Aleatoire09

... & the Advent of the Crowdfunded, Rewarded Author

The serial publication of today is mostly posted online, and in the cases of fanfiction, “unpublished” fiction (i.e. works without a publishing contract, and not having been self-published for profit), and blog posts, is free to read on blog platforms like WordPress, or fiction sites like FictionPress and Wattpad. Authors, like Dickens before them, like the serial format because it enables reader feedback and engagement as the story is being produced, as authors are “always looking for people who would actually be interested in reading what [they] have to say” while they are crafting a work (Montgomery n.p.). Works published and offered for free online, though, have one pitfall: authors can’t make money off of the content. Perhaps, though, this is not a pitfall, but an opportunity to adopt a new model of generating revenue without selling access to the content being produced. This seemingly fruitless form of publishing can actually profit through a model of reader funding and rewards based on readership, working in tandem to support the author.

Crowdfunding has gained ground in recent years, expanding 167% globally in 2014 (crowdsourcing.org n.p.). This explosion of growth in a market fuelled by users and their desire to support content creators or charity campaigns, among others, highlights an increasing trust and interest in giving money online to causes and projects consumers care about. Within publishing, crowdfunding sites such as Patreon are valuable tools authors can use to support themselves while writing. The serial publication is the perfect format to publish if interested in such sources of revenue, as “83% of funds raised globally in 2011 came from reward-based campaigns” (n.p.); authors can offer the release of chapters as a reward for reaching a certain donation threshold, without actually selling the content being released. And because the content is not being sold, anyone can read it, while not necessarily everyone will donate.

Because of this, and because “[m]ost of these sites allow you to retain publishing rights, so you can publish the stories again somewhere else” (Montgomery n.p.), authors can publish on multiple websites. One of these might be JukePop, a secondary vehicle through which to create revenue, still without selling content. JukePop, for example, accepts submissions from authors, and “[a]uthors keep readers hooked and tackle their book by releasing it bit by bit, collecting votes to earn rewards each month;” they can also track reader analytics, and learn about their audience in the form of data as well as reader feedback as they work on their book (JukePop n.p.).

The model for authors to adopt is thus a cross-platform, serial publication approach that can generate revenue without selling the content in any way, and without placing ads within the content. Monetary compensation is strictly based on readership and reader donations. What, then, does this spell for authors, their readers, and the traditional publishers that would otherwise have exclusive rights to the work?

Readers continue to purchase print books and ebooks alike from distributors — according to BookNet Canada, 93% of Canadians surveyed read a print book in 2013, and 58% said they read an ebook (Genner n.p.). Alexandra Alter of the Wall Street Journal explains how publishers are attempting to fit serial publications alongside complete print and digital works and struggling to do so, fearing that “digital serials could … be bad for business if they eat away at future print profits—still the biggest revenue source for most publishers” (n.p.). However, traditional publishing models will not die or suffer horribly from authors, not publishers, moving towards crowdfunding and reward based models of serial publication, as the modern reader is capable of “transliteracy,” or the ability to read across many different media channels.

According to the National Endowment for the Arts, “84 percent of adults who read literature (fiction, poetry, or drama) online or downloaded from the Internet also read books, whether print or online” (8), illustrating that people are reading content just about everywhere, in all forms. This fact is good for traditional publishers as well as self-published or crowdfunded authors; through this transliteracy, neither mode of publication is at risk of being edged out by the others in the near future. That publishers find it difficult to commiserate serial publications into their business models is a good opportunity for authors to take control of their own online content, as well as how that content is funded.

Digital serials are presently used by authors as a stepping stone to traditional publication of an entire work, described as “opportunities to make yourself known, which could lead to a book deal with a traditional publisher in the future” (Montgomery n.p.). However, if the author becomes funded through crowdfunding and rewards, then serial publication on its own may be a sustainable alternative to traditional publishing, or even to self-publishing that involves the sale of content.

