more traditional forms of training such as in the classroom, tutoring, or just plain being “gifted”.
I think this extends to all the industries in the sense that they should look at the internet as an opportunity to scout out potential talent, and as more and more people use the internet to put out their art, it gives these industries more scarcity power ; they are the only ones who have the power to publish for lucrative gains for the individual.
PL: In our lifetime, Exactly. Publishing online can never be lucrative because it can always be had free. I still haven’t figured out how Daily Beast or Huff Post make money for anyone. I think they took a bunch of private equity people for a ride in drumming up all that investment capital. Have you ever clicked on a banner ad? I think I’ve done it maybe a dozen times, and mostly out of curiosity. I ignore them reflexively. And most people don’t even have them on their screens. They use software to eliminate them, or read on RSS Feeds.
You make a good point, I hope you’re right. This piece reminds of the long since dismissed notion of napster having been good for the music industry. Logic says its nonsense, the data showed otherwise. Peter Fader, a professor I’ve studied with, testified on behalf of Napster news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/napster/napster/fader_070300.pdf
I know you’re suspicious of experts, but this guy is honest, brilliant, and cares enough about the work he does that if you ask him, he’ll still take the time to explain to you why he was right. Or you can read the testimony linked above if you’re curious.
“Aside from these two uses, Napster incorporates a number of additional features
into its platform that are valued and exploited by its users. These include a community
forum with chat and instant messaging capabilities and a new artist search function for
users interested in learning about new artists that, in turn, helps those artists gain
exposure to music listeners. Napster also facilitates promotional activities by established
bands, such as the authorized distribution of concert tapes, and incorporates an internal
player that allows users to organize and play their audio files”
PL: An apt comparison (as to subject… on preparation, he’s miles ahead of my short suggestion here). But the question isn’t whether I’m right or wrong. The question is, can we afford for my point to be wrong? A society that gives up in-depth consideration of issues and the powers of concentration required to finish a book is a society headed down the drain.
TL; DR… LOL!
PL: Perfect.
Over the past few years I’ve been infuriated every time I see older sports journalists on a sports feature show broach the subject of sportswriting on the internet. Of course, they don’t call it sportswriting; they shuffle every internet piece under the heading of “blogs” and demonize the shit out of it. Because that’s what these people do. That’s what sports journalism is. It’s excessive hyperbole conveyed by stacking simile upon simile. And people have told them they’re great writers for so long that they believe it, and they start writing fiction, and you get 120 page pieces of crap written at a sixth grade level.
That particular form of writing, essentially commentary, which many, many people can do, (access or not) will be threatened by the internet. Writing good fiction is not something many people can do. Furthermore, enjoyment of fiction is antithetical to the use of the internet, which is a forum for instant gratification. Therefore, the internet should not be a threat to fiction but, as you say, a boon for it.
On an even more basic level, books are not viable in the realm of piracy. People have been enjoying fiction in a certain way for hundreds of years, and a computer can’t replicate this. If you can’t duplicate something, then you can only carve but so effectively into its market. Because the internet cannot duplicate the experience of reading a book (which is amazing, really, when you think about it, originally being a completely text based medium…), then the market for books operates the way it always has (well, maybe not exactly, you’d know more about this than I do). It’s interesting that they have to actually take cutting edge technology and engineer it backwards into more primitive technology to even come close. Is this not basically what Amazon has done with the Kindle? “Lets take this computer and make it work more like a book. In order to sell books.” “Why don’t we just sell books?” “Books don’t cost 400 dollars, you imbecile.”
