Brit author Will Self slams wannabe writers and the internet

From an interview with acclaimed British author Will Self (TIN HOUSE magazine):

“I do think electronic publishing is likely to further subvert the print media in the next few years, but I’ve no doubt that the medium isn’t altogether the message. Simply because there’s another way of making views known, it doesn’t mean that good style, research, or engaging opinions aren’t required. There’s an aspect of the internet forums that presupposes—and enacts!—that old canard that everyone has a novel in him. I don’t think everyone does at all—and the Net is a medium which unfortunately makes it easier for those who have bad novels and miscellaneous other screeds to get them out.”

I wonder what Will would think of this notion that November is "National Novel Writing Month", where EVERYONE is encouraged to start and finish a first draft of the novel they think they're destined to write...

Well, as long as they keep those novels to themselves . . .

Seriously, some form of discipline is good for a writer, and if the obnoxiously-abbreviated NaNoWriMo works for someone, fine. But Self is right. Too many people think that because they can type, they can write, and the Internet makes it easier for them to foist their scribblings on the unsuspecting world.

He's wrong, however, about electronic publishing subverting the print media. It will be a more common adjunct to print, useful in some regards, but print will always be paramount, if only because it requires no ever-changing technology to retrieve its content.

I've also seen a wonderful clip on YouTube, Stanley Wiater interviewing Harlan Ellison. At one point Harlan, in his inimitable fashion, makes the point that people think they're really good at three things: driving, screwing and writing...and they're usually wrong on all counts. It's a wonderful bit from the great curmudgeon of Sherman Oaks:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=lI2XuMoQOCU&mode=related&search=

Have a look but wear a belt so your sides don't split.

There are a lot of bad self-pubbed works out there, but there are plenty of good ones, too. Unfortunately a great many self-pubbed authors don't make their books look professional inside and out and don't hire an editor, esp one who will do more than check spelling and grammar.

This is such an old spiel about bad writers and the horrible Internet that I can't even do more than shrug at it any more. Yes, there are a lot of bad writers out there, and yes the Internet makes it easier for them to prove how bad of writers they are.

So?

Is anyone required to go and read their bad books? They're poorly written blogs? No.

The Internet gives a voice to everyone who has even the slightest ability to type. Lulu.com lets them have a dream of publication. Does it really affect anyone else? Does it ruin literary books forever? No, it does not. In fact, if nothing else, it proves how difficult it is to write a good book, and makes some people aware that this isn't something just anyone can do. Maybe we ought to be pointing that part out to the rest of the world, so that people who do write good books get a little more credit for it.

There's always going to be the people who point fingers and say 'those people are ruining the world of writing' for whatever reason they think it's happening. Back when paperback books came onto the market people shouted about the end of good books and literacy because now anyone could buy a book, and the pulps were not true literature. When the portable press came into being, people who had libraries of carefully copied manuscripts were aghast that now anyone could go and buy a book.

People writing 'literary fiction' often point their fingers at genre writers for writing 'bad' books. Various genres point fingers at the other genres, and all of these people seem to forget one important thing -- that the only real use for a fiction book is to entertain the reader, and readers are not all the same or like the same subjects.

We're facing a lot of that same attitude here in the Internet that the early paperback writers faced. Yes, there's going to be a lot of bad books out there. There will be more. There will also be good books, and there may even occasionally be bright, daring books that print publishers wouldn't look at because they are too far outside the usual stories, and they couldn't figure out what to do with it.

If someone doesn't like what he sees on the Internet, he's not required to read it. Complaining about it like it’s the ruin of all literary endeavors everywhere is just being pretentious.

What. She. Said.

"the Net is a medium which unfortunately makes it easier for those who have bad novels and miscellaneous other screeds to get them out."

Is that Self's excuse?

Pretentious? Moi?

Sorry, couldn't resist.

To me, the internet is a tool for promotion and that's how I use it. Blogs help publicize your writing and in that sense cyberspace could be invaluable. I'm not threatened by what Self said--as a matter of fact as long as you don't consider yourself a "wannabe" or "hobbyist", you should draw some satisfaction from Self's rebuke of untalented writers using the internet to highlight their godawful efforts.

Your point comparing the pulps to the internet is a good one, though perhaps not for the reasons you think. While the pulps did produce a few good writers, names that persist to this day, the vast majority of the stuff they released was dreadful, simply dreadful. The pulp audience was made up of kids or non-literate people looking for a diversion, not intelligent, well-read folks. The pulps were where you sent a story you couldn't sell anywhere else and where hacks went to die. Is that the quality of writing you want to be associated with? Not me, I'm a literary writer and I have higher aspirations than that. I want to appear with the finest talents on the planet, not surrounded by a bunch of tuneless, tone-deaf wordsmiths, pounding out their prose with little attention to its merits.

Self and Ellison are scribes utterly devoted to the printed word and of course they look with disdain upon people who call themselves writers simply because some obscure on-line journal published their poem about their grandfather's death. Writing is a lifelong commitment and these guys have paid their dues and created a body of work to be envied. Their points are good ones...but, really, only wannabes should be offended by their tough sentiments.

Krome:

Not a Self fan? I think he's a genius myself. He doesn't have the internet at home (his computer is too old) but he does have a blog--he has to go to a cyber cafe to post. His interview in TIN HOUSE is very good (conducted by Rick Moody), I'm always interested in what terrific writers have to say on a variety of topics.

If Will Self is a genius then I'm a ham sandwich.

I hope TH asked him what he wants to be when he grows up? Although we all know the answer - Martin Amis

J: Here's a link to a chat between Self & Amis, purely FYI. Just thought you'd find it amusing:

http://www.nigelberman.co.uk/feature1_28.htm

I agree with Zette (#5).

The problem readers have is, of course, how to sort the wheat from the chaff and not get landed with a lot of unreadable books. Reviews certainly help, but there are far more novels published than there are review slots, and the well-known authors and big publishers tend to get priority for them. Reader reviews, such as on amazon, can be useful (although there's always the suspicion that glowing ones were written by friends or relatives). Reader comments on SF forums can also be informative, but since only a tiny percentage of readers ever comment, you've got to get the sales first.

I post the first chapter or two of my novels on the net (with links from my blog and website), so anyone can read them and form their own impression. I think that's the most effective aid to deciding whether they're worth reading.

Anthony:

The problem with the proliferation of wannabes and amateur writers--a situation encouraged by the internet and e-books--is that the disproportion between wheat and chaff is growing. Those few kernels of wheat are being lost thanks to the piles of crap being foisted on the world by people who have never been edited, have only a basic knowledge of grammar, sentence structure. In the old days the vanity publishers would make them pay through the nose for their silly pretensions--now, with e-books and POD, prices for publishing yourself have dropped and, wouldn't you know it, the amateurs are leaping at the chance to be able to say (smugly) "Well, you know, I AM a published author."

Pitiful...

I don't think the internet is entirely at fault for the proliferation of chaff. As an aspiring children's book writer, my pet peeve is the number of children's books written by celebrities because the celebrity's name sells. At least e-books don't waste paper.

I write a blog to keep myself disciplined. I also read many blogs. While I agree that many could benefit from editing, I love them for their creativity and their fresh perspective on life. As was mentioned on another thread, not all of us are writing for the money. We just want to be read.

Exactly.

I think Self is entitled to his opinion is some aspects, however to slam all bloggers/self published authors would be somewhat uncalled for.

I agree, celebrity authors are a blight, not only with children's books but pretty much any art they take a crack at in their spare time. The worst are those who (like William Shatner) have people ghost write their efforts and then claim credit for the work.

Will Self is not slamming all writers using the new technologies, just the ones that imagine themselves authors without ever learning the craft or discipline. If I walked into a room full of plumbers and claimed to be among their number simply because I've unblocked a drain, they'd laugh me out of there. Writing (well, the arts in general but I'll stick with what I know) is the only profession where people feel they can claim the honorific without passing any professional requirements, testing, etc. "I wrote a poem about my sick dog, therefore I am a writer" is a rubbish statement, uttered by someone who has not the slightest notion of the sheer amount of effort it takes to approach the task of composing literate, intelligent sentences, day in, day out. Those are the people Mr. Self is attacking, not "developing" or "aspiring" writers. There's a distinction between them and "wannabes", who want us to congratulate them doing and achieving absolutely NOTHING.

There have always been hacks. Do we really think 1920's Paris was filled only with geniuses? Time swallows the mediocre - their books go out of print. The web will have its ashcan too. Everyone makes ridiculous claims about everything they do, especially writers. If someones claim to be a writer simply because their haiku got honorable mention at the county fair/pig auction, I say let them. If it makes them smile inside, so what? Those with talent, perseverence and a little luck will succeed. That most won't for whatever reason, be it celebrities sucking up publication dollars, or a billion hacks glutting the world with their tripe - well that's the biz and it ain't fair. The odds are stacked against us but we choose to play despite the odds.

Ex: (Message #17)

I note you list some pretty impressive authors on your Profile page as favorites. What do you think Beckett or Baudelaire would do if someone flopped into a chair next to them at some Parisian bistro or bar and said "Heya, pal, good to meet a fellow scribbler. I'm gonna read a few pages of my journal to you, lemme know what you think"?

I think at the very least the remark would be greeted by an icy stare...and knowing Baudelaire, he'd likely try to throttle the ass. Some of the writers you admire paid a terrible price for their obsession with the printed word, laboured mightily on their art. THAT is why their works persist. They understood the legacy of fine literature and were perfectionists when it came to their writing. I don't imagine they would suffer today's wannabe fools lightly.

I'm with Will Self: too many amateurs out there, too little talent...

So what if someone wrote a poem about a sick dog and now calls himself a writer? How does that, in any way at all, affect what someone else is or does? How does it affect you? Are you really so unsure of your own status that it upsets you when anyone (especially people you will never know or read) use a term that you've decided is your personal label?

No single group of people own the term 'writer.' Even though a group may be comprised of the better craftsmen at the work, and even though they deserve publication -- while the best many others will ever do is self-publish -- it still does not give that first group the right to control the word and claim it only as their own.

Now, if you want to make a point about self-published writers usually not being on the same level as traditionally-published writers, I'll agree completely. If the authors aren't going to work hard to create a manuscript good enough to submit to a publisher and instead leap into self-publishing because it's easier, then they aren't going to be accepted on the same level as a writer who has done the hard work.

And it's amazing, but guess what -- most readers can even tell the difference and judge for themselves! I know, it's an amazing, revolutionary idea to think that readers have the intelligence to decide that they like most published books better than the usual dreck of self-published books, but you know, those books on the shelves at stores sell a lot more than the works at Lulu.com do.

So, instead of worrying so much about who is calling themselves a writer, maybe writers should concentrate more on what makes them the better writer, and impress their readers that way, rather than with how well they can insult others.

He takes a rather extreme stance. I can't say I agree. My only beef with some internet writers is that they seem to think that having a forum in which to publish your writing means you don't need to earn your stripes. The net is great for writers who want to receive constant feedback and immediate reactions from readers. But the response desired needs to be more than a passing "well done."

If amateurs don't do what you do, how could they possibly be a threat? I can't get it out of my head, CliffBurns, that what you really mean is "too many authors out there, not enough market for what I write."

The problem with your analogy about plumbers is that it really only works with plumbers and professions like plumbing. What I mean is that there aren't that many hobby-plumbers out there, so there's not a common term for folks who enjoy a bit of plunging and handle-jiggling on the weekends.

With writing, though, it's different. "I am a writer" doesn't automatically equal the same thing as "I am a professional writer." I've seen your distress about this nuance voiced elsewhere on LT, but I'm a little surprised by it still. As a writer, you ought to be able to add adjectives that clarify your situation with ease.

I'm not sure, linguistically, why some activities (plumbing, doctoring, janitoring) are vocations only, but others (knitting, playing baseball, dealing drugs) can be vocations OR avocations, but them's the English.

Additionally, anyone who works hard at what he does and takes the time to become familiar with his tools, environment, and subject matter is in your same position. Do you think the lifelong musician who's studied at the finest schools and crammed his brain with a cacaphony of theories doesn't get a little irked when someone who screams unintelligible lyrics in a thrash band calls himself a musician? But musician is the label we use for both. What about a waiter who's honed his observational skills till his ability to anticipate your needs verges on ESP? He's still just a waiter, just like the guy at Macaroni Grill who forgot to refill your breadbasket. Musicians make music, waiters wait tables, knitters knit, and writers write. We don't use these terms to evaluate quality or dedication, we use them to communicate basic information that can be easily elaborated upon.

I was just the teensiest bit snarky a moment ago when I said that you should be well-qualified to use additional words to clarify your professional lifestyle, what with being a wordsmith and all. But in fact, you've easily managed to rise above the conceptual limitation of the word. Anyone who's read your profile, or your blog, or your posts, can't be in any doubt about the level to which you've taken your work. And we don't assume, when someone else says, "I am a writer," that they intend for us to think that they're just as dedicated as CliffBurns.

P.S. Are we on familiar enough terms yet that I can just start calling you Cliff? My posts are wordy enough as it is.

Thinking along the lines of calling oneself a "plumber" in the middle of a plumber's conference: with all the DIY's, are they not basically making that same claim?

It's the old stereotype of a man saying: "Honey, don't call the plumber/contractor/ dare I say? Mapmaker. I'll do it myself!"

Hacks/self-proclaimed experts are not unique to writing. The human psyche desires adulation, it's just that the vast majority produce mediocrity . . .

"Money for nothing . . . and the chicks for free."

But I'm sure they had to suffer fools all the time, just as we do. I'm sure they had to listen to the ramblings of the mediocre constantly. Rimbaud used to write parodies of them. So little has changed. Just write. Pathetic lines will only make yours look better by comparison.

I read an article once about how some people suffering from depression are encouraged to write poetry because the act of writing releases endorphins which in some cases actually help them to get over the depression. If one of those people found it helpful to call themself a poet, surely only a total bastard would tell them that their poetry's crap and they've no right to the title.

And although that's an extreme example, I agree with the people here who are saying "Who cares?" It can be irritating when terrible writers brag about it, but at the end of the day it gives them pleasure and doesn't actually hurt anyone else. Get over it!

Xiguli:

Sure, call me "Cliff". That goes for everybody, any time.

And thanks, as well, Xi, for taking the time to read my posts in detail and popping over to my blog. This format, by necessity, limits my ability to express myself at length and often these same points are thrashed out in more depth (and, admittedly, invective) on my site.

Your remark re: my dedication to my work was appreciated.

If someone is working hard at improving their craft, I have no quibble with them. But, I repeat (ad nauseum) the terms "writer" and "author" are honorifics to me, not to be taken lightly. If you want some adjectives, how about "amateur writer", "developing writer", "aspiring writer"--at least those give some indication that the individual is displaying some modesty and also some understanding of the legacy of great writers, recognizing that they're just getting started and still have a LONG way to go.

You mentioned my blog so I'll do the same (briefly). My latest post mentions that I've been a writer for over 20 years and yet it's only NOW that I finally feel my apprenticeship is over. Two decades of serving as a mere apprentice at the feet of the Masters. That's how much I respect my literary predecessors.

It's not that amateurs are a threat to me, I just think they should offer more respect and deference to fine literature and recognize that the Becketts and Baudelaires were consummate perfectionists who worked bloody hard to EARN their high stature.

And, as I say, I DO distinguish between "amateur writers" and "wannabes"...

#24: Erutane: I might not be bastard enough (well...) to tell those depressed "poets" their work is crap but I would emphasize that it's therapy, not meant for public consumption. It's the same reason I don't publish excerpts from my journals. I think art therapy is helpful but as to the actual QUALITY of the art produced...

Zette: I appreciated your comment from #19. which I quote:

"Now, if you want to make a point about self-published writers usually not being on the same level as traditionally-published writers, I'll agree completely. If the authors aren't going to work hard to create a manuscript good enough to submit to a publisher and instead leap into self-publishing because it's easier, then they aren't going to be accepted on the same level as a writer who has done the hard work."

Glad we have a meeting of minds on this (at least). What about those being published in e-book form because traditional publishers won't touch them with a ten foot barge pole? Just curious.

I tuned out early last night because of time constraints but I was delighted to find such a great discussion when I got up this morning. Always a pleasure to get my brain engaged early, it sharpens me up for the whole day...

Just for the record (since you mentioned your blog), I don't knit. Nor do I write romantic fantasy, or even anything with dragons and unicorns.

And yes, I do write to entertain others. I know some people write only to prove how pretentious they are, but I'm not one of them. Some people even enjoy my work.

If I take your track, then the fact that you don't work as I do means you can't be the same as me. I know I'm a writer. I wonder what that makes you?

zette:

???

I've just spent twenty minutes scanning through my blog, looking for a reference with your name on it and it ain't there. I've written about various writers I've encountered through my blog as well as other forums (four on LibraryThing alone). I'm also on Permuted Press and debate with the folks at Vault of Evil and Leucrota Press and also post on any writer's page that attracts my attention. Editors Patrick and Theresa Neilson Hayden had an "open thread" discussion where they basically flayed me alive for having the audacity to direct them to my "Good Science = Bad Fiction" essay. If you count the comments related to writing I've posted on various venues in the past six months, they would number in the HUNDREDS ("Google" it if you don't believe me).

Some of these comments have raised the ire of folks--and for proof, check out the chap who was the first out of the gate to reply to my latest post, "Portrait of the Artist as a Middle-Aged Man". Undoubtedly he's one of the wannabes that my post excoriates and took issue with my remarks. That's his right and I always let people respond pro or con on my blog without censorship (that's why I HATE this stupid flagging rule LibraryThing has).

To take a particular comment and assume it is directed at an individual (you) is missing the point. If you don't knit or read "fat, forest killing books with dragons and unicorns on the cover" or write horrible romantic fantasy then why throw out remarks like #26? If it ain't you, it aint' you, right? True, you claim to have written a lot of books but so has ___________ and ____________, two other writers on LibraryThing I've encountered (I won't embarrass them by naming them) and AT LEAST a dozen I've met through the tag surfing I do on WordPress.

You want assurances? I wasn't slagging you IN PARTICULAR. You want to put your name in one of the blanks I just left, you're welcome to. But I won't do it for you. Your situation and literary predilections are not unique in the blogosphere. You've told me before that maybe I don't belong on a certain thread (National Novel Writing Month)--but maybe your type of writer should stay away from blogs where you're not likely to find a sympathetic audience. Merely a gentle suggestion.

That's the last I'll say on this point. This thread is devoted to Will Self and wannabe writers. If you'd like to communicate your displeasure privately, you know where to find my Profile page so you can do just that.

My mistake. You brought up so much of the same things you've said to me over the last week or so, that I just assumed it was a continuation of the same conversation. And really, though it may not be about me IN PARTICULAR, I take the hint that it is about me in general, along with everyone else who isn't quite up to what you deem worthy enough to be called a writer.

My type of writer? Oh, come on. (rolls eyes). Hey, but you know what -- you just admitted we were writers, at least. (grin)

Whatever...

Let's get back to the thread, which is going rather nicely...

(...)

So Will Self said this thing. My reaction is less to disagree with it than to heave a colossal sigh and say, So what? But here's what I think is the Bigger Issue. That underlying this hand-wringing over the access of fools to a megaphone is a misunderstanding about what's actually happening, sociologically.

Way back in #2, lilithcat said: "He's wrong, however, about electronic publishing subverting the print media. It will be a more common adjunct to print, useful in some regards, but print will always be paramount, if only because it requires no ever-changing technology to retrieve its content."

Books are a form of technology. Before there were books, there weren't books, and folks had to deal with how to carry around all those words on parchment. Books were a solution to a problem. They were a response to a demand. As a piece of technology, they've managed to hang on for quite a long time, but anyone who's ever dealt with them knows that they have limitations. Bulky, dusty, decaying without special care, heavy, etc. etc. And while in the last however-many-hundreds of years since the invention of the book nothing better has come along (because if anything had, it would have been adopted on a mass scale), it's entirely possible that we're getting close to the technological tipping point. Have you used those Sony e-readers? They're not good enough to replace books yet by any means, but they're good enough to let you *imagine* that they could one day replace books. They're small, they have a beautiful matte screen that's very close to the surface of paper, they can hold a lot of books at one time, and (one of their main selling points) you can change the text size. Yes, they're built of what seems like "technology" to us, but so are books. For one thing, you can't be sure that paper will be ubiquitous in 200 or 500 years. You also can't assume that people will have the space required to keep books. There are lots of reasons why the world as it is recognizable to us today will not one day be so.

I'm not a futurist. I have no idea whether print books will actually go away in the next few generations. I'm not making a prediction. What I'm saying is that the technology will of course shift around, just as it's always done, and the really startling thing is that it DOESN'T MAKE A BIT OF DIFFERENCE.

Even if you're the sort of person who (inexplicably) worries about the uncouth masses getting to have their say, you can relax, because they don't benefit in a vacuum. Everyone else (the couth elite, I suppose) gets the same exact advantage. Cliff, for example, has listed some of the many outlets on which he's been able to express his non-mainstream views. Baudelaire never had it so good. Maybe it's true that more idiots take the time to string words together and put them in a public place, but it's equally true that a lot more non-idiots do the same thing.

