Finding Our Defiance
Henry Baum made a post, The Last Stigmas of Self-Publishing. In it, he mentions the reason he feels that indie authors are not as accepted as indie musicians having to do with the reading experience as more personal, whereas the musical experience is more communal. I definitely agree that that’s part of it, but I also think it’s more about defiance.
Indie music started with punk and alternative rock type music. Types of music like… industrial, and grunge. These forms of music were by their very nature, defiant. As were the musicians who created the music. In fact the entire subculture, the musicians, the music, the fans, was set up in such a way that it naturally lended itself to independence. Being anti-establishment was trendy and cool. Although the musicians might have denied needing this type of validation, nevertheless they had it from many of their peers, because what they were doing was “cool” and in the spirit of rock.
Writers are a different beast altogether. While there are certainly very outgoing and social writers, most writers by their very nature are more inward in their life journey. As people, writers tend to highly value the opinions and acceptance of others. Many require the validation of other writers and of publishing professionals, as much or more than they require the validation of the readers themselves.
Writers for the most part just aren’t that defiant. As a group, writers are very submissive to the will of the status quo. They want to be “accepted” and “validated.” They want someone else outside themselves to tell them they are worthy and to bring their book into the world to prove it. We as writers can be a very emotionally needy lot. Far moreso than the punk artists who said “Fuck you, I’m doing my thing my way. Let’s make our own label.”
There seems to be an inborn masochism in many writers that validates the experience of suffering itself. For some reason in the writing culture, it’s more “valid” to toil away in obscurity for fifty years before receiving your first publishing contract, than it is to just publish your own work and take it directly to the people.
What must change in order for self publishing to become embraced isn’t only increasing technology and quality, but attitude. We must find the defiant among us and embrace that quality about ourselves. We have to be the punk artists of the written word and blaze a trail for other less defiant writers to travel down in the future, when the fear of social writerly reprisal isn’t as great as the opportunity ahead of them.
zoewinters
Moriah Jovan
R.J. Keller
robinaltman
Evangeline
alanbaxter
In a way we also have to redefine what it means to be writer. In the spirit of “anyone can learn 3 cords and form a rock band”I’d say that most of the writers with the punk spirit are already writing, but they are writing blogs.
But you don’t write a blog the same way you write a novel, just as you don’t make a YouTube video the same way you make a Hollywood blockbuster movie.
Just as cinema didn’t disappear when TV came along, so the printed book won’t just fade into oblivion because everyone is writing for the web. But the status of having a printed book published will change and the status of doing it your own way on your own blog will grow.
Must fight urge to turn into music snob . . .
I really don’t like the punk analogy that so many bloggers have been trying to make lately. The only possible connection that I can think of (and Declan Stanley, above, refers to this) is the DIY aspect. Unfortunately, too many bloggers seem to miss this connection, instead calling punk an “experimental” form of music. Punk was NEVER experimental — just the opposite! Punk was a back-to-basics reaction against the prog rock of the early 70s. It’s the simplicity of punk that made it so attractive to a lot of young musicians thirty years ago.
Bah! OK, I’ll stop writing now lest this turn into a long rant.
Thank you for your comments, Declan!
JM please don’t rant at me. I don’t believe I said once that punk was an “experimental” form of music. (though when you get down to it, all art is experimental, but I won’t belabor that point.)
Though, if you want to go with the “punk was a back-to basics reaction against prog rock…”
Then we could tie it into the publishing issue by saying that indie publishing was the original form of book publishing and that the current indie publishing is a reaction against overly corporatized publishing in NY and other major cities.
So, IMO the punk analogy is pretty strong. Your mileage may vary.
Hi Zoe – I don’t think I want to defiant – but I sure want to be adventurous! I want to try every form of publishing and get the word out in whatever way is available! Maybe we can redefine indie as more pioneering than rebellious!
Thanks, Joanna
Hey Joanna, I think each indie has to define for themselves what it means. For some a rebellious spirit is what motivates them, for some a pioneering spirit, but whenever you break away from the status quo, there is an element of rebellion inherent. Rebellion need not be seen as a negative thing…after all it was the rebellion of the early American settlers that created a free nation.
I also think that indie publishing and trad publishing are just two different paths. The only reason indies have to “rebel” against trad publishing at all, is because many people on the trad publishing side of the fence can’t deal with anyone publishing independently. I’ve seen large amounts of webspace and printspace devoted to slamming self publishing. Why? What’s the point? Why is it so offensive to some people when others choose to do things differently from them?
Most self publishing rants against trad publishing are in direct reaction to attacks against them in the first place.
