A Challenge to Emergent Authors
I love my post-modern culture. I think I understand it well-enough, and I certainly embrace (and embody) it most of the time. But are there ever times when my “emerging faith” calls me to cry out against the times? This time of year, one such case stands out pretty clearly: Consumerism.
If the industrial era was acquainted with consumerism, and the modern era flirted with her, then surely post-modernism slept with her and made LOTS of babies (mostly plastic ones in a post-modern assortment of sizes, shapes, and bright neon colors).
Enter the Emerging Church, which (to its credit) takes post-modern tendencies like deconstructionism, subjectivity, and diversity right in stride without skipping a beat. But what does this conversation have to say about consumerism? Better yet, what actions back up the voices in the conversation?
I do hear lots of voices. Mostly in the form of a never-ending stream of books from emerging authors. Don’t get me wrong — I love these authors, and I consume every word on every page of just about every book I read from them, and they have been more than helpful. In fact, there probably wouldn’t be anything emerging if not for the books. But therein lies the problem: I consume what often seems like the flagship product of the Emerging Church — books.
That in itself isn’t entirely bad. Books are great. I’m an English major; I love books. The Bible is a book. But books are decidedly tangible, material, products that both cost money and generate money, not just for their authors, but for large publishing companies as well.
There are exceptions. I hugely admire Shane Claiborne, who practices what he preaches at The Simple Way, and gives away all the proceeds from his book Irresistible Revolution to a slew of noble causes and organizations.
I’m also not against authors making a living (especially because I hope to be one, and make one someday) and being compensated for their time and effort. But there seems to be something wrong with the idea that the very best in emerging ideas and resources:
- are available primarily to those with the cash to keep buying them
- are protected by strict copyright laws designed to limit the spread of information
- often generate more revenue for their publishers than for their authors
- are not freely available as shared online resources for all
This is where we could take a lesson from the Open Source community, where software is written by talented programmers, and reflects many of the qualities emergents aspire to: it’s generative, collaborative, open, transparent, free, good, and people are passionate (or “evangelical”) about it. Just ask anyone who uses Firefox, Linux, or OpenOffice.
Or consider the rapidly changing music industry, where artists are experimenting with creative ways to share their music with listeners — the band Radiohead recently released their album In Rainbows directly from their website (bypassing record labels) where listeners can pay whatever amount they feel is appropriate, including nothing. All indications thus far are that sales are strong, fans are happy, critics are happy, and the artists still receive more than they would have through traditional distribution methods.
Even closer to the literary medium is Creative Commons — an organization that allows writers (and artists and composers, etc.) to retain some rights while giving others (like the right to distribute and share) away. Cory Doctorow, a respected and award-winning science fiction writer who released his first novel both in print (through a publisher) and online (via Creative Commons license) has this to say:
However an author earns her living from her words, printed or
encoded, she has as her first and hardest task to find her
audience. There are more competitors for our attention than we
can possibly reconcile, prioritize or make sense of. Getting a
book under the right person’s nose, with the right pitch, is the
hardest and most important task any writer faces.
All forward thinking writers should read the full text of Doctorow’s article, which is deeply insightful and visionary.
I guess it all boils down to this: In the emergent conversation, are we writing the things we’re writing because we want to sell books, or are we writing the things we’re writing because we want to change the world? Do our ideas, our theologies, really belong to us or to they belong to a King and a Kingdom that transcend profit? And if it’s possible to give those ideas away, to reach more people, (while still selling books and supporting the labor of the thinkers and writers), isn’t that worth trying?
I visited the Emergent Village website today, and noticed two interesting things, side by side at the bottom of the page: A Creative Commons license for all of the web content, and a disclosure that Emergent Village is underwritten by a grant from Abingdon Press. My first instinct was to be cynical: Why is the leading voice in the conversation financed by the corporation that stands most to profit from it? But my second (and better) instinct was this: Perhaps both paradigms (traditional publishing and P2P information sharing) can co-exist, and even help each other. And if it works with a website, couldn’t it work with all these books?
So here’s my challenge to any and all Emergent Authors, both aspiring and accomplished, from an avid reader, supporter, and customer:
- In addition to selling your books through traditional publishers, consider making them available for free online distribution as well, through Creative Commons, or another similar open source license. I doubt your sales (or livelihood) will suffer significantly, but I’m confident that your audience will expand, which will benefit not only you in the long run, but also your audience, the Emergent Conversation, and the Kingdom of God.
- If that’s too big a leap, consider making some or all of your earlier works available for free distribution online — especially if some of them have gone out of print, or are otherwise difficult to obtain. Again, you might pick up a few new readers who will then go out and buy your latest.
- In the process of making your words and ideas more available, less exclusive, and less profit-driven, you’ll undermine the consumeristic tendencies of our post-modern culture, live up to the words and ideals of the Emerging Conversation, and set an example of generosity and sharing that are entirely fitting companions to the gospel we proclaim.
