It is fashionable for content producers to rail against the concept of “curation” in the Age of the Internet. Why? Because the guidelines of those terrible people, the “traditional publishers,” are supposedly keeping authors from the global audience that certainly must be their birthright. True, the balance can (and in the recent past certainly has) swung too far in the direction of permitting far too few good books to gain access to traditional distribution channels.
But it’s worth remembering that the situation can look very different to a content consumer than it does to a content producer.
Why is that so? Because in the modern world, we are awash – indeed drowning – in a flood of content and data. More than we could ever possibly consume, even if we had a lifetime to read even a single day’s output of the global Internet production machine. And what drives that machine to expose most content is too often purely commercial, or ideological, or just damn silliness rather than good editorial judgment (take a look at your Twitter feed, if you think I’m wrong).
This is not, of course, entirely bad, although it is undisciplined. Content producers that previously had no way to reach an audience now can, and thousands of eminently worthwhile creators have taken advantage of the level playing field that the Internet provides to reach a readership that they could never have accessed a generation ago. And that audience has benefited equally.
But the Internet is non-judgmental: everyone’s bytes are just as worthy as everyone else’s when it comes to transmissibility. That leaves readers with a serious problem. How do you find the time to winnow the wheat from the chaff? Or even the occasional wheat from the usual chaff of a single source?
That’s where the process of curation comes in. I’m a lifelong reader of The New York Times, and even at its current high price, I still find enormous value in the fact that a staff of demonstrably educated, talented, discerning individuals are consumed with the goal of distilling all of the news that the world creates in 24 hours into a digestible summary of articles that they believe are worth the notice of someone that has only so much time to dedicate in any given day to keeping up with the news.
I seek out the same level of discernment in more focused areas of interest to me as well. For example, in writing, I have yet to find a news source for a self-published author that’s on a par with The Passive Voice. Every day (yes, seven days a week), David P. Vandegriff, a contracts attorney who represents authors, presents outakes and links to a half-dozen or so “must read” articles from an extremely wide range of sources. It’s a rare day when I don’t find myself interested in all of the articles, quotes and YouTube videos that he has aggregated. Not only does he select content of certain interest to authors and serious readers, but he has a sure finger on the pulse of how publishing in general, and self-publishing in particular, continues to morph at a galloping pace.
What that means is that I save a huge amount of time every day reading Vandegriff’s free, daily email aggregation (see the right margin of his homepage for the sign up window – as well as the “donate” button, if you are so inclined) rather than the virtually endless number of other sources available. Some of those sources are well-regarded journals (e.g., the Wall Street Journal. Forbes, and The New York Times) that only occasionally have articles on writing) while others are self-indulgent most of the time, but extremely illuminating the remaining times at bat. Thankfully, Vandegriff’s thousands of readers augment his own reading, and email him when they spot a gem. He then provides the final level of review before selecting his final selections of the day.
If that sounds like agents and publishers, well, guess what, it should. The combination of filters and curation is a timeless, fractal approach that has demonstrable benefits. Just as a start-up company is only likely to get the attention of a venture capitalist if they are recommended by a start-up attorney (like me), accountant or other entrepreneur, publishers rely on agents to filter the great mass of submission, and so it is across many other disciplines as well. The reading public benefits accordingly.
Is the process perfect? Of course not. There are endless numbers of worthwhile books you’ll never be exposed to if you only shop at brick and mortar stores. But how much reading time do you have in one lifetime, anyway? And at least you’re not likely to find dreck when you pull a book off a shelf at Barnes & Noble.
So here’s the moral to the story: we shouldn’t want to go back to the days where the publishers (and particularly today’s Big 5, corporate owned publishers) have near-total control over what content can reach an audience. But we also do not (yet) benefit from an ecosystem on the self-publishing side where readers can easily find the best self-published new books among the hundreds of thousands of new offerings that reach the market every year.
Happily, that day will come. Why? Because there is very little new wine that can be contained only in new bottles. Inevitably, the age-old fractal pattern will assert itself, and a new cadre of most-trusted reviewers will arise from the current turbulent marketplace. They will earn the respect of readers, and will recommend the books that are most worth reading.The difficult challenge will be for this to happen in a way that is more open and welcoming to a broader, but equally talented, range of authors than the system that came before.
When (hopefully not if) that does happen, we’ll all be better off – authors and readers alike.
Andy, while I do think it’d be really nice, and convenient, to have not one but several sources to trust for references for new work, I wouldn’t that to – again – replace a fighting chance to share or offer one’s work to the public.
Because of the internet, more and more work “is” curated simply by being chosen individually by people online. It becomes popular, desirable, and then is offered by an imprint, or featured in a mass promotion.
The vast ocean of offerings, in Kindle Unlimited and Scribe and other outlets on writer’s websites, is at the minimum, a slush pile. But it’s open to all of us. We’re not not allowed to publish and offer.
That said, having review places one trusts, smaller pools, is and will be a great way to augment the ocean.
My apologies for the typos, no editing option, plus I’m trying out commenting via my Fire tablet for the first time 🙂
Thanks for the comment, Felipe. The challenge, as always, is how to have it both ways – equal opportunity of discovery for the author, as well as valuable guidance for the reader.