Rebellion is all a matter of perspective. I consider myself in some ways rebelling, but if the “gatekeepers’ of the publishing world and those that follow them hadn’t set themselves up as the “one true way,” there would be nothing for me to rebel against. I’d still do things my way, but no one would think I was wrong for doing it.
Zoe: No, you didn’t call punk experimental. Props to you for that. But it’s something that I’ve seen a few times in the current trend of Self-Publishing = Punk Rock essays.
As with so many things, I’m a purist when it comes to punk rock. As far as I’m concerned, there has only been one punk rock album ever made: “Never Mind the Bollocks” by the Sex Pistols. Sure, some bands have come close to the “f-you” spirit of that album (Fear, Daisy Chainsaw, for example) but as far as I’m concerned punk began and ended with that album.
Who’s gonna go on Oprah and do this:
JM, I have that album by the Sex Pistols.
I think writers are, often, very hidebound (bad pun intended). Now, I’ll admit to being too young (woohoo!) to fully understand the original indie music movement. But it seems to me that they discarded a lot of forms, expectations and formats in order to get to what they really wanted to play and communicate.
I see a lot of writers, in contrast, who still do things primarily ‘by the book’ even when they’re self-publishing. They’re not exploring new technology, new delivery options, new publicity methods. They’re producing traditional paper-based books and maybe PDFs, and selling them. It’s all rather safe and, frankly, kinda boring…
That said, I can’t exactly point to my legions of fans and smugly tell you that I’m obviously doing it right. *grin* I just wish I’d come across more new ideas and concepts in self-publishing which would make me yell, “WOW!” instead of yawning and clicking onto something vaguely interesting.
Hey Naomi,
What about podcasting? A lot of indies have podcasted their novels and that’s something that’s not the same old same old.
But I think you’re right that a lot of indies are just sticking to tried and true methods. And I think it’s because many are still very tied into the idea of being accepted by the mainstream publishing people. Either by getting a NY contract, or by just being “validated.” The farther afield you go of the mainstream the less chance you have of being validated by it.
I know a lot of indie authors would stomp their feet and scream about me saying that, that they don’t need no stinkin’ NY publisher. And while for many that’s true, for some I think they still deep down want that, or at least the validation that would come with it. I’m not sure most indies are really ready to break totally free of the idea of NY as an end goal. (which there’s nothing wrong with that per se, but it might be part of why they cling)
Mmm, podcasting, true. On that topic, I came across this recently – http://content.yudu.com/Library/A159jf/AvantoureMarchApril2/resources/22.htm
Maybe I’m being unfair, but I figure if the BBC’s doing it, it might not be ‘cutting edge’ anymore …
Zoe, I think you might have a point on the NY dream, and the traditional validation. Or maybe it’s related, for some, in that ‘success’ follows the trad model – a novel that people pay for.
bwahahahaha Naomi @ “if BBC’s doing it, it might not be ‘cutting edge’ anymore…”
Yeah, and I’m certainly not “against” the concept of making money. Nor am I “against” indies who still want a NY contract at some point. Hell, if the offer was good, I’d at least entertain it, but… I think there is a difference in that, and still having everything emotionally invested in that.
Still not “wrong” if that’s what people want, but I think it makes people want to “toe the line” as much as possible. Lest some agent or publisher later rebuff them.
>>>I know a lot of indie authors would stomp their feet and scream about me saying that, that they don’t need no stinkin’ NY publisher.
And you know, Zoe, that would be *me*.
But guess what? Every year *hundreds* of such writers are *created* by the “stinkin’ NY publishers,” as their next books aren’t picked up or canceled.
And for every writer who has their rights reverted — that’s an *instant* FTW. That’s a book that’s *already* been *professionally* edited and can be revived via e (another reason to Opt-Out of the criminal Google Settlement).
I see dissension in the punk analogy. I won’t touch that one now. Perhaps another time.
“Writers tend to highly value the opinions and acceptance of others…”
Nah, I think a lot of us write because we can imagine a world other than this one. Sometimes it’s done as a reaction, as a “fuck you”, but that’s not sustainable over a whole career. Responses from the world come so seldom in the process of writing books; that would be a pretty lousy and non-renewable source of fuel.
A lot of us are DIY publishing because putting work out for an audience marks the completion of the creative act. It might start as a reaction, but our readers have nothing to do with the publishing industry, so if you’re motivated solely by a “Fuck the man!” obsession with traditional publishing, your appeal is going to be pretty narrow, and, like much of punk, will have all the substance and charm of a temper tantrum.
I like Joanna’s take, that we think of ourselves as “pioneering”. Being rebellious or trying to overcome stigmas is, at the core, still all about traditional publishing, and places our self-worth “over there” in someone else’s hands.