I promise I’ll still buy your books. And attend your conferences. And tell my friends about you. And maybe, just maybe, in the midst of this hijacked consumer holiday we call Christmas, the gift of your words to a hungry and hurting world might remind us all of another gift from long ago — a gift given freely to all people, from the Author of the universe, on a star-filled night in Bethlehem.
Comment by ryan pappan on 18 December 2007:
I write because I cannot, not write.
Neal I love your challenge. I receive it with vigor. There is no room for a lukewarm response. If we want to change the world we must start with our intentions. I cannot change anyone’s response to the gospel. I cannot sell the gospel like some used car salesman. I can only be honest and intentional of what I live for.
What do we live for? Why do we invest of time our lives in the things we do? Most of us will be forgotten in 100 years. We will be dusty pictures and perhaps a tale or two about grand or great-grandma/pa.
We are called to minister to the community to which we find ourselves in. This is what I take from the ECM. We minister, love, and serve the community to which God places us.
Must we consume and hoard the thoughts, ideas, and hopes of all for popularity and profit. Is this a club with an application and secret handshake or is this the Kingdom open to all?
I find myself jealous of those of us that are know or are seen as authorities. I hold an ambitious heart to be admired. None of this is appropriate. I am coveting what is not mine. My words reek of hypocrisy…
“A hungry and hurting world might remind us all of another gift from long ago” I am hungry and hurting. I have witnessed countless hungry and hurting folks. Look around us. This nation is reeling in hurt, isolation, and hungry for hope. Christ is this hope.
My favorite parable is from Matthew 13:45-46, “Again, the kingdom of heaven is like a merchant in search of fine pearls; on finding one pearl of great value, he went and sold all that he had and bought it.” Can we be as the pearl merchant?
Comment by David Williams on 18 December 2007:
I confess to struggle with this as well. As dearly as I love books, I don’t quite grasp why we’re not doing our Kingdom dreaming here in the blogosphere. When our best writers and minds are actively struggling with an issue that is vital to the life and future of the church, why isn’t it freely available? Shouldn’t it be part of the dynamism of this new medium?
Comment by Neal Locke on 18 December 2007:
David — I think we are doing a lot of Kingdom dreaming in the blogosphere, and it’s good quality stuff, too. But taking advantage of BOTH traditional and new media — and making one or the other freely available — is surely something we need to consider. At the very least, it sends a message to the world (and to the church) that we put ministry before money.
Comment by David Williams on 19 December 2007:
Neal:
The challenge with doing that in traditional media is that the transaction costs are relatively high. Broadly and effectively distributing one’s thinking on a particular subject through print media requires presses, publicists, and engagement in a medium that is highly commodified. It can be done, certainly. I get books and printed materials gratis all the time.
But both textual and visual new media have negligible cost in production and distribution, and are far more egalitarian…at least, for those of us privileged enough to have laptops and broadband.
I think you’re right that the solution lies somewhere in the interplay between the two…
Comment by Carol Howard Merritt on 20 December 2007:
Hhhmmm…. I do often find it weird that so many sites say, “Don’t buy into consumerism. Buy my book.”
Here’s the problem. I have a mortgage. A big one. Not because I’m a greedy consumer, it just costs a whole lot of money to live near my church. It’s a small urban church where we feed 200 homeless men and women every morning, we’re building a health clinic in Ethiopia, we teach art to homeless children, we minister to prostitutes, etc. I make the minimum salary, but I’m just able to do a whole lot of work to expand the reign of God there….
So, I actually write to keep up my ministry habit. Because my husband and I don’t make enough as pastors to live here, it’s my tentmaking profession. A job I can do at home and still be a decent mom. And, honestly, even though the book’s doing really, really well, I’m not making much. But, I’m not on a big press. Alban’s a non-profit as well….
Of course, writing’s my passion. And I’m always looking for ways to minister, within my congregation and beyond its walls. I write a whole lot for free through my blog….
It’s an interesting question. But I guess I don’t want anyone to get the impression that most religious authors are making much money. There might be one or two of us who are, but most of us are still trying to figure out how we’re going to afford Christmas.
Comment by Neal Locke on 20 December 2007:
Carol: I hope no one takes away from this post that I believe authors shouldn’t make money from their efforts. Like I said in the post, I hope to support myself someday through my writing. And I certainly realize that most minister/writers aren’t making excessive amounts from their work.
As counter-intuitive as it sounds, I think writers would actually generate “more” income from giving their works away online (in addition to selling traditional hard copies).
And I’m so glad you commented, Carol, because I have an example that might hit home for you: As I was writing this, my pastor just walked in, and when I told him about your comment, he said “Yeah, someone gave me a copy of her book, Tribal Church, and I read it.” I asked him if he would have bought it otherwise, and his answer was, “probably not.” But I think he enjoyed it, and that’s one more person who is more likely to buy the next book you write. Book sharing is a process that’s been going on since Gutenberg, but the internet allows it to operate on a much larger, faster, viral scale.