Here's another thing: I am a #1 disdainer of self-published books. All of those things said above, about their jaw-grinding blindness to their own craptitude and so forth, are assessments I agree with. But I'm certain that it's just a matter of time before that barrier is broken. One of these days, sooner or later, some author from Lulu.com or its ilk is going to take the publishing world by storm. (If you think you hate self-publishing now, wait till someone is "discovered" because of it. That's when you'll really see the explosion.) (There probably are some examples already, like Eragon, but in that case the self-publishing aspect was overshadowed by the adolescent writer aspect.)

I really deeply believe in free expression. The answer, to my way of thinking, is never to restrict access, to reduce the options. Attempts to do so are misguided at best and veer towards the totalitarian too often. If your voice is being drowned out, learn to use the tools better. Don't try to be the arbiter of who's good enough to use the tools.

Besides, you could spend all your time fighting the self-publishing crowd only to discover that the major cultural event of the 21st century is the invention of the textmessage novel.

Xiguli -- Excellent post!

I think, in the short run, the only change we're going to see is that electronic books will become just another accepted type of publication -- hardbound, trade paperback, mass paperback, ebook and audio book as the options available. And just as some paperbacks aren't also hardbounds, some ebooks won't also be print -- at least not automatically. The one good side of Print on Demand, as a technology, is that it gives individuals the choice of having a print version of a book of the epublisher makes it available.

It is a changing world. And an intersting one, really.

I wouldn't find it at all surprising that Lulu produced a best-selling book...but I WOULD be utterly amazed if Lulu produced the next Michael Chabon or Doris Lessing (congratulations, Doris, for your Nobel victory, just announced) or Baudelaire (random terrific authors that come to mind).

Paolini's ERAGON (my sons have read it so I can speak with a bit of knowledge) is not, er, the most well-written book you'll ever come across but he does know how to grab a thirteen year old's attention span and hold it. AND (just as important) he can pad an idea into a number of sequels.

The Amazon Book Competition and the various contests where people submit their manuscripts and they're judged by on-line readers (God help us) show that editorial responsibilities are being devolved and dummied down. I've said before that we're not seeing the equivalent of Maxwell Perkins in the editing world today and, in fact, much of the editing of a manuscript has been downloaded on an author's agent (if he/she is lucky enough to find one). Publishers are looking for PRODUCT, a book that will sell well and then another division of the company can buy movie rights and another division release the soundtrack...and so we get commercial, stupid fare, written with one eye on the marketplace.

As for authors who advance the cause of literature, they're being cast off to the small presses and university publishers, waiting sometimes 3-5 years before their book finally sees the light of day. Tiny print runs, minuscule budgets for promotion and publicity. The only time we see their names is when they are short-listed for some obscure literary prize. Their books are crowded off the shelves by the movie tie-ins and knock-off sequels, etc.

Personally, I'm not interested in the Lulus and iUniverses and e-books, et all. I'm old school, "dead tree editions" only for me. Can't read anything off a screen, if I see an article I like, I print it up for reading and add it to my files. I think POD could be helpful in the sense that it SHOULD allow publishers to take on daring and innovative books knowing that they don't have to be stuck with a massive, expensive print run that ends up getting pulped because instead of selling 100,000 copies, a great title sells 20,000.

But that isn't happening.

I'm hopeful that books will continue to sell well but I don't think the new technologies will lead to BETTER books. And that is a shame...

Lulu is a print-on-demand service. You don't have to get ebooks from them, you can pay them to send you an actual book. I have one (the 37signals one) and the paper and binding seem good and may be up to "trade paperback" quality—it's hard to know for sure without seeing how well it stands up to 20 years of aging.

This might be the perfect solution for authors who advance the cause of literature, who would otherwise languish in the forgotten cellars of university publishers...

I'm a writer, publishers pay ME, not vice versa.

I also don't pay reading fees or enter contests that charge for the privilege of considering a story or poem or novella (and use the money to subsidize rags where the folks on the masthead publish their own work or that of their circle of friends and admirers). Writers get screwed anyway, there's no need to contribute to that mindset.

The iUniverses and the Lulus prey on amateurs and the desperate. If my next book doesn't go to a regular publisher, I'll post it on my blog/site and pay NOTHING.

When all's said and done, writers of fiction are primarily storytellers. The ultimate test of their work is not how it is published, or what literary critics think of it, but how it grabs their readers.

Paolini's 'Eragon' has been mentioned. I haven't read it, but it has clearly 'hit the spot' with its target audience, despite being initially self-published. All credit to the lad. ISTR that the first of the Harry Potter books didn't attract universal critical praise, either. Tough. It was a hit with readers, and that's what counts. Live with it, folks...

#34: I'm not talking about the writer paying. I'm talking about the readers paying. When a reader orders a copy, Lulu will print it and ship it. Then it will deduct the production cost and give you 80% of the profits. The writer doesn't pay anything to anyone.

Anthony:

As someone else has posted (was it you, jargoneer?) the vast majority of "bestsellers" of yesteryear have disappeared without a trace. Literature abides and great writing will prevail over the marketplace in the long run.

The "average" reader isn't a critical thinker and I put little faith in folks who buy their books from supermarkets or WalMart...or who employ tactics like the woman I saw at W.H. Smith's who seemed to be weighing two different fat fantasy books and appeared to choose the one that was HEAVIER.

God preserve us from such twits...

Eragon was *originally* self-published, and, as I understand it, managed to attract enough of a following that it caught the attention of a major publisher. It's unlikely that Paolini could have had the success he's had without that major publisher--you need the resources of a biggie if you want to sell SO many copies in SO many places. But again, it's just a matter of time until someone makes the self-publishing model work for them.

(For the record, the five pages of Eragon I was able to slog through impressed me only with how remarkably derivative they were. I don't hold it against Paolini that he managed to have success without original thought. Whatever grabs kids and encourages them to read ends up furthering everyone's goal: for there to be a market of readers.) (Plus, Paolini's dad used to make him dress up in wizard garb to hawk his self-pub'd book. It's kind of sad, really.)

I don't really feel like you addressed the bulk of what I was saying, Cliff. I'm not at all surprised that you prefer the traditional method. It's still the best one. I still prefer print books myself (as, probably, just about everyone on LT does--book collectors ARE the target demographic, after all). Look around you. The world is changing. (It's always been changing.) Screaming about the decline of civilization because of e-publishing and POD is like screaming about it because the telephone was invented.

Whatever helps the world of publishing helps writers overall. All this online stuff doesn't proliferate because books are going into a decline. Just the opposite. When I was a kid, even in the mega-opolis where I lived, my choices at the bookstore were limited. There were mall bookstores like B. Dalton and Waldenbooks and not much else. Today, though, not only are there lots more places that sell books (from Costco to amazon), there are large bookstores all over the place. Yes, those large bookstores carry a lot of popular crap, but they also tend to have large and thriving literature sections. The rate at which good books get buried or lost in the shuffle can sometimes be depressing, but that's not the fault of the internet. If there is a market for something, in fact, and the big bookstores and the blind editors of the world don't "get" it, then the internet can be a saving grace. Again, I say, learn to use the tools better.

And it sounds like you just might. There are tons of authors out there who scream and shout about "scab" writers who put their writing for free onto the internet. They're upset about exactly the same thing--their (ostensibly) superior (money-charging) voice getting lost in the roar of free sludge. They would constrict you the same way you would constrict others. But you must know that making free offerings can help you build a readership, or you wouldn't do it.

Xiguli:

Sorry if I didn't respond to your post (#30) in depth--much of it dealt with technology related issues and how that will affect future writing and readerships--on those points I'm out of my depth. I may have written a lot of SF in my time but, like you, I'm no futurist. I'm the first to admit I can barely figure out how to turn on a computer and if it wasn't for my wife's savvy, I wouldn't have a blog or be posting anywhere. Can't figure out video games, not interested in their superficiality (my sons sigh and throw up their hands).

Bad books have been around (in whatever form) forever but now, thanks to the internet and POD, the number of bad books (in e-form or print) has simply EXPLODED. I worry about readers getting turned off all the crap (more than EVER before X 1000) and simply giving up on reading. "There's no good books out there", etc.

The proliferation of crap means that good books will be pushed further and further to the margins. That worries authors like me who subject themselves to eight different kinds of Hell to produce the finest fiction they can...and must compete for shelf space with the drek. And it IS competition, bloody combat, fought tooth and nail. Anthony Burgess, in his autobiography, talked about walking into a bookstore and breaking into a sweat when he saw the amount of titles being produced, books vying for the same shelf space as his.

Obviously I'm not Anthony Burgess (who is?) so what hope does someone like me have? Or someone published by a university or small press, print run of 500 or 1,000?

Hope that covers some of your points. If there's something specific you'd like me to address, let me know....

This is where new technology actually helps.

* With online bookstores, you don't compete for shelf space. Every book gets one web page.
* Online bookstores have recommendation systems that help readers that appreciate your kind of work find your book. "People who bought this also bought..."
* People can collect and publish lists of favorite books, complete with links to online bookstores that sell them. A good book never needs to fall out of the public awareness.
* Online bookstores don't have to limit themselves to the latest publications. Books that last the ages can keep selling year after year.
* Print-on-demand self-publication means authors can cut out the publisher and receive higher royalties per copy, which means they can afford to spend more time on each book.
* Print-on-demand self-publication means authors don't have to pass their work through the hands of an editor who's looking out for next year's bestseller.
* As you mentioned, print-on-demand technology allows publishers (including self-publishing authors) to publish more daring work.
* Online previews allow interested people to check out your book without having to wait for their local bookstore to stock it. This way a good book can become well-known very quickly.

I've gotten involved with several book-oriented sites online and it has become far easier to find books I like. In the 80s I was limited to what I found in bookstores or libraries, and I only occasionally heard about a good book that I could order by inter-library loan. Now the only limit is my reading speed. There are more books x1000, and perhaps there are only x100 more good books, but they're easier to find.

Amtep:

Food for thought and I shall ponder the points you make. I'm a cynical git so the glass is always half empty to me. I'd like to think there's something to what your saying...and I hope there is. I suppose I shall have to wait 5-10 years to get a clearer picture of the benefits vs. downsides of the new technologies.

This notion of cyberspace as one giant bookstore containing every title under the sun is an interesting and compelling one. The bibliophile in me rejoices. Let's hope it's an accurate reflection of the true reality--I like the concept but does it work in practice...

Honestly, it doesn't matter about how much more 'crap' there is out there. The biggest seller of books is word of mouth.

If it's good, someone will spread the word.

If it's mediocre, someone will say nothing.

If it's horrible, someone will spread the word like a virus.

I don't buy POD or Vanity (although I've been given Vanity books), but I do read a lot from my big bookstore, my small bookstore, and the library.

Most, sorry to say (I read 70 or so a year -- not counting the 80 or so I put down), are mediocre BUT, at least good for one read.

Doesn't lower them in my esteem though. What floats the boat today, sinks it tomorrow.

Scaryguy --

I assume by POD you mean the 'Publish on Demand' rather than the 'Print on Demand' books, right? Publish on Demand are the self-published books, and it doesn't matter how they are technically put together. Print on Demand is a technology for printing books, and has nothing to do with how or who the publisher is.

I know of some very-small small press publishers who use POD technology to order small runs of books because it means they don't have to put up the larger amount of money that it would cost to do an print run of several hundred books from a regular type-set printer. (I did say VERY small publishers, right?)

It also means they don't warehouse much of anything and aren't taxed on books in storage.

The books themselves, though, have gone through all the steps of a traditional big house printer, from the submission and rejection process to the copyediting and galleys.

A number of ebook publishers offer POD editions as well, if the person wants to buy a print edition of a book. The good ebook publishers also work in the same way as the larger print companies, with the same process for getting the book ready for publication.

So there are a lot of new opportunities for readers out there. It's been interesting to watch over the last few years.

Thanks for making that clarification, zette. That print-on-demand is a printing technology is exactly right. (But, totally irrelevant to this discussion, they do sometimes suffer from lower quality in regards to the actual paper, cover, etc.)

Amtep (#40), thank you for such a lucid list. Cliff (#39), I appreciate the response but didn't mean to goad you into it. I just felt like you'd restated your position without knocking down any of my brilliant (!) points. But now, you've said, "Bad books have been around (in whatever form) forever but now, thanks to the internet and POD, the number of bad books (in e-form or print) has simply EXPLODED. I worry about readers getting turned off all the crap (more than EVER before X 1000) and simply giving up on reading. "There's no good books out there", etc."
1) The population size has also exploded. Unless you've got some data showing you that the **percentage** of crap books has increased, it's not a sound argument.
2) Readers don't function that way. It's conceivable that non-readers might function that way, as in, get turned off to books because of something bad they read... but then again, non-readers tend to be big consumers of supermarket paperbacks, for those 1-2 books they read a decade--i.e., not your market. Readers, on the other hand, either put down bad books or write withering screeds on amazon. People read varying amounts at various times in life, but I've never known anyone who just threw up their hands. I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that if one can't find a good book at the library, in the bookstore, at a Goodwill, or on the internet, then one is a moron.

Gosh, all this discussion, and all you wanted to do in the first place was pick a fight, I mean, make a point about NaNoWriMo.

Xiguli said:
Thanks for making that clarification, zette. That print-on-demand is a printing technology is exactly right. (But, totally irrelevant to this discussion, they do sometimes suffer from lower quality in regards to the actual paper, cover, etc.)
***

Yes, very true on the poor quality, but then that's true in any type of publishing. It's just annoying all around.

Xiguli:

I don't wish to pick at fight about NaNoWriMo. "Make a point" is closer to the truth--I feel it's an incredibly stupid notion for the reasons I've already outlined. I'm not the only one who feels that way but a whole lot of amateur writers think it helps them so...there it is.

I think controversial or touchy subjects make for far more interesting threads than "what's your favorite pen" or "is 8 1/2 X 11 too large a standard page size" etc. I ask hard questions of my life/career on a daily basis...what the heck, that's who I am.

Is there any such thing as a "non-reader"? Zette says that anybody who puts pen to paper, regardless of their talent level or the time and effort they put into it is a writer. Just because someone buys their books at WalMart or Costco, does that categorize them as a "non-reader"? Sort of a rhetorical question but at the same time a lot of people have taken me to task for MY elitism so I thought I'd zip that one your way.

Past participants of NaNo who have had their NaNo efforts published:

Jon F. Merz---NaNoWriMo novel: The Destructor (Pinnacle Books, 2003).

Lani Diane Rich---NaNoWriMo novels: Time Off For Good Behavior (Warner Books, 2004) and Maybe Baby (Warner Books, 2005).

Sara Gruen---NaNoWriMo novel: Flying Changes (HarperCollins, 2005).

Rebecca Agiewich---NaNoWriMo novel: Breakup Babe (Ballantine Books, 2006).

Francesca Segre---NaNoWriMo novel: Daughter of the Bride (Berkeley Books, 2006).

David Niall Wilson---NaNoWriMo novel: The Mote in Andrea's Eye (Five Star/Gale, 2006).

Gayle Brandeis---NaNoWriMo novel: Self Storage (Ballantine Books, 2007).

Kimberly Llewellyn---NaNoWriMo novel: Cashmere Boulevard (Berkley Books, 2007).

Geonn Cannon---NaNoWriMo novel: On the Air (P.D. Publishing, 2007).

Lisa Daily---NaNoWriMo novel: The Dreamgirl Academy (Plume/Penguin Putnam, 2008).

Jacob and Diane Anderson-Minshall---NaNoWriMo novel: Blind Curves (Bold Strokes Books, 2007)

James R. Strickland---NaNoWriMo novel: Looking Glass (Flying Pen Press, 2007)

Kathy Cano-Murillo---NaNoWriMo novel: Love Shine (Grand Central Publishing, 2007)

Ann Gonzalez---NaNoWriMo novel: Running for My Life (WestSide Books, 2008)

Stephanie Stuve-Bodeen---NaNoWriMo novel: The Compound (Feiwel and Friends, 2008)

Some big name publishing houses in there and some small, but over all, that's not really too bad.

As for amateur writers -- most of the people who join are new writers, if that means anything. This is often their first attempt at writing anything at all. Many don't make it past five or six thousand words. The vast majority will never make it to published writer stage. In fact, many of them will eventually fall into my own 'wannabe writer' definition of talking about writing and never actually finishing something. That, by the way, was my definition of a writer -- not simply that they put pen to paper. They have to put the effort into completing work and improving their skills. I'll give a brand new writer the benefit of the doubt. When they start piling up a lot of unfinished work and make no effort to complete anything at all, then I no longer think of them as real writers. Some of them, however, do make that breakthrough eventually. Others are the ones you see in workshops and conventions, who will tell you all about the story they're working on, but they'll never get beyond chapter three.

But, as I pointed out, not every writer works in the same way. NaNo is not for some writers, and helps others. Many of the people do it just for fun and have no intention of becoming published writers at all. In the end, it's not going to matter. There are still people who think you can't create a true story on a computer. (grin)

I can tell that you "think controversial or touchy subjects make for far more interesting threads," Cliff. You don't need to tell *me*. I'm the one who alluded to the barely-discussed touchy subject with which you began the thread.

Writer is a descriptive term; non-writer is not a perjorative. So calling someone a non-reader doesn't make me elite. It makes me conscious, I guess, and nominally insightful enough to know that there are many people in this world who do not feel about books the same way I do.

There are some perfectly good books at Costco. That's where I bought A Heartbreaking Work of Staggering Genius.

Well, these threads certainly do get a lot of traffic and healthy (sometimes not so healthy) give and take so that's a good thing.

Isn't it?

I'll agree this thread has branched out into other subjects...but that's hardly unique. Discussions like this tend to be organic, growing in all sorts of strange directions. I don't mind personally and things often loop back like a chimera. Looking through the thread I don't find the kind of vapidity I see with other subject headings, people giving one word or one line answers "Yeah!", "What he said!" "You go, girl", etc. Lots of passion, entries going on at length as people try to lay out their positions. I'm encouraged by the new names I see popping up, not the usual suspects all the time (I count myself among that crowd, by the way), perspectives from beginners and vets.

I'd like more thoughts on a point I raised in #25, that instead of someone with limited experience and publishing history calling themselves writers or authors, they should employ words like "amateur writer" or "aspiring writer" or "developing author". Is that acceptable to people out there? Adjectives like that would, to my mind, recognize that people have some dues to pay before they count themselves among the pros and would also distinguish them from "wannabes" who claim to write but produce little or nothing at all.

In my case, it took ten years and thirty or forty published stories before I allowed myself to claim the honorific "writer". How do other people feel?

And this would bring the conversation back to the point of this particular thread...

Anybody?

You can't possibly think I'm quibbling with the fact that there's a many-stranded discussion here, since I'm participating so extensively in it.

I want to differentiate between what I choose to do and what I feel others "ought" to do. When I'm forced into the awkward social onanism that is talking about one's writing (or, to be fair, when I obsessively seek it out), I don't ever claim to be a writer. I might say that I'd like to be a writer, or that I need to develop more discipline if I ever hope to be a writer, or something along those lines. To that extent, at least, we're on the same page.

But we diverge when it comes to the morality of using a particular word. If someone else tells me they're a writer or a poet, that doesn't force me into any conclusions. I don't think they're somehow wronging me. In all likelihood, depending on the context, I'm *not* going to assume that they're a professional writer. If they were, writers being writers, they'd probably get it out in the next sentence anyway.

I disagree with you that terms like writer and author are "honorifics." In certain contexts, maybe, but not in general conversations. Perhaps you use them that way, but... what can I say? Maybe you should write a book that does for "Writer" what Stranger in a Strange Land did for "grok." Make it mean what you want it to mean.

I think any time people put too much of their personal self-esteem into a word (rather than into their work), they're bound to be disappointed that others don't take the word to mean the same thing that they do.

Putting in a quick two cents...

>46 CliffBurns:, Cliff, there are people who don't make a habit of reading just like there are people who don't make a habit of writing. People who don't make a habit of reading might be turned off from it altogether by one bad book, but the rest of us aren't likely to just throw in the towel.

>49 CliffBurns:, again Cliff, I think using terms like "aspiring writer" and "developing writer" is all well and good, so long as the person using those terms to define themselves knows what they're talking about. I define myself as an apiring writer, meaning I aim to become a published (and possibly even, you know, LIKED) author at some point. I don't have a problem with not being one yet or anywhere near. However, a lot of people I know might think that by "aspiring writer" or "amateur writer* someone means that they are on a level completely different than a so-called "real writer," and lose a lot of the mindset needed to sit down and get something finished. With all the good books on shelves right now, it's hard to imagine oneself as a "real writer" when you're just starting out, even if they ARE the next Shakespeare. Using the terms as a class distinction rather than a definition of the stage a person is in could conceivably breed worse writing, which would result in worse books on the shelves, which makes devoted readers of books annoyed.

No, no, I didn't think you were quibbling, I was just musing on what you were saying. I've been in enough of these discussions to know they can veer off into some STRANGE territory.

"awkward social onanism"--that is really, really lovely. Bang on.

I don't feel amateurs are wronging ME but I do think they are showing disrespect or lack of empathy for the traditions of writing, the discipline and craftsmanship required, years of hours spent toiling in the trenches. They fail to recognize, to quote Thomas Carlyle, "Literary men are a perpetual priesthood".

In comes down to that reverence for the printed word I've alluded to previously, acknowledging the importance of the Masters and the bar they've set for the rest of us. Can ANYONE claim to be a writer, the same way I can claim to be a plumber or an astronaut or a world class chess player when I have none of the attributes, training or qualifications? What does that say about professional standards in the arts? If I ineffectually squeeze a lump of clay I'm not automatically a bloody sculptor, am I?

