The Future of Digital Fiction: An Interview with Platypus Press & Anomaly

Sarah Clark: How have you seen technology impact fiction over the past several years?

Michelle Tudor: I think there are two areas: innovation and access. Regarding innovation, it seems that the publishing industry is really starting to understand what technology can offer fiction. Two recent examples of this that spring to mind are the beautiful and creative use of the online canvas in Joanna Walsh’s Seed, and Michael Salu’s discussion on the art of the ‘moving book cover.’

From another perspective, technology has enabled a greater variety of voices to be heard. With more and more online journals and collectives creating spaces for fiction, they help create new and exciting ways for many — who would previously have been unable to — to be seen and heard. As Tiana Clark said in a recent VIDA interview (but it applies across the board): “the biggest impact I value about social media is the democratic access to literature and other writers.”

Specifically for us, our shorts series means we can publish stories individually that would typically have only been part of an anthology. Also, more rapidly: in theory we could receive a story, edit and proof it, and then have it on a reader’s device within days.

Sarah: Where do you see the future of digital lit going?

Michelle: I still think the potential is there for it to completely replace physical media, I just don’t believe it’s likely to happen anytime soon. Either way, as a company, we love working with both, we prefer to let the content and form of a work determine whether it will become a singular physical or digital artefact, or some different combination of the two.

Related to this, we have just launched a Kickstarter campaign to enable us to create a physical version of our journal wildness to run alongside the online version. We feel that both mediums can flow back and forth between each other, informing and developing a language between the two. At the moment, there is still a demand for physical objects, so until the time comes when digital is the norm (similar to what has happened with video vs streaming) then we’ll continue to support both.

What digital does allow for is experimentation, and the ability to combine different mediums (art, video, audio, word) to produce new forms and methods of storytelling. And, whilst I feel the written word as an insular art form will continue and thrive, I believe (and am grateful) that the art of storytelling can only broaden going forward.

Sarah: There’s been much discussion about how to create sustainable, equitable forms of publishing in the past years. Can you tell me a little more about how this series, and other Platypus projects, help to keep fiction accessible while compensating authors?

Michelle: As a press we have always believed what we do is a shared venture with our writers, and because of this we use a 50/50 royalty split on all paid-for PP projects.

With shorts, specifically, we wanted to be able to publish short fiction in the same way championed by Amazon (Singles) and Ploughshares (Solos) — the name an obvious nod. Using a digital service felt like a much better fit for long-form storytelling. Regarding accessibility, we feel that $1.25 for a 20–30 page story is a fair price, and if the series gained a large-enough readership it could generate a more than reasonable amount for our writers (and of course enable the press to invest even more in the future).

I’m not going to lie though, for a small press at least, creating a sustainable model for writers is extremely difficult, especially when there are so few outlets for promoting the short-form. We’ve even attempted to create our own (albeit small) answer to this issue with our Wilds series of mini-reviews. It is, however, not an area that is being invested in by the larger publications, which is a shame, as there’s so much good short writing being produced at the moment.

Sarah: What are your thoughts on the future of creative solutions for compensating authors?

Michelle: The biggest problem we see going forward is the ever diminishing pool of money available to publishers. The digital landscape has had both a positive and negative affect on this: it has created a way to reach innumerable readers, but, similarly, many people who are unwilling or unable (which is a different discussion entirely) to compensate writers for their creative endeavours. I’m not entirely sure how or if we can change that mindset, so it will be left — as it is traditionally — to grants and funding to provide publishers and creators the finances to continue producing new material.

Sarah: Do you see readers playing a role in helping to keep small presses running, while compensating writers? What can readers do to help the literary community, besides buying books and subscriptions?

Michelle: The obvious things still matter: reviews, either through the usual places like Amazon, Goodreads, and larger literary organisations, but also, and this is becoming increasingly important, via social media. Even if it’s as simple as a picture on Instagram, or a link and a “I enjoyed this!” on Twitter, simply giving a positive comment can mean a great deal to a writer and small press.

Honestly, the majority of small presses are scraping by, and depend entirely on their readers to create a sustainable environment for both themselves and their writers. Obviously no one expects to make a fortune at the lower end of the publishing industry, at least not intentionally, but if they were able to keep running, to keep publishing, to keep putting these necessary voices out into the world, then that would remove some of the pressure from the process. Community, as ever, is key.

Sarah: Have you noticed any differences in publishing (or promotional) models throughout the world? Are there any lessons to be learned from each other?

Michelle: Not particularly. We’re, perhaps intentionally, entrenched in the online world and so not well placed to discuss the differences in real-world promotions — though we are going to be in Portland around AWP time next year, so we may have a better idea after that!

Online, most places seem to operate similarly, it feels like everyone’s out there hustling, poking their head up to get what attention they can, and generally learning from each other. I think that’s the one unifying thing about the majority of small publishers, they’re extremely supportive of each other — no matter the geographical location. The support between them is one of the many positives we’ve taken over the past three years of publishing.

Read more: Platypus Press | wildness | Kickstarter | the Wilds | shorts

Michelle Tudor is a writer and editor from England. She is the co-founder and editor of Platypus Press and the literary journal wildness.