I have bought several books I would not have otherwise bought after getting halfway through them online. It’s true that some people will download something and not pay for it, but you have to ask if they would have paid for it (or even read it) anyhow? If not, it’s not a lost sale. If they would have, then that’s truly a lost sale. But as long as your “gained sales” (People who bought it because they discovered it free online) outnumber your “lost sales” you’re generating more income than you would have in a purely traditional publishing arrangement.
Here’s a great article from Forbes magazine called “Giving It Away” (by an author who did it), that explains it even better than I could.
So from a financial standpoint, I don’t think writers stand to lose anything, and might even stand to gain.
But from a spiritual standpoint, there’s the potential to reach more people (a big part of evangelism), and also not to exclude people who couldn’t otherwise afford to share in our ideas.
I think it’s a win-win proposition. But it is one that will take courage to try. When I finish my first book, I will certainly publish it this way. But those who are already published have an unprecedented opportunity to lead the way in sending a message to a cynical world and an often “overly possessive” church. I pray they (and you) will consider it deeply.
Comment by Carol Howard Merritt on 20 December 2007:
Great article. And I love when people borrow my book and when it’s in libraries. And if I owned the rights to TC, then I’d probably put it online as well. But I don’t.
I just wanted to make the point that most authors are practically giving their work away already. Most books sell about 1,000 copies and authors often make 8-10% of cover. Which means most authors make about $2,000 per book. I’m just not sure that a lot of people understand this until they start writing, and then they don’t want to admit it publicly!
Of course, you’re talking about emerging books, which are selling more than 1,000 copies….
It’s just that when we discuss why people are writing, in terms of whether they’re doing it for the ministry or for the money, it’s important for people to understand how much money we’re talking about.
Comment by Neal Locke on 20 December 2007:
Actually, if writers are only making 8-10% of the cover price on a book, isn’t that a social justice issue? Shouldn’t we be asking ourselves why we allow that, as well? Writers are our thought-artists, and deserve an elevated place in our church. If I do pay $15.00 for a book, I’d like to know that more than $1.50 of that is going to the writer - and if it isn’t, then where in the world is it going??? If it takes that much money to manufacture a book, that’s one thing, but from everything I’ve read, the actual manufacturing, paper, glue, ink, and printing part is only a small fraction of the cost.
So where does the $13.50 go? Unfortunately, it goes to the costs of the publisher, which, even when it’s a non-profit publishing house, that’s still an incredibly inefficient vehicle to clear, promote, and distribute anything. What it tends to do much more efficiently is block new voices and new writers from gaining access to audiences.
Personally, I think the traditional publishing system is caving in, and the high overhead is part of the reason why. Writers should be passionately protesting the injustice, and actively seeking other ways of doing things. We are creative people, are we not? The music industry is already walking this road - Madonna, Radiohead, even Paul McCartney are all saying, “Enough, let’s try a different way of doing things.”
I don’t doubt that emergent writers are in it primarily for the ministry.
I know there isn’t much profit to be made as an “emergent writer.”
Those two things, more than ever, underscore the need to do things differently - even if it runs against the grain of culture and the publishing industry. It wouldn’t be the first time Christians did something that makes no sense to the world!
Comment by Neal Locke on 20 December 2007:
Carol, I understand your dilemma if you don’t own the rights to your work (which is another injustice in itself, right?). If you really do want to release it online, it’s still worth approaching the publisher or rights-owners about, especially down the road when (and if) sales start to trail off - it’s a great way to breathe new life into a work in an industry where the average book lifespan is, sadly, all too short.
There are also many books that publishers allow to go out of print - another great opportunity to approach the rights-owners and say, “Look, if you’re not making any money off of this at all right now, what are the rights really worth to you?”
By the way, I’m now looking forward to reading (and buying) “Tribal Church.” Thanks for lending your personal experience and expertise to a much-needed discussion!
Comment by Casey on 20 December 2007:
With the advent of Print on Demand publishing, fewer and fewer books are going out of print. It only costs a publisher $12 or so to keep a book in print now. Then, if a sale is made, the publisher outsources the manufacture of a single book to someone like Lightning Source, who can deliver it through Amazon, etc.
Many publishing houses, then, aren’t allowing titles to go as easily as they used to. Selling 5 books in a year represents a profit (albeit a small one)–something that would have been unthinkable when books had to be premanufactured and warehoused.
It may not be so easy to get those rights back.
Comment by Jim Bonewald on 20 December 2007:
One of my seminary professors let out a huge guffaw when we joked with him about the royalties he’d be raking in from a book he had just published.
I’m afraid Carol is right it’s not really the best way of making a living wage; especially when you are talking about such small and target niche markets as the types of books we’re talking about.
I personally have struggled with whether or not I should be buying books through Amazon, or instead through a local christian bookstore or perhaps some other venue. In the end I afraid my choice probably doesn’t make that much difference in terms of what $$ gets back to the author (some one correct me if I am wrong.)
I’m not sure how someone like Carol - who I assume was a first time publisher - would have had much success with an initial book if she had self published. It helps to have a place like Alban and to have advance copies out reviewed by bloggers on the web (how I heard about it) in order to get that initial word out.