It's late and I'm tired so I'll leave it there. I'll catch up some time tomorrow, I've got a busy day ahead of me...

Point of clarification: POD = Print on Demand: they are printed when the end user orders a book.

I haven't heard of publish on demand, as such, but would consider that Vanity press.

I have never bought any POD books.

I've had people tell me that publish on demand is the self-publishing side of print on demand. I assume, since they're doing the 'publish' part, that they know what they're talking about. (grin) I believe this was over on The Writer (magazine) site.

But yes, you are right about the print on demand being the type where the end user orders the book -- or at least on most cases. As I said, some small press companies are using the technology to order small runs of their work, usually for specific sales -- conventions, book fairs and such -- and selling them to the reader. It's far more economical in those cases than off-set printing, where they would have to order several hundred copies of several different titles.

POD is a technology, though, and doesn't say anything about the quality of writing in the book.

#54 - Scary

Print on Demand is a way of printing a book. Yes, some vanity presses use POD to print their books, but some vanity presses use traditional printers -- the technology is not what defines a company. By saying that any company that uses Print on Demand is a vanity press, you include a lot of small- and micro-presses that are subsidy/royalty paying.

My definition, well, I thought that said it all. Sorry I'm not being clear enough.

POD: Print on Demand.

I know Vanity as well as small house publishers use it as a process.

To reiterate: I have never bought a POD book.

I just wonder why more major publishers aren't using print-on-demand. To me, it would be the perfect way of sending up a trial balloon:

Say you have a promising writer only you don't think he/she is going to be a Dan Brown-sized bestseller but will still move a decent number of books. So you sign the author for a modest fee, (upping the royalty paid to the author as compensation) and do the print-on-demand thing. Invest in a little promotion, get some trade reviews, blurbs from some of your in-house authors...and then see what the marketplace sustains.

As zette points out, we're not talking about old-fashioned, expensive offset printing, an over-large print run that will have to be warehoused, remaindered and pulped. Seems like such a system could sustain modest sales and help an up-and-comer gradually develop a readership and maybe eventually produce a breakthrough novel.

Why aren't we seeing this happening more? Are the publishers slow on the uptake? Is the technology still too new and untried (I find that hard to believe).

Any thoughts?

#58 Cliff-

The big dogs are unwilling to deal in small numbers.

The current model for fiction publishers is to push ~20 books at a time. If even one of them takes off, the publisher has made their money back. They drop the other nineteen, publish more books by the bestseller, and prep another twenty new authors.

The attrition rate is horrendous, but hey - the publishers are making money, and that's the main thing, right?

Buchleser:

Point taken.

NOW I'm depressed...

Plus, where do most consumers buy? Or at least shop -- maybe looking online for a cheaper copy -- but most of us look for new books on the shelves.

I don't see libraries buying into POD either and I learn about some of my favourite/obscure books there.

POD. Not a bad idea at all but the marketing is lacking.

POD: the new Beta?

I wonder if Publishers will evolve the idea into something better suited. How about hardware in a traditional bookstore that prints out a professionally bound book as you wait?

Maybe a bit Sci-Fi, but, knowing marketing like I do, I wouldn't be surprised.

Scaryguy said:

I wonder if Publishers will evolve the idea into something better suited. How about hardware in a traditional bookstore that prints out a professionally bound book as you wait?

****

People have been talking about that happening for years.

It might be waiting for the technology to catch up with the idea in this case, and then the cost of the technology dropping enough to make it viable. After all, the stores would have to have many of them in order to make it worthwhile for the customers, who aren't going to want to stand in line and wait for every book.

Of course, once it gets cost-effective and fast, people will start buying the machines for their homes, too.
Subscriptions to the major publishers, with a chance to download X number of books a year?

I don't know on that last part. The stores still seem the better idea -- but it will take a lot to get the major publishers to give up their traditional way of doing business.

Printing out books while you wait?

Like this?

http://www.ondemandbooks.com/

Printers of any kind are one of the Unappreciated Banes of a bookseller's existence. I would not be surprised to one day see bookstore employees installed as the miserable custodians of the next generation in printing technology.

Though, if I were assigning the part in a production of BOOK: THE MUSICAL, I would give it to someplace like Kinko's. They sort of bookbind already, and they sort of sell books already.

I'm going to have to poll some former coworkers. I *swear* there was at least one POD title, maybe two, that got mentioned on a show or in a paper, and suddenly there was all this demand. I haven't a foggiest about a specific title, though. Will research.

#58 - There are vastly more print on demand books now than when I started in books wayback in the last century. I don't have any reason to think the trend won't continue, but there are a few drawbacks currently. The lower quality, as mentioned. The price is typically higher than for a regular paperback. The books must be ordered (as someone mentioned), so fewer impulse purchases... online still allows for impulse, without the instant gratification. Turnaround times once ordered can vary, and pickup rates on ordered books aren't always so great. Many bookstores are reluctant to order or require a deposit because print on demand books are nonreturnable.

However, they absolutely fill a niche. As zette said (#55), there are certain book-consuming markets that create demand for certain books. I once took orders for a speaker-recommended POD book about oxytocin when I sold books at a conference on breastfeeding for medical professionals. (Only got one order, though. I believe it was pricey.) A niche for now, but creative people are going to come up with ways to broaden the applications, I think. Since people are already able to print out quite a number of books in their own homes or offices, whether for free or fee, POD will have to get more immediate, higher quality, whatever, to keep up.

Also, Cliff, your description of "a promising writer only you don't think he/she is going to be a Dan Brown-sized bestseller but will still move a decent number of books" may have been intended as flippant, but Because I Have Persnickety Tendencies, I need to point out that Dan Brown is a *phenomenon*. Highly unusual. Totally not plannable. Not as ubiquitous as Harry Potter, but certainly in the same league. Most books, to the chagrin of the entire industry, do not achieve that, even if they are wildly successful. Bookstores of the largish and general variety carry a huge spectrum of books that sell less than Dan Brown and more than nothing. There's midlist, there's backlist, there's frontlist...

Big books are actually often sold without profit. 30% off list price makes for slim margin; 40% makes for virtually none. But it brings people in the door, and where they hopefully fall into the alluring clutches of other products, many of which are books.

The idea of print on demand self-publishing doesn't ONLY have to apply to authors seeking an audience or a professional career. Or a way to torture friends and strangers. For example, I think this thing sounds neat: http://www.blurb.com/home/1/ Not from a vanity angle, but because I think people creating books *for themselves* or for their families is really neat and touching and something to be encouraged. I try to keep it in check for spatial restraints if nothing else, but Books As Objects are a fetish unto themselves. When my grandma died recently, I discovered that for decades, before the Alzheimer's, she'd kept elaborate, chronologically arranged photo albums, with every photo painstakingly dated, the people identified, and many with captions. She did it with film cameras and paper and pen; now technologies are emerging that let people more easily and/or more innovatively create their own fantastic whatevers, in an innately pleasing form.

I guess that's off topic, but it must be said: when it comes to books, it's not ALL about us and our professions.
... And that is my salute to books! (Curtsy)

Xiguli:

That blurb.com address is great! That is where I'd like to see a lot of the older generation go to put down their stories -- war, family, etc.

Genealogy too. A distant cousin of mine has reams of stick it notes with quips from family now long dead. Self-publishing would be great for them.

CliffBurns said:

"As someone else has posted (was it you, jargoneer?) the vast majority of "bestsellers" of yesteryear have disappeared without a trace. Literature abides and great writing will prevail over the marketplace in the long run."

Maybe. What is "great writing" is determined by history, not by current critics, or prize-givers. There have been many writers who were highly regarded (not just best-sellers) in their time but whose works have since vanished. Conversely, some best-selling authors who were not great writers in the literary sense have remained popular. There seems to be a large element of sheer chance involved in deciding what survives and what does not.

Xiguli:

"Persnickety"? You? Naw...you call me out on points of debate and there's nothin' wrong with that.

I just see this POD technology as a tool for developing writers, or resurrecting mid-list books that might otherwise disappear without a trace. Publishers tend to spend big money on promoting featured books and authors and everyone else had to make do on the dregs.

Dan Brown is a phenomenon, all right. Let's hope he doesn't repeat the feat and at some point chokes on the money he's made from undiscerning readers...

If success means writing like Dan Brown, I think I'll remain where I am, wallowing in obscurity.

(That's me being snarky...)

All kinds of money is poured into trying to figure out what the Next Big Thing will be, but I don't think anyone knows. I mean, I don't think anyone CAN know. The DaVinci Code was released with a huge word-of-mouth push, believe it or not, in addition to the publisher's marketing machine. At the company where I worked, the buyers (and marketers, I imagine) were actually so over the moon about it that the company sponsored a handselling contest with prizes and memos and store meetings. Soon, the book was not just on our bestseller list, but all of them, and the demand was far outpacing the supply.

Not everyone realizes that other books are released with the same *attempts* at push, the same delirious buyers, the same "I think you'll agree with me that this is the best book ever in the history of mankind" publisher letters accompanying the promo copies they send out--but without the same success. So it's not merely the marketing strategy, if you're lucky enough to receive one, that makes a success.

If you're in the business and you're good at what you do and have your finger on the cultural pulse, then you can make some educated guesses about what's going to do well and what's not. But there are always, always books that come from left field. The Secret... oh god, The Secret. One day, we had a few requests for this obscure metaphysics book from a small publisher. Then we blinked, and every third person who walked into our store was asking for it. (And of course there was no stock to be had anywhere on the planet, because the publisher was the LAST entity to have expected such a blowout.) I defy even Dan Brown to produce anything so inane as that claptrap.

Be rejoiceful, or wary, Cliff, because you're just as likely as anyone to be a runaway phenomenon. Be lucky enough to hit the right chord with the right Decisionmaker in some kind of mass media, and make sure your book is released (or at least given publicity) at just the right historical moment to tap into some kind of widespread sore spot. If you can manage that, you're set. Since no one can pin down these points, though, remaining where you are and wallowing in your obscurity are as good a plan as any.

The thing that publishers can't control, but over which a writer can have enormous sway, is the bookstore employee. It's a terribly pain-in-the-butt way to build enthusiasm, but it also has some staying power and real cache. Even less talented booksellers are called upon to make frequent recommendations, and if they love what you do, THAT's what they're going to tell the customer. No matter how much co-op space another publisher has purchased in the store.

Generally, authors are nice-ish when dealing with bookstores. Occasionally, they're not so nice. Jennifer Weiner was once in our store--I'll say allegedly, since I didn't see it with my own eyes--and started angrily chewing out the merchandising manager because her book display wasn't done right. While she tore into poor G.B., she tore apart the display, moved other books by other people out of the way, and put her book where she felt it rightfully belonged. The incident was so nutso that her publicist actually sent an apology later.

This is not a way to build good relationships. Y'think? Weiner's career seems to be doing okay, but I assure you we never, ever put her book on a display going forward unless it were required by corporate.

Xiguli:

The Weiner anecdote is an eye-opener. I worked in a terrific bookstore for a number of months and visiting authors were always respectful and grateful for having their books anywhere in the store.

Most amazing thing I ever witnessed involved Canandian artist (?) Robert Bateman making an in-store appearance. The lineup stretched out the door and around the block. He prided himself on how many books he could sign in an hour. All that attention for a guy who painted nature pictures, y'know making them almost indistinguishable from a photograph (so why not just take a picture? was the question I never had the nerve to ask).

Greatest moments were meeting Timothy Findley and June Callwood, two Canadian literary icons who actually deserved their exalted status. Wonderful, self-deprecating people, modest, charming and hilariously funny...

I think I said "nice-ish" because I was thinking of local authors, which are a different animal altogether from national touring authors. They bring a floodlight to the fine line between persistence as a character strength and persistence as a disturbing display of irrational forcefulness and myopic self-image.

...the local authors who come in with their photocopied, stapled poems, hand-coloured with pencil crayon...fevered gazes...yellow-stained fingers...I think I know the type of which you speak.

There was one guy who used to occasionally pop in to the store, quite the legendary character because of his noxious body odor. He could clear the place out faster than a skunk with a severe bladder infection.

Ah, the good old days of working in retail...

Though I risk a ping pong game developing between us, I do have to clarify. Quality was certainly an issue at times, but even in cases where it wasn't... One guy badgered our inventory manager for months to carry his... I don't know... It was like, a sociological-ish study of Italians? Something really specific for which there is not what we would call a "market" in Albuquerque. Didn't have a barcode, wasn't distributed, had hand-pasted (not poorly, but noticably) new copyright info over the printed copyright page. The manager finally bought one copy just so he'd leave her alone. (But it's likely already gone to a $1 Clearance sale.)

Another writer, successful for a local guy. Several mysteries in print. (And writing isn't his day job.) Regularly schedules informal booksignings, at which he consistently manages to handsell 20-30+ copies in a couple hours, pretty much all on the strength of going up to customers and starting conversations. Sounds like a dream, right?

Yet he managed to make every single manager, at all the district's stores, loathe the sight of him. He was ALWAYS coming in, ALWAYS calling, always nitpicking, always wanting some kind of reassurance that he was The Only Writer That Mattered, or something. Poor managers, they had to practically draw straws to see who'd attend to the author's needs on a given day.

The moral? Don't be a pest. Remember that you are a tiny blip in the responsibilities of management. Even if you sell a lot of books, managers have to take a lot of crap from customers and, to make a broad generalization, they're itching for a chance to NOT take crap from someone. Last I overheard, it had taken years of irritation, but the stores were at last plotting to ban / no longer schedule that needy author.

Personalities like that are the exact analog of photocopied, stapled poems, reluctantly left--with many breezy assurances of the enormous demand and high praises it's garnered--only when you insist that the manager will need a copy to review.

Now, none of the authors I'm thinking about in this category are any great loss to the world. But I wonder how many potentially famous, popular, and/or great authors never make it to the next step because they are lacking in the most basic social and business skills.

Well, I don't know about how much personality plays in success. Harlan Ellison became a millionaire and the most honoured writer in science fiction despite being, ummmm, difficult. Somerset Maugham was, by reputation, a truly rotten human being and need I mention L.F. Celine again?

I like characters myself, they make up for the bland, vapid individuals that seem to be proliferating in the arts, making for boring interviews, readings, personal appearances, what have you. Boring people write boring books and people with fire in their belly can often translate that passion into some pretty inspired and innovative prose.

Personal opinion, I suppose, but there it is...

I take your point, Cliff, that characters do liven up the place for everyone else. But I'd like to think that it's possible to be an interesting person, write great books and still remain capable of considering other peoples' feelings... or am I being hopelessly idealistic?!

Eruntane:

...and I've met some truly sweet, decent authors too (who take off the smiling face when they commence work and write from the raw centre of their being). Timothy Findley was a sweetheart and William Gibson approachable and funny and James Patrick Kelly a great guy.

Anyone can have a bad day and behave like a complete dick and I certainly wouldn't tolerate rudeness from anybody, regardless of their stature. My point was I don't think an unpleasant personality should get in the way of an author's success or his personal demeanor influence your decision as to whether or not an author has skill and has mastered the craft.

I've corresponded with folks who can't read Ellison because of his prickly personality. That's beside the point. When he's hot, the guy is amazing--what he says and thinks outside of his writing is a whole other matter...

Wow, you guys&gals have a great thread going. To me, this all seems to beg the question: What is permitted in the name of creating art? If you write the next great novel that people love and are moved by for generations to come, does it make being a prick okay? Does it make unadulterated hedonism okay?

To take a few leaps back, I wanted to interject on the old discussion over Will Self and CliffBurns' argument. I have to agree that titles like "artist" and "writer" have somewhat fallen from linguistic grace. That's the internet for you, though. Give everyone access to it and no education, the craft suffers from people who only pay it lip service. I think overall its bad because it reflects that we value pragmatism over art. Anyone can be an artist, musician, writer, poet, painter, photographer (or claim to be) but they never have to actually sit down and study it. People will always want to be artists...but when did we stop training them how to be? The Greeks had it going on.

Anowalk:

I'm with you--thanks to the internet and emerging technologies we're seeing a democratization of the arts, a removal of professional standards so anybody who writes a grocery list waves their arms in the air and asks to be treated with the same seriousness as those who work hourly, daily, yearly to improve their craft. This erosion of professional standards and qualifications will lead us into precarious territory, methinks. Let's hope demolitions people and airline pilots don't follow suit:

"Have you ever flown a plane before?"
"No, but I've always wanted to. And I've seen planes landing in movies..."
"Fine, you are now officially a pilot, welcome aboard."

Claiming to be a writer without professional credits or exerting yourself to, y'know, actually write is just as stupid and just as insulting to real authors. And that has been my point all along...and Mr. Self's too.

CliffBurns:

"Claiming to be a writer without professional credits or exerting yourself to, y'know, actually write is just as stupid and just as insulting to real authors. And that has been my point all along...and Mr. Self's too."

As a matter of interest, would you have categorised J K Rowling as a "real author" after she had written the first Potter novel but before it was published? AFAIK it was her first writing effort, and she had no training in it, or any "professional credits".

I think it is possible to be rather too precious about such terms. There is a fundamental difference between skills for which a minimum, objectively-assessable standard is required (such as flying a plane, designing a bridge or undertaking brain surgery) and creative endeavours, the judgement of which is very much a matter of opinion.

I mean, Tracey Emin is one of the most famous artists in the UK...personally I wouldn't have her work in my home even if it were offered free, but that's just my opinion.

The importance of subjective judgment is perhaps most obvious in modern art, but the same principle applies to writing once you have got past the stage of being able to spell and punctuate competently.

Oh yeah, because you know, writing is so much like risking people's lives by putting an untrained person in a pilot's seat on a plane. There's no telling how many people have died because of a misplaced comma or a misspelled word.

Should we just silence everyone and demand they prove their professional standards before they're allowed to write? What some of you see as the erosion of professional standards, I consider an opportunity for more people to express themselves in ways that really won't hurt another person. No one is required to read their blogs or books.

Blaming the internet for a removal of standards in the arts just isn't accurate. I'm not sure what 'emerging technologies' is meant to entail, but it seems like the issue you are describing is a sociological one.

First, the internet itself doesn't make the actual writing of fiction any easier. If anything, it was the emergence of computerized word-processing that made writing more accessible to the masses. This combined with the growth in laptop technology enables anyone to write at anytime anywhere they want. While these technologies have been around for about two-decades, the phenomenon of blogging and online writing etc. is a much more recent trend; and thus, isn't a simple reaction to technology easing the logistical burden of writing. A similar argument can be made for publishing and technology.

What I believe is happening, is that people are feeling an increasing sense of emptiness in their lives and they have found a way to make themselves feel 'special' in writing on the internet. It's no secret that in western societies like the US and the UK people are being consumed more and more by society. We are raised to value our individuality; but as adults, we are ensnared into a life where being different is chastised in action and exonerated in word. This paradoxical treatment of the individual leads to a society of people who work to fit in but always desire more. The internet is a perfect tool to satiate this desire, to play the game of fitting-in but being valued as an individual.

Writing is the method by which we all communicate to one another on the internet; and so, it is the path to gaining attention from the masses. People want attention as it aides them in building a sense of individuality and self-worth associated with the act of communication. Forum-trolls are a good example of this. It make sense that people choose to write on the internet to gain attention; they get all the benefits of fitting into outside society while reaping the benefits of being special in a virtual one.

So no, I don't believe the internet is the reason for the 'democratizing' of the arts. The reason, I believe, is a paradoxical society whose consequences have been greatly altered by the advent of the internet. This is a very important distinction as arguing against the internet is essentially launching an attack on interpersonal communication. That is, art and human communication work against one another, which is ridiculous. Art is so valued by society because people connect with it emotionally; people can relate to one another through their feelings on a certain piece of art. People try to write, paint, whatever because they want to communicate with one another in a society that is telling them not to. Art is communication. People yearn for attention on the internet because it is tantamount to personal communication; it's what we've been programmed to do by evolution.

I say that it's great that people write. It is a beautiful thing to see so many trying to find their voices again after being silenced for so long. I am not worried about what 'good' or 'bad' writing is; to me, all I care about is that people write a true reflection of themselves and not something they've contrived to gain the most attention possible. I believe that, in time, this will become less of an issue as people's confidence in their abilities to communicate on the internet increases. Of course, there will always be those who write for a sense of power; that is, they don't write a reflection of themselves but instead something they think will get them more influence. These people are also important; they are the counterbalance to those who fall in love with the idea of being called 'artist' or 'author'. My interest lies in the majority of people who sit somewhere between these two extremes, whose ideas and motivations are born of something more complex than one singular motivation (i.e. people acting like people).

Stepping off my soapbox here, I'll say something on the more tangible issue of 'professional qualifications' in writing. First, what exactly is a 'professional qualification' in the scope of being an author? Is it a degree in english, writing, or journalism? If so, last time I checked, almost none of the authors I admire had that qualification. If a writing qualification isn't a degree, then is it meant to indicate time spent writing? If that's the case, then the thirty-five year-old guy living in their parents basement writing RPG fantasies for the past fifteen years, that never get published, is automatically considered an author. Perhaps 'writing qualifications' entails how much one has been published. If that is the case then only New York Times best sellers fit the bill because you're either an 'author' or a 'wannabe', thus only those who are published the most get the special label of 'true author'. Hmmmm... perhaps it's how much time you spend creating your own unique style of artistic prose, punctuation and whatnot. Well, in that case every thirteen year old that has mastered their own bastardized version of IM speak is an author because they have spent YEARS figuring out to make their own style of text-speak.

