Intro to Publishing: It's not so bad as all that →

introtopub:

Someone mentioned that they thought ebooks didn’t really threaten the existence of print books, and I agree with that prediction. I tend to be a bit dramatic when it comes to pronouncements concerning things I care about. I heard Prof. Ashlock mention that ebooks comprise 30% of the total book…

I feel that every time something new is released, people begin to panic. Just as film and television cannot “replace” printed literature, neither can digital publishing. Ebooks simply provide another way for a reader to experience a good story; it’s totally fine to prefer print over digital or vice versa, but I think it’s time people in general stopped calling digital publishing the spawn of Satan himself. It, like anything else, has its pros and cons.

About libraries:

introtopub:

I think publishers especially are taking entirely the wrong stance towards libraries. Fostering a reading community in every form is a good thing but libraries especially are there to provide an opportunity for reading no matter their “market potential.” I also think they should do their homework. To me, it would make sense that book lovers buy books, no matter the libraries. And those who can’t afford books educate at libraries and become book-readers which may become book-buyers in the future. Aside from the market potential, it is wise to foster reading, not just your books. 

I’m glad that some of the Big Six are “testing the waters” in this area through pilot programs. I think it’s about time that they stopped making their decisions about libraries solely based on emotion and actually started looking at data. I hope that these programs change the relationship between libraries and publishers for the better. 

To Krozer:

introtopub:

I think we invited ebooks, no matter the cost, the inaccessibility, lack of quality, and the lack of bookishness (for lack of a better phrase) because our culture converted itself into a convenience culture. It was the invisible contract with the publishers that we made: make it convenient and we’ll buy it. I do think it’s an opportunity for growth however. It’s an opportunity for ebooks to become something different yet equal and for print books to step up their game as well.

I agree, but I think that ebooks can also learn from print books to “step up their game” as well. When we were discussing ebook enhancements yesterday, it made me think, “How many bad books have been written just for the bells and whistles?” It reminds me of some of the 3D movies that have horrible storylines, acting, etc., but make money just because they’re in 3D.

Writers need to remind themselves what makes a book, no matter its medium, great, and not merely cater to an audience that might value elaborate technology over a good story.

Mask and Unveiling: Copyright. Long, long after death do we part. →

d-poetry:

maskandunveiling:

introtopub:

I get why copyright is vastly important, but it is also kind of said that it extends long past anyone’s lifetime. No one can create new content of works they have grown to love during their lifetime; you have to pull from old works.

I’m not sure where I stand on this. Maybe…

But isn’t that why they call stuff like hp and zombies fanfiction….I guess?

Fanfiction is always legally OK, but you can only do so much with it. You couldn’t legally make a movie based on fanfiction, for example. And the author of The-Book-That-Must-Not-Be-Named (aka 50 Shades of Grey) had to change the Twilight character names before she could be published. In other words, you can do pretty much anything with a copyright-protected work, as long as you’re not making any money on it. 

(I’m no expert on this copyright stuff, keep in mind. :P)

Copyright. Long, long after death do we part.

introtopub:

I get why copyright is vastly important, but it is also kind of said that it extends long past anyone’s lifetime. No one can create new content of works they have grown to love during their lifetime; you have to pull from old works.

I’m not sure where I stand on this. Maybe copyright as it stands lasts too long, but I also think that there should be some sort of extension after the author’s death. It doesn’t seem right that people should be able to grab up an author’s work and do whatever he/she wants to with it immediately after the author dies. (“J.K. Rowling is dead?! Cool! Looks like it’s time to write Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone and Zombies!”)

(Source: whitetigerlily93, via journaling-junkie)

view-from-up-here:

Looking for Alaska, though

this is so true. im serious

(via hiphineaswhatudoing)

"Being a good writer is 3% talent and 97% not being distracted by the internet."

(via worldinink)

— the writer reblogs, being distracted by the internet

(via cameralinz)

(via 0n-y-va-allons-y)

happymonk:

as a poet
I’m tired of being
at the whim of words
I want to break them open
and see what’s inside.

View high resolution

Sometimes I feel compelled to give you people proof that I actually am writing, so here you go.

I may not be able to focus on one project at a time, but I am, indeed, writing a thing. Wish me luck!