And to be honest, if it had not had the name of Alban - or some other publishing house/organization that I respect - I’m not sure I’d have given the book the time of day.
Maybe now that she has some more name recognition and a pretty well established blog related to that first book she might have a greater chance of success self publishing.
Comment by Neal Locke on 20 December 2007:
@Casey: Unfortunately the major publishers are the ones least likely to use print-on-demand publishing, or even list out-of-print books for availability through something like that. And the smaller ones who might hold onto the rights in order to make a small profit are still missing out on the larger profit they’d make by freeing up the distribution. Paper books aren’t going away just because books can be made available online. In fact, they’re complementary goods - when downloads increase for an ebook, demand increases for the paper books as well, which in turn increases both profits (which is neutral to my point) and the spread of information (which, per my original point, is good).
@Jim: If we suppose for a moment that a Christian book is a lousy way to make a living wage, then wouldn’t it stand to reason that we lose little by giving it away? Clinging desperately to something of little value just makes us look petty. Fortunately, I still have hope that Christian writers will be able to make a living through their writing, even more in the age to come than in this one - but it will require thinking of new ways to print and distribute writing, and a willingness on our part to push for change. I’m reminded of some words I just read on the blog of a very insightful Christian writer (whose comments appear earlier in this thread). She said:
And…
I’m not just talking about self-publishing, either. I think if they are to survive in the age to come, the publishing companies (especially non-profit Christian ones like Alban) need to rethink their business models, their efficiency, and their disposition towards sharing information. They can be partners with us, emerging in their methods, as our theology emerges to reach an emerging population.
Comment by Neal Locke on 20 December 2007:
I almost forgot to mention Derek Webb! He’s a great example of what we’re talking about here, but from the Christian music industry. This is from his article on Wikipedia:
Comment by ryan pappan on 20 December 2007:
I am going to share it here first. I am writing a book on all the stuff we argue about and the real truthful answers according to Jesus and his emerging 12 step process to recapture the amazing Spirit of evangelical missionalism for denominational realists that like puppies, kittens, and robots…oh and pudding pops in a non oppressive, fat free, commercial free non consumer kind of way.
I hate that someone cannot make a sustainable wage being an author, janitor, restaurant manager, teacher, pastor…
What are we clinging on too? I try to support folks that write good stuff I can dig. Carol I am sending you about $5.40 your way via book sales. In this conversation I understand we all have to earn money to keep afloat in this machine. I cannot shake the question, “Why do we have to be subject to this machine?” Can we minister folks in a way that challenges the status quo? I find it depressing that I am a consumer and producer absent of emotions and a life to the system.
The system is us. Everyone on this thread is part of the problem. We consume. What are we living our life for? I am not suggesting that anyone needs to be taken advantage of and have anything removed. I am asking, “How can we change the system?”
I do not want to raise children in a system that values people as producers. I am terrified that the economy will tank and we will return to another depression like state with long lines for soup. Something has to change!
The standard of living we have enjoyed as a culture cannot continue. I want the church to find real value in abstaining from all the extras of life. I want a simple place where we are overworked, undernourished, and spiritually dying.
It is scary right now that the open calls out there are being sought after by 5 times the candidates. I am competing verses God, the Holy Spirit, Jesus in all shapes and sizes, and my friends. We are asked to do this in a Christ like fashion and depend on the system.
I have a challenge to emerging authors and religious pirates, “Ask yourself if you really need it before you [buy into] it, the “it” being our consumerist, capitalist economic model. We have to lead on this front.”
Comment by Casey on 20 December 2007:
@Neal: Essentially, I agree with your argument. Just pointing out that even the big publishers are starting to use POD in order to maintain their titles for a longer time in print, thereby making it less likely the artists can reclaim them.
We tend to give grief to the publishers, but bookstores might get the best of this business. Typically, they receive 55-60% off the title and can return the books at the expense of the publisher for any reason. If you consider two-way shipping, author royalties, returns, overstocks, marketing, etc, it’s not hard to see why publishers shy away from new voices. They’re stuck in this same profit machine.
I’ve been kicking around the notion of starting a publishing company with the intent of losing money–thinking of it as a ministry instead of a business…
peace y’all,
Casey
Comment by Neal Locke on 21 December 2007:
Casey, good idea. Let’s take on the “bookstore” model too! I’ve already thought that small, physical bookstores with large digital catalogues and Print-On-Demand technology might be an idea worth considering. I also think it’s possible that individual blogs are already becoming the bookstores of the future.
And if you start a publishing company with the intent of losing money (what a great biblical principle, btw) - I’ll gladly write for you. Would you be bold enough to publish a book titled “Masturbation Church” (under a Creative Commons license, of course)? Although I can’t speak for him, I suspect that with that kind of purpose, Ryan might write for you too.
Another idea worth exploring (that probably already exists and I don’t know about it) would be a consortium of writers pooling their resources and abilities to function as a publisher would. That would be a great way to make publishing a more collaborative effort.
