Clout

General Off-Topic Discussion
21

Excellent question. Let’s start by considering whether there have been any changes in the publishing industry, or for that matter the economy, since the 1980s.

Wow, this is super-generous –

– oh. Sorry, everyone who isn’t Andrew Plotkin, Steve Meretzky or Emily Short! You don’t get your boats lifted. Huh, I wonder if there’s an argument against this.

It’s actually a bit funny you bring this up, because in the authors’ forum there’s been a lot of talk about this, of supporting each other so all of us can get more exposure. (It’s a large part of the reasoning behind that author muzzle thread.) But I suppose none of this really counts, because we’re not Andrew Plotkin, Steve Meretzky or Emily Short and quite a lot of us are Johnny Unknowns. Shit, I’m probably one too. Do you see how this is incredibly insulting to the vast majority of people who presumably are going to be the ones making the future of IF?

22

Sidestepping the whole can of worms about whether IF is commercially viable to start with and how exactly it is commercially viable… there’s no measure of quality. I think a lot of people in the community would strongly dispute the definitions you floated earlier in this thread, and I don’t think there’s very much eagerness to impose a particular standard or another except within the scope of a given imprint (Such as Choice of Games or sub-Q, both of which are things that exist as has already been pointed out also). In many ways, what attracts a lot of people to the modern IF community is precisely that it is not bound by the constant, grating, techno-commercial demands of the broader games and literary spheres where calcified notions of “quality” are treated as gospel.

23

Pass.

24

Not to belabor this, but my name keeps appearing here…

So I should come up with a marketing plan and hire authors? Why me? I suck at marketing plans! And I have no spare money to hire authors! You’re looking at me like I’m the logical person to do this work, but that’s pretty much the opposite of the truth.

You’re trying to sell everybody on a plan which reads as “let’s you do the work so that I benefit.” That is a crude description of how publishing works – businessfolk run a company, freelancers sell their creative work for advances and royalties, everybody happy. But you’re not actually addressing the needs of a publisher or how such a thing would happen or whether Emily and I (and Steve Meretzky) even have remotely similar goals. (Hint: Meretzky already has a job in game development. It’s not running a publishing company.)

25

I don’t what you mean by “this is super-generous”, although I’m quite sure you’re being sarcastic. Everyone involved in IF gets their boat lifted if IF is popularized, period. Just as more skateparks are made for today’s 8 year olds (the future superstars) in the suburbs when Tony Hawk throws down a 900 at the X-Games. More exposure of the top ranking product for anything results in benefits to anything in its class, yes?

I can see how what I said could be taken as insulting or contentious. But think of it this way:

If NFL viewership doubles because Cam Newton is making amazing plays, then doesn’t that provide way more incentive and better opportunities for Johnny Unknown in college who could potentially become the #1 draft pick?

If you’re making the future of IF, don’t you want to follow a legacy instead of having to carve out some brutally difficult path in the minds of IF fans? Or do you not want an inbuilt core audience you can draw upon with less marketing effort, so you can just get to the writing stories part?

26

Steve Meretzky was just a popular name, not a literal scenario. Also, any names I dropped were just names that tend to pop up in regards to IF/game development. I have no idea of any particular person’s skillset, mindset, nor agenda.

I didn’t have a literal business plan. I am not looking to make a literal business. I am not looking to make actual money off your sweat, nor anyone else.

I’m not looking at you (at least not exclusively) to do anything in particular. I’m simply suggesting that if someone (anyone) came up with a framework of how popular/strong authors could come up with a cohesive way to market their stories than that group would be better off than working alone.

I’m not even suggesting that any author (at least individually) come up with a marketing plan. But perhaps that group of authors could consult with someone who IS familiar with marketing and see if their collective efforts could be put to a better use than self-publishing on a per author level.

My apologies if I’ve riled feathers here. I don’t really have a dog in the fight. I was just musing on the state of IF and what could be done to further it. If anyone thinks its a stupid idea, then don’t do it. That simple.

