The Good, Band and Ugly - of the Writing Business

[Richard A. McCullough]

The Good, Band and Ugly - of the Writing Business
Copyright © Richard McCullough


In the preceding article "Planet Earth - Now Hiring" we discussed the necessity of a goal, for mankind and the organizational structure necessary for achieving that goal. Based on that structure, Ideal Scenes can be envisioned and Existing Scenes can be observed for each of the Divisions.

In this article we will discuss the Existing Scene for Division 1 - The Arts. With particular focus on the section devoted to writers and the storytelling we do.

It should be noted: As writers (the creators of stories) both the publishing and movie industries work for us. They function solely as distribution systems for our products.

The publishing and movie industries are sections of Division 5 - Business.

The main Sections of Business are; Food, Clothing, Shelter, Transportation, and Communication (equipment, facilities and services). The vast majority of all "products and services" can be seen to fall under one of the above Sections. There tends to some confusion here regarding the Communication section.

The physical thing that carries or delivers the communication is under Business while the message is under Div. 1 - The Arts

The function of Div. 6 - Business is Distribution. Businesses do not exist for the purpose of manufacturing, or creating things. They exist for the purpose of distributing things. They only manufacture so that they have something to distribute.

Distribution is necessary for exchange to occur. And this universe seems to operate on the principle of exchange. We must inflow in the form of food, clothing, shelter, etc. and therefore we must outflow in the form of; taxies driven, nails pounded, meals cooked, airplanes flown, phones answered, etc. This inflow and outflow is the breathing of this universe.

As writers we outflow stories written, so that we can inflow; just like the rest of the working population. And what we outflow (our Valuable Final Products) are the raw materials that power the publishing and movie industries.

Without our stories they have nothing to manufacture into books, magazines, TV shows, movies, newspapers, etc.

Therefore we need to examine the publishing and movie industries to determine the Existing Scene for this section of the Business world. With an existing Scene and an Ideal we can then formulate a Plan. Whether that plan encompasses Mankind or just a personal plan to get a little exchange going for your writing - the same procedure applies.

We must still start by finding out where we are - as writers, storytellers, and artists.

I understand that this seems cold, analytical, clinical and un-esthetic. Like most of us, I got into "writing" so that I didn't have to deal with all that "business stuff". But alas, after 5 decades I finally realized that there was no way around it.

There are only three options.

1. Relegate our "writing" to just a hobby for which no exchange is required (outside the occasional poem or chapter to Aunt Agnes).
2. Write stories for exchange but with no clew as to the workings of the industries upon which we rely and therefore remain an unwilling and unknowing - effect.
3. Write stories for exchange and become cause over the industries that we exchange with sufficient to control the destinies of what we produce and therefore the exchange that we get for our work.

I choose number 3 - Cause.

In my next article regarding "Systems" I lay out the key points of becoming cause and what we need to do to get there. We must be cause over our craft and therefore the industries through which we deliver our stories into the minds and hearts of our customers. The Publishing and Movie industries are a conduit through which we tell our stories to our public and nothing more.

It is our lack of confidence that makes us beggars. And it is our lack of knowledge, responsibility and control that limits that confidence.

Therefore, let us start by taking a hard look at the two main industries that we feed our stories to - the Publishing and Movie Industries.

In following articles I will discuss the pros, cons and best practices for alternatives to "conventional" publishing. But for this article we will address the "old-school" Publishing business.

For Publishing the first gatekeeper we must confront is the Literary Agent.

Literary Agent's are the first link in the food chain. The flow line is Author, Editor (volunteer or paid help to clean up the manuscript) Agent, Publisher, (Publishers - Editor, Art Dept., Copywriter, Printer, Marketing Dept.), Distributor, Bookstore, Consumer (book reader or movie watcher).

Publishers no longer accept unsolicited manuscripts. The vast majority of them don't even accept unsolicited query letters - they have shifted the task of discovering (filtering for) new talent to the Agents.

Resulting in such an increased demand on the Agents, that they no longer accept unsolicited manuscripts and the vast majority no longer even accept unsolicited query letters.

So, there is a Catch 22 involved with getting the first novel read, let alone published.

Agents and publishers (since they are working on speculation) only want to invest their resources in a sure thing. The new writer, with a new novel, and no publishing credits is a very risky proposition for them. Adding to this risk is this dirty little secret - despite (or perhaps because of) their collage degrees in "literature" the boys and girls in the publishing food chain can't tell a good manuscript from a stinker. Neither the agents nor the publishers can tell a "best seller" from a bomb. Although no one in the industry will admit it, and in fact go to great pains to hide this fact, the statistics reveal this startling truth. I will present those statistics momentarily.