My mind only works in a few ways; mathematics happens to be one of them. In maths, we call the problem of stating exactly what an author is ILL-DEFINED. That is, one may choose any number definitions (metrics in maths) to quantify the notions of 'author' and its converse 'wannabe'. Such a label can be defined at the whim of anyone who uses it and thus is not a reflection of any logically consistent argument. So, when you define the term 'author', you are only showing your own personal biases and nothing of a logically consistent reality.

Relating to writing qualifications to flying a plane is ridiculous. You can either fly a plane or not. If you can not, the plane crashes; if you can, the plane lands. That is a CLEAR definition of being able to fly (metric if you will). Saying someone can't write is subjective outside the scope of someone being totally illiterate (which the examples in the previous paragraph illustrate).

Sloppy analogies like the one Cliff put forth I find infuriating as they betray the core of the argument at hand. It's a common trick to bury a bad definition in a simply analogy to push an inconsistent argument on an unwary individual. Professionals like pilots, construction workers etc., need professional qualifications as their ability to do their jobs can be consistently quantified in a logical manner. The price you pay for being in the arts is that there is no such consistent quantification and thus no consistent qualification exists because they CAN'T exist.

I've been thinking about Ellison, whom I think is a wonderful, gifted and extraordinary author. Yes, he is prickly about some things -- but he's also witty and even charismatic on occasion, and he is genuinely interesting to listen to and read. Other people, sometimes espousing the same things, are often just rude, and without any of the wit and charm that Ellison brings to a discussion.

It does make a huge difference.

zette:

Ask Harlan Ellison what he thinks about professional standards of writing and watch the "Dark Dreamers" clip on YouTube in which he ridicules dopes who think they can "drive, f--k and write". He would make short work of anyone who claims to be an author without any qualifications or even the slightest credibility. Don't take my word for it, I'm sure you can dig up an e-mail address for him somewhere, drop him a line.

And then watch your monitor melt.

PD, the internet is indeed part of the problem because, as Self says, it leads people to believe that because they have a format for their ideas and tuneless noodling, they are writers. "Not everyone has a novel in them" and too many people still believe such nonsense. These are the same folks who also contend that professional standards have no place in the arts, just like every other vocation (pilot, teacher, lawyer), a mindset which has led to mediocrities and wannabes making false claims and stupid, grandiose statements regarding the worth of their electronic scribbling. They haven't even taken the first steps to master their craft, learned the process of editing and critical analysis, refuse to acknowledge the bar of quality set by real writers who toil at their craft every single day.

But posterity will show them for the silly, deluded things they are. They won't even leave behind any books to be remaindered (and the forests of Canada heave a sigh of relief).

This discussion is circling back on itself, a sign, to my mind, of a thread running its course. I think some of us have views that are intractable and therefore I can see this, once again, devolving into "I'm a writer, so there" and "no, you aren't and you never will be (thank God)".

Selah...

Cliff, first, you are stereotyping people without justification.

>'it leads people to believe that because they have a format for their ideas and tuneless noodling, they are writers'

Where is your support for this statement? How do you know the minds of the internet masses so well to make such a sweeping and definitive statement? Given what I've seen of the people on the internet, I have not seen this to be the case at all. Case in point, you are the only one who consistently obsesses about the term 'writer'. Another observation is that people who blog call themselves "Bloggers" not "writers". There is a significant connotative difference between those labels. So, please explain exactly what observations have lead you to this sweeping conclusion; i.e. no name dropping. Opinions of published authors who happen to share your viewpoint are not valid in this argument as you are debating for RIGOUROUS quantification of the term 'writer'.

>'"Not everyone has a novel in them" and too many people still believe such nonsense.'

This reads like you believe that everyone 'has a novel in them'. While I don't believe everyone is meant to write a novel, I believe everyone has a medium that they can contribute something unique to. That may entail one painting, writing poetry or novels, sculpting or whatever. My opinion is that if a person needs to fail at writing a novel so they may find the medium for which they are most attuned, then so much the better.

>'These are the same folks who also contend that professional standards have no place in the arts'

First, placement of professional standards in the arts is not an issue of 'contention'; it simply can not be implemented in a consistent way. I explained, at length, the importance of that distinction in my post #80.

>'a mindset which has led to mediocrities and wannabes making false claims and stupid, grandiose statements regarding the worth of their electronic scribbling.' ... 'But posterity will show them for the silly, deluded things they are. They won't even leave behind any books to be remaindered'

This is just flawed logic plain and simple. You are blindly assuming that such claims were not made before the advent of the internet; you then follow by saying such statements are inevitably forgotten. That is, you are acknowledging that such 'grandiose statements' are forgotten in time; but then you twist that only-historical presence into supporting a claim of complete historical non-existence. Just because you are not aware of such past claims, doesn't mean they actually never happened; and you wouldn't be aware of such claims, by your own reasoning of time swallowing mediocrity.

>'They haven't even taken the first steps to master their craft, learned the process of editing and critical analysis, refuse to acknowledge the bar of quality set by real writers who toil at their craft every single day.'

How do you know this? As of yet, you have still yet to properly define any of the words in this statement in a consistent, well-defined way. So again, you make an intrinsically nebulous statement because you don't step-up and define the words you use. What CAN be quantified in this statement is acknowledgment, and I believe this is what it comes down to. Everything in this statement is soft, nebulously defined, except the acknowledgment of 'the bar of quality'. You either acknowledge some or you don't; it's a simple yes or no question. This is unlike the term 'writer' which can be taken to mean any number of things, see post #80. I find it interesting that the only thing in your post that isn't opinion-based or poorly-defined centers around 'writers' receiving ACKNOWLEDGMENT for setting a 'bar of quality' which has yet to be defined. Is this the definition for writer your going on here? A person is a writer when they are revered as being so? Honestly, that is what I am FORCED to go on as nothing else in your post is well-defined.

>'This discussion is circling back on itself, a sign, to my mind, of a thread running its course.'

It has circled back on itself because you have not answered ONE point I made in post #80 outside of dropping a name of someone who holds your same opinions. On the contrary, you have just essentially repeated your own opinion-based arguments.

>'I think some of us have views that are intractable and therefore I can see this, once again, devolving into "I'm a writer, so there" and "no, you aren't and you never will be (thank God)".'

No, I am NOT arguing who is a writer and who isn't. I am arguing that the way you are use the term 'writer' to belittle the efforts of others isn't based off of logic or fact. You have used this label to decry the efforts of those whom you have no understanding. Unfortunately, your statements are presented in a way such that people may not notice all the little word-plays you do to persuade them to seeing your point of view. I am simply arguing that your labels and definitions have nothing to do with logic, consistency or facts. I don't care why you make your arguments logically flawed and nebulous; that is your own affair. All I want to do is give a perspective on your statements so that other members of the forum can see them for what they are... JUST your opinions that have no basis in fact or reason.

When I read people claiming that dreck does not survive and only truly literary works stand the test of time, I think of Edgar Rice Burroughs, who produced a whole string of works like Princess of Mars which are still read today :-D

When thinking about the 'Arts', substitute musician into the fray.

Whether a rock band filling a stadium, a local philharmonic, or grandpa playing the banjo on the rocking chair in the living room. I think it's fair to say they are all musicians.

The only reason why it may seem like the Internet has caused an explosion in writers is that it is so pervasive. Before the Internet I can remember the people who journaled, who wrote for the local penny-saver newspaper (where all you needed to be published was to turn in words), pay to see your poetry with other 'poets' in book form (that's still around), etc. etc.

The Internet hasn't produced more 'writers', it's just revealed the ones who were already there, or would've been 'there' anyway. I don't see any threat.

If an individual is good enough to be a writer, their own work should be enough to bolster their own ego. After all, isn't writing just an individual activity anyway? It's up to readers to determine its worth, not the writer. The writer can only hope . . .

Just passing by this thread, and noted that the bbc has an article on attacting readers to your book. Nowhere does it mention posting it on the internet as being a useful mechanism.

>83 PDExperiment626: - but aren't you shooting yourself in the foot? You claim that you cannot use facts re writing because everything is subjective and then you attack CliffBurns on the grounds that his 'views' (a word he uses to describe his position) are not based on facts. Where is the logic in that?

I agree that the arts are subjective but to paraphrase the old communist joke - some people's views are more equal than others. For example, if you and Will Self are talking to me about writing I will listen to Will Self because as far as I know you have never published anything or, if you have, never received acclaim. He therefore has knowledge and skill that you don't have.* On the other hand, I will listen to you about mathematics.

* this leads to the real problem of subjectivity in the arts - everyone DOES think their opinion IS equally important. The argument is "I can read" or "I can see" therefore I have the same skills as that critic or writer or artist because that's all they do. However I think most of us will admit if you read better books you end up reading better because your critical faculties are increased (unless you are not paying attention). Good writers and critics do this to the nth degree, not to mention background reading, thereby acquiring greater knowledge than the average well-read man in the street. Art remains subjective but critical approaches to art should be treated objectively.

Perhaps it would be easier to differentiate writers between amateurs (non-published) and professional (published).

Re - the influence of the internet. The best analogy is of a supermarket. In the past we shopped in a local shop;we had a limited choice but we were relatively satisfied. Now we are shopping in a supermarket that gives us so much choice that we are overwhelmed by it - choice, rather than making us feel better, has made us more dissatisfied. It potentially offers everything but with each item chosen there is a feeling that we are not chosing something else that may be even better.

>84 AnthonyGWilliams: - that is because sf&f readers, along with romance readers, have the lowest standards - stick a woman in a metal bikini, or a spaceship, on the cover and people will buy it. (Yes, I do read sf, and there are some very good writers).

> 30

You miss my point entirely.

The point is that if you pick up a book (or a scroll, or a clay tablet), you need only knowledge of the language to read it. You don't need an intervening device to "decode" the information on the page.

technology will of course shift around, just as it's always done, and the really startling thing is that it DOESN'T MAKE A BIT OF DIFFERENCE.

Sure it does.

If you are using an E-reader, or a CD-ROM, etc., you had better either hang onto your hardware, hope the technology needed to "read" the data lasts, or be willing to shell out the bucks to have the data transferred to whatever new technology comes along.

Heck, even changing an operating system or browser may render some of your data difficult, if not impossible, to read.

you can't be sure that paper will be ubiquitous in 200 or 500 years.

I'm not worried, not with all the different sources used to make paper and other writing surfaces, not just over the past millennia, but now (thing papyrus reed, rag, animal skins, just about any variety of plant you can think of).

Jargoneer, read my post carefully; nowhere do I attack cliffburns as a person. I simply argue against his PRESENTATION of his ideas which are clouded in flawed logic and poorly-defined words. Of course, I would never hold Cliff's opinions against him; but I will challenge arguments that are logically flawed, if they are presented as supporting evidence of said opinion.

#87: ">84 AnthonyGWilliams: - that is because sf&f readers, along with romance readers, have the lowest standards - stick a woman in a metal bikini, or a spaceship, on the cover and people will buy it. (Yes, I do read sf, and there are some very good writers)."

There seems to be a degree of circularity in that argument. Populist genre books don't count, because the views of their readers don't matter...so if you're only allowing the opinions of the "literati" to count, it's hardly surprising that only "literary" books are said to survive.

My point is simply that the argument that only high-quality literary books survive the test of time is manifestly untrue, if by "survive the test of time" we mean "books which are still read decades after publication".

>89 PDExperiment626: - I didn't mean that you attacked him personally, I'm just debating your logic. You stated that facts cannot be used with regard to the arts since it is all subjective and then accuse his arguments of having no facts behind them but that can't happen since you have already disregarded that possibility. Therefore you can argue, "I don't agree with your opinion" but not "your facts are wrong" since by making all facts redundant you are only left with opinions.

I think maybe something that has been missed, or at least not treated as thoroughly as it should, in this debate so far, is the fact that writers (by which I mean everyone who writes) are not crystallised in time, but constantly developing. For example, many of the people who post their work on internet forums (don't want to go into the self-publishing issue cos I know nothing about it) are aware that they're not Shakespeare, and quite possibly never will be. But they make their work accessible to the public in the genuine, open-minded hope of receiving feedback from someone more experienced which will help them improve.

I heard someone on the radio recently make the point that if Mozart had died as a boy, he'd never have been remembered this long. His early works were astounding for a child of his age to have produced, but in and of themselves they were nothing out of the ordinary. In the same way, some of the crap and the not-great-not-terrible writing you find on the internet marks a stage in the development of someone who might well become a fantastic wordsmith in later years. After all, isn't that part of learning the writer's craft - going back to what you were so proud of a few years ago, reading it through, cringing uncontrollably and finally setting fire to it, wondering how you could ever have written such guff?

Eruntane:

I have no quibble with "developing" writers or "amateur" writers. I've mentored a number of them, given advice and encouragement on folks' sites, never turn away an up-and-comer asking for input. I see that as part of my role as a professional writer, a task I take on gladly.

A writer "in development" is a whole other level removed from a writer with professional credentials and qualifications. I make that distinction, other people on this forum don't.

There's the rub...

#85 Scaryguy:

I'm afraid I don't agree with your allusion to musicians.

A guy practicing in his basement is (everyone together now) an "aspiring" musician or "amateur" musician.

If he goes up to Jimmy Page or Jeff Tweedy and presumes to lecture them on guitar technique and music theory, he's also a complete posturing arse. Pete Townshend would likely bust his guitar over his head. Why not instead approach them respectfully and ask them how they managed a certain effect or show him a certain chord progression that has always baffled him?

If he did that, came to them with an attitude of humility and respect (and a realistic appraisal of his standing) your aspiring musician would be guaranteed far better treatment. He is NOT their peer...he has miles and years to go, finger-aching practicing and jamming, before he's even close. And if he doesn't have natural talent he'll NEVER get there.

Now, switch your allusion back to writing and...

#95

Scary was keeping the scary on the low-down, that's all. Truth can be found in simplicity, Scary always says.

Scary has never had an 'amateur' lecture him. If he did, he'd probably just thank the person for their information and send them on their way. Scary ain't a hateful person.

Of course, Scary has a happy life and doesn't spend his time berating people in discussion boards either. Well --

What Scary wants to know is where is all of this concentrated anger is coming from? It doesn't take a PhD in psychology to 'feel' the bitterness.

Don't take all this too seriously -- what does it all matter anyway? The time you spend berating other people could be used in honing your own craft. Promoting your own work, instead of whining.

You certainly won't win any sales from those you alienate.

Writing is a tough business already -- why make it cut throat?

#95

Are you proposing some kind of graduated system? Non-published writers can only grovel when they ask questions or offer opinions, when they've published one novel they can stand up a bit straighter, and so on? I'm all for being respectful when talking to people who know more than I do on a subject, and there are many, but I don't see that as a reason to treat them like royalty and all aspiring writers like nothing.

Cliff, first of all, let me pay you respect for having produced the most unabashedly Ad hominem laced response I have 'ever' read. PD, rightfully so, pointed out that the semantics of your argument are subjective. Words are open to many interpretations, and he asked for a clear explanation, some ground to reality, of your use of the term "writer." In my opinion, he was especially nice to not use the common dictionary definition of the word, as an objective tie to common interpretation of its meaning--- instead appealing to allow you to make your own definition and tests for it.

One of the widely accepted definitions of the term 'writer':

Writer: a person who writes or is able to write

You could have at least provided some definition of how you view the term for yourself, so that it may be used in an objective manner. Without providing such a definition, your argument in itself, is an opinion. You then, go on to state the incredible circular logic that it is only PD's opinion, that your opinion is an opinion. You then go to regurgitate a spiel avoiding any of his argument, that relies simply on a total appeal to your own authority. Appeal to authority is not logically complete, and it only takes a single published author with a contradictory opinion to illustrate its total lack of internal merit. If his logic is not internally consistent, perhaps hold a candle to it, rather than avoid it with classical false logic and debate tactics.

Entertaining your blatant "appeal to authority" high-school debate tactic (with more Ad hominem of my own): you can expect British snobbery to prevail, especially when the source is ornery old writers, worried about a world of changing technology. Especially when confronted with the prospect that all of their especially bad novels over the years, that for some reason obtained publishers, will eventually be supplanted by a wealth of bad novels provided by average people--- and thus a slightly higher probability of some good ones in the mix. Publishing, clearly, is mostly based on hype, and capital, or whether the person has some fame. Why is it that every failed movie actor has a biography sitting on the bargain book shelf at Barnes & Noble? I'm sure you build a wall of cognitive dissonance, Cliff, avoiding the acceptance your books will likely retain the same longevity as every other piece on that bargain book shelf, when you see it sitting next to Ann Coulter's recent masterpiece. I suspect, perhaps the definition of writer to you, must be an angry geezer spending days on end in their basement, being supported by their wife, and worrying endlessly that this 'Internet' thing will be an end to the small income they currently receive for their self-professed "master craft." Why else would a five star hotel worry, that the yokels next door are renting out their back room? Perhaps it's simply an illustration of their own personal insecurity that there may be some roaches roaming around in their halls as well.

>'okay, that is your OPINION. On the other hand, your views, however you express them, are hardly definitive or objective.'

It has nothing to do with opinion. I went through great pains to actually walk through the logical inconsistencies of your arguments, to demonstrate how my observations were NOT based on personal opinions. Let me explain this through a simplified scenario. Let's say someone came up to me and said "the sky is green". I would not have a problem with that. Now let's say someone came up to me and said "The sky has one color; the sky is green, and the sky is purple. You are an idiot if you don't believe me". THEN I would say they have flawed logic as the that person has created a flawed argument; they have claimed that the sky is one color then go on to state it is two different colors and then insults my intelligence to intimidate me into believing them (the ACTUAL color of the sky is not important to the counter argument, just like your literary opinion doesn't play into the arguments I've made). What you have now just said, Cliff, is that the statement of saying the logic is FLAWED is a statement of OPINION. Your statements are internally inconsistent; and as of yet, you have not defined exactly WHAT a writer is. If you have so much conviction that you are right, just define exactly what you mean by writer in a consistent, non-circular way. You've written enough that this shouldn't be beyond you.

>'I might rely on your judgment if I needed technical help on a story relating to higher mathematics but when it comes to matters regarding literature, I think I'll keep my own counsel. I would argue that, based on my experiences in the trenches of literature, I have a SOMEWHAT deeper perspective and understanding on the subject of this thread than a literary neophyte (or someone with a background in math, rather than, y'know, WRITING).'

I have posted THREE times now that my arguments have nothing to do with actual writing but with how you use faulty logic to make arguments to push your opinion. I am criticizing your debating abilities not your literary ones. This is the fourth time I've had to spell this out. Pulling the 'I have more literary credentials' does nothing to address the inconsistencies you have put forth in previous posts. It is unfortunate that you have decided to attack my credentials rather than the actually arguments I made against your reasoning; emoting against a logical argument doesn't make you right Cliff.

>'You couch your arguments in a kind of dismissive reductionism, try to achieve a tone whereby you give the impression that your points have some scientific basis of fact that is irrefutable...'

If you mean 'dismissive' meaning 'unemotional', then you are correct. In debate, the person who argues emotionally fail to make their point (i.e. they fail to construct a logically consistent argument). I don't use emotion in a logical discourse as it serves no purpose to the argument at hand.

>'I won't presume to lecture YOU on equations featuring long strings of numbers,'

Why not? I don't have a problem with people bringing up potentially interesting mathematical concepts to my attention, regardless of their background. Even though it's been awhile since I've dealt with equations having 'long streams of numbers', I'm open to anything you have to say on the subject, Cliff.

>'what makes you so certain your perspective on literary matters trumps mine? What are your writing credentials, what have you published?'

AGAIN, I am arguing the LOGIC of your arguments NOT writing. Since you have now asked for credential twice; I'll give you some. I entered into university as a high school senior. I graduated summa cum laude with a double B.S. degree (with honors) in mathematics and physics. I was awarded a full-fellowship to attend UMDCP as a graduate student in applied mathematics. A year and a half into my graduate studies I was awarded an international postgraduate research scholarship (IPRS) to attend the Australian National University for studies in pure mathematics. IPRS is the Australian equivalent of a Fullbright or Rhodes scholarship. I am currently finishing a thesis that explores the regularity of certain nonlinear partial differential equations. I have completed research projects for Princeton University, General Atomics and Los Alamos national labs. I worked as an editorial assistant for a scientific journal at MIT (quantum information processing). I have taught math and physics to undergraduates and graduate students for about 9 years now (since I was a sophomore undergraduate). I also worked as a network analyst for Digital (which became Compaq which became HP). Unfortunately, my schedule hasn't afforded me the time to publish a work of fiction, as of yet.

Don't worry Cliff; I don't require a list of credentials from anyone who decides to challenge my arguments, mathematical or otherwise.

Good lord! This thread is becoming a monster!

So, of course, it’s time to chime in and add my opinions to the mix…

First, we simply have to define ‘writer’, because that seems to be the main point of contention here. Throw Webster’s out, because I think we can all agree that someone who scribbles meaningless letters on a sheet of paper just isn’t a ‘writer’, even though he’s using recognizable English (or Sanskrit, or Cyrillic, or Mandarin) letters and/or characters. If I write sdnKlwEExin, that doesn’t make me a writer in any but the most simplistic definition of the word.