Publishing unrestricted across platforms and giving readers free access to content is something that can be well marketed on social media. According to Guy Kawasaki, “[o]ne of the most important factors that traditional publishers use to decide whether to acquire a book is the marketing platform of its author,” as they are expected to sustain their social media presence even after landing a contract (n.p.). If publishers expect this of their traditionally published authors, having complete control over one’s own content while maintaining a social media campaign may be more rewarding, as an author isn’t promoting sales: they are promoting reading, and optional funding.

To sustain the readership of a serial publication, social media is an excellent tool if authors are smart about their social media use, and don’t make their readers feel pressured to give money. As Kawasaki explains, “Less than 10 percent of [an author’s] social-media posts should promote [the] book or other commercial endeavors” (n.p.), and if this is done successfully, sharing and discussing the work through these channels enables an author to receive the most feedback, gain readers, and get funded. Some readers will then pledge to the project, while others are content reading, all without feeling obligated; together, they form a valuable readership that the author can respond to, discuss ideas with, and receive funding from those who wish to contribute.

As noted previously, crowdfunding has exploded recently; for instance, Kickstarter’s books-related projects have more than doubled, “from 735 in 2011 to 2064 in 2014” (Bausells n.p.). This increase in growth demonstrates that people are more willing than in previous years to donate to a cause or project online; as third party sites like Kickstarter and Patreon become credible and secure, more people feel compelled to donate. And “[u]sers respond well to projects which offer something a little different” (Bausells n.p.), a positive for free content authors, as crowdfunding is “‘a way to do something a little bit different than just making a book and selling it’” (Atwell, qtd. in Bausells n.p.). For authors, crowdfunding also “‘helps build a community around a project, when it could otherwise be an isolating venture’” (Atwell, wtd. in Bausells n.p.). The relationships built by these communities are direct between author and reader, a valuable resource for the author when crafting an ongoing work.

The gaining popularity of crowdfunding book projects, along with a strong social media presence by the author, creates a successful approach to free content. However, in order to maximize readership and increase traffic and discussion, authors should publish across multiple platforms. As mentioned before, one of these platforms could be JukePop, which is a further source of revenue. Readers may feel that serial works online lack the backing of the traditional publisher’s “gatekeeping role,” but JukePop acts as a gatekeeper of free content, asking for “previously published or unpublished first chapters of original, high-quality popular fiction or non-fiction” for them to vet and accept (n.p.). JukePop is the most exclusionary of free serial platforms, but this act of vetting may help readers feel more positive about online content; in addition, since JukePop, not the reader, is paying the author “[c]ash prizes … if [a] story hits the monthly top 30 in +Votes” (n.p.), this acts as a solid revenue source if an author can gain enough readership, and the readers do not have to worry about supporting the content monetarily.

Of course, both crowdfunding and rewards based on readership would mean that the crux of publishing free content online is the reader. Readers are their own gatekeepers on more open websites that do not vet content, such as Wattpad, and thus readers decide which works are worthwhile, as they read and fund certain projects over others. They then contribute to culture by sharing, quoting, and discussing these free works, creating a more accurate depiction of what the public enjoys, as opposed to publishers’ attempts to predict the market and by vetting publications prior to public viewing.

 To summarize, Montgomery describes that a “defining feature of these [free, serial] sites is that writers rely on readers’ endorsements to popularize their work. This isn’t so different from traditional means of publication, in which writers whose works are ‘bestsellers’ become well-known. However, in this case, you have easier to access readers, because the sites remove the middleman between you and the reader. Thus, you can more easily cultivate a base of fans and followers. Of course, the flip side is you are competing with all the other writers on these websites for readers” (n.p.). While her latter statement is true, if an author remains diligent on social media, responds to readers and continues to hold them engaged with regular content, gaining and maintaining an audience across many platforms is not only possible, but successful.

 Moving through this model, and what it means for publishers, authors, and readers, there are three important takeaways: that readers continue to prove their ability to read across multiple channels, as data suggests: they purchase books (both print and online), and they also read works for free online, making the serial publication simply another form through which to read content, and not an overarching concern for publishers — if they stick to the traditional print and ebook that they are known for, instead of trying to work serial publications into their business model; that authors need to maintain a strong online presence, both through social media and across multiple serial sites, in order to capture the strongest audience possible; and that readers are the heart of the crowdfunded/rewarded serial publication: they connect directly with the author, they disseminate and engage with the content, and they fund the content either directly through donations, or indirectly through popularity on reward websites like JukePop. Essentially, readers demand content both from print and digital means, and the transliteracy of the 21st century affords authors the ability to make money through the described model — or through the traditional publishing model; transliteracy and the resurgence of serial publications has opened many pathways for authors to generate a readership and a revenue.