In addition to which there is a "perfect storm" developing in the industry; 1.) declining literacy, 2.) increasing costs (affecting all aspects of publishing and distribution), 3.) increasing competition (movies, TV, Internet), 4.) an increasing number of people trying to write books.

When you add to this "the dirty little secret" that virtually no one in; agenting, publishing, distribution, or retail book sales can pick a winner - you have an industry in crisis.

Statistics
www.Bowker.com reported 50,071 new fiction titles were published in the US in 2007. Although I don't know how many physical books this represents, sources report that approximately 75% of all books delivered to retailers are remaindered back to the publishers as unsold merchandise. Remaindered means that the covers were ripped off and returned to the publisher as evidence that the book was not sold. The reminder of each book is then recycled locally as paper waste. This "remaindering" evolved as a system of accounting because the bookstores do not pay for the books up front but rather receive books from the publishers on consignment and therefore only pay the publishers for the books they sell as they sell them. This also helps to explains why authors only receive royalty statements and payments every 6 or 12 months. Because the publishers need time for the bookstores to remainder back what didn't sell, collect the money on what did and to do the accounting - before they pay the author.

And this does not count the books that were discounted to 25% off suggested retail by the books stores in a last ditch effort to make some money from them.

The problem is that the entirety of the sales cycle (and as much risk as possible) has been shifted back onto the shoulders of the author.

The author must sell the agent, on how to sell the publisher, on how to sell the distributor, on how to sell the book store, on now to sell the prospective reader.

It is no longer enough (if it ever was) to simply "write a good book". The author must become expert in marketing just to get an agent to read even the first few chapters let along his/her whole manuscript. And that is just the beginning of the selling process.

Writing an effective quarry letter has become almost more important than writing a good book. Because the query letter (with only slight modification in many cases) is the pitch that must sell each gatekeeper in the food-chain from the agent to the prospective reader on the merits of buying the book.

And even when/if the novel manages to get published and displayed on some bookstore shelf it is only the authors marketing efforts that will drive sales of that book. Although Publishers have a "marketing department" the already miniscule budget and staff allocated to marketing new titles is almost exclusively devoted to "established" authors. With the "best selling" authors getting the meal, the "midlist" getting the scraps and the newbie's getting the crumbs.

And the last grim fact - the average new title only spends 3 months on the shelf at the bookstore before being sold to a reader or being sold for pulp.

This is the Existing Sean in the "publishing business" and there appears to be a similar scene in the movie business.

Analyzing movies for 2007 I found the following at www.The-Numbers.com.

Out of 1022 films released only 127 seem to have made a profit. That means that only 19- 25% earned more money than it cost to make them. These percentages could be considerably lower if the "budget" figure reported does not include marketing and distribution costs.

One would think that a $20+ billion dollar a year industry would have a better handle on what constitutes a good story. Or, to paraphrase "The Art of Dramatic Writing" by Lajos Egri. If only 19-25% of the plays produced were going to succeed wouldn't the producers want to be able to determine, by reading the script, which were dogs and which were gold and simply produce the gold and leave the dogs alone?

Which begs the question, why don't the producers just do that?

The answer must be that they simply don't know how? And as you will understand later they really don't care.

Neither the Book Publishers nor Movie Producers seem to be able to pick the money makers from the money losers with any more certainty than a gambler at a roulette wheel.

Now this poses an interesting problem. If the people in BOTH industries, who's very living depends on identifying good story material (even actively seeking good material for books and movies) only succeed 2 out of 10 times what about us poor writer types?

How are we to know a good story idea from a lame one?

After all we are the ones that are going to spend hundreds if not thousands of hours writing the thing (not to mention selling it). Wouldn't we want to know which ideas have legs and which ones are duds - before we invest our sweat and tears?

And even allowing that we have a good idea for a story, how do we form it into that all important "great" manuscript or screenplay?

I propose that there is a way. Because there must be a way. There must be a methodology that is better than the rest. There is "the right way" for doing something and then there are all the "other ways".

Consider everything that we learn in life, haven't we observed that although there might be various "ways" to do something there is always one way that is superior to all the rest.

This principle applies to everything from tying our shoes to building skyscrapers. People don't just "make it up" as they go along. Brushing our teeth, frying an egg, making a pot of coffee, building a house, writing a computer program, putting a satellite in space; from the simplest to the most complex - we rely on proven methodologies. In fact we would run form anyone that suggested otherwise.