“They want someone else outside themselves to tell them they are worthy and to bring their book into the world to prove it.”
I disagree. This statement is antithetical to the indie/DIY spirit, which insists that we believe our efforts have worth and merit of themselves. The less I concern myself with “the big people”, the further I go in my own publishing efforts and in encouraging others to do the same, the more I see my press as completely its own thing. At first it was a second-best, but I’ve had lots of editors and agents say they like my work but can’t take it on because it’s not a guaranteed sale and because I’m not already famous or chosen by another publisher, so I get that traditional publishing is just about money. And that’s fine. They’re businesses, not charities. They have to do what works for them (or fail at it because their measures are skewed by applying industrial processes to creative products). But that’s not my business.
This, what I’m doing, is something different. I try to avoid reading all the industry-based stuff the self-publishing blogs and indie publishers often obsess themselves with because I think it’s irrelevant, and a source of unnecessary angst. There’s a breakaway point where we stop going back and reading up on what traditional publishing thinks or is trying to make of indie publishing, the same way you stop re-re-re-reading old letters from an ex and later in life find yourself in a healthy, much more satisfying relationship.
This.
I believe she means those writers who stay on the query/reject/resubmit hamster wheel for decades, in which case I would have to agree. There’s too much venom out there from people for whom A) the system is working and B) the system is hoped fervently to work for this not to be the case.
I, like Zoe, am bemused at the amount of time and energy and space given to trashing self-publishing, but, Hamish, like you, I don’t tend to read a whole lot of it. It’s just not relevant to my worldview of publishing being the completion of the act of creation.
Gotcha. I wasn’t aware there was this much negativity still being directed at self-publishing. If that’s the case, I understand what Zoe’s getting at with this post. It makes sense that an industry whose value is mostly in the past would put up a fight.
I guess it’s like activism: us “free riders” derive the benefit from the work done by earlier agitators. And just when you think the struggle and the animosity are in the past, you get a reminder that it isn’t over yet. Of course, it doesn’t help when the media are stuck in the “conflict is story” model.
But, as in my personal life, I’m not interested in being an activist or in-your-face rebel. I just want to do my own thing and hope that some change comes from the “charm offensive”.
LOL Mike!
Hamish, you misunderstand me, I don’t “write” as a “fuck you.” I don’t even really indie publish as “fuck you.” But if someone has a problem with my indie publishing, then my attitude is pretty much “fuck you,” because how I choose to publish is no one’s business but my own really and shouldn’t be up for public debate.
As for writers really being concerned about what others think of them, especially in the trad publishing circles… If you don’t see that, all I can say is, we know diff people, because I see it everywhere, the almost desperate begging for others to see them as a “real writer” and validate them and their dreams with a trad publishing contract.
Just because every single solitary writer on the planet isn’t like this, doesn’t mean there isn’t an inordinately large amount of writers like this. And the existence of so many writers like this is part of the reason, IMO, that indie authors are not seen in the same ways as indie musicians…yet. So it is an issue. And it does have to do with the need for some defiance.
I also didn’t say I was motivated by “fuck the man!” This is only “one” aspect of this entire thing, one tiny puzzle piece and one very “in general” issue about attitudes of indie writers “in general” vs. indie musicians “in general.” It was never meant to be an opus about how every indie writer feels or should feel, nor was it about primary motivation.
The motivations to do anything among human beings are very often multi-faceted, but without having some level of defiance, most indies would not be indie, because they wouldn’t be able to break away from the trad mold and the path that would more easily lead them to mainstream acceptance. I really wasn’t trying to be that controversial here. You almost have to have a “fuck you” attitude at some point with some people in order to indie publish, or else you have to pretty much avoid most people on the trad publishing path or their cheerleaders.
Because most indies who in any way associate with anyone in any way involved with trad publishing, will at some point meet some social resistance on the issue. And indies have to be strong enough people to say: “This is what I want to do, I’m not publishing to please you.” If you imagine that I really say “fuck you” to most of the people who have given me shit over being indie, then LOL. It’s just a blog post.
Also, the reason I don’t use the word “pioneering” is because I feel personally that pioneering is a word that other people use to describe people. When someone self-describes that way, right or wrong, IMO it looks pretentious. If I ran around calling myself pioneering I can imagine the eye-rolls right now.
When I was talking about writers wanting other people to validate them or tell them they are worthy, I was not talking about everyone. Nor was I primarily speaking of indies. I don’t think I’m “unworthy.” I have many of the same attitudes you do regarding indie publishing. (from your comments)
But I’m left wondering whose blog post you read, because it doesn’t really feel like it was mine.