Comment by ryan pappan on 21 December 2007:
I will write if I can do so in crayon and have pictures in the books. It is almost like when you are watching your team play and you yell out, “I can do that for half the price.” I am a foot shy of taking on Shaq and I do not like steroids, so baseball is out. I will stick with words.
Comment by Casey on 21 December 2007:
I’m a bit of a prose snob, so “Masturbation Church” would have to be very well crafted.
Comment by Neal Locke on 21 December 2007:
@Casey: What’s a “prose snob,” if you don’t mind my asking? I’m an English major, a former high school English teacher, and an all-around grammar shark. Does that count for anything?
@Ryan: I wish there were more books with pictures and crayons in the Emergent conversation. Of course, would that mean we’d be marketing consumerism to Emergent children?
On a semi-related note, Emerging Parents has a great post on Christmas and consumerism at the moment.
Comment by ryan pappan on 21 December 2007:
If Neal’s “Masturbation Church” is a no go. Then I guess my WTFWJD, Badass Jesus, and F’ck Yeah, Theology books are also not going to be a go.
My uncle is a master baiter. He worked on a barge out of San Pedro fishing.
I loved the post over at EP. What about an emerging coloring book that is downloaded for free over the web?
All children emerge from somewhere.
Comment by Carol Howard Merritt on 21 December 2007:
Hey! It was like I was in the room when I wasn’t in the room. I love the Internets…
That’s good news about POD. When I was working at Cokesbury, we were still living in the Reagan-era’s huge warehouse tax on books. It was too expensive for the publishers, so even major works of Niebuhr were out of print.
Thanks so much for buying the book. I really appreciate it.
Ryan, Is this true? 5 candidates per call? How can that be when at least 40% of our pulpits are empty? We’re putting our money in all the wrong places. We need to sell our land, empty our coffers, and begin a socialized pay system so that we can start investing in new leadership.
I can’t wait to see what happens to the bookstore/publishing company/coloring book idea.
Comment by Casey on 21 December 2007:
Prose snob is my shorthand for my interest in carefully crafted prose and the writers who produce it. The idea of a micro-publishing company was generated this summer at a writing conference while surrounded by very gifted writers who work at their craft but can’t find publishers because there’s no market for what they write (see, the prose snob in me is disgusted by the many problems in this sentence, but I’m not going to re-write it. Really, I’m not).
“Masturbation Church” wouldn’t be out, Ryan, or WTFWJD, or any other–it just would have to be very well written. Because what’s the use of creating your own publishing company if you don’t get to work on work you love. Anyway, I’m not much of an iconoclast, more a re-painter of icons than a smasher of them.
And emergents don’t seem to have much trouble finding publishing opportunities right now.
Comment by ryan pappan on 21 December 2007:
What is well write? Someone has write convoluted junk. I hope to be that guy.
I do love the idea of the working toward the loss of a job. I am slapping the emerging label on this semi truck leaving seminary in May. Along with the Yosemite Sam mud flaps.
Totally of the subject, I am highly recommending, “The Black and White Album” by The Hives. It is a neat little ditty. It has not left my ears for the last four days.
Comment by Mark Brantley-Gearhart on 21 December 2007:
This thread is fascinating! I’m up to my eyeballs in worship prep for the end of Advent, Christmastide, and Epiphany, so I don’t have time to add more than two cents worth. This kind of thinking excites me because I’d like to do more writing. The matters of publishing and compensation (not to mention time) have been barriers to my confidence, but it sounds like there are technologies and potential consortia that might help overcome those barriers for more than a few of us. I hope this conversation continues in some form because I plan to keep my ear open to it. Now, if I can only find the time to write….
Neal, thanks for raising this issue! As always, I appreciate your knowledge and perspective.
Pingback by presbymergent » A Challenge to Emergent Authors » JakeBouma.com on 22 December 2007:
[...] a fantastic post over at presbymergent issuing A Challenge to Emergent Authors. “I guess it all boils down to this: In the emergent conversation, are we writing the things [...]
Comment by Pistol Pete on 22 December 2007:
You make a compelling point. I would add that the problem has to do as much with content as cost. If “emergent” authors really want to make a difference in the world, they would maintain Biblical (not theological, sociological, psychological, etc…) language consistent with common speech rather than try to invent a language only other “emergent” folk can understand.
Thanks for the post.
P.S. As a Presbyterian pastor with 17 years experience, I want to encourage you in your journey to seminary and beyond. I would recommend my alma mater - Louisville - but I think they’ve become more of a self-contained academic institution rather than a training ground for pastors. Your best bet is probably Fuller.
Comment by sonja on 22 December 2007:
Wow … compelling argument and interesting comments. One thing though, and I’m not too sure of the nuances. But I think that when an author signs a contract with a publisher they (in effect) sign away the rights to the book. That is, it would then be a copyright infringement to also have it out on the web for free at that point, unless, of course, there were something in the contract arrangement specifying that. But normal author/publisher relations would not allow for that sort of both/and kind of thing to happen. Even though it makes eminent sense as you say. They are still catching up with the times.