Though it works in some situations, I’m not sure that publishing written work on the internet will be able to serve as a minor league for traditional publishing in a general sense. Again, you know far more about this than I do, but I would guess that if I were a publisher and I wanted to find new talent, and I wanted to use the internet to help me do this, I’d look at those blogs/sites with the most traffic, and then consider whether those authors would fit in at my publishing company (industry trends). For the reasons discussed here, they shouldn’t usually be the same people destined for success at the next level. Let’s take two successful popular authors of mainstream fiction, I dunno, Dan Brown and let’s say Michael Chricton. Not great authors in a literary sense, but success is the point here. If Chriction was unpublished and had a blog, it would probably be mainly concerned with science. There might be a couple of short fiction pieces on there, but couched in lots of technical jargon and whatnot, because that is what interests him and since you can’t make any money just having a blog, he’s not going to be writing for the masses but for the niche made up of people interested in the same things he is. Low traffic. As a publisher, I’d probably completely overlook his internet work. Maybe the unpublished Dan Brown has a blog devoted to popular religious conspiracy theories, on which he has lots of conjecture concerning different ideas, and some short fiction. His blog might have a huge following, since the interenet loves that kind of stuff. I might pursue Dan Brown. In this sense, what works for some would not work for others.
But again, these are just my thoughts and you know a lot more about this than I do.
PL: Excellent consideration of the issues. I’ll throw $.02 in:
1. I assume you’ve seen that arrogant jackass Bissinger attack Will Leitch. That’s pathetic. If Bissinger weren’t scared and small, he’d have applauded Leitch for drawing people to his genre. Bissinger is a brilliant writer and should be happy Leitch brings people to a form of writing he uses to pay the mortgage.
2. The Internet’s Achilles Heel is lack of backing for its commentary. Why? Because that’s the heavy lifting. Thinking’s tough. People only do that for money, which is why a moneyman in a publishing house or a studio will always be in the catbird seat in re: creating quality content.
3. I’d say you’re wrong on books being immune to piracy. I welcome people passing my book around to those who won’t take a chance on buying it. I figure whatever gets it read more widely is good for me generally (See: Dead’s policy on bootlegging concerts). But I am also aware of loads of “information should be free!” fundamentalists trying to find “Happy Hour is for Amateurs PDF” online. Some folks are just dicks. Give them free shit online for years and they’ll still try to pirate a $10 book. But what are you going to do? That’s human nature.
The NY Times bestseller in non-fiction is a 750 page book from a guy who built his fanbase entirely online.
PL: First, I found an email of yours in my spam filter. I owe you a response and will provide shortly. Apologies on that. Don’t know why it filtered you.
Good point. But let’s see how long the book stays there. You only need to sell 5-10k copies in an opening week to spike yourself into the Bestseller list. We’ll get to see the depth of his audience over the coming months, and whether the “NYTimes Bestseller” stamp gifts an otherwise unknown product with a long tail.
Great piece Phila.
I wrote an elaborate breakdown of a similar issue late last year for the now-defunct Rudius Media Home page. It’s a little outdated now, but the basic arguments still hold up.
(Link here if you care to read it http://www.rudiusmedia.com/archives/print_publishing_vs_electronic.phtml)
The main point is that there is no battle between the Print and Electronic mediums, but rather an adjustment period that will eventually see those who embrace both forms and exploit each for their advantages come out on top. Big Publishing has been forced to adapt whether they like it or not. Unfortunately, (I work in publishing) the initial reaction was fear, resistance and closed-mindedness.
There is always going to be a market for long-form literature. And you’re right, nobody has figured out how to efficiently monetize e-publishing at the moment, but strides are being made. A huge part of it was the inferior technology released in an effort to get a jump on the e-reader market. The first Kindles and Sony E-Readers were fucking inexcusable garbage. It soured the technology’s reputation. Nonetheless, I don’t think the day is far off where the market will finally reach a tipping point. After all, the I-Pod didn’t corner the portable MP3 market right away. There were a lot of inferior, shitty attempts beforehand. Also, books (generally speaking) cater to an older demographic than music so the transition of technologically-savvy population into the market will take a few more years. There’s a lot of inertia in changing centuries old reading habits.