Hamish:
You’d be surprised how much negativity is out there. And it’s not just from the “establishment,” which would be perfectly understandable. A lot of animosity comes from unpublished writers who don’t have a stake in maintaining the publishing industry’s status quo. It’s very baffling.
You can try it for yourself. Try posting a comment in some wannabe author’s blog suggesting that self-publishing can be a legitimate form of publication. You might receive a response like this:
(That’s real, by the way.)
Hey Mojo, that’s exactly what I meant. Thank you. And like you, I no longer read that much whining about self publishing, unless someone just sends me a link to something. But this blog post wasn’t really about “me.” It was about general attitudes toward indie authors vs. indie musicians and the culture surrounding writing “in general,” and how those “cultural differences” create less acceptance for indie authors than musicians. That is all.
I certainly do not personally spend much of my time anymore obsessing over what people think of what I’m doing. BUT, I believe it’s a stage that most indie authors have to go through. I did go through it very heavily in the beginning. There was a lot of angst in the beginning. I think just because many of us are personally moving past that, doesn’t mean it’s not an issue for new indies coming in.
Good point, JM, while there is some negativity from mainstream publishers, editors, and agents, and trad published authors, most of the venom seems to come from unpublished trad author wannabe’s. I find it just as bizarre as you do.
I think that’s really the frustrating part. Is that most indie authors unless they hang JUST with other indie authors, pretty much have to live in the closet, because you go hang in regular writer forums and mention you self publish, and it’s like the forum goes to terror level orange. Few people can go, “Oh really? Well that’s cool. My agent is shopping my book with Avon.”
If other writers could do that, just respect that we’re doing things differently from them, it wouldn’t be nearly as much of an issue. But you really have to sequester yourself in your own little indie author enclave, or be in the closet about your publishing methods unless you want to debate the issue endlessly with people.
Sometimes it’s fun to play the role of Peter, though. And to be honest, I do want to see Old Publishing die out. But Rome wasn’t destroyed in a day, and if I have to crucified a few times, then I guess that is what has to happen.
Hey Hamish,
I’m sorry I didn’t see your second post, you were really addressing Mojo there, but I just wanted to say thanks for that. And believe it or not, I don’t want to go out and be a big ‘rebel’ either, lol. It’s exhausting. Hell, constant arguing is exhausting. I’m tired just from responding to blog posts and am reminded why I took a 2 month long hiatus.
Not sure what the solution is for me. Clearly I say things that people intepret in such a way as to be really argumentative, and then I feel compelled to keep replying because I don’t feel what I’m saying is being heard sometimes.
It’s not that I mind people disagreeing with me, I don’t. I just want to be disagreed with on my actual points, lol. And often I feel like I spend more time trying to express what I was actually saying than anything else.
And maybe that’s a communication issue on my part. But I’m not sure how to express myself as myself without causing this issue, unless I water it down and politically correct it up to the point my entire meaning is lost. Then someone would take issue with that I’m sure, lol.
Thanks for the clarification, Zoe. I guess what hit a nerve in the original post was what I inferred you were saying writers are like — a group of soft, needy reassurance-seekers, when my experience of career writers is that they’re a bloody-minded, persistent lot.
I wrote my comment partly as a reaction to that, and partly to articulate for myself what my position on DIY publishing is, because it’s coming up more often now that I’ve started putting out podcasts for would-be “DIY Book” makers. With some distance, and reading your addendum… yeah, I think we’re on the same page.
I haven’t really had much to do with traditional publishing, and the published writers I know haven’t had such a glowy time of things (one, my friend Jim from NoMediaKings.org, quite vocally returned to indie-dom after being published by Harper-Collins and finding the experience anathema to him)… so I guess I never had the chance to develop any illusions about it.
I’ve also made a conscious effort to not seek out industry material or people online, and to un-follow those self-proclaimed indies who do nothing but re-post links to industry tips and leads and guides. Invariably there’s something in there that’s offensive — such as one generally friendly literary agent recently unthinkingly referring to non-commercially published authors “hobbyists”, not even aware that he’s conflating “industry sees profit potential” with “worth reading”.
I haven’t sought out online writer forums for this same reason — preferring to just get on with it rather than sit in the stands talking about the game or having to endure bouts of lesbian hobbit vampire fanfiction. I didn’t realise there was this level of animosity about self-publishing. I have, however, been disappointed at being asked by writers at book fairs “So when do you become a real writer?” (as soon as you’ve written something, I figure) or them not understanding that the only difference between a micropress and a publishing house is the amount of money involved.
And, yeah, I’m tired of lay-people who have no stake in the industry asking “So are you famous?”, “Have you written any best-sellers?”, or “Are you rich?” without realising that this is like me asking them if they’re the most famous bank teller (or whatever) in the world and asking how much they make a year. Somehow they absorb all they hear about publishing from the media, which means all they know is about contests, money, sales lists, and celebrities.