Works Cited

    Alter, Alexandra. “The Return of the Serial Novel - WSJ.” Wall Street Journal. n.p., 11 Apr. 2013. Web. 7 Nov. 2015.

    Bausells, Marta. “Kickstarting a Books Revolution: The Literary Crowdfunding Boom.” The Guardian 5 June 2015. The Guardian. Web. 10 Nov. 2015.

    Brattin, Joel. “Project Boz - Dickens & Serial Fiction.” n.p., n.d. Web. 9 Nov. 2015.

    Crowdsourcing.org. “Global Crowdfunding Market to Reach $34.4B in 2015, Predicts Massolution’s 2015CF Industry Report.” n.p., 2015. Web. 9 Nov. 2015.

    Genner, Noah. “Canadian Readers by the Numbers.” BookNet Canada. n.p., 7 Mar. 2014. Web. 9 Nov. 2015.

    JukePop. “JukePop - Discover Free Books, Fiction, Stories and Serials.” n.p., 2015. Web. 9 Nov. 2015.

    ---. “JukePop - Submissions.” N.p., 2015. Web. 10 Nov. 2015.

    JukePop Serials. “How to Start a Web Serial.” JukePop Serials Bloggity. n.p., 30 Oct. 2014. Web. 7 Nov. 2015.

    Karp, Josh. “What Is This Buzz Word ‘Transliteracy’? A Q&A with Ryan Nadel | Spotlight on Digital Media and Learning.” n.p., 25 Oct. 2010. Web. 1 Oct. 2015.

    Kawasaki, Guy. “Guy Kawasaki’s 10 Social Media Tips for Authors.” MediaShift. n.p., 14 Feb. 2013. Web. 10 Nov. 2015.

    Montgomery, Molly. “Serial Online Writing: Literature’s New Frontier?” LitBloom. n.p., 5 May 2014. Web. 7 Nov. 2015.

    National Crowdfunding Association of Canada. “NCFA Canada - Crowdfunding.” n.p., 2015. Web. 9 Nov. 2015.

    Patreon. “Patreon: Support the Creators You Love.” n.p., 2015. Web. 9 Nov. 2015.

... & the Advent of the Crowdfunded, Rewarded Author

The serial publication of today is mostly posted online, and in the cases of fanfiction, “unpublished” fiction (i.e. works without a publishing contract, and not having been self-published for profit), and blog posts, is free to read on blog platforms like WordPress, or fiction sites like FictionPress and Wattpad. Authors, like Dickens before them, like the serial format because it enables reader feedback and engagement as the story is being produced, as authors are “always looking for people who would actually be interested in reading what [they] have to say” while they are crafting a work (Montgomery n.p.). Works published and offered for free online, though, have one pitfall: authors can’t make money off of the content. Perhaps, though, this is not a pitfall, but an opportunity to adopt a new model of generating revenue without selling access to the content being produced. This seemingly fruitless form of publishing can actually profit through a model of reader funding and rewards based on readership, working in tandem to support the author.

Crowdfunding has gained ground in recent years, expanding 167% globally in 2014 (crowdsourcing.org n.p.). This explosion of growth in a market fuelled by users and their desire to support content creators or charity campaigns, among others, highlights an increasing trust and interest in giving money online to causes and projects consumers care about. Within publishing, crowdfunding sites such as Patreon are valuable tools authors can use to support themselves while writing. The serial publication is the perfect format to publish if interested in such sources of revenue, as “83% of funds raised globally in 2011 came from reward-based campaigns” (n.p.); authors can offer the release of chapters as a reward for reaching a certain donation threshold, without actually selling the content being released. And because the content is not being sold, anyone can read it, while not necessarily everyone will donate.

