The moneymakers need to have a brand name for everything, and that leads to the promotion of an "auteur" who is held up as the source of all good things.
An article I read recently that fascinated me recently, called What Is the Business of Literature? (http://www.vqronline.org/articles/2013/spring/nash-business-literature/?utm_source=Daily+Newsletter&utm_campaign=60c6d96fda-Newsletter&utm_medium=email), made that very point, that the author is historically a construct created for commercial reasons. The whole article is worth reading because the author argues very astutely that publishing is far from dead, and rather the game has changed because of lower entry barriers including plummeting publishing costs. I think his conclusion is sound, that publishing needs to be the business of creating culture rather than moving manufactured products. The question still remains, though--how should literature generate value, and therefore revenue?
I think markets in creativity like the one you're envisioning could be one answer. If we recognize that creation isn't the purview of a few gifted individuals who are set apart from the mass of humanity, but rather something that exists throughout society, and that it's collaborative and even collective in nature, the resistance to the idea of buying creative components would probably decrease. The author could still be useful as a brand name that brings recognition and controls risk, as in your example of Stephen King, but it needs to be recognized as such--a means to a commercial end. New commercial realities requires new constructs, and maybe some deconstruction, too.
no subject
An article I read recently that fascinated me recently, called What Is the Business of Literature? (http://www.vqronline.org/articles/2013/spring/nash-business-literature/?utm_source=Daily+Newsletter&utm_campaign=60c6d96fda-Newsletter&utm_medium=email), made that very point, that the author is historically a construct created for commercial reasons. The whole article is worth reading because the author argues very astutely that publishing is far from dead, and rather the game has changed because of lower entry barriers including plummeting publishing costs. I think his conclusion is sound, that publishing needs to be the business of creating culture rather than moving manufactured products. The question still remains, though--how should literature generate value, and therefore revenue?
I think markets in creativity like the one you're envisioning could be one answer. If we recognize that creation isn't the purview of a few gifted individuals who are set apart from the mass of humanity, but rather something that exists throughout society, and that it's collaborative and even collective in nature, the resistance to the idea of buying creative components would probably decrease. The author could still be useful as a brand name that brings recognition and controls risk, as in your example of Stephen King, but it needs to be recognized as such--a means to a commercial end. New commercial realities requires new constructs, and maybe some deconstruction, too.