So, yes, it does take resilience to stand up to this, but less and less as I do it for longer, I find.
Anyway, thanks for a thought-provoking conversation.
P.S. Apologies if it felt like I was arguing with you. The Internet is a toneless void, and I know from experience how emotionally draining it can be to get into a debate with someone online. I appreciate that you’re making an effort to put good resources together here and are daring to put ideas forth for the interwebbed peanut gallery.
Of course, Godwin’s Law requires that I now call you a Nazi, but I’m still glad I found your blog today.
I’ve found little, if any, resisitance on the part of people who’ve read my book to the fact that it wasn’t put out by a big house. It hasn’t occured to most of them to ask about it, and those who have think it’s a commendable thing for me to have the confidence in myself and my work to take matters into my own hands.
I’ve found that it’s unpublished writers who kick up the most dirt. So many of them feel they won’t be “real” writers until they’ve been traditionally published, and they so like to push those feelings of inadequacy onto those of us who go a different route. At first I found those people irritating beyond belief, then I felt sorry for them. Now I don’t really give a shit.
Exactly!
Come on now…lesbian hobbit vampire fanfiction is made of WIN!
Thanks for continuing this conversation with me so we could see each other’s perspectives better. It rarely goes this well in an online conversation, lol.
While the persistence of many writers is admirable I do think too many of them put too much of their self-worth as writers on the whole trad publishing thing. I don’t think it makes them bad people, but nevertheless there is a lot of that. Its much less common with more established writers.
I have several trad published friends and I think they’re great people and good writers, I just wouldn’t do things the way they’ve done them. Doesn’t mean I think they are “wrong.” And I think the problem here is that so many are caught up in the “right” way to publish. That’s like asking which is “right” sandals or boots? Well it depends on a lot of factors. Sandals aren’t empirically better or worse than boots. Depends on the person, the weather, the outfit, the occasion, etc.
But few people are looking at it that way. Instead many seem to be living in a world of extremes. Either trad publishing is evil or self publishing is for losers. Neither is true.
I’ve been writing with a goal toward publication since 7th grade. And so I was pretty much involved in the “NY dream” for awhile, and I had to disengage myself from that when I found out that the reality of what I thought I wanted, wasn’t as shiny as I once thought and SO not worth the hassle of the roadblocks I’d have to go through.
i.e. all the things that I really wanted, you could only get with NY if you were famous, so I thought “screw it, I’m just doing my thing.” lol
And yes, the “are you famous” questions just GRATE lol. You’re totally right about the bank teller analogy. hahahaha. I’m totally using that next time!
hehe Hamish, I just felt like we were talking past each other, so it feels like arguing. And I don’t care if people argue with me. This isn’t like a zoe-dictatorship or anything.
Its just frustrating when you don’t feel heard, but I should have given you the benefit of the doubt and had a few exchanges with you before deciding in my head it was going to be that way.
It’s actually a group blog. And you’d be welcome to submit something if you ever have a post you want to share. I used to run it, but now Kel does. (R.J. Keller.)
hehe Kel, exactly! I’ve never had an ACTUAL reader of my work make a big fuss about how I published. Almost none of them have asked, and most who have looked at my imprint have just assumed it’s a small publisher of some sort.
No one cares except other unpublished writers. And really I think that has to do more with a fear of competition and someone “cutting them in line” than anything else.
I do find that to many laypeople, the act of writing a WHOLE NOVEL and then PUBLISHING it is just beyond incredible, like it’s this grand mystery that only reveals itself to chosen ones.
From layfolk I don’t get the “when are you going to be a real writer?” when they find out I did it myself. They just can’t imagine themselves accomplishing anything “that grand.” (Actual quote.)
hehehehe Mojo! I’ve gotten both reactions. The “when are you going to be a real writer?” type reaction and the “holy cow, you published something by yourself?”
I give cookies and milk to the people in the latter group.
Okay, now it’s a lovefest: I laughed out loud at the “made of WIN” line.
It’s true what you say, Mojo, about writing “a whole novel”. One of the biggest things I’ve learned from all this writing and publishing business is how to complete a large project.
I copywrite for a company that offers workshops for successful entrepreneurs (who often get stuck and have their lives eaten once they reach a certain point). When these entrepreneurs are asked about their lifetime goals, to a one they say they’d like to write a book. Sure, they’re millionaires and I’m not, but when I hear that, it’s hard not to get gloaty and think “I’ve written four!”
