Are There Limits to Literary Citizenship?

by Sal Falko / Flickr

by Sal Falko / Flickr

The backlash against Literary Citizenship is underway, and perhaps it was inevitable.

For those unaware of term, it’s widely used in the literary, bookish community to refer to activities that support and further reading, writing, and publishing, and the growth of your professional network. In some ways, it’s a more palatable (or friendly) way to think of platform building.

What I’ve always liked about the Literary Citizenship movement:

  1. It’s simple for people to understand and practice. It aligns well with the values of the literary community.
  2. It operates with an abundance mindset. It’s not about competition, but collaboration. If I’m doing well, that’s going to help you, too, in the long term. We’re not playing a zero-sum game where we hoard resources and attention. There’s plenty to go around.

In her piece “All Work and No Pay Makes Jack a Dull Writer: On Literary Citizenship and Its Limits,” Becky Tuch raises a red flag on all this positive spin, and points to a downturn in publishers’ marketing budgets:

Who, then, must make up for this [economic] shortfall? Certainly it’s not the owners and CEO’s of publishing companies who lend a hand to writers in times of duress (in spite of the fact that their profits are derived precisely from those writers). No, it’s writers who are expected to look after themselves and one another.

Tuch argues that writers are being exploited under the guise of marketing activities as “enriching” activities. She asks us to question and challenge this system, and the corporate publishers or corporate-culture machinations that have led us to the necessity of literary citizenship, and calls for “frank discussions about labor power and financial remuneration.” She is also kind and generous enough to mention Scratch magazine as a step in the right direction, a publication I started in partnership with Manjula Martin, to have more transparent conversations about the economics of writing and publishing.

Manjula and I live on different coasts, and this is something that, if we lived closer to each other, I’d run off to a coffee shop and talk to her about for an afternoon—because I think we have different approaches to this issue (which helps strengthen the publication, I’d argue).

Here’s a high-level summary of my own approach to this—and it’s something I’ve been deeply contemplating the last few months as I’ve prepared for my keynote talk at The Muse and The Marketplace on May 3 (a talk that is free to the public, I might add).

1. The disruption faced by publishing affects the entire media industry (and the world) and goes beyond economics. Publishing is not a specialized activity any longer. Anybody can publish. That’s not to say anybody can publish well, but publication alone is not meaningful in and of itself in many cases. From the time of Gutenberg until roughly 2000, to print and publish something was to amplify it because of the investment and specialized knowledge required. That’s largely not the case today (though for some print-driven work, it still is). To amplify something takes a different kind of muscle, and amplifying through print distribution is becoming less and less meaningful as 50% of book sales now happen online (whether for print or digital books). Publishers of all types and sizes are struggling with this disruption and what it means for their value to authors, readers, and the larger culture.

2. Authors can transcend publishers when it comes to reader loyalty. Most of us don’t buy books because of who published them; we buy them because of who the author is. And if we don’t know the author, we often buy based on word of mouth. Publishers try to encourage this word of mouth, but few have brand recognition or connections with actual readers, because they haven’t traditionally been direct-to-consumer companies. They’ve sold to middlemen instead—bookstores, libraries, wholesalers.

In the last 5-10 years, authors have gained tools to connect directly with readers—tools that they’ve never had before—which give them tremendous power amidst the disruption. This is power that many publishers still lack.

Unfortunately, in the literary market, involvement with the readership is often seen as undesirable—writing for an audience or engaging with them is seen to lessen the art. (“I don’t write for readers” — you’ve heard that one, right?) I won’t address the problematic nature of this belief here, but this cultural myth is prevalent (I’m using the word “myth” neutrally here—as in Joseph Campbell “myth”), and may be the subtext of some criticism of literary citizenship.

3. The abundance mindset trumps the victim or scarcity mindset. In Zen terms (pardon my Zen nature): are we going to see ourselves as part of the publishing world, or as acted upon by the publishing world (victims)? It may seem a slight and meaningless distinction, but it powerfully affects your outlook and how you decide what to do next—if you believe you are the person who has control of your life and work.

Also, we have to remember that when one area of the network or community suffers, it will invariably affect another part. (Watch this terrific video on this concept.) We’re already seeing shifts in the market that point to how publishers have to change—e.g., 25% of the top 100 books on Amazon last year were self-published, authors are successfully crowdfunding new books, and Wattpad has launched the careers of new, young authors, which uses a very different model than any we’ve seen before.

New business models are out there, and authors are finding the opportunities amidst the change. Benjamin Zander wrote in The Art of Possibility:

The frames our minds create define—and confine—what we perceive to be possible. Every problem, every dilemma, every dead end we find ourselves facing in life, only appears unsolvable inside a particular frame or point of view. Enlarge the box, or create another frame around the data, and problems vanish, while new opportunities appear.

What frame are we using to look at the economic problem writers now face? I would suggest it’s not useful to use the framework of, “Publishers are taking advantage of writers.” Let’s change the frame we’re using—not to whitewash any potential unethical behavior, but to spot a productive way forward.

One of the more inspiring things I’ve read lately is Elizabeth Hyde Steven’s Make Art Make Money, which is all about balancing business and art, as mastered by the late, great Jim Henson. I can’t think of a better way to close than quote something she learned from studying his career:

We can walk into the world of business feeling we are on the turf of strangers, possible enemies. Or we can enter that world in a way that brings our own turf with us, so that we no longer feel defensive but expansive. With the realization of the power our art wields, we can become generous. When we do, we become compelling, enviable, impressive, and we have the ability to change things.

