Book Writer and PublisherAuthor and Publisher
Making publishers hate writers
However, publishers scorn writers and do everything they can to make things difficult for them. Writers are, I admit, a curious crowd. There is something anti-social about withdrawing from one' s own existence for a few month or years in order to carry out the lonely act of composing a work. In addition, the writers are fuzzy.
It promises to be published in April, and it won't be until October. As a result, there are several weak points for publishers: last-minute revision of publication plans; a requirement that writers submit their submissions on schedule, regardless of project grade; cancellation of all works; or legal action against the writers (as Penguin has begun) for non-delivery or inaccurate work.
Moreover, the playwrights are angrily expecting to be remunerated. In the 70s, the Author's Guild conducted a poll that indicated that the chefs at McDonald's earn only slightly more than the deep-fried chefs. The publishing houses were still in charge of making advance payments to the author in the hope that the author would submit a published script - which is not always the case.
It is therefore only natural that the publisher should be unfriendly and unfriendly towards writers on whom their whole publisher models depend. However, since the 2008 slump in the economy that struck the publisher's row, hostility has turned into a real war. Soon the three R's of the publisher business, the surviving strategies, became "Reduce Royalties and Returns".
The reduction of advance payments and royalty payments - authors are paid by funders - was the other major expense that editors were trying to cut. It'?s not the trader. When today an asset or acquisition journalist is considering an author's script or suggested work, the first place to go is to get paid for it.
Those numbers were the property of the publishing company; now they are visible to everyone. But if an author's numbers are bad, nobody thinks of blaming the company for not marketing the work. It is totally unjust, but the destruction of a writer's choices has some advantages for the publishing houses.
This makes me think that publishing houses may even be lucky if writers fall through. When writers enter the market, their charges increase. You can ask a publishing company to do more for their next volume. There is no assurance that the next volume will be sold well enough to warrant the higher advances the publishing house had to give to the writer.
So, if publishing houses can make the letter a fungi product, they no longer have to be concerned about whether they are going to pay more for a product or possibly pay too much. When publishing houses can commercialize authoring, they are no longer at the mercy of stubborn, uncontrollable and erratic authors. It is a matter of destroying the singularity and creativeness that the reader expects when buying a work.
Because of diminishing literary standards, next retailer will be less likely to turn to literature when they need information on a particular subject. They won't buy another one. Newspapers have started to hating writers. However, the attempt to suppress the writers' individualism and, to be honest, the excentricity is just another why the publication of the novel as we know it goes over the edge.