As a culture, we hold a certain reverence for those who walk into those imaginary woods and come back with something in their hands, and I’m not working too hard to dispel that mystique. Even as someone who can do it consistently, I do still find it all quite wondrous.
But I’m not protective about the territory: I’m keen to teach other writers what I’ve learned. I feel an obligation to counter this mass plastic recycling project that’s becoming our culture. I also want to see what people come up with!
It’s not an easy path, I admit. How is it that traditionally-published writers get more respect for mailing out their double-spaced, 12-point Courier stack of paper than those of us who write a novel, copy-edit it with some outside help (micropress publishing means no typo is permanent!), then design it, print it, bind it, sell it, distribute it…
Even if one day I get picked up by a commercial publisher, I feel more educated and ready for that experience than if that first publisher hadn’t got cold feet and had gone ahead with the run of my first novel. What would I have known? So little compared to what I now know. Yeah, it would be a Roman holiday to have someone else foot the bill and properly market one of my books (I readily admit I suck at that), and to have the opportunity to reach a wide readership would be nice…
But this is good. I do it from a place of peace. I like the people I’m meeting — like you folk today — out here on this level field where the thing is about the thing, rather than some secondary purpose. I don’t require salvation, and no one else could give it to me anyway.
Thanks, Zoe, for the offer of a soap-box. If something relevant and not-already-covered comes to mind, I’ll send it by you. Likewise, I’m doing these “DIY Book” podcasts (http://itunes.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewPodcast?id=314376541), and am keen to have other voices in them, if there’s anything about the process of writing or producing a book you’d like to share.
I don’t think that the art form or the artist can be defined by the way the art is crafted; I don’t think we can make sweeping statements about our solitude, our work habits, our personalities (your comments about a writer’s tendency to be less defiant and therefore more subject to the status quo), or our behavior style. I believe that we are tied to an old publishing model because the practice of writing is tied to other professional “identities”.
My own reason for being stuck for years waiting for a “big” publisher to pick up my work is different, perhaps, than the average writer’s. I wanted the imprimatur of “big” publishing because I was in pursuit of another illusory prize — the tenure track faculty position. Academia looks down on POD or indy publishing. They even look down on smaller presses that have been around for a long time. Major presses or university presses are really the only publishing options if someone wants to be taken “seriously” in academia.
It wasn’t until I took a much harsher look at academia and realized that 1) barely 30% of faculty EVER get full-time positions any more and 2) after being stuck in adjunct academia for over 15 years,, I am unlikely to ever be offered a tenure-track position, that I realized I was pursuing traditional publication for no real reason. That moment was both heartbreaking and liberating.
So now I’m going forward w/o regard to the old dictates, because the old rules don’t apply anymore. My biggest realization came when I asked myself if I was willing to let years and years of creative work die when I did — or if I would have it on the bookshelf for my children and grandchildren to appreciate. Once I asked the question, there was no longer any hesitation.
Best,
Debra Leigh Scott
http://www.debraleighscott.com
Blargh! The closing bracket was included in the URL above, and shouldn’t be.
Right, I’m going to stop babbling here. Thanks for the banter, all!
hehehe. It’s nice not to be the only babbler.
Hey Debra, Thanks for bringing to light another side of the discussion!
How to maintain our artistic freedom and vision and protect our stories from deftless tampering by editors BUT, at the same time, achieve professional standards of grammar, syntax, etc. That’s the key. Just because we’re indies doesn’t mean we’re amateurs or wannabes. We have to work as hard, even HARDER, than the pros to show that despite our alternative venues and status we can match any writer in terms of the quality and originality of our work.
We have to utterly defeat that old canard that people “self-publish” because they’re not good enough. We have to be critically discerning and make sure we’re not unfairly lumped in with folks not fit to carry our pencil cases.
Good post, as always. “Publishing Renaissance” is, to my mind, THE site to check out if you’re an indie writer anywhere on this planet.
hehe Cliff, hey! You always sound so riled up. Are you riled up?
I have to admit that I find it hard to hold on to my defiance some days. Today (just TODAY) I have seen the following:
1. If you set type in Word or WordPerfect, you’re not a professional. (That was from a blogger who has never done it.)
and
2. If it’s not good enough to get an agent, it’s not good enough. Period. (That was from an unpublished author.)
So, yeah. Dying of 1,000 tiny cuts some days.
LMFAO Mojo, I don’t even want the hear the crap from people about Word Typesetting anymore, that’s just insano snobbery. I worry about people who have nothing better to occupy their mind than what method I used to typeset my book.
And on the agent thing. bwahahahahahaha. I’ve decided that if an unpubbed author is actually going to go to the trouble to think I’m not a “real” whatever based on their standards, I’ll hold them to those same standards.