Comment by ryan pappan on 22 December 2007:
Pete, how do we maintain a “biblical language” absent the culture which surrounds us? Emergent is not an exclusive club to which only young coffee wielding hipsters may enter. This conversation revolves around the quest to reform and keep reforming. The culture with its language, psychology, sociology, and theology reacts differently and particularly to the biblical witness.
Did culture stop growing 2000 years ago? It is my opinion that it is not prudent to chase a gospel that sits in the context of the first century. The gospel is alive today and there is a relevant transforming place within our culture. It is my belief that this is where the conversation (Emerging conversation) flows from.
Who do we exclude if the conversation is tamed to meet the standards and requirements of the ecclesial status quo? I am emerging for the sake of those in the margins. We need more folks like you (experienced pastors and laity) to engage the conversation. This is not a movement by youth and for youth. It is a movement for Christ, in Christ.
It is a broken and lost people working towards the promised freedom in Christ. It is people tired of the status quo and seeking to be a living sacrifice of Gods love to those that are hungry, oppressed, and naked. It is not filled with new ideas and practices, only new shades of colors and images made of clouds. It is limited to imagination and the conviction and desire to answer, “Here I am.”
Comment by Neal Locke on 22 December 2007:
@Sonja: The idea that authors sign away all rights when they contract with a publisher is akin to the idea that all credit card companies charge 25 percent APR to all their clients. There is a wide array of rights-agreements. And there is a growing number of writers and publishers already using the “both/and” model of “paid harcopies + free online download” without copyright infringement. Sadly, none that I know of are in the Emerging niche.
That said, it is indeed difficult (though not unheard of) for a new, untried author to retain significant rights to a book - which is why this post is a challenge to established authors as well, who almost always retain complete rights to their books. We need their leadership to facilitate this change. It has also become a challenge to the publishers - especially those who label themselves as “Christian” or “non-profit.”
In the emergent conversation we pride ourselves on re-examining the conventions and monoliths of the modern era. And as Brian McLaren (who I would love to hear weigh in on this issue) might say, “Everything Must Change.”
Shouldn’t that also include the way we publish books, compensate authors, and share ideas?
Comment by Casey on 22 December 2007:
@Neal: While there are a wide array of rights-agreements, I was under the impression from my reading and the authors that I know that it is still rather uncommon model for an author to retain complete rights to their books (I mean, after all, we sell first serial rights to journals–and often digital rights along with it, and for books, we contact publishers for the very reason of selling distribution rights). Perhaps you could point me somewhere to read more about this? I’d be really shocked if there were more than a handful of publishers using open agreements (delighted! but shocked).
Comment by Neal Locke on 23 December 2007:
This is verbatim from the Publishing Law Center:
Still, Casey, I think we’re both essentially agreeing. I’ll repeat myself (and then clarify):
In our context, I would consider “established” writers to be those who sell on par with Brian McLaren, Doug Pagitt, Dan Kimball, Rob Bell, etc. So while I stand by my statement (and my correct grammar, but only since you’re a self-professed prose-snob
) that there *is* a wide array of rights-agreements, I’ll also agree with your statement that truly open agreements are an uncommon model, limited to a handful of publishers at best.
Still, there are a few, it is a growing number, and we should jump at an opportunity that fits so well with the message we’re trying to proclaim.
Here’s some additional reading on the subject, including some examples of progressive rights-agreements, and some legal opinions on the matter.
-http://www.blc.org/authorsrights.html
-http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/7738
-http://www.iuniverse.com/tips-for-authors/publishing-law/publishing-rights.htm
-http://www.mbbp.com/resources/iptech/online_contracts.html
-http://www.ivanhoffman.com/own.html
-http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/newsletter/06-02-07.htm#balancing
-http://www.wellcome.ac.uk/doc_wtx031743.html
There is more out there for the searching, but definitely not enough. Yet.
Comment by Casey on 23 December 2007:
You’re right. Subjects and verbs ought to agree. It models peace for us all.
Good luck to you emergent folks. Hope you turn the publishing world on its ear.
Comment by Neal Locke on 23 December 2007:
Mark Hopkins over at the social networking news blog “Mashable” writes the following in his predictions for 2008:
It’s a slightly different industry, but the same concept and the same principles.
Comment by Tim Keller on 24 December 2007:
Hey Neal–This is an interesting thread, though I think the subject of economic justice in the publishing industry is more complex than it looks to most of your posters. Here’s one example. I like your application of ‘Mashable’s prediction about the music industry to the publishing industry, but there are problems. When you download music onto your ipod-you have it in a useable, durable form. When you download a 200 page book off the internet, it doesn’t come bound or in the most useable, durable form. The fact is, reading physical paper and print is far easier on the eyes and body than reading text on a screen, and getting text into bound, durable form takes a process to which many people contribute and therefore must be compensated by the buyer. So buying a published book costs more money then getting it over the internet–but publishing also provides more jobs and work for a lot of other people. Is it unjust for the buyer to participate in and support the lives of many people instead of just the author? And that’s just one issue. If an author pours his or her life into a book for a year–what is a volume of that book worth? Hard to say.