There’s another aspect that I did not touch on, though, and that’s quality. The current level playing field is slanting towards rapid-release series genre fiction. That’s great for those that want to read and write genre fiction and have the stamina to keep up the pace (and happily the market for genre fiction is huge), but it provides little motivation to become a better writer. And to date, I’m not aware of any role models to emulate, for those who find role models important.
(And don’t worry about the typos – typos R us
typos R us – love that 🙂
A good main article Andy, but I personally found this supplementary passage of particular interest. I’d rather turn out two books a year that were worth the effort than ten books a year to show how ‘productive’ I could be with (ill-prepared, badly-presented) fiction. I’d also rather only read one good book a month and give it a considered review than speed-read a book a week just to give somebody five stars and make them feel good. Good insight mate. 🙂
Another great post, Andrew. Many thanks.
Thanks, as always, Marcus (and also for the retweets)
“Because in the modern world, we are awash – indeed drowning – in a flood of content and data. More than we could ever possibly consume, even if we had a lifetime to read even a single day’s output of the global Internet production machine”
You have put your finger on the main crux of the problem with this statement. Thus only ‘clever’ marketing ploys can now sell books. Lord of the Rings would become a series of 12 books, with the first two being offered free online; and the greatest book of them all, is always the next one that you haven’t written yet
.
Amen. And the prevailing wisdom seems to be that unless you play that game, you’re not likely to sell a single book. Well, I sure hope people like genre series fiction, because that’s about all they’re going to get from self-publishers from now on (or at least all they will here about).
Will readers care? Well, with the backlists of traditionally published books becoming available again, since classic literature never went out of print to begin with, and since traditional publishers will continue to release books, perhaps self publishing will become synonymous in peoples’ minds with genre fiction. If that happens, it will be years before we can ever climb our way out of that pit.
Tom, I agree entirely. I’m afraid that we’re sliding towards a self-publish monoculture of pump and dump authorship. Your review point is also a good one. If we, as authors, give overly-generous reviews to other self-published authors as a matter of course, then we’ll also lower the credibility of non-main stream reviews when it comes to self-published books.
I don’t know how to make it so, but I’d like to find a way for self-published authors to raise the perception of their work – not by coddling each other or by getting their friends to write puff reviews, but by working towards a reality where authors can take the time to do their best work AND become visible enough to gain a following as well.
Maybe – just a suggestion, that peer reviews include at least one improvement suggestion, but with a snippet or reference why. Regardless of rating.
That’s an interesting thought, but in order to not become formulaic and obvious, it would be good to come up with a list of “good ideas for productive interviews”. And also for people to realize that a 4 is a fine rating, and that some 3s as much as anything will add credibility.
“good ideas for productive interviews” – great idea !
But I’ve heard Amazon penalizes 3 star ratings as negative for discovery. That would need to be confirmed either way. Otherwise, I agree re credibility. Especially with reasons-examples to back it up AND a positive counterpoint.
Meant to say “list” of good ideas 🙂
Adan, one of the things that I keep meaning to write and invite comments/additions on would be a “Code of Self-Publishing Good Conduct” that would allow those authors that want to assume some responsibility for advancing the cause could, if they wished, subscribe to. One item would be “BUY (if they can afford it), read and review at least one Indie book a month.” This thread suggests that my original thought for this item should be thought out a bit more and expanded along the lines we’re discussing.
Would love to see what you come up with Andy.
Include thoughts on borrowing via subscription plans too if you can, as an option to buying, and still be able to leave a review.
Thanks Andy. This could be an immensely valuable project.
Hi, Andy, I had brought up the question about how 3 star review ratings affect an author’s discover-ability etc on Amazon, and saw the info below on Goodreads when I was tweaking an ad, and thought it actually lends a little positive support “for” 3 stars. But since this in re to advertising, not book discover, who knows 🙂
“Target fans of specific genres…
Off On
…or Target fans of specific authors
Only fans who rated the author’s books 3 or more stars will see the ad….”
Either way, interesting.
Thanks for the extra info, Adan. By the way – I just reactivated my ad on GoodReads with new text. How useful have you found ads there to be? Have you been able to tell whether they have (as compared to other simultaneous efforts you may be making) they’ve resulted in many sales for you?
Andy,
Hear, hear!
Well spoken — or rather written — as I first found this article at The Passive Guy. And worth every second of my (and others’) precious reading time!
Russell
That’s very kind of you, Russell – thanks. I hope you visit here again, and look forward to following you at your site.
Andy
You’re quite welcome, Andy!
And, you’re off the hook. I don’t have a blog site. I’m just a measly fiction writer with a few (precious few!) non-fiction pieces to my credit.
I must tell you that one of the things that constantly amaze and dishearten me is how badly thought-out and written many of the pieces are that I find on the ‘Net — and yes, even at so-called “writers’ sites.” Your piece is a most welcome exception to that experience.
Russell
And my thanks for your kind words once again. Yes, I do take seriously everything I write, including even email (and replies like this), which I always read and revise before sending.
That was drummed into me professionally with respect to letters when I went into practice before there was email (I’m a lawyer), and I’ve carried the practice forward every since. I think there’s always something potentially special about the written word, and there’s something to be said for always taking advantage of that opportunity whenever you write, so long as you enjoy doing it.
I see I jumped to an assumption regarding a site; I clicked on your name and it took me to the Sein und Werden/books page highlighting your work.
Thanks for the information, Felipe, and good luck with the ads (and the yoga).