Because of this, and because “[m]ost of these sites allow you to retain publishing rights, so you can publish the stories again somewhere else” (Montgomery n.p.), authors can publish on multiple websites. One of these might be JukePop, a secondary vehicle through which to create revenue, still without selling content. JukePop, for example, accepts submissions from authors, and “[a]uthors keep readers hooked and tackle their book by releasing it bit by bit, collecting votes to earn rewards each month;” they can also track reader analytics, and learn about their audience in the form of data as well as reader feedback as they work on their book (JukePop n.p.).

The model for authors to adopt is thus a cross-platform, serial publication approach that can generate revenue without selling the content in any way, and without placing ads within the content. Monetary compensation is strictly based on readership and reader donations. What, then, does this spell for authors, their readers, and the traditional publishers that would otherwise have exclusive rights to the work?

Readers continue to purchase print books and ebooks alike from distributors — according to BookNet Canada, 93% of Canadians surveyed read a print book in 2013, and 58% said they read an ebook (Genner n.p.). Alexandra Alter of the Wall Street Journal explains how publishers are attempting to fit serial publications alongside complete print and digital works and struggling to do so, fearing that “digital serials could … be bad for business if they eat away at future print profits—still the biggest revenue source for most publishers” (n.p.). However, traditional publishing models will not die or suffer horribly from authors, not publishers, moving towards crowdfunding and reward based models of serial publication, as the modern reader is capable of “transliteracy,” or the ability to read across many different media channels.

According to the National Endowment for the Arts, “84 percent of adults who read literature (fiction, poetry, or drama) online or downloaded from the Internet also read books, whether print or online” (8), illustrating that people are reading content just about everywhere, in all forms. This fact is good for traditional publishers as well as self-published or crowdfunded authors; through this transliteracy, neither mode of publication is at risk of being edged out by the others in the near future. That publishers find it difficult to commiserate serial publications into their business models is a good opportunity for authors to take control of their own online content, as well as how that content is funded.

Digital serials are presently used by authors as a stepping stone to traditional publication of an entire work, described as “opportunities to make yourself known, which could lead to a book deal with a traditional publisher in the future” (Montgomery n.p.). However, if the author becomes funded through crowdfunding and rewards, then serial publication on its own may be a sustainable alternative to traditional publishing, or even to self-publishing that involves the sale of content.

Publishing unrestricted across platforms and giving readers free access to content is something that can be well marketed on social media. According to Guy Kawasaki, “[o]ne of the most important factors that traditional publishers use to decide whether to acquire a book is the marketing platform of its author,” as they are expected to sustain their social media presence even after landing a contract (n.p.). If publishers expect this of their traditionally published authors, having complete control over one’s own content while maintaining a social media campaign may be more rewarding, as an author isn’t promoting sales: they are promoting reading, and optional funding.

To sustain the readership of a serial publication, social media is an excellent tool if authors are smart about their social media use, and don’t make their readers feel pressured to give money. As Kawasaki explains, “Less than 10 percent of [an author’s] social-media posts should promote [the] book or other commercial endeavors” (n.p.), and if this is done successfully, sharing and discussing the work through these channels enables an author to receive the most feedback, gain readers, and get funded. Some readers will then pledge to the project, while others are content reading, all without feeling obligated; together, they form a valuable readership that the author can respond to, discuss ideas with, and receive funding from those who wish to contribute.

As noted previously, crowdfunding has exploded recently; for instance, Kickstarter’s books-related projects have more than doubled, “from 735 in 2011 to 2064 in 2014” (Bausells n.p.). This increase in growth demonstrates that people are more willing than in previous years to donate to a cause or project online; as third party sites like Kickstarter and Patreon become credible and secure, more people feel compelled to donate. And “[u]sers respond well to projects which offer something a little different” (Bausells n.p.), a positive for free content authors, as crowdfunding is “‘a way to do something a little bit different than just making a book and selling it’” (Atwell, qtd. in Bausells n.p.). For authors, crowdfunding also “‘helps build a community around a project, when it could otherwise be an isolating venture’” (Atwell, wtd. in Bausells n.p.). The relationships built by these communities are direct between author and reader, a valuable resource for the author when crafting an ongoing work.