For more reading on the disruption in publishing:

Posted in Publishing Industry.

Jane Friedman (@JaneFriedman) has 20 years of experience in the publishing industry, with expertise in digital media strategy for authors and publishers. She is the publisher of The Hot Sheet, the essential newsletter on the publishing industry for authors, and was named Publishing Commentator of the Year by Digital Book World in 2019.

In addition to being a columnist for Publishers Weekly, Jane is a professor with The Great Courses, which released her 24-lecture series, How to Publish Your Book. Her book for creative writers, The Business of Being a Writer (University of Chicago Press), received a starred review from Library Journal.

Jane speaks regularly at conferences and industry events such as BookExpo America, Digital Book World, and the AWP Conference, and has served on panels with the National Endowment for the Arts and the Creative Work Fund. Find out more.

Notify of

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

newest most voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Yi Shun Lai

Both of these posts make excellent points, but I must take issue with the omission of one key touchstone: What makes us feel good? It feels good to learn about and from other writers; it feels good to take part in readings; it feels good to buy and read a book from an indie publisher that one eventually likes, and then pass on news of it. Citizenship feels good. Being a good citizen was never without cost, no matter what type of citizenship it is. At the end of it, we writers are in the business because it’s where we… Read more »

Robert Julian Braxton

Coercion (not) aside, I would agree “no one should be working for free.” However, after I received my last direct deposit for work (May, 2010) all my work has been “for free” and I would have it no other way, now. While not published in the traditional sense, each day I put my stuff “out there” on Google+, on Facebook and on Twitter (as well as sending via email to a few select people).

Gigi Amateau

Ditto, Jane and Yi Shun Lai! It does feel good to learn and share and celebrate with people who have great ideas and are passionate about reading and writing. If I switch it up and think about my yogi-citizenship, equestrian-citizenship, river-love-citizenship…the motivation to engage originates from a similar place. The things I love matter to me and bring me joy, so I choose to contribute in many different ways with other awesome people.

Dinty W. Moore

Jane asks, “…are we going to see ourselves as part of the publishing world, or as acted upon by the publishing world (victims)? ” and I say, “There it is, in a nutshell, stated brilliantly.” There is so much wisdom in that question. Thanks for this post.

[…] The backlash against Literary Citizenship is underway, and perhaps it was inevitable.For those unaware of term, it’s widely used in the literary, bookish community to refer to activities that support and further reading, writing, and publishing, and the growth of your professional network. In some ways, it’s a more palatable (or friendly) way to think of platform building.  […]

Shirley Hershey Showalter

I love how you see opportunity in the framing of the question itself, Jane. Such a writerly thing to do!

Shirley Hershey Showalter

I love this talk also. Watched it again just to feel the impact of the transformed perspective. The takeaway this time: focus on our readers and their shining eyes! Thanks for making the connection.

Mike Loomis

Great piece, Jane! I’ve had publisher marketing meetings which were 99% “what is the author doing?” But rather than complain, we must push for more – from ourselves AND the publisher. Appreciate your point #3 in this regard. Thanks!

Kim Church

Great piece! After all, isn’t the very act of publication the creation of community? Reading this made me smile and breathe deeply and feel hopeful. Thanks.

Nancy Miller

As someone new to the world of writing and publishing, the
unknown was overwhelming. There was so much to learn. There is so much more
to learn. Everywhere I turn; talented, positive people give their time and
knowledge or do what they can, just for the pleasure of it. They are an inspiration.
Thank you, Jane, for sharing your talent and expertise.

William Ash

I am just doing a stream of conscious thinking. Defining books being just about words is really limiting publishing and other artists that want to use the book as a vehicle. My background is photography and I think the photography book is a great medium. But, and especially in self publishing, there is an absolute vacuum. Now certainly there are photographers working in self publishing, but the chance that two of them might bump into each other are about as great as meeting a chicken in a dentist’s office. But every time I meet a book/publishing crowd, the idea that… Read more »

William Ash

Unfortunately, Blurb is a vanity press in the good old fashion meaning of the word. They are very expensive which makes books though them almost impossible to succeed financially. And if you want to put your imprint on the book, they charge you more. There are other limits to their service which makes them even less appealing. It is a great concept, but the only people that will make money from that is Amazon and Blurb. Is it Ingram that has a POD service with distributors like Amazon and B&N? The Blurb thing is not the first, but maybe the… Read more »

[…] However, it’s given a fresh twist in the article, Are There Limits to Literary Citizenship? […]

[…] as some are calling that, literary citizenship. Recently, publishing expert Jane Friedman introduced me to this […]

[…] you’re not familiar with literary citizenship, you can read more about my views on it here. It basically means celebrating and bringing attention to authors, writing, and books—the things […]

[…] and writers I follow regularly, those, for example, whose blogs support writers through the Literary Citizenship Model that Jane discusses in one of her posts. I follow several that are true to the goal of […]

[…] Literary citizenship works when it builds community. When it feeds the writer, and contributes to, as Jane Friedman writes, […]

[…] on all levels. Jane Friedman said, “it’s not about competition, it’s about collaboration” (Friedman) in regard to joining or declaring yourself a member of a writer’s community.  And these […]