Dawno said:
Hoo boy - you've opened a can 'o worms!
Why is it a can of worms? Because refusing to support the paper/pulp industry is ecologically ethical? Because I abhor the mass annihilation of forests for paper pulp? Because with e, we don't need to kill to read? Logging doesn't just kill trees, btw. It also kills wildlife and smaller flora.
Dawno said:
CC - while I admire your passion and committment to e-publishing, I think your approach here is more confrontational than it needs to be. We have many many folk here who support e-publishing and are e-published multiple times.
Passion, commitment? Definitely. Otherwise I wouldn't have started TD. But how exactly is my post "confrontational?" Because I object to urging e-pubbing author to seek traditional "kill a tree" publishing? Why is that confrontational? What have I said that is false or confrontational? The truth is that IF e-pubbing was the lucrative venue, most would abandon kill a tree pubbing. Until e-pubbing overtakes trad pubbing...and it will, writers are going to continue to pursue killi-tree publishing because they want the golden ring, never mind how many forests and how much wildlife habitat are decimated by it.
I believe in e-pubbing, and if authors were truly eco-minded, they would refuse to pursue kill-a-tree publication. Case in point -- one of my authors pubs e and trad, but only publishes traditionally using eco-friendly pulp...and he has to go to great extremes to do it. His books cost accordingly. Another chooses only to e-pub, and has the financial ability to refuse to publish any other way. If his readers want it, they buy E.
Do you know how many writers and authors CLAIM to be eco-minded only to use up reams and reams of paper creating their work, then, if they get a trad publisher, using up reams and reams more? It takes 6% of a tree to make a ream of PULP (newsprint, paperback pages) paper and twice that for high quality paper used in glossy magazine publishing and high-quality paper...and that is only when the paper mill is using the latest greatest method...which many don't.
Do you know how many books and mags get their covers ripped off, the rest of it going to the landfill unread? Millions of tons a year. I used to run a large book and game store. The volume of covers we ripped for returns a month was astounding...sickening. The volume of books dumped into the landfill was MORE mind-boggling. And what about the hardcover returns? One branch of my family owns major holdings and control in a publishing company. Guess where those returns and unsold books go? Mostly to the landfill. And who gets rich? The paper lobby. Who loses? All of us as we decimate more and more of our forests, which kills wildlife, and ultimately will wind up irrevesibly changing our planet for the worst.
If you're writing a standard novel or non-fic, however, your best market is still the good old commerical publishing market. That said, I bet nobody says no to a good offer on the e-rights, either.
Best market for...a paycheck? Best market ethically? Best market ecologically? Most efficient market?
Readers can choose what to read and what not to read when material is e-pubbed, and do it without wasting trees on the content they do not want to read (magazine-speaking here). Books? An e-book is longer lasting than a pulp printed book...given we continue to have a planet and don't wind up back in the dark ages because we destroyed our ecosystem and our civilization by our wanton greed.
Pulp has had its time and use. Pulp, if created from something other than trees and bushes...like hemp, rice, corn husks...is fine, if that book is cherished. To churn out mags and books that will never find homes, that will be discarded, is wasteful, and totally unethical.
At minimum, POD pubbing is the only sane pulp publishing that should be pursued, with E-pubbing the only good, sound alternative. Publishers know this too, btw. It is only a matter of time. Meanwhile, they juggle for advantage and monopoly as they ride both canoes during the transition. Then, of course, there is the paper lobby... .
