I really like Lincoln’s newsletter but this is a view of the worldview never agree with. Publishing, even “publishing well” shouldn’t take two years. The industry tries to cope with low average input quality with more QA in the wrong part of value chain
Conversation
Most books (including all of mine) sell less less than 5000 copies because that’s what they deserve not because they need a 2 year ooga booga. Most books should get low quality, quick production if the material even deserves bookification, and get polished post-publication
2
2
23
The industry is built on unnecessary authorial Stockholm syndrome around a game of gatekeepers generally not worth playing for 90% who try. Self-publish, keep 10x more of the money, ditch quality fetishes unless you like doing it yourself, save trees.
5
2
31
Replying to
FWIW I don't disagree with this at all. I probably should have added something about self-publishing. I wasn't trying to say that there aren't a lot of benefits to it, only that if you are trad publishing most of the timeline is eaten up in things like edits and promotion.
1
1
Replying to
My point is it’s 90% misallocated effort and the industry is kinda a dinosaur
like buggywhip makers miraculously managing to continue selling whips to a market which had moved on from horses to cars. It feels like car owners buying whips as a backup 😂
2
1
3
I bought self-published paperback from an artist recently for $25, her cost is $19 making it (practically) impossible for anyone to carry it + pay her anything. I suggested Kindle, she can charge less + get more $ but she's an older person, thinks having physical book important.
1
For an art book I agree. Kindle is bad. Even for technical books with lots of graphs or boxes, it's bad. The digital solution is actually a rich website with a paywall I think. Comics are finally getting nearly good enough in specialized apps.
2
1
If i had a book of paintings, I'd sell it as a paper coffee table book + NFTs + print-on-demand art prints.