I can see it now. "Well Mr. and Mrs. Smith, I was going to put a big sign in your yard to sell your house (like everyone else) but then I thought - No, that's too common. So, I'm NOT putting up any signs because the ABSENCE of a FOR SALE sign will make people curious and people will be pounding on your door…"

That agent is going right out the front door with a boot in his backside. Because we know it's an unproven methodology.

We know this right down to our bones. Every generation passes these tested and proven systems and procedures down to the next. In every profession, field, job or undertaking; we know that there are ways of doing things that are better, faster, simpler, cheaper, and more efficient. There are ways to do things, and then there are 10,000 ways that don't work. Heck, I could write a book, "10,000 ways to cook an egg - that don't work". Now there might be a debate as to whether cooking in butter, olive oil or bacon grease is "better" but no one would consider just cracking the egg onto the open flame (sans skillet). And no amount of, "Hay, its art. So, I get to do it any way I want" would convince us that the guy was anything but nuts.

Then why should storytelling be any different?

Why do we have the idea that when it comes to this particular art form that all bets are off. We are even encouraged to throw all "common sense" out the window. We hear and read things about, inspiration, the muse, it feels right, or it's a mater of taste.

These arbitraries abound in the area of storytelling. In music, painting, sculpture, and dance, we have a much more precise language of; meter, measure, movement, composition, beat, rhythm, etc., etc. But when it comes to storytelling our language seems to have gone on vacation. We are in the language business. We are in the business of using words. Yet we don't seem to have an agreed upon nomenclature sufficient to communicate among ourselves, let alone pass on to future generations the very technology that we practice.

There is even doubt that there is a "correct technology" for storytelling.

One leading authority recently told me, "None of my books deal with story structure. I reject that notion out-of-hand. People who teach it (e.g., Syd Field) lead to aesthetic fascism."

And he published an article in a leading trade journal illustrating a half dozen methodologies practiced by "successful" screenwriters for writing their screenplays. They are the most bizarre "systems" imaginable. One fellow just writes scenes at random throwing each into a series of boxes labeled; drama, comedy, action, etc. When a box gets full he dumps it out and sorts through the mess to find the story in there and then cobbles the pieces together into a script. I suppose this is to illustrate that random, disorganized, even psychotic behavior is the norm for artists. So, I guess I better adopt some bizarre practices if I hope to succeed as a writer.

This is the "proof" that there is no "correct technology" for effective storytelling? Authorities tell us that to even consider the most fundamental element of storycraft (the structure of stories) will lead us to "Aesthetic Fascism".

I disagree. Ignorance of the principles, upon which a technology relies, does not negate the principles any more than the ignorance of gravity prevented the apple from striking Newton on the head. Gravity existed before the apple fell however un-named and un-codified it might have been.

People fear what they do not understand. And they resist what they cannot explain.

And so instead of encouraging us to pursuing the correct technology authorities warn us against dangers such as, aesthetic fascism, heresy, and flying too close to the sun.

Well, I trust that the engineer that built the overpass I'm driving across practiced a good measure of engineering fascism rather than the psychotic practices that often pass for aesthetics.

Out of this confusion come pearls of wisdom like, "writing is re-writing" and it's spoken like it "means something". That's like teaching an engineer that building bridges is about re-building bridges, that building cars is re-building cars, that cooking is re-cooking.

"Yup, we always tear the bridge down and re-build it because we can't tell if it's right until we get it all done. That's just the way that we do things. We always re-do everything because there is no way to do it right in the first place. That's just the way it is."

What kind of cockamamie planet is this?

"Yup, we always do everything twice around here - cause the first time it's wrong, so we have to do it again - but then there is no way to actually know that the second time is any better than the first so we just keep re-cooking your breakfast until you die of starvation or we run out of eggs."

I hear they actually KNOW how to tell stories (let alone cook eggs) on Arslikus, so I'm headed that way - anyone care to join me?

------------------
Summery - Although it might seem that the nuts are in charge of the asylum the Publishing and Movie industries have a workable methodology (FOR THEM). Not the best but workable. They not only survive but prosper on playing the percentages.

If you throw enough spaghetti against the wall, some of it will stick. So, all you have to do is ensure that you make enough profit on the winners to compensate for the money lost on the losers.

And the potential profits in the movie industry (for example) are substantial.