All I see there is “baa baa baa…”
Oh, I know. I’m just extra sensitive today.
Wellllll, I think people are nuts to use Word too, but that’s because I’ve run up against its limitations too often in a professional sense…
You’re a professional if you make a living from a profession, aren’t you? Or is my in-head dictionary all muddled again?
I find Piers Anthony rather refreshing when I’ve had a gutful of the ‘must trad-pub!’ crowd.
Hey Naomi, I used Word and didn’t have a problem with it at all. I don’t think it’s that limited if you’re doing layout for a book with straight text and no pictures. Programs like InDesign are far more problematic (and expensive) for that sort of thing.
If you’re using it in a professional sense, it may have more limitations. I don’t know specifically what professional sense you’re using it for. It’s not best for everything, but for books that are all text, I think it works great and wouldn’t switch to anything else personally.
Hey Zoe,
It’s NOT too bad for many, smallish uses. But I do tend to be rather anti-Word these days, despite my desire to stay as unbiased as possible. You wouldn’t believe the amount of swearing I’ve done at that program, its developers, its coders, and Bill Gates, in the last few years.
My day job is as a technical writer – manuals, user guides and the like. With any largeish (200 pages or so) guide using many pictures, tables or sections, Word has a tendency to go SPLAT on a regular basis. Especially if you’re so bold as to buy Adobe’s Acrobat and export to hotlinked PDFs. <—- I'm fully aware that this is far further than any fiction writer is likely to go, but non-fiction writers may need these bits of functionality.
I don’t want to go all zealous-preacher at people, but if you need a simple word-processor that has the functionality of Word, and you prefer not to pay for it, check out http://openoffice.org. OOo has its faults and bugs, but the basics work better (imo), you can use variables and master documents easily (once you work out how), and PDFing is beautifully, ridiculously simple.
There. Zealous fit over.
PS. Posted this before and it didn’t show up, and WordPress logged me out. Apologies if it comes up twice now.
I tried to reply 3-4 times, Zoe, but it appears MS is monitoring PR comments…
Oh fine, now it works! *lol*
OK, brief recap -
Word = trouble with more than 200 pages if you have many tables, images or sections.
Word = me tearing hair out (I’m a technical writer – user guides etc – by day) and yelling abuse.
OpenOffice.org is a free product which I use in preference to Word. Main reasons – master documents, variables, easy PDFing.
Naomi: Your earlier post went into the spam folder. That happens sometimes when someone (even someone who has been previously approved) tries to post a message with a hyperlink.
As to the content of your post, I do all of my word processing with OpenOffice Writer, too. It works great, although sometimes I find some formatting inconsistencies appearing when a document created in OO is opened in Microsoft Word.
Naomi,
bwahahahaha you might be right about Word, I don’t know. I use Open Office. I forget that just because Open Office is a freeware program “like” Word, that it ISN’T Word. That may be why I sing it’s praises so much. bwahahahaha. And yup, I make my PDF straight from that.
Anyway I used the book “Perfect Pages” by Aaron Shepard for how to layout in Word. Since they are so similar in many ways, I was able to translate all the instructions over easily into Open Office.
I really can’t believe I’m this much of a moron. I’m just used to saying Word when I use OO, because in many ways they’re similar and there are still people out there who don’t know what the hell Open Office is. And I got tired of explaining it to all the people who cling to MS even while cursing it. I got too many blank looks when I said “Open Office.” (It may be different now, I’ve been circumventing blank looks for a few years now.) I’ve gotten so used to my own shorthand, I’ve forgotten that though similar, they are not, in fact the same thing. If they were, I’d be using Word.
Oh also, I’ve got Windows Vista now. (Was running just Linux, but for some unfathomable reason we’ve switched back to Windows.) Vista only lets you use Word for a few times before they expect you to pay for it. I had gone in there and looked at it, and OMG it’s so complicated now. I didn’t know where anything was, or how you do anything. I absolutely don’t get someone paying to use the Vista version of Word when it’s not in the least bit user-friendly (there’s a whole new learning curve to figure out where crap is), and OO is free.
I agree with those here who are pointing out the absolute need for high quality in what we do. The illusion that anyone can write is just that, and we can best disprove the naysayers by the purity of excellence. In regard to the comments of those who believe that if you can’t get an agent, you aren’t any good — I HAD an agent. She was an excellent, old time agent who represents Pulitzer prize winers and international literary giants — and she could not sell my literary fiction.