Edit: I can see how my use of the word “I” in metaphorical examples could have been interpreted as me having a desire to catapult myself to stardom or riches, or some such thing, but I was speaking in the generic sense of, if one was to do such a thing.

27

Okay, well, fwiw, I don’t sell the IF I write on my own. I make money by a) writing content for studios and existing publishers; b) designing procedural narrative and conversational systems and tools for studios; c) white-label advertising work; d) (to a much lesser degree) doing workshops and presentations about interactive narrative.

At the moment, the combination of that work and my existing IF community support obligations* largely mean that I don’t have time to write other IF of my own. When I do have time, I focus on research work that will support my long term goals in interactive narrative: mostly choice-based work grounded in novel engines. And if I view it from a purely commercial angle (which I don’t, really, but those are the terms on which you started this conversation), I want that work to be associated with my name rather than with some cooperative brand – since I’m marketing my services to companies rather than marketing my works to individuals.

  • I spend a lot of time researching and covering IF on my blog and trying to build up contacts between IF communities, bring attention to new and marginalized authors, etc.; and also a certain amount of social organization to help IF-interested people meet one another. Those are the contributions I feel best able to make, when it comes to raising all boats. I would be less good at interpreter refinement or marketing or drawing box art.

I think there are ways to address some of the specific aims you’ve mentioned, just in different ways. If you want a site that curates IF work that meets particular standards, you could start one based entirely on your own concepts, or start a comp or a festival with a particular focus. If you want a collective that supplies editing and marketing support services to hobbyist authors, you could maybe rustle together some volunteers, or some money to pay non-volunteers. If you want to see commercial IF carving out new markets, well, that’s already happening – not for parser IF, I agree, but there are a number of choice-based brands now, doing a wide range of different styles and concepts.

28

Think of it this way:

Mr. Super Author (no more real names since people keep getting hung up on it) has a website that he already pays for to promote/sell his IF.

Mrs. Up-and-Coming is going to pay for hosting her own website to do the same.

Wouldn’t it make sense for Mrs. Up-and-Coming to pay for Mr. Super Author’s website since she’s going to spend that money regardless, and she’ll also be taking benefit of Mr. Super Author’s street cred? Also, when each author gains exposure, then they mutually benefit by association.

Now why wouldn’t Mr. Super Author want to be associated with Mrs. Up-and-Coming? Maybe her presentation sucks. Maybe her game, though solid in a creative sense, is off-putting because it hasn’t been tested sufficiently and has lots of typos.

So why doesn’t Mr. Super Author make some basic guidelines of quality assurance so that he gets positive exposure instead of being guilty by association?

Extend that scenario to involve to many people on the same website, and there will start to be pronounced benefits, right?

I (read: anyone) could make a website and ask a whole bunch of authors to house their wares on the site. But what’s the real draw, if it’s just some sloppy thing that has no quality control and lets some “lol catz adventure’s” (typo intentional) story get posted along with something refined? Yet if someone with some clout went about doing such a thing, then they could afford to be a bit choosy as they’ve got power behind their name.

But judging from the amount of pushback I’ve received, something about this is way off-base from everyone’s agenda.

29

Yeah, I get that motivations vary, and some don’t aspire to commercial ends. That’s a legitimate reason not to be bothered with such a thing–not that anyone needs to justify their position on the matter or offer any excuses.

While I agree with the examples you’ve put forth, the issue is always lack of clout, whether that’s money, credibility, talent, notoriety, etc. Some generic person which isn’t me could start a contest or zine, but it would most likely be more successful (if at all) if someone with actual clout had something to do with it and provided some form of backing, even if just a verbal endorsement like, “Hey all, I encourage you all to join this contest. I’ll package the winner as a bundle when someone purchases my latest IF.”

Just tossing out ideas here. None of this is ever going to benefit me personally, because it’s quite unlikely I will ever even finish a piece of IF, especially not one with any popular reception, and almost certainly not one for commercial purposes. It is also highly unlikely that I will ever personally start such a label, publishing house, contest, etc. as I don’t have that much time nor inclination.