The winners in 2007 grossed $20.117 Billion at a cost of $6.723 Billion. Yes, we are talking Billions of dollars. Not bad - that's a profit of 262%. To put this in perspective most businesses operate on a profit margin of 5% or less. Playing the percentages is quite workable for them. That means that for every dollar spent to make the movie the investors not only got back the dollar, but they ALSO RECEIVED an additional $2.62.

However, relying on the percentages isn't so workable for us writer types. For starters, while we have all the downside of our stories that don't make any money, we don't have the upside of huge profits for stories that do. We don't make a 262% profit on our stories that DO sell.

Now it can be argued that this is how it should be. After all, the saying goes, "The man (or woman) with the gold makes the rules." And seeing that both the Publishing and Movie industries are very capital intensive operations, fraught with risks, perhaps it's only fare that the boys and girls putting up the cash should get the lion's share of the profits. Lions share is one thing but perhaps we story creators are being treated like jackals.

While succeeding only 20% of the time earns the Publishing and Movie industries plenty of money; only selling 2 out of every 10 stories we write probably won't pay our bills. Let's see, if we write one script a year, and only sell 1 every 5 years and we get paid $500K per script - well, it's a living.

But what if we only make $100K every 5 years - I guess that's why artist are advised not to give up their "day jobs".

It should be clear at this point that while the Publishing and Movie industries have no incentive for ensuring we writers improve our knowledge, responsibility and control it is certainly in our best interest do so.

Because there are two kinds of Gold in this game. Gold in the form of cash required to manufacture our stories into salable books and movie tickets, and the Gold that our stories represent to the customers (that buy those books and tickets) and therefore the manufactures.

The manufactures need us more than we need them. Cash can be gotten from anywhere. Wrinkled, dirty, crumpled or bent; it all spends. But a lousy manuscript or screenplay can't be ironed, washed or drip-dried into a salable product no mater how much money you throw at it. No mater how you package it - a stinker still stinks. Yes, occasionally a good manuscript or screenplay can get trashed into a flop at the cash register. But these boys and girls work very, very hard (employing huge buildings full of highly trained specialists) to ensure that doesn't happen. Because great stories are as rear as hens teeth, and they know it. Their very survival depends on making the most out of every single one they get their hands on - with no mistakes.

Our lack of bargaining power (for a better piece of the pie) only comes from the simple fact that we don't know when we've got gold or dog poop in our hands. We don't know when to take-the-money-and-run or hold out for a better offer. We lack power because we lack control. Control over our craft, control over the writing process, control over the ability to create the golden story ideas themselves. So, we come to the table like whipped puppies, ecstatic that someone will condescend to read our story or take-a-meeting. They pat us on the head and toss a few bones our way and we leave waging our tails. And then after the high wears off, of actually selling something, we look at the check and realize those dollars hardly cover the electric bill for the last several years so we shuffle back to confront the blank page - hoping that we can do it again.

There must be a better way! And I believe there is.

In an upcoming article I'll explore the Ideal Scene in terms of how fast we should be able to write.

How about 3 months for a screenplay and 8 months for a novel. And I'm not talking just a first draft. I'm talking done, finished, and shipped out the door. Only writing "part time", and typing at a piddle 10 words per minute.

And that level of production while pushing the percentage sold up close to 100%.

Sounds impossible - yes I know. That's what they said about the 4 minute mile until Roger Bannister shattered that "unbreakable" barrier in 1954. Since Banister proved that it could be done, it's been broken 18 times and the record time lowered by 17 seconds. Proof, it appears, is a powerful motivation. Knowing that it can be done is 90% of the battle.

The writing speeds that I'm talking about for fiction that sells, has been done and repeatedly, and over a long career. In that installment I'll talk about how we can do it too.

Until then.

Watch for the next installment in this series…

And keep pursuing the correct technology of storytelling. It exists. It is knowable and you can know it.

[Richard A. McCullough]

Yes, I have studied that particular article over thoroughly as well as a good number of others. And I agree with every thing he is saying.

No disagreement there.

Wait till you read the next post re: Systems - you'll see some more practical applications.

[Kent Davis]

Do you have "The Manuscript Factory" by LRH?

Ten perfect pages about the business side of art. Right down to bedrock reality.

Heh heh, like the tree falling in the woods, is my story art if no one reads it? I certainly think not.

[Richard A. McCullough]

Too true.

I suspected for some time that something was not quite right but I didn't quite know what until I started doing this evaluation.

Now I'm beginning to understand the situation.

[Kent Davis]

USEFUL pushing the business side of artistic endeavor, probably critical.

No sales, no money.
No money, no bread.
No bread, dead.

Hard to write when yer dead.