Comment by Neal Locke on 24 December 2007:
Tim: I agree with you that printed books aren’t going anywhere anytime soon. An “on screen” book is not going to appeal to those who prefer bound and printed ones, obviously. So publishers aren’t likely to lose any business from that market segment by making books available freely online.
On the other hand, there are a growing number of people spending a growing amount of reading time “on screen.” These are not likely to “purchase” an online book, but if one is freely available, they might actually read it. These are not “lost sales” (since they wouldn’t have bought anything otherwise) but they are instead “gained audience.”
This makes sense even when viewed from a strictly secular, business perspective. However when you add in Christian values like mission, evangelism, generosity, and sharing…it makes an even more compelling case.
Once again, my argument is not that the publishing industry should go away, or that authors and publishers shouldn’t be fairly compensated for the work they do. My argument is that publishers and authors -especially Christian and Emergent ones - should be open to change, to new models of distribution. Jealously guarding the publishing rights to our ideas (and jealously guarding who profits from them) is not the best way to spread them in the world.
Comment by Tim Keller on 24 December 2007:
I’m with you on most of this. But your second paragraph is arguable. I find that people who learn to read on line can’t work their way through heavier books and works. So you can say the internet creates a market–but the counter is that it is merely giving them shorter attention spans, and that makes discourse more shallow and less well-informed.
Comment by Neal Locke on 24 December 2007:
If more books were published under open-source licenses (like creative commons), you might have a scenario like the following:
It’s the near future (imagine Conan O’Brian’s “In the Year 2000″ music playing).
I’m an aspiring writer. My book is available online for free download, although I have a “donation box” on my website for people to pay whatever they are able to, or whatever they think is appropriate (the Radiohead experiment proved pretty conclusively that people are willing to do this). Some people might even read the entire book first, and then come back to pay for it.
You are one of those people - you heard about the book online, and you’re kind of skeptical, but you’re still curious. You read the first three chapters online, and you’re still interested, but you don’t really enjoy reading books on screen, and you want a version you can actually hold (and write notes in!). No problem - you go to your favorite online publishing house or local real-world bookstore (they’ve changed a lot) and “upload” the text that you downloaded from my site.
In a few days (if you went to the online publisher) or a few minutes (if you went to the local bookstore) you are now holding a paper and ink printed copy of my book. If you had wanted a hardback edition, you would have paid about $5.00; instead you print a paper-back edition for $2.00. While you’re at the bookstore, the printing machine (or the book shop owner) recommends another book you might like that’s similar to mine. After reading (and enjoying) my book, you went back to my website and donated $8.00, bringing your total cost for the book to $10.00.
Here’s what’s great about this scenario:
1. The writer was compensated more than he would have been under a traditional agreement, and he still controls the rights to his work.
2. The publisher gets fairly compensated for all the work involved in printing the book (which is really far less than most people realize, especially with current technology) and even does a little traditional “cross-promotion.”
3. The reader gets to determine his preferred format, and how much he is willing to pay for the value the book has added to his life. Paying full-price for a really lousy, poorly-written book that was cleverly marketed by a publisher doesn’t happen anymore.
All in all, more control is placed in the hands of the writer and the reader. Also importantly, the question of “who gets published” is decided by the writer, the reader, and their mutual communities. Barriers to entry of new ideas are lowered. The technology is already here, but as often happens, the laws and customs of the land lag behind, controlled by the “powers and principalities” who stand most to lose, when the artists and the people gain their freedom.
Comment by Neal Locke on 24 December 2007:
Tim, in my experience as an English teacher in an inner-city school, I completely disagree with you that people who learn to read online don’t have the capability to digest and process longer, “heavier” works. There will always be a diversity of reading abilities, preferences, and aptitude. My students would probably consider someone who “cant” read a deep, well-written, long, book online (and has to have a printed paper and ink version) as someone hopelessly behind the times.
Also, even assuming that you’re right, and that online readers (which includes everyone reading this blog) don’t have the attention span for heavy reading, then what is lost by providing the content to them online? Is it also possible that if online readers are somehow deficient, that it’s because there is a dearth of “heavy reading” materials available online? If you believe that, then wouldn’t providing books online help solve the problem? Just some thoughts…
Comment by Bumble on 25 December 2007:
Neal, unfortunately I think Tim is right. I am one of those people who read entirely on screen. I used Logos Libronix software and most of the time I read books published in its electronic format. (My library is about 5 GB worth of 1200 books on the hard drive).
But sadly, as Tim indicated, I have a hard time digesting “heavier” reading: from real physical book like Dallas Willard “Divine Conspiracy” to the electronic version of Augustine’s “Confession” (both I have started, but never finished).
And I am not a kid, but a 42 years-old IT professional with an MBA to boost.