30

I think what’s bothering people is that a lot of people come onto this forum in particular and say, “Hey everybody, you should work on X,” where X is some pretty big project that nobody’s working on.

The people proposing these projects usually have some argument for why it would be great, even why it would be great for the people who do the work, but they don’t volunteer to do any work on their own.

Then the friction hits: when nobody bites, the person proposing the idea feels that everyone is rejecting their incredibly brilliant idea, and, indeed, rejecting the proposer personally. Typically the proposer gets more insistent, more strident, which doesn’t help make any allies.

But the first person to reject the idea was, actually, the proposer, and in this case, yes, I’m talking about you.

You can earn that clout by writing some good games and selling them online. It’s hard work, but straightforward, and it can be quite rewarding.

Starting Choice of Games was straightforward hard work. I’ve said here in the past that anybody could do it, if they wanted, but few people want to.

If you had the inclination, you’d make the time. But if you don’t have the inclination, even though you completely understand your own argument, then why should anyone else be convinced?

31

Then don’t be convinced.

Like I said, it’s not really my agenda. It was an idea for people in a position of influence to further their (presumably similar) agenda of gaining more of a following, making a career out of IF, or something similar.

Edit: That said, if I had some easy way (like throwing fifty-thousand disposable dollars out of my lottery winnings) to put a spotlight on IF and bring it to a wider audience, then I’d consider it. But no, I don’t have the particular investment to spend countless hours promoting IF as it’s not my intended career or life’s path, unlike (just my assumption, admittedly) some of the other posters here.

32

Good idea. I’m going to call Neil Gaiman right now and offer to host his website, for my own good. That makes sense. (I must be interpreting this, because I can’t think of a single interpretation of this that makes… any sense, under any patronage model.)

Your argument seems to rest on the idea of a golden age of IF, whether it’s the '80s or the '90s, in which all work was thoroughly polished and there was no amateur work whatsoever. This age never existed – not in the '80s, where software development was often the work of just some guy who liked coding or ray-tracing art or whatever, and certainly not in the '90s, when every comp had a bottom tier of undoubtedly bottom-tier work. The off-putting work just is not remembered by history, and yet somehow Mr. Super Authors emerge from what is, in fact, the slush pile.

This is a business model that goes by many names, such as “blogging.”

It’s not off-base from everyone’s agenda because this already exists, in many places: sub-Q, the Interactive Fiction Fund and Choice Of all already exist. (Choice Of is particularly relevant here because it’s two-tiered and their Hosted Games section is, more or less, “[asking] a bunch of authors to house their wares on the site,” and while there is quality control, it’s a far bigger tent. And yet their reputation has not been hurt by having this big tent. For some reason.)

The “pushback” comes from the fact that most people don’t like being expected to do both creative and business work for free, for some nebulous, undefined idea of “their own good” that seems to boil down to “making more stuff this one guy wants.”

33

Rasputin, maybe you could look at it another way. You’re looking at Cadre, Plotkin, Reed, Short et al as though they were giants far removed from the rest of us.

In fact, they are everything but. True, their work has earned awesome respect and admiration, but only because they experimented wildly when they were Johnny Unknowns. Every single person that has replied to this thread, including you (excluding me 'cause I’m a player, not an author), has the potential of amassing the same respect and admiration.

Similarly, rather than retire to a life of IF superstardom (whatever thay would be), they’re still here, still experimenting, just as they’ve always done.

Tons of other people are making good points, but I thought I’d take a stab at making this one.

34

for anyone who’s interested in exactly how this idea has fallen apart in the past, here’s james frey: nymag.com/arts/books/features/69474/

35

So my idea is both simultaneously stupid and yet also viable as proven by real world examples?

36

Interesting read.

The whole Frey-centric angle wasn’t really the kind of thing I was promoting, but it’s an interesting (and not entire unsuccessful) business model anyway. It doesn’t seem too far off from traditional record label contracts, really.

