4 ms·

I don't know why the idea that there might be a "better way" to produce fiction would even occur. It's a work of art, not a product. Are we worrying about the i

by markbnj 12y ago

I don't know why the idea that there might be a "better way" to produce fiction would even occur. It's a work of art, not a product. Are we worrying about the inefficiencies of cottage industries in, say, the production of music, painting, sculpture, or other literary forms such as poetry and the various forms of theatrical writing? It seems an odd lament for a writer, though I don't know that he actually meant it that way.

jordan0day 12y ago
Has capitalism succeeded so wildly that it's now basically invisible? So something created and meant to be sold, but having some other quality ("art", in this case), can't be considered a "product"?
mstolpm 12y ago
While the story itself might be art, the book, ebook, audiobook or DVD is a product. Publishers aren't producing art, they are in the business of distributing. (Most don't even sell to the customer but need either the bookstore or Amazon to do so.)
- markbnj 12y ago
  Right, but the comment I was referring to wasn't about distribution. It was about the limitations of the method of production, which, obviously are real and inherent (imho). What caught my eye was the offhand comment about not having found a "better" way to produce content (even going so far as to note that collaborations don't necessarily lead to greater efficiencies).
- edavison1 12y ago
  Writers, including critically acclaimed ones, can't produce their art without a legit publishing house making sure that their books are readable. There is a long chain of people in publishing working to ensure you maintain that perception, so I guess that's on them, but everyone knows they're awful distributors and most of the value they create comes from elsewhere in the 'creative' process.
maxerickson 12y ago
If you read much of his blog, I think it is fair to say that he sees much of his writing as product.
- SideburnsOfDoom 12y ago
  Maybe I haven't read enough, but I got more of an impression that the industry in which a successfully writer of fiction is embedded views the writer's output as product. And it is a product to the industry around it - works of fiction are advertised, printed, stocked, sold, shipped and consumed. Of course it's not just a product, but still that is the industry's main view of it. Much like how the music industry regards songs as "content" not "works of art". "How many copies can we sell?" is a more relevant question than "what is the piece's artistic merit?"
  - maxerickson 12y ago
    This post captures a lot of the tone I was thinking about: http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2013/05/crib-sheet-singularity-sky.html http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2013/05/crib-she...
jasode 12y ago
I don't agree with the blog's author (Charlie Stross) but I will attempt to interpret what he's trying to say. He's not advocating for a more efficient fiction production method. The examples he cites are slow-growth authors that don't catch fire immediately and the failure of Agile XP "pair-programming" for consistently producing fiction any faster (the 75% contributed by both writers chestnut). If you take these premises as unchangeable, he's saying that authors require a stable industry that "nurtures" their career and a ruthless capitalist Darwinism would destroy that environment. I guess an analogy would be trashing the tenured status of mathematics professors and let other measurements such as crowdsourced student voting and dollar amounts of incoming grants dictate whether those math professors would have jobs. Under that dog-eat-dog scenario, a Charlie Stross type of prediction says that mathematician Andrew Wiles wouldn't have had the luxury to think for years on proving Fermat's Last Theorem. Good work by good creators (authors, mathematicians, etc) takes years to produce and unlike a tomato that can be grown from seed to fruit in 75 days, their slow intellectual output needs a commercial environment that doesn't punish them while 2 corporations negotiate their financial differences.

by markbnj 12y ago

jordan0day 12y ago

Has capitalism succeeded so wildly that it's now basically invisible? So something created and meant to be sold, but having some other quality ("art", in this case), can't be considered a "product"?

mstolpm 12y ago

While the story itself might be art, the book, ebook, audiobook or DVD is a product. Publishers aren't producing art, they are in the business of distributing. (Most don't even sell to the customer but need either the bookstore or Amazon to do so.)

markbnj 12y ago
Right, but the comment I was referring to wasn't about distribution. It was about the limitations of the method of production, which, obviously are real and inherent (imho). What caught my eye was the offhand comment about not having found a "better" way to produce content (even going so far as to note that collaborations don't necessarily lead to greater efficiencies).
edavison1 12y ago
Writers, including critically acclaimed ones, can't produce their art without a legit publishing house making sure that their books are readable. There is a long chain of people in publishing working to ensure you maintain that perception, so I guess that's on them, but everyone knows they're awful distributors and most of the value they create comes from elsewhere in the 'creative' process.

maxerickson 12y ago

If you read much of his blog, I think it is fair to say that he sees much of his writing as product.

SideburnsOfDoom 12y ago
Maybe I haven't read enough, but I got more of an impression that the industry in which a successfully writer of fiction is embedded views the writer's output as product. And it is a product to the industry around it - works of fiction are advertised, printed, stocked, sold, shipped and consumed. Of course it's not just a product, but still that is the industry's main view of it. Much like how the music industry regards songs as "content" not "works of art". "How many copies can we sell?" is a more relevant question than "what is the piece's artistic merit?"
- maxerickson 12y ago
  This post captures a lot of the tone I was thinking about: http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2013/05/crib-sheet-singularity-sky.html http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2013/05/crib-she...

jasode 12y ago

I don't agree with the blog's author (Charlie Stross) but I will attempt to interpret what he's trying to say. He's not advocating for a more efficient fiction production method. The examples he cites are slow-growth authors that don't catch fire immediately and the failure of Agile XP "pair-programming" for consistently producing fiction any faster (the 75% contributed by both writers chestnut). If you take these premises as unchangeable, he's saying that authors require a stable industry that "nurtures" their career and a ruthless capitalist Darwinism would destroy that environment. I guess an analogy would be trashing the tenured status of mathematics professors and let other measurements such as crowdsourced student voting and dollar amounts of incoming grants dictate whether those math professors would have jobs. Under that dog-eat-dog scenario, a Charlie Stross type of prediction says that mathematician Andrew Wiles wouldn't have had the luxury to think for years on proving Fermat's Last Theorem. Good work by good creators (authors, mathematicians, etc) takes years to produce and unlike a tomato that can be grown from seed to fruit in 75 days, their slow intellectual output needs a commercial environment that doesn't punish them while 2 corporations negotiate their financial differences.