I guess the problem is that the “scrolling” function on screen-reading made “skimming through” a habit for me, (as well as the “searching” function as a shortcut to getting the info you want) and therefore it creates real handicap to read “heavier” book.
I think I am doomed, but the next generation is even worse at reading than me
Comment by Neal Locke on 25 December 2007:
Bumble: Classic unanswerable educational paradox - are you bad at reading difficult literature because of your online experience, or do you simply gravitate toward online reading because you find dense literature difficult to read? Which came first, the chicken or the egg?
Most current educational research supports the premise that literacy aptitudes in the US are (still) distributed evenly along a curve, despite the influences of television, internet, video games, and all the other “technological evils” that we would love to blame our short attention spans on.
So, to tie back into the main point here, why not advocate for more open licensing and progressive distribution among *all* of these media, regardless of reader ability?
Comment by BibleFreak on 26 December 2007:
I found this site through a Google Alert for Libronix. As an avid Libronix user and reader, I wanted to chime in on the discussion about dense reading and skimming and so forth. And the propensity of online readers to less dense books.
I am a student of Gods Word, and I have read it and many of its parts countless times. But, when it comes to dense works (dense here means theological density, or discussion of the discussion of particularizing scriptural themes) I have to vote electronic every time.
Writers of such works, Augustine, Luther, Calvin, Owen, MacArther, Murry, Gill, and such, require time and context to make sense within the framework of the Church, the World, Faith and Life.
Skimming, scanning and searching with Libronix, makes studying any given topic much easier than having to read entire volumes covering material we may or may not want planted in our minds.
There is nothing wrong in not finishing a book, even a small one. But for serious research on biblical topics, and especially theological dogmas, the usefulness of this tool is immeasurable.
I have never read Calvin’s Institutes in their entirety, though I may one day have throughly covered them in context. I currently have Three of the Four “Reformed Dogmatics” by Bavinck sitting at bed side. I never intend to read these straight through, Instead I read the topics and chapters which are contributing to my current studies. These are dense, but I am not a weak reader for choosing to study this way.
How many times have we been reading something, agreeing right along, when suddenly the writer goes in a direction completely contrary to where we suppose they have just been?
I personally have been asked to read works I would never choose to read, for the purpose of giving an opinion. Sometimes I can not make it through, for I find the content such dribble as to be a waste of my time.
I want to encourage anyone reading, in context, any work of any depth. You are educating yourself and this is good! Don’t fret that you have not finished a particular work, your not dead yet.
There will come a criticism, “by reading only a portion of the authors thoughts, is not reading in context!”
Here we will have to part company, since this is a completely different discussion. Email me if you want to pursue it! matthewdavis@biblefreak.org
Blessings to all!
Comment by Bumble on 27 December 2007:
“why not advocate for more open licensing and progressive distribution among *all* of these media, regardless of reader ability?”
No need. Have you visit books.google.com lately? In times all these things will be in public domain.
Comment by Neal Locke on 27 December 2007:
Are you serious??? The Public Domain is becoming an endangered species! True, technology is helping us index things that are *already* in the public domain, but everytime more works are slated to move into the PD, the US congress extends the length of copyright terms. When our country was founded, 14 years after publication was the maximum term allowable by law. Now, it’s 75 years after the death of the author, and even then, it can still be renewed for another long term by the descendants of the author. No significant new works have passed into the Public Domain for the past 50 years. And if Jack Vallenti (head of the MPAA) had his way, Public Domain would be abolished altogether. He certainly owns enough congressmen to make it a realistic threat.
No, I’m afraid relying on the public domain is a horrible way to spread Emergent ideas to the world, unless we want our post-modern audience to be long dead…
Pingback by Interview with Tony Jones, author of “The New Christians” (Part 2) » JakeBouma.com on 12 January 2008:
[...] BOUMA: A recent post on presbymergent titled A Challenge to Emergent Authors raised the following question, among others: “In the emergent conversation, are we writing the [...]
Pingback by Renewed Challenge to Emergent Authors : presbymergent on 12 February 2008:
[...] PostDecember 18, 2007 — A Challenge to Emergent Authors (44)December 13, 2007 — Everything Must Change events (5)November 18, 2007 — Presbymergents in [...]
Pingback by TribalChurch.org on 14 February 2008:
[...] Locke is hosting an interesting discussion at Presbymergents. He’s talked about this before, and it’s pretty fascinating to see the [...]
Pingback by The End of Trickle-Down Education « Tony Jones on 14 May 2008:
[...] Some have been critical of the publishing partnerships that Doug and I have forged for Emergent Village, but here’s the deal: Piper writes at a popular level; MacArthur writes at a popular; even the Pope writes at a popular level. If we want our emergent theologies to compete in the world of theological ideas, then we have to write populist theology. And, at this point, the Internet is a powerful tool, but traditional dead-tree publishing is powerful in a different way. Academic elites bitch and moan about the Left Behind theology that is ascendent in America, but they continue to write for Oxford University Press and are thus destined to sell about a tiny fraction of the books that LaHaye/Jenkins sell. [...]