In fact, she told me that we had to conceal the fact that it WAS literary fiction if we were to have any hope of getting any of the major publisher’s editors to even consent to look at the manuscript. And of course what happened was that many of the rejections (and there were many rejections) came back saying “This is beautifully written, but it’s too literary for us.” Some followed up by saying that they couldn’t “defend” the book to their marketing department. This wonderful agent has to hide some of her most beautiful manuscripts under the banner of “popular fiction”, whether that’s what the writers are producing or not.
When you have that sort of deceit needed in order to get good work into the marketplace through the major publishing houses, there is something seriously wrong with the system so many are still looking to as the arbiter of quality. It is no longer the arbiter of quality. Big publisher is the arbiter of what they perceive as marketable. That’s a very different yardstick.
WE are the arbiters of quality — as readers, as book buyers and booksellers, and most of all as writers. And in going independent, we are not only protecting the life of our own work, but we are protecting the world of literary writing in a time when the major publishers are too often hostile to it. Major agencies are hiring their own marketing people now before they even decide to take on a client — because they too have been infected with this disease.
The truth is: our manuscripts are often BETTER than their business model — I think, collectively, we need to send big publishing, big agents and big editors our own rejection letter, saying “Sorry. Our manuscripts are just too good for you.”
Debra Leigh Scott
http://www.debraleighscott.
http://www.hiddenriverarts.com
I didn’t mean to say Pulitzer Prize “winers” — I meant to say winners. Sorry. And I meant “Big publishING” not Big publishER. See? This is why we have to be diligent in editing our own work! I could pretend that I did that all intentionally, but have to stand guilty of bad proofreading!
Debra Leigh Scott
hehehe Debra, I’m the worst about typos in comments.
You make a very good point with regards to literary fiction. I really enjoyed some of the work of Joyce Carol Oates, but a lot of fiction like that, just wont’ sell anymore. And it’s kind of annoying. I don’t think it’s that there isn’t a market for it, I think there just isn’t a huge MASS market for it. The mass market attitude is dumbing down fiction. Which I think starts to dumb down readers. It’s not that I don’t think there is room for pop fiction or cute fiction, what I have available now falls into that category, but… when that’s ALL that people can find…it’s a bit much.
Makes me think of that movie “Idiocracy.”
I wonder about the kool aid being drunk by the unpubbed writers still dreaming of an agent, who still believe having an agent is a marker of quality writing.
Though on one level all of this is encouraging. I just thought no one could write anymore. I keep reading mass produced crap and thinking “They thought this was good writing? How bad was the shit that didn’t get through?” Now I know…the shit that didn’t get through probably wasn’t shit.
No, Zoe, it probably wasn’t the dregs that were rejected in all cases — although obviously there is bad stuff offered to editors all the time. I know at least a dozen excellent writers personally here in the Philadelphia area who haven’t been able to find agents — or who, upon finding good agents still can’t sell their work. It’s one of the reasons I’ve become part of a publishing collective called New Door Books (http://newdoorbooks.com/) Each writer being published
at this collaborative/collective is a writer I know and deeply respect. In the case of our first novel, HANNAH’S PARADISE, author Ligia Rave has written an absolutely beautiful book which she has gotten published in Europe with very positive reviews. But even after that, she was unable to find a “big” publisher here. Hers is the novel which will be shortly available. Then others will follow, including my novel PIETY STREET — the one which has had such a long and difficult road through “big” publishing. You and the readers of this blog should bookmark the New Door website and
check in every once in a while — we’ll be up and running soon and hope to be yet another brave set of good writers taking our creative lives into our own hands!
Very cool to hear Debra! You should let us all know how it’s working out. Many of us had thought of things like a co-op kind of writing/publishing thing but at least speaking for myself I wasn’t sure how such a thing would work out in actual practice.
Seeing someone else doing it, it’s likely many indies or indie-leaning writers have had similar thoughts. The new “small publishing” may be a “for the people, by the people” kind of deal, and it doesn’t get much cooler than that.
Still don’t think I personally would do something like that, as I’d rather just produce my own work, but I think it’s a great idea that’s right for a lot of people, if there is a good way to implement it.
And that’s just sad that so many really good writers are being passed over because they aren’t “marketable.” Considering the bizarro practices of many major publishing houses, I’m not sure even “they” know what is marketable.
Aside from Harlequin, which IMO is one of the few publishers out there with any sense marketing-wise, most of them don’t do any kind of demographics studies. How the hell can they market if they don’t even have basic statistical analysis? I dont’ think they *want* to know what readers want. That would be too easy. Instead they’d rather do what they’re doing.
And Harlequin may not produce very literary fiction, lol, BUT they at least have a business head, which I can respect.
There is very little I can respect from most of the other publishers.
Zoe – LOL at the Word/OOo confusion!
Debra – that’s a really interesting concept, I’ll watch with interest