Comments on: Arguments On Lulu (Sigh)

By: Eli James

Eli James — Tue, 25 Dec 2007 09:48:32 +0000

They probably won’t buy your book online, but once your book gets into a bookstore … chances are pretty good it’ll be treated like the rest.

You’ve got me thinking, though, when you said:

The real future for independent writers lies in giving one’s work away for free and THEN selling it.

That’s pretty good stuff! Sounds exactly like what indie musicians are doing, and, hell, I like it. :)

By: Alexandra Erin

Alexandra Erin — Sun, 23 Dec 2007 12:39:03 +0000

I would never expect somebody to just up and buy my books online. First, they aren’t going to find it. Second, assuming they stumble across it, they’ve never heard of me. They can’t even flip through the book. Why should they buy it?

The real future for independent writers lies in giving one’s work away for free and THEN selling it. “Blooking” isn’t the solution. Lulu isn’t the solution. The two of them together make a compelling argument.

By: Eli James

Eli James — Thu, 10 May 2007 13:14:59 +0000

Well said, Benjamin. I was writing with fiction in mind, but what you’ve said about non-fiction has struck a chord with me …

Yes, it is true that blogging has gotten a lot of governments scared (and most of the time that’s a good thing, especially if you’re living in a country like Malaysia). But non-fiction from a blog being a bestseller? I’ll have to stretch my imagination and pray that happens … eventually.

By: Benjamin Solah

Benjamin Solah — Thu, 10 May 2007 12:05:13 +0000

From a political point of view, I really like the idea of blogging and publishers like Lulu for its ability to bypass these middlemen that seem to filter much of what we here. Blogging has really scared the mainstream media I think by allowing people to have their own opinions and not regurgitating what some corporate media giant tells us to think. I think print-on-demand may head in that direction.

But there is the issue that I’ve seen as a writer come up that print-0n-demand would leave wide open. There is no filter in the grammatical, quality sense. I’m not talking about what’s being said, but how it’s being said. Too often writers can think their stories done but it’s not at the quality it can amass to. Just allowing anyone to publish without an editor saying this isn’t at a high enough quality would do damage to the literature industry.