37

IFDB is a truly excellent system. You can sort by stars, and a popular game will likely have enough written comments that you know why it has gotten the ratings it has. You can also sort by reviewer (mathbrush is particularly prolific, if you’d like a brilliant IF Comp author to follow as reviewer), when you find someone whose tastes fit yours (because personal taste is SUCH a big factor in judging any writing). It even allows for “If you like this, try…”

All we need is more data. Always :slight_smile:

You’re obviously annoyed by bugs etc. That’s hardly an unusual position. The stars should help with that.

I forget the rest of what you said, and I REALLY need to get back to the gamebook I’m editing (while I’m meant to be working on a different gamebook…) so I apologise if I’m repeating somebody else.

I recommend looking at the big-name (or indeed small-name) reviewers that you consider most intelligent and sensible, and then seeing what IFDB says about the same games.

I think the IF Community is incredibly generous with reviews, so when you find a game you love you could try googling it to search for reviewers that are likely to suit you.

Now if you’ll excuse me, some pirates are calling…

38

I know a bunch of people have mentioned them, multiple times, but have you actually looked at Sub-Q and Choice of Games yet? They both already have published works from established “name-brand” authors (Adam Cadre, Aaron Reed, Porpentine, Max Gladstone, Yoon Ha Lee, etc) and “hot” new authors too, and I get the impression they are both actively soliciting/recruiting more in both categories, as well as from promising “Johnny Unknowns”. They also both have professional-looking cover art and attractive, easy-to-use play-online interfaces. Neither has published an explicit “creed” (that I can find) but they clearly both have specific editorial standards, and Choice of Games in particular has a well-known consistent house style and they work with authors to help them conform to it.

Also, 80 Days has been mentioned a few times; inkle studios is more of a, well, studio than a publisher, and they are not currently soliciting partners, but they have also published games in collaboration with Emily Short and Steve Jackson (and Jon Ingold is himself a “name-brand” IF author).

Anyway, I guess my point is, if you don’t see what you’re asking for, maybe you’re just not looking?

39

To be honest, I didn’t think the original idea was a bad one. What was bad was naming individuals to do something, because that makes them feel like they’re being put under a spotlight and no one likes spotlights, and makes certain others feel like they’ve been left out.

40

It’s not that my need for games is unfulfilled, as such. It was more just an assumption or (possibly erroneous) observation that IF authors don’t feel they’re as successful as they could be, in terms of reaching a wider audience or getting paid enough (if any) compensation for what they love to do. I mean, who wouldn’t want to be making a livelihood doing what they love, right?

I was just throwing some casual ideas around as to how to potentially use the traction those authors already had to make something together which was greater than the sum of its parts. U2 is more famous because they’re marketed as U2 and not just Bono, The Edge, et al. playing solo gigs, right? Even though they might all be talented musicians in their own right, their slice of the pie is bigger because the entire pie is way bigger. Does it take any extra work for Bono to line up a gig for U2 than it does to book a gig for himself? It shouldn’t. So a gig that gets the whole band paid should be 1/4 of the booking effort than the four of them booking gigs separately, as well as drawing a larger crowd. That doesn’t seem particularly exploitive, predatory, or outlandish an idea.

At the end of it all, it’s not as if anyone possesses some magic wand that’s going to change the whole landscape of IF on their own whim. There’s no big IF god forcing anyone into some contract or labor that they don’t want to do. There’s no gun to anyone’s head forcing them to sign on the dotted line to support some vague, amorphous idea that was posted off-the-cuff as a hypothetical.

If someone is inspired by anything that was said and wants to run with it, great. If not, then no one is out anything, are they? I don’t understand the need to take personal umbrage at anything tossed out at an impromptu brainstorming session.

But yeah, in reference to the last post, using actual names worked out to be a divisive distraction. I was just trying to offer a touchstone of the kind of people that might actually be able to make that sort of thing happen, should they want to. Maybe people read a lot more into that than I intended, so apologies if anyone in particular felt put under the gun, etc.