But what about ‘The sun shone happily on the green grass’? If I write that sentence, am I a writer?

At this point, many of you will agree that, yes, the creator of that line can be said to be a writer. The words are simple, the adverb anthropomorphic and somewhat ludicrous, but there’s a subject and a verb and all the parts of speech work the way they’re supposed to. String a few more of those together and you’ve got a paragraph.

I’m not the martinet that Cliff is, but I demand a bit more from my writers than the ability to put words and sentences together correctly. Important though that ability is (indeed, it’s pretty much all the ability most people will ever need—it allows them to write a love letter, a note of complaint or a set of driving directions), I hope most of you can agree that ‘writer’ should carry at least a bit of cachet.

Again, I ain’t Cliff. But I certainly respect his crusade, though his windmills aren’t mine. Mine are smaller, my lance shorter, my Rocinante slower and older, and I really don’t care if some shlub who writes Lovecraft rip-offs (badly) and unrhymed poetry filled with gloom and suicide and references to Death as a lover calls himself a ‘writer’—no skin off my nose, and I don’t feel threatened.

That said, we’re talking about ART, here. And I think that’s where Cliff and the rest of you diverge (two roads in a bloody wood). No matter what you think of Edgar Rice Burroughs and his wondrous, ludicrous creations, I bet most of you would call the man a writer. Cliff might not. And that’s because Cliff is elitist. And that’s what art is all about—elitism. Burroughs and Shakespeare did the same thing, using the same tools, with dramatically different results, and I doubt anyone here would call ERB the equal of the Bard just because they both told stories using English on paper. John Carter gets completely smoked by Hamlet, Tarzan gets his butt kicked by Othello and so on—and that’s because Wm. Shakespeare was an artist, a genius, a…a writer.

Me, I’m on the side of the common man and common literature. I can enjoy Clive Barker and John Keats in equal measure, would just as soon read a James Bond novel as a John Steinbeck, get as much satisfaction from ‘The Stand’ as I do from ‘A Canticle for Leibowitz’ as I do from ‘The Road’. But obviously, some of those works are better than the others, right? Barker is fun and bloody and wonderful, but he never wrote anything as beautiful as ‘Lamia’ or ‘Ode on a Grecian Urn’, and King’s opus isn’t as important as Miller’s, and neither of them have the raw power of McCarthy’s apocalyptic dream. So there are gradations, and this is where Cliff keeps getting into arguments, because he’s the lonely sonofabitch carrying the torch of high art and talent and genius against the dark tide of internet-carried zombie novels and bad poetry and misspelled essays about time-travel movies.

So how can you folks get angry with him? Why the venom? I’m a small-press author with a few published stories under my belt and a novel in search of an agent, and those are my credentials. Most of my tales are about vampire trains and selkies in swimming pools and beer-tasting contests with the Devil, I have a lot of eyeball explosions and shotgun battles and rough sex scenes, and I’m nowhere CLOSE to being the kind of ‘writer’ Cliff talks about—but I don’t feel particularly threatened by the guy. Maybe later in life I’ll start worrying about why I was never good enough to be thought of as a literary giant, but for now I’m happy giving my readers a few thrills, creating a few interesting characters, cashing a few small checks for my labors. I KNOW I’m not Shakespeare, I KNOW I’m not Ellison or Faulkner or McCarthy—but I think that if I keep working hard and honing my tools and plying my craft, I could turn out to be another Leiber or Christie or King, and that’ll be just fine.

So am I a writer? I certainly think so—but I don’t have a problem with Cliff saying that I’m not. The world NEEDS its arbiters of quality and art NEEDS elitism. More power to you, man—keep fighting the good fight.

And everyone else—keep writing.

>'Sorry, I just don't see you as an arbiter of logic...' ... 'This kind of pseudo-scientific attitude you adapt is a facade and all the bluster in the world doesn't disguise the fact that you belong in front of a dashboard full of numbers, not hectoring a professional writer about how wrong he is.'

While I'm open to debates from anyone on any topic regardless of their background, I will not tolerate someone challenging my logic or scientific abilities without citation or credentials. Where are yours Cliff?

If you can't back your words with facts or reason, you bring nothing to this debate nor this forum. You've retorted an intellectual challenge with a personal attack; and thus have FAILED at bringing anything to this discussion beyond juvenile debating tactics.

It's very poor form and speaks volumes of what type of 'writer' you actually are.

John:

Thank you. You've summed things up rather elegantly.

And I think I'll leave it there...

I suppose every megalomaniac writer needs an apologist--- so they can avoid answering anything with a substantive ground to reality (a task that should be left to mere mortals). But I respect you, John, for doing so: and with a shade of humility, Cliff may only be capable of mimicking. There really isn't any venom here, and I'm of the same opinion you are, that he may hold his own opinion about who falls into a self-chosen class of elites or not. PD only demonstrated that it was simply his opinion, rather than the absolute reality he attempts to tout it as. I think he did so only to advocate and hopefully promote striving writers such as yourself, who haven't yet achieved the level of unashamed self-worship as Cliff. I just find it laughable when professional writers remind me of my observation of high school self described "Goths," critiquing the rising popularity of their cliche, by labeling those who purchase the same ready-made outfits they do from Hot-topic, using the same (in my opinion self-)deprecating childish terms: "posers," and "wannabes."

(laughing)

I just spent five minutes trying to figure out if you were insulting me, and I finally decided that you weren't. If I'm wrong, be a little more obvious next time, will you?

I'm not trying to be an 'apologist' for Cliff, because he doesn't need one and I don't care one way or the other what everyone thinks of him. I've read some of his work and find it very fine, and I've read some of his blogs and found them annoying.

On the other hand, I enjoy this board and this forum, and I've always tried to be a peacemaker when possible. I'm not a big fan of contention (in real life, that is--in fiction, it's essential), and I figure that writers have enough problems in life without snapping and bickering amongst ourselves.

The discussion between Cliff and PDExperiment started off promisingly but has degenerated, and as has been noted has begun to get into ad hominem territory, which is no fun for anyone. So I thought I'd dip my oar in--which is a bad metaphor, isn't it? What's dipping an oar gonna do but further roil the waters?

Perhaps I'll gracefully withdraw back into the shadows...

Been following this thread.

I'm with Self, more or less. Before the internet, most amateur writers wouldn't have introduced themselves as "a writer" or "a poet". They might say, "I'm a teacher, but in my spare time I write". But now the internet abounds with self-professed "writers". This profusion denudes the term of its meaning. If everyone's a writer (and everyone arguably is) then no-one's a writer.

I think even now, when most people say "This is Helen, she's a writer", they mean she's a professional writer, not an accountant who's taking part in "NaNoWriMo"*.

Just as my ability to wire a plug doesn't entitle me to call myself an electrician, my penchant for jotting verse doesn't seem enough to render me a writer. That would just be pretentious, really.

Of course, there are many published writers who nonetheless can't support themselves through writing, because the pay is lousy. And writing is an unusual profession in that it's not supported by tangible qualifications. So we have to draw a (somewhat arbitrary) line somewhere, and personally I draw it here: if you've had something printed by a bona fide publisher, then OK, go ahead, put "writer" on your letterhead, for what it's worth. Otherwise, I tend to think you're kidding me.

*Unquestionably the most graceless abbreviation ever.

(Back, back, back several messages. . . .)

I'm fully aware of Ellison's views and that they're not the same as mine. That doesn't change the fact that I think he's a great writer and witty, rather than rude -- though he can be outspoken as well.

And yes, i've seen the YouTube piece. So? I never expect everyone to agree to my views.

Since I don't even know who the heck Will Self is, I don't feel like I have earned the right to contribute to the debate. But having read through the prodigious entries which obviously took much thought and effort, I didn't want to be just a lurker. Thanks to all of you for the fine discussion. Now i shall proceed to click over to Wikipedia and read about Mr. Self...

"I want to be misunderstood. And the other thing that amuses me is: I don't particularly want to be liked. Nobody goes into the business of writing satire to be liked. Whether I am or am not a nice bloke is neither here nor there. It's not part of the task I've set myself in my art."

-Will Self

VictoriaPL, you have every right to contribute to the debate; I, for one, would like hearing any insight you may have into the subject, even if that entails criticisms of my own posts. That goes for anyone else who doesn't feel they have right or "qualifications" to contribute; I know I can learn something from everyone. Being a human being is qualification enough in my opinion.

LT has a great group of very interesting people with a spectrum of talents; the more constituents of LT contribute to the forums, the more I'm able to get out of this site. It's a good thing :).

Anyone reading this thread would think that "writer" must mean "writer of fiction". There are of course various other sorts of writing - non-fiction books and articles, columns in newspapers and magazines etc. - and no definition of "writer" should exclude those who produce such work.

The vast majority of my work so far has been non-fiction (several books and many articles, all traditionally published), but I have written some fiction recently (self-published, for reasons I explain here: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/OnPublishingFiction.htm ). I also work as a non-fiction editor (which actually brings in most of my income). So much for my "credentials".

If people ask me what I do, I say I'm a "writer and editor". I don't distinguish between fiction and non-fiction; the skills are related, albeit not the same.

I am aware that this post threatens to send an already explosive thread sky high... also that it could be considered as crossing the line of off-topicness. If enough people tell me they think this is irrelevant, I'll happily delete it.

However, I'm intrigued: John said that art needs elitism, and that Cliff is right to maintain his elitist attitude even when other people aren't. I just wondered whether this is a situation that we are to take as only applying to art, or more widely. Because I'm a Christian. I believe that everyone has sinned, and is desperately in need of Jesus Christ's forgiveness in order to avoid total and eternal separation from the presence of God (Hell, if you'll forgive me the dirty word.) Now, I'm guessing that the reaction of most of you here to that statement is something along the lines of "If you think you need Jesus then that's fine, but how dare you presume to tell me who or what I need?" So my question is this - primarily directed to John but open to anyone else who wants to weigh in - Do you really believe that another person has the right to call the shots of what is 'good', 'not so good' and 'bad', and if someone has this right when it comes to art, would you accord it to them in any other domain?

> 112

That is so off-topic! Of course, this thread has gone wildly off-topic already.

sorry i'm late for the party,

did anybody bring any pot?

i've got some great wine . . .

"Jeremiah was a bullfrog,
He was a good friend of mine,
I never understood a single word he said
but I helped him drink his wine.
Yes, he always had some mighty fine wine."

#109 -- Anyone can be misunderstood and not liked. There's no great art or work in either, and if that's some prerequisite for being a Self-like writer, then it's pretty silly. We're supposed to think this is an important part of being a Writer?

It may be Self's plan, but I'd prefer to write stories that are entertaining adventures, rather than ones where people go 'huh?' at the end. (Though, to be honest, that will happen to any writer at sometime.) And like or dislike (of the person) has nothing at all to do with writing. Being rude and obnoxious is just an attention-getter, and may be his marketing plan, but it doesn't have anything to do with his writing.

Someone raised a great point way back. Forgive me, my eyes hurt too much from reading this thread to go back and give the appropriate poster credit.

Many of the terms we're all using are very imprecise so its invaluable to stop and make clarifications.

The term 'writer' applies across genres and forms: fiction, non-fiction, narrative, journalism, blogging, etc. Anyone who studies and takes the time to work at the craft of writing can call his or her self a writer.

Writing as an art form is what interests me most. Writing as literature. I love poetry above all else.

What bugs me most is this idea that art is subjective, especially writing. Language isn't subjective, so how can writing be? Language isn't all together objective either, granted, but its more towards objective than subjective. If I look at William Carlos Williams' "Red Wheel Barrow" poem and say its about a trip on the subway in 1940's NY, what does that mean? Well to start, it means I'm wrong. There's no two ways about it. Art is open to interpretation but its not a vacuum of subjectivity.

I've studied writing and studied creative writing throughout four years of college, also before and after. The biggest gripe I have (internet aside) is that most writers are weak readers. During critiques the most common phrase heard is "I don't know." That's simply not good enough. How can you (general you, no one in particular) call yourself a writer when you're not even a good reader?

This might just be a pet peeve b/c it kills a workshop but I think it's more than that.

We need to distinguish between the action and the title/designation. I write. I am a writer. Two very different statements. There is more to being a writer than just writing. How about workshopping and critiquing? No writer learns and perfects her craft on her own. Every artist is tied into a community, to which they owe something.

For a long time I wondered why great writers seemed to happen in schools and in successions. Good artists know each and help each other. Writing may be a solo action but BEING a writer is being tied into a community. We like to talk about the internet and websites like a community exists, but in many cases for artists, this isn't true. Community means help and growth. Many writing sites don't offer much beyond "Well done" and "Keep up the good work." Those are not critiques and critiquing is part of being a writer.

117 -- That is an excellent point about critiquing groups. I see it at Forward Motion a bit, most often in the open critique board, and less often in the private groups, where they generally cull the people that aren't really working well. I think Internet critique groups have the potential for being far better than live ones, though they rarely live up to it. It is, though, far easier to both critique and read a critique in private, where you don't have to deal with the immediate reactions of the writer. At the same time, the writer has more time to go over the critique before he gives any answer. Unfortunately, there will always be people who are afraid to be honest in what bothered them in a story. And, of course, there are always the writers who take any suggestion as criticism of their entire ability to write.

There's also the big problem of attacking the person rather than critiquing the work. There's a big difference between 'You tell stupid stories' and 'This is not the type of story I like to read.' Too many of the egotists can't tell the difference between their personal taste and something that might appeal to others.

I am aware that this post threatens to send an already explosive thread sky high... also that it could be considered as crossing the line of off-topicness. If enough people tell me they think this is irrelevant, I'll happily delete it.

However, I'm intrigued: John said that art needs elitism, and that Cliff is right to maintain his elitist attitude even when other people aren't. I just wondered whether this is a situation that we are to take as only applying to art, or more widely. Because I'm a Christian. I believe that everyone has sinned, and is desperately in need of Jesus Christ's forgiveness in order to avoid total and eternal separation from the presence of God (Hell, if you'll forgive me the dirty word.) Now, I'm guessing that the reaction of most of you here to that statement is something along the lines of "If you think you need Jesus then that's fine, but how dare you presume to tell me who or what I need?" So my question is this - primarily directed to John but open to anyone else who wants to weigh in - Do you really believe that another person has the right to call the shots of what is 'good', 'not so good' and 'bad', and if someone has this right when it comes to art, would you accord it to them in any other domain?

Eruntane,

I don't think it's a question of 'having the right' to make value decisions. We've all got the right to make jackasses of ourselves and claim that a velvet painting of Elvis is better than, say, The Last Supper. Harlan Ellison used to say that one DOESN'T have the right to an opinion--one has a right to an INFORMED opinion. That word makes a world of difference.

Elitism as regards art doesn't affect the real world in any important way. The critics who love Cynthia Ozick and abominate Dan Brown haven't made a farthing's worth of difference in the amount of books sold by each author. They haven't swayed public opinion in any meaningful way (other, that is, than the public opinion of people who are already inclined to appreciate Ozick over Brown). They're not interviewed on 'Oprah' or 'The Today Show'. But for all of that, they're performing a valuable service. They're trying (sometimes successfully) to define the work that could become canonical, to place modern literature into a centuries-old framework, to share with their audiences what they so desperately believe--that this, that or the other is TRUE ART.

I'm not sure what parallel you're drawing with your Christianity, but I can venture a hazy guess--and, yes, I think you have every right to evangelize or proselytize. You, like my imaginary critics, are firmly convinced that you are right and most of the world is wrong, and though yours may be a voice crying out in the wilderness, it demands (as all strong opinions and beliefs do) to be heard. Cliff speaks to this ukase, of course, and others of us have our own crusades, and we simply can't (and shouldn't) silence True Belief, even if that means letting the Nazis march down Main Street.

I've got every right to ignore your dogma, of course, just as I have the right to picket the Nazis or politely disagree with Cliff. Don't get me wrong, though--once the Nazis start harming others, I say we come down on them like a ton of bricks. If the Jehovah's Witnesses won't get off my porch, I'll have the cops on them. And if Cliff starts doing anything harmful to anyone else, I'll withdraw my support. But he hasn't--he's proclaiming in a loud, sometimes annoying voice some of the same things that I believe, and I'm happy to see his views aired.

Note, though, that just because I happen to agree with the man's views on literature (at least in part) doesn't mean that I'll necessarily agree with his views on politics, painting or professional football. So to answer your question--no. You have to earn the right to influence my opinions, and some few people in the world definitely have, while most have not. If Harold Bloom says something about literature, I'll definitely consider it, because he's read ten thousand books, written persuasively about ideas and themes and has become a bellwether of critical (read:elitist) opinion. I sometimes disagree with Professor Bloom, but in my mind he's earned the right to call something 'good', 'not so good' or 'bad'.

But I won't listen to him about who our next president should be, who's going to win the Super Bowl or what kind of God to worship.

Does any of this answer your question, or have I missed the point entirely? Let me know, and I'll clarify.

Late to the discussion as well, so not much point jumping in but um, wow... I've never been more embarrassed to be from Saskatchewan.

All in all, I think having and reading others' opinions is an important part of defining your own stand on any subject. It helps teach a person to clarify and re-examine -- at least if they're willing to look closely at their own beliefs and examine them at all. This one has helped remind me that I never want to become a dogmatic, my-way-or-not-at-all type of person, with no flexibility to look beyond personal experience. We all run that risk in every subject we're passionate about, and especially if the stand we make defines who we are. I'd rather have some leeway in defining something like art, or the way in which a person creates it, because you never know when something fantastic is going to come along that has been created in a way you never expected possible.

Down through the last eight years of working with new writers, I've changed my stand from 'writers are people who write' to 'writers are people who finish manuscripts or are working diligently at their craft.' (See my thread on defining writers.) I will never judge -- or define -- a writer by how he works. I will, however, have opinions on individual books, just like any other reader does. I've known people who worked for years on manuscripts that were far worse than another person's first draft six-week novel. You cannot judge the finished project by how the person works. After meeting thousands of new writers, that's the one absolute truth I've learned. The second is that few of those new writers will have the perseverance to go all the way -- but that you cannot guess which ones it will be that make it.

There is a lot of bad writing on the Internet. There has always been a lot of bad writing -- it's just more accessible now. I know there are many poor writers, most of who could stand to have some grammar books on hand at the very least. However, those people are giving voice to the same drive that pushes every writer to put the thoughts down in a tangible form. They may be poor writers, but they are writers nonetheless.

Are they popular writers? Are they good writers? Are they adding to the common fund of great works for the future? Not many of them -- and most will be forgotten and swept away like in all ages of the past. It still doesn't make any difference to who I am or the world of literature in general. Those people deserve the right to create their works and share them in whatever format they want. They are writers. Not wannabe writers, but not great writers (in most cases) either. One doesn't have to be a literary giant to be a writer, and some good writers are gifted with a clear vision and good writing skills so that they don't have to work very hard at it, either. And in many cases, greatness is based on personal judgments. I don't like Dan Brown's books, either -- but I won't deny that he's a writer who has captured the interest of a group of readers. I adore the work of Isaac Bashevis Singer, but I also love Andre Norton. I think they're both great writers. I enjoyed the Rowling books, and I'm re-reading The Iliad, which I also enjoy. I adore Terry Pratchett and Will Cuppy. My tastes, however, will not define which of these people are 'great' writers, and I don't know the work habits of any of them. It makes no difference to me.

In other words, I believe you can judge individual pieces and you can even judge when a writer isn't one you want to read, for whatever reason. You can write some people off as poor writers. However, you cannot judge an entire group by how they are published or how they work.

#119: John,

Thanks for your answer. Sorry my question wasn't better phrased, but you pretty much answered it anyway.

Sorry for the digression, folks.

#121: "In other words, I believe you can judge individual pieces and you can even judge when a writer isn't one you want to read, for whatever reason. You can write some people off as poor writers. However, you cannot judge an entire group by how they are published or how they work."

Exactly so...

As a NaNo vet, I never thought I'd say this, but right now I'm inclined to agree with Will Self. I've written 20,000+ words of drivel that is not, nor ever will morph into, a novel.

Personal experience is always the key here, kperfetto. Some people will not do well with NaNo, one way or another. Some people do well one year and bad the next. That still doesn't make NaNo bad for everyone.

There are very few people who will come out of NaNo with something good. There are some who will come out with a working first draft that they might make better, if they're inclined to work at it. There are others who are just there to write something for fun.

There is nothing wrong with any of those scenarios, and absolutely nothing wrong with admitting if it doesn't work for you.

My protest to this kind of egotism (the Self material, etc.) is the decision that if something does not work for him, it is obviously bad for everyone. That coupled with the fact that it's no one's business what others are doing in November, and no one outside of the writer is going to be affected by these works one way or another, just makes it all pretty pretentious.

My first ever post on LT. And in such a monster of a thread. Random thoughts follow, which come nowhere near close to noting all my thoughts while reading this thread.

1) I've been reading Self's "The Book of Dave" this week and, having always considered him a bit of a lad and somewhat up himself, am rather happily surprised to find how very good the book is. Mesmerising and boggling, in fact.

2) I've always thought that the intitials POD referred solely Print on Demand. The definition of "Publish on Demand" was brought about, I understood, by that well-known scammy publisher, PublishAmerica. The act of publishing happens when the book is published by the publisher, after which copies may (or may not) be printed as they're ordered. Yep, small presses utilise POD technology because it saves them the outlay for a print-run; but that doesn't mean that the books are then Published on Demand. They've all ready been published.