The biggest mistake I see people making when they talk about e-publishing is that “print publishers are fucking useless crooks, and the new revolution will give writers the power to publisher their own material!” Yes, the current publishing system needs a shake up. There are shitty editors and awful decision makers holding positions as cogs in the big machine. Big Publishers throw their weight around simply because they control what gets front placement in bookstores. Despite the missteps, publishing biggest contribution to society is weeding through all the garbage that people submit for publication. We need to look no further than the current state of the blog-o-sphere to see what happens when filters are removed. The parallels hold up online and in print – 95% of what is submitted sucks. That is another reason why the novel is so valued in its print form. There is an implied guarantee that what you’re buying isn’t complete unreadable shit. On the bright side, the wild west free market system on the internet does create its own non-perfect filter for removing rubbish. Blogs/websites get popular on their own merit and if writers stick with it long enough (and have the talent), they get noticed.
That’s the biggest shift that has occurred. Print publishers are finally realizing that there is another source of acquiring manuscripts out there. The internet is gradually gaining significance, and acquisition editors are making careers out of cashing in on successful online writers. Your recent book is the perfect example. You’re also exactly right that narratives aren’t catered for the internet. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve waited for you to finish a multi-part series, and then just printed it out and read it over an extended lunch-break. Years ago, there was a huge explosion in ADD blog posts cramming as much information down our throats in the shortest amount of words possible. We’re now realizing that a great deal of it was hackery, and those who are good at it have gained popularity as a credible source. Not every issue in life can be summed up in a 200 word blog post or in a 140 characters. The real issues take time and preparation to really understanding. After all, Mac N Cheese hits the spot when you’re rushed for time, but eating it every day is hazardous for your health – same principle applies to the brain.
E-readers will improve the long-form reading experience. They’ll lower the transactional cost of information. They will create higher profit margins for publishers and writers. And best of all they’ll eliminate the ridiculous return policies of Big Box booksellers that completely fuck over publishers and artificially jack up prices. I still have a modest hope that the holiday season coupled with a somewhat improving economy might allow the technology to blossom. Multiple sources of revenue never hurt anyone, and a lot of non-traditional writers who have honed their craft on the internet are ready to make a big splash on the larger market. When it comes down to it, good writing is good writing regardless of how you consume it. Like you said, once all the technological bridges are constructed, markets are established, and old publishing adjusts its stubborn ways, we’re going to usher in a whole new era of writing to a whole new market of readers.
PL: I’m not going to add to this because I agree. My only response would be, anyone reading the comments Must read this one. The guy knows his shit and, if it’s any testimony to my opinion of his opinion, know this:
1. He has a credit on the back page of my book;
2. I borrowed a phrase he gave me for the amended Author’s Note in the Paperback; and
3. All of this was done without us having ever met, or even spoken over the phone.
Some people make points so well, you needn’t have the personal context to understand they’re probably dead right about whatever they’re saying. This guy’s one of them.
This was your best piece in a long time (excluding the bits of your book that you published here). You’re a smart guy and it’s great to read you applying your intellect towards something a little more challenging than the old-man-yelling-at-cloud style rants on the Moral Decay of America.
PL: Thanks. But I’m not writing about anything as pedestrian as “morals.” The piece Rob and I are doing actually has a load of contrarian points in it. Hence, it’s offered as a question, rather than a declaration.
But you’re right, of course… I never give up an opportunity to rant. I like it. Lets me flex the pen, which is what I care about most.
So any advice for someone who’s thrown an entire non-fiction book up online for free? From what I can tell most people are intent on getting their next fix and not reading something worthwhile, a la rats in a cage:
http://www.slate.com/id/2224932/
And you can find the book on it’s website here:
http://www.tremblethedevil.com/
PL: All you can do is hook people. I started out doing serial pieces that required people to come back. But be careful in doing so. Having to write on the ruthless schedule demanded by readers can be hellish. As I noted at the end of Happy Hour is For Amateurs, there were many stretches where I spent five hours a night for a couple weeks on end. In the middle of one brutal run, I tried a case involving a complex contract dispute while putting up 1000-1200 word pieces twice weekly. That was surreal. I completely lost grip with all reality outside the courtroom and the website.