The gaining popularity of crowdfunding book projects, along with a strong social media presence by the author, creates a successful approach to free content. However, in order to maximize readership and increase traffic and discussion, authors should publish across multiple platforms. As mentioned before, one of these platforms could be JukePop, which is a further source of revenue. Readers may feel that serial works online lack the backing of the traditional publisher’s “gatekeeping role,” but JukePop acts as a gatekeeper of free content, asking for “previously published or unpublished first chapters of original, high-quality popular fiction or non-fiction” for them to vet and accept (n.p.). JukePop is the most exclusionary of free serial platforms, but this act of vetting may help readers feel more positive about online content; in addition, since JukePop, not the reader, is paying the author “[c]ash prizes … if [a] story hits the monthly top 30 in +Votes” (n.p.), this acts as a solid revenue source if an author can gain enough readership, and the readers do not have to worry about supporting the content monetarily.

Of course, both crowdfunding and rewards based on readership would mean that the crux of publishing free content online is the reader. Readers are their own gatekeepers on more open websites that do not vet content, such as Wattpad, and thus readers decide which works are worthwhile, as they read and fund certain projects over others. They then contribute to culture by sharing, quoting, and discussing these free works, creating a more accurate depiction of what the public enjoys, as opposed to publishers’ attempts to predict the market and by vetting publications prior to public viewing.

To summarize, Montgomery describes that a “defining feature of these [free, serial] sites is that writers rely on readers’ endorsements to popularize their work. This isn’t so different from traditional means of publication, in which writers whose works are ‘bestsellers’ become well-known. However, in this case, you have easier to access readers, because the sites remove the middleman between you and the reader. Thus, you can more easily cultivate a base of fans and followers. Of course, the flip side is you are competing with all the other writers on these websites for readers” (n.p.). While her latter statement is true, if an author remains diligent on social media, responds to readers and continues to hold them engaged with regular content, gaining and maintaining an audience across many platforms is not only possible, but successful.

Moving through this model, and what it means for publishers, authors, and readers, there are three important takeaways: that readers continue to prove their ability to read across multiple channels, as data suggests: they purchase books (both print and online), and they also read works for free online, making the serial publication simply another form through which to read content, and not an overarching concern for publishers — if they stick to the traditional print and ebook that they are known for, instead of trying to work serial publications into their business model; that authors need to maintain a strong online presence, both through social media and across multiple serial sites, in order to capture the strongest audience possible; and that readers are the heart of the crowdfunded/rewarded serial publication: they connect directly with the author, they disseminate and engage with the content, and they fund the content either directly through donations, or indirectly through popularity on reward websites like JukePop. Essentially, readers demand content both from print and digital means, and the transliteracy of the 21st century affords authors the ability to make money through the described model — or through the traditional publishing model; transliteracy and the resurgence of serial publications has opened many pathways for authors to generate a readership and a revenue.

Works Cited

    Alter, Alexandra. “The Return of the Serial Novel - WSJ.” Wall Street Journal. n.p., 11 Apr. 2013. Web. 7 Nov. 2015.

    Bausells, Marta. “Kickstarting a Books Revolution: The Literary Crowdfunding Boom.” The Guardian 5 June 2015. The Guardian. Web. 10 Nov. 2015.

    Brattin, Joel. “Project Boz - Dickens & Serial Fiction.” n.p., n.d. Web. 9 Nov. 2015.

    Crowdsourcing.org. “Global Crowdfunding Market to Reach $34.4B in 2015, Predicts Massolution’s 2015CF Industry Report.” n.p., 2015. Web. 9 Nov. 2015.

    Genner, Noah. “Canadian Readers by the Numbers.” BookNet Canada. n.p., 7 Mar. 2014. Web. 9 Nov. 2015.

    JukePop. “JukePop - Discover Free Books, Fiction, Stories and Serials.” n.p., 2015. Web. 9 Nov. 2015.

    ---. “JukePop - Submissions.” N.p., 2015. Web. 10 Nov. 2015.