3) I rather like the pilot analogy, many comments upstream. Writers, strictly speaking, are people who can write: that is, make decipherable marks on paper. That people who string those marks together in a pleasing way and who then manage to get a publisher to buy the rights to reproduce and sell those rights are also referred to as writers causes confusion, and yes, some sort of label should be applied to them, but for the life of me I can't think of a good one at the moment.

4) Self-published books, whether POD or offset, are unlikely to ever break through into best-sellerdom because few self-publishers have the resources to employ salespeople to get their books into bookshops, or to get their books reviewed where it really matters. So we're very unlikely to see a self-published best-seller unless the book has been noticed by a major publisher, and hawked by them in the interim, as happend with most of the titles touted in the "well, HE managed it" comments I've read elsewhere, not necessarily on LT.

My qualifications? I've been writing for a while, and used to be an editor, too. I've had a few non-fiction books published, but am still hanging on for that novel contract.

Cliff,

I must admit ... I didn't know who the hell Harlan Ellison was, but I thoroughly enjoyed that inverview.

Thanks for the clip!

Jeez, Lhea, hunt down some Ellison IMMEDIATELY!

I'd recommend starting with Deathbird Stories, but if you've got a little extra cash in your pocket The Essential Ellison is an amazing, wonderful book, one you'll dip into again and again. Mine holds a prime spot next to my workstation, and is ragged with wear.

My introduction to Ellison was a mass market paperback with an unsettling illustration on the front. A friend of mine had liberated it from one of those shelves of "book decor to provide ambience" at some restaurant. It was I Have No Mouth And I Must Scream and is so way cool.

I probably have the same copy of the book that you do, Xiguli--and you're right; the cover art IS disquieting.

One of the best speculative short stories ever written, in my opinion. The end still haunts me...

So...we all agree Harlan is a terrific writer with funny, acerbic views: someone drop him a line and ask him what HE thinks of silly ventures like NaNoWriMo and the proliferation of "writers" on the internet. I guarantee you, he's with Will Self on this one...

Is that really the test to which you put all your own opinions, Cliff? "Would Harlan Ellison Like It?" (note to self - begin my indie t-shirt empire with WHELI? logo tee)

I really like Ellison, and sometimes his stories are great. A lot of the time they're flawed, and sometimes they even suck. Someday we can start a Harlan Ellison readalong and I'll provide specifics in my typical exhaustive detail. But the point is that admiring Ellison's writing doesn't mean I somehow abandon my ability to reason and make evaluations about things like NaNo.

Don't misunderstand; I think you're totally right to research others' opinions, and to listen trustworthy sources, including Harlan and Will Self. I'm just saying that offering either opinion up as some kind of "proof" is sort of deflating. It's not a debate about WHELI?, which would be pointless, since we could just ask him; it's a debate about the larger subject of "Does this NaNo thing have worth?"

(Okay, okay, I realize your first post, Cliff, actually posed a question about what Self would think about NaNo. But the discussion expanded.)

Now that I've done NaNo, I can unhesitatingly say: NaNoWriMo was enormously helpful to me. It gave me a framework to strategize about output, a skill that I never really picked up elsewhere. It introduced me to exactly 3 other serious writers in my town, with whom regular interactions are already being planned. It allowed me to experiment with how to approach a long-ish form, and it allowed me to fail at the construction, but still learn so incredibly much from the experience that I have not a single regret. For me, NaNo has been a tool to advance my ultimate goal, which is to create Art and Make a Living.

The opinions of ANYone, pro or con, don't affect my personal experience at all. That's why it'd be beside the point for me to point out the famous successful authors who have good things to say about NaNo. If one of my literary heroes were to lay a kindly hand on my shoulder and utter, "Lisa, only morons participate in NaNo," I would have to answer, "Then being a moron gets me one step closer to my goal."

I get why a novel-writing month event is cheesy. It IS cheesy. Rife with people who don't even remotely share my outlook on life and art and meaning and quality. But I ignored the stuff that was useless to me and did what I came to do. Isn't that what you're always saying Being A Writer is all about, Cliff?

It's a good point you make...but if one NEEDS an event like NaNoWriMo to get jump-started what does it say about that person's overall commitment to writing? Being a writer requires sustained effort over many years--you think one month of tuneless scribbling allows one to join the ranks of Byron and Joyce? My comment that for REAL writers every month is NaNoWriMo still stands.

I'm glad it's useful for some people but the only real benefit will be if the individual involved keeps writing, long after November is over, day in and day out, perfecting their craft, coming to an understanding of the sheer amount of WORK and EFFORT full-time, professional writing requires.

How small a proportion of NaNoWriMo does that represent? How small a fraction persevere and commit to the DAILY practice of writing regardless of all the distraction and frustration and rejection...and how many just like the fleeting illusion that for 30 days they coulda been a contender...

...here's another clip of Harlan from YouTube, talking about writers getting shafted. At the end the piece he devotes a special dose of venom for, yes, AMATEURS:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mj5IV23g-fE

I wish more budding authors out there would listen to Mr. Ellison. He's seen it all over his long career and isn't afraid of kicking ass and naming names...

Ha ha ha. That was great.

I love this guy, and I haven't even read his books yet.

As much as he runs his mouth, I hope I come accross the great stories ... and stear clear from the ones that as Xiguli says, suck.

The thing about Ellison is that he's really a hit or a miss, no in between.

I knew about him in the early eighties only because he wrote the forward in my Doctor Who series books. Even then I wasn't too impressed -- all he seemed to do was rant (It was a very long winded forward) that DW was the greatest and Star Wars fans were retarded. It's funny the first few times, but it gets old real fast.

I finally picked up one of his books this year, -- I had a hard time finding any book of his and I live in Canada's capital -- Shatterday.

While some stories were interesting, I finally gave up. To me I found his preachiness showing through too opaquely in his work. Like trying to read Mein Kampf without being affronted by the 'moral' push behind it.

The wild thing is that he seems to have made more money in litigation than he has selling books. He's less a writer than he is a 'sue-r.'

He certainly loves himself and I, a common atheist, find that very distasteful. And I can't square away a man whose stories are rife with Spec fic and SCI fi yet is adverse to the Internet or email. That, my dear friends, is called a hypocrite, or it could be he just ain't working on all cylinders.

And his personal life is even more of a mess than his professional life!

Cliff, #133>

That's a fair point - if a person wants to write badly enough, they'll do it one way or another. But you have to bear in mind that you're probably in a fortunate minority. If you have the determination and self-discipline to keep on writing without any external constraints keeping you on track, then that's great for you. I envy you. But the fact is that not everyone has the same kind of drive as part of their personality. A person can love writing, and be very good at it, and still find it a huge struggle to make space to sit down and put pen to paper (or modern-day equivalent.) For people like that, the external encouragement of something like NaNo to make time for their writing is going to be really helpful, and so who cares if several thousand others won't carry on writing afterwards? No-one's hurt by that, are they?

I guess, Eruntane, my point has always been (in this discussion thread and others) that the proliferation of amateurs that has been brought about by the POD technologies, the internet and notions like NaNo has led to this kind of dilution of professional standards whereby anybody who scribbles words on paper is a writer, regardless of their talent level, discipline or originality. That is an insult to those individuals who have made an extraordinary commitment of time and energy, profound personal sacrifices in order to DAILY practice and improve their craft. NaNo encourages this culture of amateurism and for that reason I deplore it. If you don't have the drive and stamina and determination to work on your writing day after day, year in and year out, you clearly don't have what it takes to be a writer. It's part of the culling process. REAL writers write and don't need any pretexts or excuses.

Scary: I agree Harlan (personality and writing) isn't for everyone but he has ALWAYS defended his integrity as an artist and aggressively acted against anyone who tried to make hay out of one of his ideas without giving proper credit and compensation. Should we vilify him for that? If I was putting together an anthology of the 50 best SF stories of all time, I'll bet there would be more Ellison stories in there than anyone else. He's prickly, he's annoying, he's in your face...and when he's hot, there are few people in ANY genre who can touch him.

Cliff said:

...the internet and notions like NaNo has led to this kind of dilution of professional standards whereby anybody who scribbles words on paper is a writer...

I just don't see how this has anything to do with professional standards. This is about some people who, in the case of NaNo, found enjoyment during November writing a story. Do you really think that every editor is out there, standing in line, just waiting to grab those newly finished NaNo Novels?

Of course not. Those books will NEVER have any affect on professional standards. In the case of nearly every book written during NaNo, no one will see them, with the possible exception of a few friends and relatives. The few others that might have a chance of being good are going be edited, rewritten, submitted and judged just like any other book.

Some of those people are going to tell their friends that they wrote a book. You will never meet them, or their friends. They could just as soon say they composed a symphony in November -- that would have just as much affect on your life and your work.

The idea that this is some huge, terrible calamity -- people doing something intelligent with their November, rather than sitting in front of the TV -- is really kind of sad. People actually used their brains for a few weeks, worked with words, and many learned more about writing. They did not (for the most part) write great stories. Some of them may never write again. Some will write off and on all year. Some will improve, some will not. However, amateur writers are not the problem with professional standards and by their very nature never will be.

If ten thousand people said "I'm a writer!" right now, it would still have no affect on your work or the publishing industry. Your work is all that anyone is going to judge you on, not on what you call yourself -- writer, author, scribbler or whatever. If other people use those terms, and do not do the same things that you do, or work in the same ways that you do, it is still not going to be any reflection on you.

Cliff said:...the internet and notions like NaNo has led to this kind of dilution of professional standards whereby anybody who scribbles words on paper is a writer...
---------------------
zette said:...I just don't see how this has anything to do with professional standards...
---------------------
I come to this discussion not as a writer, but as an illustrator and designer. I can understand the point Will Self is making.

We had a similar scenario with the birth of the Mac and the Internet. A friend of mine put it very well when she said that technology doesn't create bad design, but it does make it accessible. It's an industry joke: "I bought a Mac. Now I am a designer". We also hear that old chestnut..."everyone is an artist..."

You only need to look at any publication to see how the standard has slipped. For example, there was a time when magazines would never publish using low resolution images. Take a look at current high and low end publications and you'll see this happening time and again. And this is just one example of what has now become the standard of our profession.

We have also experienced a decrease in wages. Many of these so called designers will almost give the work away for free just to be able to say they have been published.

Has any of this been happening to those of you who write?

Cliff, I'm not going to boost the flag count on your previous post. I don't think you're being abusive. I think you're being intolerant, but I'm going to assume that this stems from stupidity rather than malice. If you haven't taken the time to consider this before, please stop and do it now: people are different! The approach that works for one person, e.g. writing every day, doesn't necessarily work for another. If someone forces themself to sit down and write every day when they don't really have time for it, the chances are what they produce is going to be pretty crap. If they set aside one or two evenings a week when they know they aren't going to be rushed or interrupted, the quality of their work is almost certainly going to benefit. Surely you can see that? I completely agree with you that REGULAR writing is essential for anyone who calls themself a writer, but you can't impose your regime on everyone and expect it to work for them as it works for you.

And just for the record, someone who writes every day can still be rubbish at it: talent and perseverance don't always go hand in hand.

RE: Messages 138 and 141

Why on earth are people flagging these messages?

Will someone please point out to me where in either of those posts Cliff engaged in any of the following: "(1) personal attacks, (2) commercial solicitation, (3) spam"?

I supported the ability to flag posts when it was instituted, but, frankly, I'm getting really annoyed seeing posts flagged for what is clearly no reason other than disagreement with the content. So whoever you are, please stop!

I dont know, lilithcat, I think Cliff probably wears his flags as a badge of honor and counts them as a validation of his viewpoint.

This flagging business is a source of bafflement to me too.

I've never flagged a LT member and never will.

The flagging of my posts (#138 & #141) is nothing short of reprehensible and reveals the deep insecurities of some of the individuals involved. Too timid to debate, too arrogant to let an unpopular or controversial view go unpunished.

These flags don't validate my viewpoint, Victoria, but they do show the depths that some people are willing to plumb in order to protect their little fiefdoms and prevent the free exchange of ideas and opinions.

GrrlLovesBooks:

But what you are saying isn't the fault of the people who are creating the works -- it's the fault of the publisher for lowering their standards. Those people would never have their art published if the publisher didn't decide that they were going to open up the publications to them.

People saying they are artists isn't going to affect your work. People who have the ability to present them as artists, however, is. That's an entirely different situation, and has a parallel in the writing world, where publishers rarely nurture new writers of quality because those writers will 'grow up' to get larger advances. Far better to kick-start new writers in and out as quickly as possible, and if one happens to be a real success, then they can hold on to that one.

That is not the fault of the people who are writing or working in some other artistic endeavor, no matter how good or bad they are. Everyone starts somewhere, and most of them will fail, because that's the nature of the work.

----
Cliff said:
The sentiment held by some seems to be: if I put words on paper I'm a writer and don't you DARE oppress me for saying so.

----

Excuse me, but aren't you the person who had absolute fits when I 'suggested' that you drop out of the NaNo discussion thread because it was YOUR RIGHT to say what you wanted, where you wanted, and how dare anyone suggest otherwise?

So, what does this mean? Where do you draw the line between what you have the right to say and what others do?

----
I keep emphasizing the DAILY practice of writing because unless you do it every day you aren't a writer. Writers pay a cruel price for the commitment to their craft--if you aren't willing to do the same, find another hobby or, at the very least, have the decency and perspective never to call yourself a "writer" around folks whose talent and perseverance make a mockery of your ridiculous conceit...
----

Here's an odd little note. I write every day and have for far longer than you have. I generally edit in the mornings and write for several hours every night. While I write far more first drafts each year than you do, I only produce a few finished 'to be submitted' works a year.

That obviously makes me one of you, right? I WORK in the right way, after all.

Sorry, don't want to join the club. I believe in the diversity of writers, and their ability to sometimes create greatness in the least likely ways -- and sometimes to create greatness in hard work, as well. I don't believe that the mere act of sitting down and forcing yourself to write every day is going to make a person a writer, great or otherwise.

Remember my own definitions (which are not required to be held by anyone else) that a wannabe writer is someone who talks about writing, maybe writes a chapter or two, and never completes anything. A writer is someone who has put in the commitment and finished their work. It may not be great work, but they have done the one thing that the majority of people will never do and they have written the full material. And a published author is the person who has gone that step farther -- who has refined their skill and has presented to a publisher (not self-published), a work that the publisher finds pleasing.

You may not always like the stuff that's printed. Really great stories are rare. But there are plenty of pieces that are out there doing what they are meant to do -- entertain others. Cliff is looking for something more and he has every right to expect that of his own work. And that's fine. But it does not apply to many people out there who are excellent writers.

Not every man or woman has the ability to have their spouse support them as they pursue writing. In that way, Cliff and I are both lucky. That doesn't mean that people who take an active part in supporting their families cannot be writers. Sometimes, those people can't find the time to write every day -- holding down two jobs, helping with the kids, etc. Sometimes they turn to their works only on the weekends, or when they're not so exhausted from life that their brains are shutting down.

They're writers, too. In fact, I think they have far more right to be called writers than those of us who have it easy, and whether they're published or not.

Oh, and for the flags -- I would hope that maybe people just didn't understand what the flags mean, and will be less likely to use them in the future.

#139, and others:

The increase in the sort of amateur writing that Cliff has pointed out has had a direct effect on the publishing industry.

Slush piles have always been big, and now they're huge. Submissions are rising at an astonishing rate: as a result, few big publishers now accept unagented work, and some agents won't even consider proposals either. This lengthens the submissions process considerably, and creates more work for agents and editors.

While it doesn't increase the amount of good stuff circulating through the system it does increase the amount of time it takes for the good stuff to be read by the right people. So it takes professional writers more time to sell stuff, so reducing their income and their chances of building a decent back-list.

It's also led to an increase in scammers: agents, publishers, and editors who only exist to fleece the naive and inexperienced, who have no track-record of actually selling anything. It's the fastest-growing part of publishing, and causes more heartbreak than you can imagine: people have lost their houses, for goodness' sake, promoting books which should never have been published. It's a terrible thing.

I also vote for un-flagging Cliff's messages. And fuck flagging when there's no genuine abuse. It's so inane.

I've yet to see anyone offer up anything in the way of evidence for 1) slush piles that supposedly overflow more now than at any time in history, 2) that, if they exist at all, these critical-mass slush piles have been caused by THE INTERNETS and the horrible writers that are born therein, and 3) that bigger slush piles and/or the difficulties inherent in getting reputably published aren't actually due to any of a number of other societal factors including, but not limited to, larger population, smaller markets because of competing entertainments such as television and online media, the conglomeration of media/publishing outlets, or that fickle thing we call fashion. In short, I don't buy it. Show me some evidence of a causal relationship, or even some numbers (how big are slush piles now? how big were they 50 years ago? are they larger or smaller proportionate to population?). SOMEthing.

Cliff, you asked me (#133) "but if one NEEDS an event like NaNoWriMo to get jump-started what does it say about that person's overall commitment to writing?" and I'm sorry for neglecting to answer for so long. I've given your question a lot of thought, but I'm afraid I don't have a clever response. What does it say about me, or others like me, indeed? I couldn't number all the times I've asked something similar of myself. Does it say that I should give up? Does it say that if it doesn't come easily, comfortably to me, that it never will? And that if it never will, that I should accept that my greatest talents lie in retail merchandising and management?

The best answer I've ever been able to come up with is that it doesn't matter what the answers to all those questions are. That giving attention to the questions at all is just another distraction. I'm 31 and have been successful largely at things that don't truly matter to me. I'm not ready to give up on this, even if I haven't been successful at it yet.

Okay, that was all terribly earnest, I know. I agree that committment is important, but I question the idea that it springs up from nothing, or that it springs up in the same way, or at the same time, for every writer. Steven Pressfield talks about hitting rock bottom, with his typewriter stuffed in the back of the car he was living out of, before he got it together and really began his writing career. (I'm housesitting and don't have The War of Art at hand, or I'd give you the quote.)

But why should someone have to hit rock bottom before "turning professional," as Pressfield says, referring not to payment status, but to level of dedication to the craft? Why should someone have to complete an MFA, or do NaNo, or whatever it is that gets them going? I dunno, but that's how it apparently is for some.

The problem, Cliff, isn't so much that you're a person who has specific standards, as that you seem to feel that every writer's blueprint must, by definition, be exactly the same. If that were true, every writer we cared to read about would have the same biography. (Just to be clear, my saying this doesn't mean that I think anyone who ever doodled their name in a diary is a writer. That's not my argument.) Writers--great ones--all wrote. That much we agree on. But how often they failed to write, or started writing and then stopped, or squandered talent, or wrote masterpieces and then nothing else, or were brilliant but killed themselves, or in any way had professional lives that were messy and uneven as well as determined--those complexities go unaccounted for in your insistence that nothing less than perfect and unwavering dedication at all times, at all points in writers' lives, qualifies them to even be called "writers."

Slush piles grew huge because of computers, not because of the Internet. The computers came first,and they made it far easier to write a book than the good old typewriters did. And publishers found that they could get agents to be unpaid slushpile readers, so of course they jumped at the chance to dump work that they wouldn't have to pay for. I'm really not sure what took them so long to figure that part out.

The back-list died when the government changed the laws so that publishers had to pay taxes on unsold books in warehouses. Those companies could no longer have large print runs and hope that the book would eventually sell. Books started having smaller print runs and nothing was kept in stock if it could be avoided. That, along with the new 'high turnover' demanded by places like Barnes and Noble, makes it nearly impossible for authors to build up a readership before the next 'new thing' hits the shelves. Back-list, along with the mid-list authors -- those who sold steadily, but not great -- have virtually disappeared. Authors on the shelves are usually either new (or an old author with a new name), or they are an established name with guaranteed sales.

There are more scammers, and in far more than just the publishing field. That is the worst side effect of the Internet culture, I think. However, there are also far more ways to learn about scams, which back in the 80's was nearly impossible. Yes, some people still make unfortunate choices in what they do, but a little research on the Internet stop a good many more from making those mistakes. The Internet is not the reason why people make bad choices, and they were making the same bad choices -- with the same results -- long before the Internet came along. Now, with a little sense, they can learn about a publisher with a couple minutes on Google.

I tried NaNo twice and gave up on it because I hated the crap I turned out. But I fail to see how NaNo is in any way an 'insult' or 'effrontery' to published writers. It's fun - people enjoy it - why on earth deny them their enjoyment? It's not like they're stealing your sales.

This whole thread is making me think of unicycling. I can only ride forwards. Many other people can do much more: backwards, hopping about, idling on the spot, jumping onto/around things in unimaginably complicated ways. But we are all unicyclists. If Kris Holm (one of the world's more skilled unicyclists) were to tell me that I am insolent and an insult to him because I call myself a 'unicyclist', I'd think he was being something of a prig. Of course, he never would. The unicycling community is a pleasantly open and encouraging one. I can't say the same for some parts of the writing community, judging by some posts here.

Somebody writes/self-publishes/publishes something you think is crap, and calls themself a writer? Who cares?!

Thanks for these comments and I appreciate where they're coming from.

Appreciate, as well, those of you who are as annoyed by this flagging business as I am.

Xiguli: thank you for quoting Stephen Pressfield, my favorite historical fiction writer of all time. I had no idea that his early writing experiences were less than stellar--I guess it's another story of hope, another plug for perseverance.

