Dressed to impress

The Shirky Principle For Writers

“Institutions will try to preserve the problem to which they are the solution.” — Clay Shirky

This statement, popularly known as the Shirky Principle, is one of those obvious truths which many (including myself) fail to grasp clearly until someone spells it out. The unspoken consequence of the principle is that these institutions eventually collapse once the problem is solved.

I first came across this principle in Publishers Weekly’s interview with Clay Shirky (Here Comes Clay Shirky). Since then, I’ve read many other posts and articles on the subject and I think there are several writing/publishing truths embedded in the discussion.

The lessons for publishers and booksellers are the most straightforward. They are the institutions in the principle and the problem they solve and perpetuate is that of inefficient distribution for writers.  In a brilliant post (The Collapse of Complex Systems) on his blog, Mr. Shirky posits that these institutions fail to adapt in the face of extinction not because they don’t want to, but because they are unable to. They have formed such a strong symbiosis with the problem that they cannot disengage.

The days when it takes forty agents, editors, marketers, accountants, bookbuyers and booksellers to get a finished novel from the author’s hands to the readers hands are numbered. The days when a traditionally published book justifies it’s high cost of production (as compared to a self published one) with significant improvements are numbered (because self published books are getting better). Publishers and booksellers must be smaller, more efficient, more flexible. Change or die and if Mr. Shirky is right, change is impossible.

Literary agents (institution) rose to prominence helping writers navigate the potentially treacherous waters of the publishing industry (problem). In a reformed publishing industry, the agent’s role is greatly diminished. No need to scour contracts for hidden rights giveaways, no deciphering of complex sales records from publishers etc. If the industry was easy to navigate, agent’s would be out of their jobs and so they have little incentive to fight for large reforms on behalf of their clients. The institution is now part of the problem.

The New York Times, The New Yorker, Harpers, Iowa Writer’s Workshop, these bastions of the literary establishment exist (as far as books are concerned) to shepherd readers to the best of literary culture. Yet, the majority of readers shy away from their (overly literary?) recommendations and flock instead to the Pattersons and Roberts of the world. These institutions are now part of the problem (finding what to read) and the reduction in book coverage among newspapers and magazines is a symptom of consumers solving the problem in another way (word of mouth).

What is the takeaway from all this? Perhaps there needs to be some separation between writers collectively and the rest of the industry. If we are too intertwined with our current distribution, and if our current distribution is determined to perpetuate inefficient distribution, we risk not being able to disengage when our current distribution eventually falters.

What say you of the Shirky Principle?

Related Posts:

1. Belligerent Writers and Deaf Publishers: The Stalemate
2. Writers and Agents: The Tough Questions
3. A Way To Help Readers Discover New Writers
4. A Reformed Publishing Industry: What Does It Look Like?
5. The Death of Young Adult Fiction.