    JukePop Serials. “How to Start a Web Serial.” JukePop Serials Bloggity. n.p., 30 Oct. 2014. Web. 7 Nov. 2015.

    Karp, Josh. “What Is This Buzz Word ‘Transliteracy’? A Q&A with Ryan Nadel | Spotlight on Digital Media and Learning.” n.p., 25 Oct. 2010. Web. 1 Oct. 2015.

    Kawasaki, Guy. “Guy Kawasaki’s 10 Social Media Tips for Authors.” MediaShift. n.p., 14 Feb. 2013. Web. 10 Nov. 2015.

    Montgomery, Molly. “Serial Online Writing: Literature’s New Frontier?” LitBloom. n.p., 5 May 2014. Web. 7 Nov. 2015.

    National Crowdfunding Association of Canada. “NCFA Canada - Crowdfunding.” n.p., 2015. Web. 9 Nov. 2015.

    Patreon. “Patreon: Support the Creators You Love.” n.p., 2015. Web. 9 Nov. 2015.

Five years ago, Ryan Nadel made the analogy that the endurance of the print book would be like that of the candle’s:

The greatest analogy is to the candle. When electricity was invented, people said no one will use candles anymore. And now there are more candles being made than in the history of the world. They offer ambience and experience, not functionality. I hope the same thing will happen with the book. Its purpose and nature will change.

    Without any scientific backing, I’ll begin by stating that humans are odd creatures. We are inherently progressive, yet our collective obsession with things past, with history, with things that used to be, marks us as what some would call regressive. But sometimes this nature of forward-yet-backward, in a way, enables us to learn and move forward, and to take the best of the past into the future. We can see this “selective nostalgia” in our fashion, our speech patterns, and certainly our technology, as things that have worked in the past are either retained or reborn, while those facets of culture that no longer serve any type of function to the majority fall away into history. As time gets older, we naturally have more choice: more new things, and consequently, more old things.

    People are quick to assume the old technology will always be superceded or replaced, as “every time there’s a new medium, everyone says the old one will disappear” (Nadel n.p.). We can see that, as with TV not replacing radio, or the phone not replacing face-to-face interactions, new media do not necessarily facilitate the erasure of old media. Rather, the roles of old media shift and continue to serve a purpose unique enough to stand up alongside newer technologies. Through this essay, I will explore the degree to which books are currently holding up against their digital counterparts, and compare this to the endurance of the candle throughout the invention and widespread adoption of electricity.

    Outside of any analogy, candles are a good example of an object’s shift in role, as with the introduction and implementation of electricity for use in homes, beginning in the 1870s and moving through until the 1930s, these older ways of lighting were in danger of becoming needless. However, people still used them for special occasions and in the case of power failure, a role in which they are still necessary today. Despite this shift to a necessity in case of the failure of electrical lighting, candles are not an object reserved only for emergency kits. As the Association of European Candle Makers explains, “with the arrival of electricity, the candle had lost its place as a light source. It received however a new role: the one of creating an atmosphere, a romantic feel and warmth.” In other words, candles have continued to be used when unnecessary, simply because they provide a unique atmosphere that electric light cannot capture.
    
    By the numbers, candle sales are “roughly $2.3 billion a year” in the United States; they escalated in popularity in the 1990s, when they became part of home decor. Their sales grew at 10% or more each year until the 2000s, where they flattened out, likely due to recession. However, “the market for luxury candles is sparking overall growth” currently, with social media aiding sales (Houston Chronicle). The industry is a small one (comparatively, the computer industry has sales of $86 billion per year), but it is a stable one, with online sales and social media trends helping to continue the candle’s popularity.

    The invention of ebooks and ereaders is much more recent than that of electricity, and the long history of the print book comparable to that of the candle; despite the newness of one technology compared to the other, print books and candles still have much in common. The shifting of the candle’s role in society is indicative of an endurance shared by print. By 1999, Simon and Schuster had launched its own ebook imprint, becoming the first trade publisher to publish both in digital and print. In this same year, Dick Brass of Microsoft “predicted that by 2018, 90% of all books sold would be ebooks.” 2018 is now less than three years away, and the numbers are far less drastic. The print book is an enduring force, capturing 89% of sales in 2013 within Canada (BookNet Canada 11). Conversely, BookNet found that “approximately 17% of unit sales in English-speaking Canada in 2013 were in a digital format” - these and the print statistics won’t correlate, as BookNet Canada’s SalesData service does not track particular ebook sales in Canada (BookNet Canada 1).