Any editor I've talked to says they're inundated. Everybody coming out of a creative writing class (proliferating) or workshop (proliferating) or owns a computer with internet access (proliferating) believes they have something worthwhile to say (I'm with Will Self--they're dead wrong). I just got a note from an editor who has gone through a massive slush pile, found nothing but crap and was reduced to soliciting fiction from some of the pros he knows.

You think Maxwell Perkins ever got the sheer amount of crap the average editor at a decent press/publication receives? I find that hard to believe.

This thread has gone back and forth and has almost petered out on a couple of occasions, only to be resurrected yet again. I suppose it does touch some tender spots and , unfortuntately, that has led to personal vitriol rather than reasoned debate.

I think I've covered all I've meant to say, even repeated myself and my arguments on a couple of occasions. I shan't run the risk of offering further offense so I'll just hang back and let others debate this point further (if they wish). I've had my opportunities to say my piece and now I turn over the soapbox to someone else...

I think everyone has something worthwhile to say. I mean, everyone is human and so they must have something to say about the human condition, right?

However, I don't think everyone has the skills and talents to say it well and effectively. I also don't think that the something worthwhile they have to say is the something they think it is, or that they necessarily choose the right medium for it.

Ah Cliff,

The elitist within me wants to jump on your bandwagon. I want to agree that writing is a special privelege that is handed to the skillful, the dilligent and the dedicated. And, I want to place myself in that circle.

But, what NaNoWriMo, Electronic Publishing and the internet as a whole give is a goal and a dream.

And who am I to snatch the goals and dreams of others?

If someone wants to write, wants to publish. Let them write. Let them publish.

If you disagree with them: write better, publish more.

I have published nothing but a pair of postings on blogs such as this, and have absolutely no other writing credentials either, but I truthfully enjoy the rambunctious whining answered by strained politesse on this page, and I have just been thrown out of another site for “incivility” - although I didn’t get it all in! - so I just have to join in here.

Some thirty years ago I read Santayana’s “Three Philosophical Poets”, in the opening pages of which there is this philosopher, who it seems, had been thinking hard for a while with nothing to publish, and now flings out his arms and yells: “The all is one!” Santayana puts him in to say that what’s self-evident can be a great philosophical discovery, but me, having just read that Norman Mailer had gotten a million dollar in advance on his latest unwritten book, couldn’t help but wonder: who would pay anything for that? And somehow that question, relevant to this philosopher or not, has kept bothering me. It might really be more worthwhile considering the reality of divisions, than the ramblings of Norman Million (on you know what), but the selective process is dependent on the medium, and the book needs verbosity.

You can get a lot of information for free on the net already; some of it illegally - it will soon be much more. Are donations by the satisfied readers to pay for the writings of the future? Maybe that will lessen the number of bad writers; maybe eloquent boorishness will become associated with intellectual hangovers, and content that lasts in the mind be the only thing willingly paid for? Glorious times ahead for real writers: people with something to say?

Regarding the need for recognition as such by the obediently studious here, I can’t but think of a very studious man, J. L. Borges, who, amusingly, kept repeating that he wanted to be forgotten. He may have meant it proudly: If the world did read his works, and there learnt to clearly distinguish between the description and the described etc, the inability of which is the foundation for his stories, they would loose their value, become utterly forgettable. Regards, Jahn

I think Nanowrimo is great, not only because you have other writers doing the same thing and you can share with them your experiences and the story you are writing, but also it's a swift kick in the ass.

And also, I have been writing for years off and on. I had a lot of things going on that made it so that I couldn't write, but now I am able to. Not just because of Nanowrimo, but because of the support of a writer's group in my home town.

So, I guess my point is, it's ok to have support from other writers to get you to write. I guess I've digressed from the conversation.

As for publishing, lower standards. Yeah, I think so. I think it is our culture, we want to be entertained 24 hours per day. The internet allows that, and I think books are incorperating that vibe. But, I also think that a lot of great things are being published too. Maybe it just isn't someone's time to be published. Don't blame others for that. No one has a guarenteed spot, no matter how hard you work on something. That goes for anything I guess.

Oh yeah. I hate those self-published authors, just like the myriad posts above. And to think someday one will become acclaimed by the reading public and posterity.

Well, let's see if that has already happened:

Edgar Allen Poe was paid to be editor of The Southern Messager. During that time he at his own expense published a number of short stories.

Ernest Miller Hemingway self-published a small book of short stories in Paris called Men Without Women.

Leaves of Grass. Walt Whitman. Self-published in a smaller form.

Ferlinghetti. Allen Ginsberg. Self-published with the City Lights books.

Pat Conroy got a call from his agent and was told by him that he had bad news. "The only figure I've got is $5,000," the agent said. "Sorry about that."
"I can't do it," Conroy said. "I've mortaged the house to print the first four books and I'm tapped out." there was silence on the telephone line.

"No, Pat," the agent said. "They're paying you!"

Edgar Rice Burroughs self-published with his Tarzana press.

I believe we ALL self-publish at one point. Steve King wrote a book when he was a lad, stapled it together, created a cover, and sold it to others at school.

My name is Andy Ray and I have self-published (I split the cost with an angel in Winter Park) 4 books under Panther Press and I am proud of each of them. I actually am selling one or two a week nowadays.

I think this thread has a lot of pretentious snobs on it with this crap against self-published people. A person isn't going to sink a year of their life and maybe $5,000 of their money when he/she is on social security and lives a hermit's life to do it. Not unless he/she believes in him/her self.

Now, the money: I've made a living from 1968 through 1991 from my writing. Not a fortune, but a living. I've written some 4,000 stories in some 40 magazinds and newspapers, but I'm pretty sure few of them will last forever.

Last, but not least. If I am remembering correctly, the best selling books in the world were written by an entity named GOD. Yep. Our omniscient and loving God self-published the first time at the top of Mount Areat and Moses got the only copy.

Cheers

#156 the small number of now famous writers you list here, who "self-published" at one point, actually confirms the views of the 'pretentious snobs'.

#157: Not necessarily. After all, the majority of writers who publish traditionally won't get to be as famous as Poe and Hemmingway either. I think it just shows that there are some great writers, some good writers and some not very good writers amongst the self-published and traditionally published alike.

The prevailing attitude in some parts of this thread seems to be "Can any good thing come out of self-publishing?" And as AndyRay has just demonstrated, yes it can.

Certainly a few self-published writers will eventually do well. The odds are not completely against it, how ever they are being dragged down by the sheer numbers of people who are now jumping in. Not every self-published author can be a poor writer. Still, take a look at the names in that list: almost all of them are from a time before the Internet, right? Self-published in those days did not mean the same as it does now, where thousands of people a year shove their unedited, and often poorly written, material out for others to read.

The problem is not always with the material itself. It is with being dropped into the mire with all the other poorly done presentations, so that now, when you say 'I self-published my book' most people automatically assumed that it has to be as bad as all the others. It's unfortunate, but that's the way life works.

I think it would be easy to get around the stigma, if you wanted to. Make up a publisher's name. Get a few others to join with you, and publish under that imprint. The company gets none of the proceeds, unless you want to have a small fund to run a website. Publish under that company name on Lulu -- many small press companies already take advantage of Lulu so that they don't have to buy hundreds of copies of titles at a time.

It might be a way to get people to look past the 'self-published' idea to the work itself. If the books take off, then you could point out that it was just a ploy, if you wanted to. It might be worth it to shake up some of those preconceived notions.

Interesting post, Zette.

There is still th idea that all POD books are bad, too -- but that one isn't as strong a bias as the one against self-publishing. And if you don't tell people it's POD, many will not realize it right away.

I think this xkcd comic is right on point.

I say 'Right on!' Message # 5 (Zette)

No one is forcing readers to read internet publications. Personally, I think the internet offers a wider variety of literature that might not be published otherwise.

I don't want anyone telling me what I can or can't read. I don't want to read some cookie cutter version of what some publisher 'thinks' that I want to read. Give me the freedom to decide if the author's work is garbage or not. Apparently, some of these books must be selling because electronic publishing is holding steady and climbing. The proof is in the pudding.

Perhaps Mr. Self is concerned about losing some of his profits to the internet?? Just a thought.

If you can't beat em, join em.

"CliffBurns" --

You've been a writer for over 20 years, and now feel that your apprenticeship is finally over?

I began writing in high school, circa March, 1965, and writing has since then been my paramount purpose amd central focus. It is the only thing I've wanted to do, and that with a passion.

During the decades between then and now my goal as a writer has been whittled down: fame and wealth of teenage and 20s; to being judged by qualified others as in, say, the top three-to-five per cent; to the doing of it day in and day out, seven days per week (I prefer nights), the goal to focus on the writing; to competing with only one person on the planet: myself.

The bruise on your shoulder appears -- probably a coincidence -- to exactly match the shape of your own hand: though writing fulltime through all those years, mostly professional "non-fiction," it wasn't until about November, 1994-January, 1995 that I finally felt -- experienced and saw -- that I'd consider a breakthrough beyond "apprenticeship" to an individual sense of "mastery".

Don't be in too much of a rush to consider your "apprenticeship" over: every piece of writing is the first one has ever done. The blank page invariably evokes panic. If a writer writes to not repeat himself, writes to discover what he thinks -- my best writing is as much a surprise to me at the moment it hits the page as I hope it will be for a reader -- then s/he is forever an apprentice. It takes a long, long time to learn how to get out of one's own way, including impediments such as pretense and goal, and comparing oneself with others.

I appreciate the advice.

I have not been a "writer" for over 20 years, I have been a PROFESSIONAL writer, with a lengthy roster of credits. Had I been writing for 20+ years with little or no publication success and no progression of talent, vision, stylistic innovation, I would agree, the apprenticeship would certainly NOT be over. But now that I have achieved a level of skill and my "voice" is fully my own, I don't have trouble making the claim.

I have confessed in other venues that most of my troubles are probably self-inflicted: I demand absolute creative control over my work and do not allow ninth rate editors to tamper with it. But because of that stance I have forged a body of work that is identifiably and distinctively MINE--no one can tell the stories I do the way I do. Apprentices can't say the same thing, "developing" or "amateur" writers can't...

And actually the bruise on my shoulder today is from a brutal game of shinny (hockey) I played with my nephews and in-laws this past week. I scored two goals and today I can barely walk...

Wow, what a topic.

I'm annoyed by those who come up and tell me that they have been writing for 20 odd years or so and are only 24. We all were told in kindergarten to write a story, we all got out our crayons and paper at the age of 4 and did a Dick and Jane story. We all had to write a poem in grade school, we are all "writers".

I also dislike the "I'm published" deal too that those who do self publishing and the internet deals pull out every chance they get. I end up doing the 5 seconds of "awe" for a book that no one has bought even though it's been on the market for years. While yes, some of those books might be great, many of them are thrown together by someone who doesn't want to take the time and effort but wants the title. It's the same with most of the online sites that take in writers and "winners".

It does very much so at times discredit the profession but the truth is that writing is an art and with art, anyone can give it a try. It's like singers who claim to be singing at the age of 2. Yes I too sung the ABC song at that age, but I'm not going to claim to be a singer.

I call myself a writer. I've never been published in any form, never been to school for it and don't have years and years under my belt but I'm still a writer. I won't call myself a professional writer, published or an Author, those are titles for those who deserve them. I will state casually that I'm a writer who hasn't been published or that I'm working on being a writer.

I know my place. I write crap and I'm okay with that, it's crap that improves everyday. The only way to make it in this profession is to continue to write everyday no matter what even if it's the worst thing out there and to continue to read and stay involved in all aspects of the profession. Remember that many writers didn't become famous or published until years later and even some after their deaths. They were writers because they didn't look for the easy way out, they took the time to write and through their writing they improved.

This is a lesson that I take to heart. If I'm not writing, I'm editing, reading and learning. I do it everyday and I'm known to many as Everydaywriting. It doesn't make me an Author or an professional or published writer but it does make me well on my way to being one.

I think in the end, both sides need to show a bit of respect. You can't be a writer until you write and if you write you are a writer. At the same time though, know where you stand in the writing world. I would never walk up to Shakespeare and act as if I was in the same league. That would not only be disrespectful to him and other writers but would make me look like a fool. Earn your strips first is the rule for some of us. For others, lets not forget that we are all working on one common goal here and that is to write and in order to do that we must all at some point become writers.

Hugs!-Kat!

Well Kat,

I am a 23 year old writer who has been writing for 11 years. I'm not sure if that makes you feel any better!

I think there is a difference between the writer who at 50 has been writing daily since she was 12. And the writer who finds a writer's calling after she turns 49.

It is not to say that one is better than the other. And certainly can not be proven that one will be more successful than the other. But, they are two different routes in the writers life. Simply do not discredit a writer simply because she is under 30!

This is an interesting distinction that I never really thought about before, although as Lhea says it probably doesn't make too much difference in the end.

I guess there's a difference between the 24 year old who claims to have been writing for 20 years on the basis of having to write stories in school, and the 24 year old who used to write stories in their free time when they were 7.

#166: Kat:

Thank you for this. And I have no disagreement or issue to take with ANY of your points.

"Know your place" and "earn your stripes"--that is exactly the tone and attitude an aspiring writer should take.

"I won't call myself a professional writer, published or an Author, those are titles for those who deserve them. I will state casually that I'm a writer who hasn't been published or that I'm working on being a writer."

Wonderful! This old pro doffs his hat to you and wishes you all the success in the world. With your unpretentious views and attitude I think you'll do well.

Lhea: Always good to hear from you and, of course, the main thing is the DAILY practice of writing, improving and pushing your talent to its limits. Never satisfied, always seeking to get better.

I wrote stories when I was six or seven too--I can recall a tale set in the future when the Christmas turkey comes in the form of a pill but before the family can add water to it, the baby snatches the pill off the platter, swallows it...and explodes. What a macabre little kid I was.

And I won a poetry prize at the county fair when I was eight.

But when I say I've been a pro writer for 23 years, I date it back to my first professional sales in 1985 and being awarded a Canada Council grant that year to write a collection of stories on the theme of nuclear war. Before that, I was an amateur writer, despite scribbling away every day and every night after I got home from work (I was a "plongeur", er, dishwasher, a la Orwell in DOWN AND OUT IN PARIS AND LONDON).

I have always accepted the fact that there is a hierarchy or writing--slap Shakespeare and Joyce and Beckett near the top and then it descends right down to the bottom of the barrel. Don't delude yourself as to your real talent or credentials and don't claim to speak with authority on what constitutes Art when you write the equivalent of smut.

I've had the opportunity to personally meet and speak with a number of big-time writers--Timothy Findley, William Gibson, Guy Vanderhaeghe, among others--and I always made sure I came across as respectful and deferential. I have some talent but there's no way I'm anywhere NEAR those lads, even at this point in my career. I wanted to learn from them, ask them how they managed a certain effect, got suggestions for future readings (it was Gibson who turned me on to Cormac McCarthy).

I knew my place...and I respected theirs.

Good talking with you all this morning...

Hmmm, so are those who picked up writing at a late age and prospered to be discretited compared to those who picked up the art at a younger stage...

Heres my argument- when young we have no knowledge of the world, of the ways men and women choose to live, of the beauty it supplies the mind. That is not to say we are stupid- but truly we still have much to learn. Growing as a person can be compared to a fine wine, which only becomes richer with time.

So- the elder who decides to pick up writing late still maintains a wealth of knowledge and experience, the same as that of an elder writer who has enjoyed the craft for years already. Granted this is not the only factor in the equasion- but truly what is more important than where the ideas originate from. We have all looked back on previous work and thought, "Man that sounds just awful", so the difference would essentialy be that the older writer just starting has an empty trash can.

I in no way suggested that age had something to do with crediting a writer. I simply stated that we all can claim to be writers based on the fact that we wrote that school paper in kindergarten. Everyone had to do that, so everyone can claim that they wrote at the age of 4 or 5. But, there is a difference from those who wrote a school paper and those who wrote to be aspiring writers. So even if you decide to make writing your career at the age of 49 or the age of 11, you don't get to count your will or your 5th grade report on monkeys or your company's memo you sent out last week as you being a "Writer". My mother says that I was writing circles before I was walking. I guess we can count those as the letter O and we can claim that I've been writing since I was 1 which makes almost 27 years of writing for me. I'm sure though that most people are rolling their eye's at that claim. Oops, did I just reveal my age...Yes I am under the age of 30 and no, I never gave an age to discredit. Message #168 caught on to what I was saying. The number that I used was an example of a 24 year old claiming to be a writer since the age of 4. Let me clarify it further, I am annoyed by 30 year olds claiming to have been a writers since the age of 4, 49 year olds claiming to be a writer since the age of 4 and 77 year olds claiming to have been a writer since the age of 4 and every age all around the boarder.

On the subject of how we started, it doesn't really matter. As I pointed out, we all have to write in order to become writers and the second we start writing is the second that we become writers. As long as we keep up with it, that's all that matters. Some may be published sooner, other's never, but in some form they are a writer like we all are in some form a singer, dancer, actor. In the end it doesn't make a difference but I wouldn't suggest the bragging of such things when we all know the depths of the writing world. I like to realize that self publishing a book that no one has ever bought is not worth bragging to people who are trying to go places or those who have had publishers pay big bucks for their novels and have sold thousands and millions. Bragging about the fact that you wrote a Brown Bear spoof in grade school and have been writing since you were 5 looks very silly when you look at the kid who has been writing stories daily since he was 7 and it had nothing to do with school work or the 70 year old who has been writing professionally since the age of 23.

On the subject of writing stories at such a young age, I guess it would matter as to when you/ the person came with the idea to become a writer. I painted all throughout grade school and before going to school and I did it all the time in my free time but didn't get the idea to become an artist until I was about in the 5th grade. I’m not going to count the time I finger painted with my poop at the age of 1.

I believe we all have something to offer but yes, there is a fine line. Someone in their 60’s might have seen more of the world, but if they just started writing, they don’t know more about the writing world. It goes the same way with someone who is younger. In short it’s experience and time that makes us who we are. It’s not fair to write 5 little pumpkins in grade school and put yourself in the same spot as others no matter how long ago that was. At the same time it’s not fair to say that you are better or more experienced
because you have 30 years of age on the writer who is 30 and has been writing professionally since 21.

On another note, I’ve not read this whole thread, just the OP and those post directed towards me. I do this so that there can be no claim to me taking sides in whatever debate there might have been. I’m sure that there was a debate on this subject just by the post I have seen so far. I can say that I do agree with many of the points made since my posting but do not at all agree with the fact that I joined in on discrediting writer’s under the age of 30.

Hugs!-Kat!

Well Gaz, regardless of the age of the scribe it comes down to 1) drive/perseverance and 2) talent. That order is quite deliberately chosen, believe me. All the talent in the world won't carry you far if you lose confidence and become deflated by the first rejection letter or word of criticism.

Is age an accurate barometer? I mean, good God, look at the stuff John Keats wrote in his early 20's. Or Rimbaud, who quit writing very early in life. And I know certain writers (no names) who took up the craft late in life and, regardless of life experiences, couldn't put one word ahead of the other in a meaningful and aesthetically pleasing manner if their life depended on it.

It's complicated, maddening and if I knew a formula for great writing believe me I'd either keep it to myself or add to the huge stack of books already existing on HOW TO BECOME A BETTER WRITER IN 10 EASY STEPS...

Since I refuse edit my post, I must add that when I stated that, "In short it’s experience and time that makes us who we are.", I meant time on the terms of how much time we put into our work, not how many years we have been alive.

I guess this could be considered on the same terms as the drive/perseverance that Cliff is talking about.

Talent I believe has little to do with it all. Some are born with it and some get it later in life. The good thing about art is that we can all learn it. We might not be the best but we can improve.

Hugs!-Kat!

The only way anyone can legitimately judge a writer is by the work that he or she has created. It doesn't matter how long they claim to have been writing or even if they call themselves writers or not. The only thing any of us can judge by is the finished product, and then at best you can often only make a personal call of 'good writer' or 'bad writer.' The 'bad writer' call can be based on some very obvious problems and many others will agree with that call, or it might be a subjective call with a style of writing or genre that the person doesn't like. In those cases, many others are going to disagree . But then, if we all liked the same things (or even worked in the same ways) it would be a pretty boring world for literature.

I don't know. Some of this strikes me as silly. It would be like telling the mother of a two-month-old that she doesn't have the right to call herself a parent because she hasn't raised three kids to teen years. She doesn't know all the tricks of parenting yet, but that doesn't make her less of a parent. Why is it different for writers? They may not be published writers -- and many of them never will be -- but are they less writers because they aren't perfect at it yet? Where is the break point?

I don't feel it's important to denigrate what others are doing in order to make what I do look more important. What they are writing or saying about themselves doesn't affect me, even when I occasionally meet them. They aren't here with me at the keyboard, and it's only what I produce, for good or bad, that people will use to judge my writing ability. I am still learning, as I think all writers continue to learn if they really have an interest in the art. Some writers will perpetually work with their two-month-old never get better, and some of the rest of us will move on to 'raising' teens and beyond. That's how it's always been. We're just more aware of it in the age of the Internet.

Way, way back in this endless thread, i noticed one person set things straight about print on demand being a technology, but i think i saw a couple statements that need correcting.