The other thing you can do is offer quality. The hucksters will give you tips on how to “Internet market” yourself to success, elevating the PT Barnum element over the content. That’s a path to nowhere. No quality, so staying power. No staying power and you might as well do something else with your life, a more traditional path. I’m not being arrogant there. That’s just how the market works. Crap can fly like a meteor via marketing, but it inevitably burns out.
I know you don’t have time for this right now, but just a suggestion for later-
Some of the multi-part stories start off with “Read Part I Here”, and it redirects to a broken link- the old site. And maybe you could re-organize the stories so for example L’spirit… isn’t interrupted by a Nuggets post.
I made all the pledges read Commencement 2009. BEFORE we went out for $2 bottles of 312.
PL: We’re trying to get all that done. But it takes some time. Right now, I’m going through and adding paragraph breaks by hand.
Let me preface this by saying I’m a huge fan whose been reading your stuff for years.
I hope you are right about the internet creating a bigger market for books, but I have to disagree. While the internet has fostered a much broader awareness of talented writers such as yourself, with the increasing ease of piracy I don’t think this broadened awareness can continue to translate into book sales.
As soon as e-readers become the norm, I believe books are going to be pirated en masse and sales will drop irrevocably.
Overall revenues on music have been dropping for years, DVD sales are starting to take the plunge, and it only seems inevitable that the same will happen with book sales as e-readers catch on. Any product that can be digitized is going to have a hell of a time making a profit 5-10 years from now.
Anyways, thought I’d toss that out there. I hate for my first comment on your blog to be so bleak, and as an aspiring writer myself I really hope that I am wrong.
PL: I agree books will not be lucrative for authors. I do not agree that publishers will vanish or that people will read longer narratives less as a result of the internet.
What is with the RSS feed? Do you plan on only allowing us to view the first 2 lines or so, because that just sucks.
PL: I don’t know. I write. I’m trying to do what I can, but I’m being pulled in about five directions at once right now.
Just picked up your book after reading this blog for months so the internet does something for book sales. Looked through multiple airport book stores with no success before I found it at a Border’s or Barnes & Noble’s. Great read so far, keep up the good work. Are you a former deadhead? I’m only a few chapters in but noticed the references.
PL: I saw the Dead a bunch of times, but no, I wasn’t a Deadhead. I didn’t follow them or anything like that. Just went to shows like everyone else did in college at the time. And I listen to a lot of Dead. I have a lot of shows and hang out with a lot of people who were into them since high school.
Hey PL,
Since your on the topic of books, are you ever gonna come out with a reading list like Tucker and Ryan Holiday? I’m on my way to finishing Tucker’s list and looking to start on Ryan’s list soon, but before getting started on Ryan’s list I’d definitely be more interested to know what your literary and general influences are, like Tucker’s list, or just what books you recommend to your fans. Awesome piece by the way.
PL: I have it in the cue. I’m just really fucking backlogged and busy as hell right now.
In your reply to my last comment, you asked if we could afford for you to be wrong, implying that if you were, we’re a society headed down the drain. I’ve been turning that over in my head on and off since…and the only thing that seems to fit is “So it goes.”
PL: “We were put on this world to fart around, and don’t let anyone tell you different.” That’s still my favorite Vonnegut quote, even using a lousy verb like “fart.”
Excellent piece, but no, digital will not overtake hard-copy books. For those of us who toil daily in front of a computer, destroying both our eye-sight and ability to spell sans spell-check, we crave nothing more than spending our downtime cozying up with a stiff drink and a good book (either that or cozying up with a stiff drink and an even stiffer member). Either way, although it might become more difficult to find certain books in paper version, the desire to read them in that manner will not change. I cannot foresee this ever changing.
PL: The Kindle’s very easy on the eyes.