    Regardless, the popularity of print books over digital is clear. Despite being more popular than digital, the printed book has still had to shift positions in order to thrive. When print books were all we had, they didn’t need to be anything else. Much like the candle, they were just what people purchased in order to accomplish a specific desire (lighting a home or reading a book). Now, print books are not the only form available for consuming stories, and this has caused them to shift into less of a need (if you want to read a story) and more of a preference through which to read that story.

    If candles and print books both fit into their respective industries by being a preference drawn on for specific instances, then how do they compare within this role, and to what degree are they different (both as an object, and a preferred vehicle)? Largely, the two are comparable because they offer sensory qualities which digital and electronic technologies do not.

    Although textual scholar Jerome McGann was describing books when he argues for the importance of bibliographical codes, the same logic can be applied to the candle. A bibliographical code is the importance of the physical object, or container, in which one encounters a text. McGann argues that these physical codes, or the “physique of the document,” are essential to analyzing or encountering a literary work (77). The same can be said for lighting. Depending on the object, or container, which is emitting the light, a person will have varying responses to it. The candle creates a unique environment that evokes a separate sensory response than electricity: candles can have a scent, their light is inconstant and usually less bright than a light bulb, and the object of candle itself is unique, being often of different colours and shapes.

    The creation of a unique environment by the candle makes for a completely different, and immersive, reading experience, as Stuart Kelly of the Guardian explains: “[reading by candlelight] had a curious and lovely intensity. I had to re-read sentences as the light played, and pause to angle the book and catch the shifting shine. The words themselves seemed less fixed and self-evident, as if you could read the same sentence countless different ways just by tipping the book forwards and back.” The regularity of electric lighting can’t offer the constantly changing environment of a candle burning, which forces the reader to adapt.

    The candle has a duality to its bibliographical codes: while creating a unique environment, it is also itself a unique object. The book, comparatively, is the aesthetic, and the unique environment in which a text lives, and the shape, smell, and feel of the book have an impact on a reader’s experience. There is, as Nadel states, a “power of the artifact inherit [sic] in these objects, a notion that is changing drastically as bits and bytes replace ink and pages.” In other words, each book produces becomes an object unique to the person who owns it; one can write in the margins, inscribe their name, rough up the book, or keep it pristine.

    The web restricts this uniqueness: rejects the idea of each person being freely able to manipulate a separate physical object. True, there are ways to highlight and annotate within the digital realm, but the intangibility of technology currently plays second fiddle to the weight and multiple sensory aspects of a book. As Nadel asks, “when we turn a digital page, what happens? It disappears.” Any qualities of the page being read leave behind no weight as it is replaced by the next. The multiple sensory aspects of candles, as I mentioned above, and their visible temporality (wax drips as the candle is used up) also mark them out as unique in comparison to the constant, regulated lighting of electricity, which offers only a last dimming sputter as a gauge by which to tell it is dying. Why is uniqueness important? Because it is the primary property through which print books and candles have an advantage over the technology.

    Despite the similarities mentioned above, the candle and print book do differ as products.  The future of the book, for example, is not necessarily only as an object of atmosphere, as the candle is, but as a preferred vehicle through which to read long-form. An ebook, with its “shininess and … insistent beaming” mark it out as “something radically other than a book,” something which, with constant light streaming up while reading, makes it difficult to focus on for the length of a novel, or without the distraction of checking Facebook. As Stuart Kelly acknowledged, using candlelight as a sole light source for an extended period of time creates a unique condition in which the reader (or person doing any task requiring light) must adjust themselves in order to capture the best lighting possible, as well as to avoid mishap in not knocking over the candle, or to prevent “the book and the candle [from] meet[ing] in an intense but short-lived mutual understanding.” Electricity, in this case, provides more regulated lighting that can be preferential when reading (although, natural light is better, but that’s another essay).

    Physical properties of the two objects aside, the largest contrast between the two can be found by dissecting Nadel’s analogy. While I agree that the book, like the candle, offers a unique atmosphere incomparable to that of electric or digital means, I currently disagree in the extension of the analogy; that is, that the print book will become an object without functionality, and only offer atmosphere and experience. Candles have denigrated to only offering functionality in cases of no power; otherwise, Nadel is correct: they exist only because people continue to prefer them in certain cases where they want to create a specific environment.

    Past this, electricity is by and large the more popular mode of lighting a space (Consider the U.S. and Canada when clicking the link). Print books, by contrast to the candle, are currently the predominant method of reading in Canada, with sales still holding more than half the market at 79% in 2015. Although this is a 10% drop in sales from 2013, as referenced above, ebook sales in Canada are the same as that year, still at 17%.

    Print books are proving that they have a functionality, even as they shift to a preference rather than a necessity, and unlike the candle, are still on top in their sector. Consumers, for now, are largely preferring print. Who is to say, though, that ten years from now, these statistics will be reversed? Only if this does occur, will I fully agree with Nadel’s analogy; for the print book, like the candle, will continue to be a preferred mode of experience, enabling its continued production and consumption. When this ultimate shift will occur - and if it even will - can only be speculated. The candle stands as a good example of an enduring, older technology; many times over the years, it has had the possibility of being snuffed out by battery power, electricity, and other forms of artificial light. Yet, the power of the candle as an object through which to produce atmosphere still holds, and the industry is a stable one. The endurance of the candle over so many years aids in illustrating the future of the print book in publishing, to a degree: it won't become marginalized, but will operate alongside the technology as a continual preferred mode of the delivery of text. Where the numbers will end up is anyone's guess, but the print book will continue to serve a purpose and engage readers with its function as a unique container. 

Sources

“Access to Electricity (% of Population) | Data | Table.” N.p., n.d. Web. 6 Oct. 2015.

“Candle Use from a Light Source to Atmosphere Lighting - AECM Association European Candle Makers.” N.p., n.d. Web. 6 Oct. 2015.

“Ebook Timeline.” The Guardian 3 Jan. 2002. The Guardian. Web. 5 Oct. 2015.

“Facts & Figures.” National Candle Association. N.p., n.d. Web. 6 Oct. 2015.

“Lighting A Revolution: 19th Century Consequences.” N.p., n.d. Web. 5 Oct. 2015.

“The History of Electricity – A Timeline |.” N.p., 13 February 2007. Web. 6 Oct. 2015.

BookNet Canada. “BNC Research : The Canadian Book Market 2013 :: SFU Library Licensed Material.” N.p., n.d. Web. 6 Oct. 2015.

Karp, Josh. “What Is This Buzz Word ‘Transliteracy’? A Q&A with Ryan Nadel | Spotlight on Digital Media and Learning.” N.p., 25 October 2010. Web. 1 Oct. 2015.

Kelly, Stuart. “The Illuminations of Reading by Candlelight.” The Guardian 6 Jan. 2012. The Guardian. Web. 6 Oct. 2015.

McGann, Jerome. “The Socialization of Texts.” The Textual Condition. Princeton: Princeton UP, 1991. 39-46. Print.

Nadel, Ryan. “The Book as Artifact | The Mark News.” N.p., 20 January 2011. Web. 22 Sept. 2015.

Shaw, Holly. “E-Book Sales Are Flattening, but Does That Mean the Technology Is Dying as Consumers Unplug? | Financial Post.” N.p., 15 July 2015. Web. 6 Oct. 2015.

White, Terry. “How Big Is the Candle Industry? | Chron.com.” N.p., n.d. Web. 6 Oct. 2015.

Zisko, Allison. “CANDLE SALES BURN BRIGHTLY; SCENTED AND WHIMSICAL STYLES DRIVE BUSINESS. - Free Online Library.” N.p., 5 July 1999. Web. 1 Oct. 2015.