One was that big publishers are not taking advantage of POD. As i wrote in some other forum/topic months ago, Oxford University (or, was it Cambridge, i forget) celebrated its 10,000th title to be done with Lightning Source, the world's largest POD printer, and mine (Paraverse Press).

Another was that the quality of the printing is poor. Actually, it is much better than the offset (especially the illustrations) of my books published by majors in Japan. The only limitation is that color illustrations inside the book are not economical and, if you are a poor publisher and must elect to wholesale "no return," it is hard to get into bookstores.

If we would help to improve the quality of writing and thought -- for one without the other is worthless for the discriminating reader -- forget the means of publication, and work on improving the world of reviews and catalogs (Kirkus was trustworthy in the 80's and Reader's Catalog was great, but now, what do we have?)

I hear you, re: the poor quality of reviewers and critical thinking, both in print or on-line. I look to places like BookForum, PopMatters, The (Manchester) GUARDIAN REVIEW OF BOOKS and THE N.Y. REVIEW OF BOOKS for fair and intelligent critiques but after that the roster of worthy reviewers shortens considerably...

#5 --

". . . . the only real use for a fiction book is to entertain the reader, . . . ."

Nonsense and narrow. Mark Twain, hilarious moral philosopher, wrote fiction. I dare anyone to read him for entertainment and not also learn from it. He taught me, at minimum, the meaning of compassion.

What is this drive to only be entertained? What is it Kafka said about books intended to make one "happy"? One can be happy without reading. He wanted books that hit one upside the head, that hit one like the death of someone one loved more than onself. That took a axe to the frozen ocean inside.

Fiction can do that. But then it isn't minor, genre writing; then it transcends into the realm of literature. Into the realm of meat and potatoes. Into the realm of necessary food. I challenge anyone to read Twain's Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, or The Diaries of Adam and Eve, and not learn lessons of value from them. Or at least be forced to do that which is most feared: think.

As for bad writing, on or off the Internet: the difficulty with it is that one must read it in order to discover that it is bad writing. And then it's too late to avoid it.

As for pretention: there is also a reverse pretension: a "catholicity" of "taste" which refuses to distinguish between worthwhile -- not merely "good" -- writing and that which only entertains; that which is nothing more than an escape. Anti-intellectualism is its own form of pretension.

#23 --

What's a "fool"? Someone for whom one has contempt based upon presumptions about oneself in relation to everyone else?

Write as well as you can, at the moment, instead of calling others names simply because you may not "get" what they are attempting.

As for self-publishing: it rightly has a bad name. But there is a sizable number of writers who couldn't get published otherwise, and turned out to have written enduring works, as compared with those who could get published.

Much, perhaps most, of the stuff published by major publishers, and which flies off bookstore shelves, is trash by hacks. So what's your goal -- "Publish or die!"?

Can I both write well, and be online, "writing," for hours per day?

#25 --

". . . . My latest post mentions that I've been a writer for over 20 years and yet it's only NOW that I finally feel my apprenticeship is over. Two decades of serving as a mere apprentice at the feet of the Masters. That's how much I respect my literary predecessors."

Big deal, you've been writing for 20 years. None of that means anything much, as there are individuals who've been writing for 50 years but are still what I would call "hacks".

I've been writing since 1965. I still don't make an issue of "sitting at the feet of the Masters" and all that pretentious BS. Baudelaire worked hard at his writing? How would you know, since he was sitting in a bar when he was accosted by a "wannabe" who was also in that bar.

I can have or not have confidence in my work. I can appreciate others' complimenting it -- but that doesn't mean they know what they're talking about. Or that they don't know what they're talking about.

Emily Dickinson published seven poems during her life -- partly because publishers didn't consider her stuff up to standard. She was a "wannabe" to such editors. What are the names of those editors?

Publication not being the measure, then what is? How much should one compare oneself/one's work with other writers and their work -- before one begins to imitate? Or, perversely, how much should one reject all influence based upon the illusion that "originality" is "ruined" if one reads to much?

I ask relevant questions, but I don't offer answers to them because I don't have them. 20 years and you're already telling others how to climb up to your elevated status? Why "up"?

Beware: the equation "self-published" = "not-hard-working," or "no-talent," etc., is BS. Some of the most enduring writers had no option in their day but to self-publish because editors didn't "get" what they were doing. And those published other than by themselves are too often hacks -- published because the publisher knows they will sell. Quantity of sales is not necessarily a measure of quality.

As for writing "with the greats". Get off that high-horse. One does one's best, and takes one's chances. Read "good" writers (but check out what Ray Bradbury reads), and perhaps try to discern from them the difference between writing and writing. But don't be surprised if you get it wrong.

It is relatively certain that sneering down one's nose at one's perceived "inferiors" is not the attitude that generates a writing of worth. And relatively ceratin that that only succeeds in maintaining a narrow and closed world. If you write to be "different," you write for the wrong reason, because you aren't focused on writing: you're focused on being "different".

Snobbery does not make one a good writer, howevermuch one fools oneself that it does. 20 years? 20 years ain't diddley.

#32 --

"As for authors who advance the cause of literature, they're being cast off to the small presses and university publishers, waiting sometimes 3-5 years before their book finally sees the light of day. Tiny print runs, minuscule budgets for promotion and publicity. The only time we see their names is when they are short-listed for some obscure literary prize. Their books are crowded off the shelves by the movie tie-ins and knock-off sequels, etc."

There is a sufficient percentage of crap from those publishers also. Including especially the university presses. Have you seen what "literary criticism" has devolved into?

And, no: their books are not crowded off the shelves; in fact, they are on the shelves -- check out Amazon and Borders -- more now than they were 40 years ago.

As for new technologies not "leading to BETTER books": your snobbish lament is nothing new about a reality that is nothing new.

#35 --

Who's the "horror" writer that lives in Maine, and sells tons and tons of books? He is a sh*t writer. But his stuff sells.

As for the nonsense that there aren't any good books in mainstream bookstores, from mainstream publishers: it's the BS of those who don;t go into those bookstores and LOOK.

#37 --

"Literature abides and great writing will prevail over the marketplace in the long run."

Where do you buy your Baudelaire? You buy it in the marketplace, because that's where it's sold.

Is there some value I miss in having one's presumptions precede one?

#39 --

"Can't figure out video games, not interested in their superficiality".

If you can't figure them out, then you don't know whether they're superficial. I suspect, the games themselves notwithstanding, the superficiality is yours.

You don't seem to be able to post without pointing the finger at something outside yourself and whining about it. The fault is always elsewhere.

It's okay to speak with an accent -- but not to see or hear with one.

#41 --

"This notion of cyberspace as one giant bookstore containing every title under the sun is an interesting and compelling one. The bibliophile in me rejoices. Let's hope it's an accurate reflection of the true reality--I like the concept but does it work in practice..."

You won't find out because you always already know everything in advance.

In fact -- and I won't say where -- I've bought brand-new non-remaindered books (published by New Directions) published in the 1970s -- 1st edition, 1st printing -- online within the last several months.

They aren't being driven to the margins. And they aren't being remaindered. And they aren't being pulped. But without the online option, they would be all three of those.

#53--

"I don't feel amateurs are wronging ME but I do think they are showing disrespect or lack of empathy for the traditions of writing, the discipline and craftsmanship required, years of hours spent toiling in the trenches. They fail to recognize, to quote Thomas Carlyle, "Literary men are a perpetual priesthood"."

Carlyle was a snob. And he too was probably a name-dropper.

I have favorite writers. But I'm not impressed -- except negatively -- by name-dropping or name-droppers. And I certainly don't look down on others because "my" favorite writers separates "me" from all those other boors.

Though I unfortunately don't have the link on me, Michael Chabon had an interesting interview discussing supposed good literature. The problem with this mentality, at least for me, is if you stick with print media/big publishing houses you're getting into a sticky area because these people are trying to make money. Most target a certain demographic and audience, and many manuscripts would remain dormant or be refused because of this.

This isn't to say that "everyone has a novel in them," but who the hell is Will Self to say who does or doesn't have a novel in them?

There are some truly, truly horrible books in print. Some of them even do quite well as far as sales go. Then again, there are some very wonderful authors who are needing exposure. Who is this dude to say that people don't have the right to give it a shot? I think it's somewhat arrogant on his part. I say, take it where you can get it. Who knows where you may end up.

Thank you for the referral to Will Self. I have taken a look at his oeuvre. My, my, he does seem like the crusty old curmudgeon! Just the kind of fellow who doesn't mind seeing the bar to 'honored recognition' kept raised up high. Of course, I relayed to him my own humble claims to fame, including Those Self Evident Truths, the story of Democracy's rise from the feudal period. Where else can you hear the Magna Carta, in modern english, available as an Mp3 download? www.tedmagnuson.com

The internet will never weed out "bad" writing the way print publishing does, but then it isn't supposed to. The whole idea of the internet involves a democratization of speech, and with democracy comes cacophony. But I think that some of our better writers are putting things out on the internet these days. Hasn't Robert Olen Butler let a story or two appear first online?

Print publishing weed out "bad" writing? Um, Kevin J. Anderson, James Patterson, and Stephanie Meyer are cornering the market in sub-literate hackery. They just move units at a consistent pace, therefor they are immune from aesthetic judgment. There's Ebook crap and print crap. The publishing industry -- like the music and film industry -- aren't built on "good works," but on disposable pop garbage.

#190 --

"The publishing industry -- like the music and film industry -- aren't built on "good works," but on disposable pop garbage."

Nope. They are based exclusively on the bottom line. Whether what they sell is "good" or not is not a consideration, except passingly, to those who make the final decisions.

And, many of today's "classics" -- Twain and Dickens come to mind -- were written foremost for cash.

But what can be more cash-producing than disposable pop? It's all about the Flavor of the Week or Bestseller of the Week. Bestsellers and pop singers are like cash crops: disposable, inoffensive, and indistinguishable. Yes, Twain and Dickens were serial pop authors, but I don't see how that negates what I'm asserting?

I figure, yes, more people try their hand at writing these days and 90% of them will simply never produce anything I'd like to read. But they do have a venue for getting read and a way of getting self-published. Good for them; and good for me, if/when great work otherwise missed still makes it because of self-pub or the internet.

I do NOT agree with the bitter feelings towards the publishing industry, though. Or this idea of "bestseller of the week" being nothing but useless bubblegum.

This isn't directed to anyone in particular (haven't even read anything but the last few posts yet), but I do feel I've seen this argument before, usually coming from writers that haven't been successful in publishing yet and so backlash against the entire industry.

You have to think of it as a reader, too. As a reader I am grateful that a double vetting process assures every single book I see in the bookstore has something good going for it.

Did I like the Da Vinci Code? Good God no. It almost made me want to argue for a return to book bonfires. But there was SOMETHING there that hooked a lot of people in - doesn't that deserve a study of what Dan Brown did that worked, so you can do it even better in your own work? Same with Twilight, and so on.

There is a place for these books on the bestseller list because they made themselves a place. They sell! They work! Trashing them and the industry that made them possible is missing the point, and almost comes off as stuck-up and sour grapeish. Especially since there's no lack of best-selling, well-paid literature fiction on the shelves, either.

Few people actually have the time, or passion, to read as much and as intensely as we on this site do. Not to mention the class issues involved - if you've never had the chance to up on your reading skills, get introduced to demanding literature that's also worth the experience, etc... a "disposable pop" book is what you're going to go for when you just need something for your commute to work.

And the funny thing is, some people seem to be assuming bestsellers that are easy on the reading nerves don't have any literary value. That is just not true. Harry Potter is extremely accessible, yet it's some of the finest work I've ever read. I just started getting into thrillers and chick lit, and the same thing happened with Karin Slaughter and Charlaine Harris for me - both popular and cash-producing, yet they are GOOD AUTHORS producing GOOD WORK.

Good work always sells. Bad work can sell too, but usually doesn't. Publishers know this. They're looking for the first category of work, always.

Phew. /rant complete

Haha, sorry, I realize that seemed to come out of nowhere but I'd just read this:

http://maryww.wordpress.com/2009/04/14/the-talent-killers-how-literary-agents-ar...

Its attitudes like this that make me wonder. Writing is not for some category of elite. Its for the creative. Short of a miracle, I will never give Nora Roberts any competition. Doesn't mean I shouldn't write and dream. Doesn't mean I intend to self publish anything and subject the world to my less then professional writing, either. Maybe if I am ever able to polish it, I would enjoy seeing my book(s) in print.

Hmm, maybe Will Self should be sent every NaNoWriMo novel and forced to read them and present kind and constructive criticism. Would be good for his karma.

Well, let me jump in even if I think it's a bad idea. I self-published my book. I did it for personal reasons I think. I did have the interest of an agent and some interest from a small publisher. I asked to review the contracts they required. Basically, the documents outlined a process designed to market a book. I write because I love the art of it. Marketing is a far back second consideration. So I decided to reject the contracts and go it alone. Now I understand that my book is most likely destined for obscurity, but making it a book puts the period on the process and I'm happy with doing my job well. Dumb or not, what the hell.

#193

Yeah, this.

"Good work always sells." ???

Supernumerary, it usually does, perhaps. But for all we know most good work has always ended up as bum-fodder.

Pardon. I took that out of context. You meant that publishers are looking for good work as they can sell it with the help of their publicity machines. The only problem is many of the publishers that built up fine reputations over the decades are not really looking nowadays. They order. And they do not even accept inquiries from people they ask to write books.

Let me add that I worked for a Japanese publisher for twenty years and can promise you that the quality of a book (or its translation) is but one of many factors determining whether or not it sells.

In Japan, I was published by good publishers because I was in Tokyo and could get to them with my work and a letter of recommendation from someone they knew. Here (out in the boondocks of Usania), the only thing a poor boy with no agent and books running up to 740pp can do is become an author-publisher. It costs practically nothing. One can be too poor to print out one's own books yet offer them to the world. People may look at them at Amazon or Google so the curious may see for themselves if the quality is or is not there.

And, Roger239, roger on that pr-stuff. When I think of the time wasted by a friend who is well-published in English -- time better spent writing -- doing talks at the behest of the publisher . . .

My theory is that if readers would do more reviews of unknown books and publicize the ones they like, authors will be able to spend more time writing and more good books will rise to the top, or at least float up high enough to be noticed by those who are looking.

By the way, I just changed my settings at Google so readers may see 100% of all my books in English. That means they may be reviewed without my sending out reading copies!

Well, I've read some pretty awful books by writers who publish through the normal channels too - and at least two of them were by Will Self. Still, I don't think he's being particularly contentious here: of course it's true that the more books there are published, the more bad ones will slip through. It's to be hoped more good ones will also slip through. As so many people have pointed out, nobody makes us read them, though I would like to see children, in particular, better educated as to what exactly IS a good book, so that they can make more informed choices out of whatever is available to them.

I’m also underwhelmed by even the noted authors. I think most of the books King wrote after the Shining were pretty bad. I’m reading In a Bad Place by Koonz. It’s good but very uneven. The dialogue is sophomoric while descriptions are extremely good. Still it seems to keep me reading so I guess it’s doing its job. But I’m underwhelmed. I usually read particular genres in spurts. I must be in a horror spurt. A ways back I picked up a copy of Notes from the Underground. All of the lovely drum beats that punctuate Russian novels were gone. How can a translator have such a lousy ear! So I have a rotten classic. Because I’ve independently published my book, I’ve read quite a few indie books out of curiosity. Most are pretty bad. I do find a gem here and there. In the end, I guess I’ve come to the conclusion that traditionally published books are less likely to be rotten than PODs, but not by that wide a margin.

This is very true. I suspect that the only reason why the ancient classics survived prior to the invention of the printing press is because monks wouldn't dream of wasting the time,energy and ink to copy a "dime novel." When I was a graduate student in the late fifties one of my professors was prescient enough to warn against the rise of the common man and the new technologies.

A commercially published author, USA & Europe

#180 --

Their concern is the bottom line -- profits: that's why they're in business.

(In addition, many, if not most, publishers are owned by non-publishing conglomerates. One that comes to mind that was a prestige imprint is W. W. Norton. When it was bought by a conglomerate, it's "poorly-selling" backlist was scrapped. Problem is, Norton was the kind of publisher that relied on sales over many years, rather than the quick-buck bestseller. Soon thereafter the long-time editor quit in protest over the overall changes.)

They will sell anything that will sell; and if among them one or a few are hailed as "classics" (and isn't nearly everything instantly that today?), they will boast of them in their advertising copy.

That they publish a lot of trash is the consequence.

#193 --

"Good work always sells."

It took years for Catch-22 to get noticed and take off. Today that is unlikely because it wouldn't be on a store shelf longer than six months if it didn't move during that timeframe.

And there are other elements to the process: promotion and distribution. If a book is a bestseller, that author's next book will get promotion.

It's the same in the recording industry: good or bad, if a new group doesn't sell a minimum number of units -- usually in the millions -- their contract isn't renewed. In addition, until all the fees -- recording studio time, costs of promotion and distribution, etc. -- are paid, the group doesn't get a dime.

And unlike traditional marketing, publishers do advance market research to determine what will sell, and what "won't"; what they determine "won't" sell isn't published.

"Genius will out" if there's money in it for the marketers.

One can figure it out if one looks at the "arts world": curators at museums, administrators who distribute cash stipends to artists, etc., have salaries in the six figures, while the artists who actually produce the works from which so much money is made by those others are eligible for food stamps.

I know of an instance of a museum employee being given a plaque, and a cash bonus, for making the arts "accessible" to the disabled; for, that is, increasing ticket sales by means of "good works"-appearance. The money used for the bonus was drawn from funds intended for "Very Special" artists, not for those who make money off the "Very Special" arts.

In addition, the funds for implementing the architectural changes necessary for disability access -- which changes were required by law -- came from the taxpayer, even though the museum is non-profit, therefore pays no taxes, and even though it gets other financial benefits from the taxpayer. And even though the non-profit museum has a building fund of some $16 million.

At least 80 per cent of the "arts world" consists of non-artist hangers-on and leeches.

So the next time you see an author being interviewed about his latest book on an NBC (as example) TeeVee entertainment show, be aware that the book was published by a subsidiary of the conglomerate that also "coincidentally" owns NBC. If you don't want to see how laws and sausage are made, then you also don't want to see how the making and marketing of "product" is done.

#198 --

It's the same in film. With every film -- I've been exploring the work of a particular Chinese actress (Zhang Ziyi), and a particular Chinese director (Ang Lee*) -- the principles must do premiers, award and film "festivals," TeeVee appearances, interviews, press conferences, etc., everywhere. Today many films, at least in Asia, are pan-Asian -- i.e., made by film workers from various countries; so the principles must do at least most of those in each of those countries, plus the US, plus UK and Europe.
_____

*He is exceptional in that he focuses on character development, and substantive story, gets amazing performances from his casts, and doesn't repeat himself. Worthy examples of his work I recommend are "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon," and "Lust, Caution". In the latter the male lead character can be fairly described as "evil"; but Ang Lee, and his co-writer, show a compassion for characters that results in the "evil" character actually being well-rounded and sympathetic.

Though I've yet to be able to watch it (the culture-shock being so radical), Ang Lee -- who is Taiwanese -- filmed Jane Austen's Sense and Sensibility, of which the Emma Thompson screenplay won an Oscar, the film itself top-rated at 4 1/2 out of 5 possible stars. Not only was it Lee's first English-language film, but also it was filmed in England with an all-English-speaking cast.
_____

So an actress becomes a clothes horse when she could instead be making a film. Or is in between shoots for a particular film.

In one instance the actress made a film in S. Korea ("Musa the Warrior") which was jointly produced by corporations in S. Korea and Hong Kong, and perhaps also Taiwan and mainland China, with actors and personnel from S. Korea, Hong Kong, Taiwan, mainland China, and US film industries.

(The better known film "Memoirs of a Geisha," ostensibly about a Japanese cultural phenomenon, was based upon a novel written by a male US writer, produced out of Hollowood by Steven Spielberg, scripted and directed by USians, filmed by-and-large in the US, the three lead actresses were Chinese from Malaysia, Hong Kong, and mainland China, and some supporting cast members were Japanese. I love the film and the performances -- though the script had to have been written by someone with connections -- but the choice of Chinese to play Japanese had more to do with marketing than any other consideration, though the actresses are without question exceptionally talented.)

Whether a film gets made at all has been almost all reduced to marketing research on what will and won't sell. Whether a work is "good" is whether it can be predicted with reasonable certainty that it will make more money than the total costs of producing it. It doesn't even matter if a film cost 15 million and is, "alas," a clunker: it can be marketed worldwide to fans of whomever the lead cast member/s, and or whatever the "genre"; and if it doesn't make money during release, or it is predicted that it won't, it can go directly to DVD, and sufficient fans worldwide will buy it that it will make multi-millions in profit anyway.

I've been reading since approximately 6-years-old, and writing since 1965. Over the decades I've seen the purchase prices of books escalate (gotta pay those multi-million advances to the bestselling authors, their managers and agents, the marketing and PR departments, the book-bumming tours) and the physical quality of books decline. And too often not only has the writing become increasingly horrendous but also even the editing has suffered. And a new one: a particular film screenplay writer is married to a "literary scout". What's a "literary scout? A girl scout who keeps a diary, and can read?

I don't know Japanese, but as for foreign-language poetry:

We need another half-dozen translations of Rilke's Letters to a Young Poet, which has been a "traditional" bestseller since the 1970s -- the current half-dozen or so of the last half-dozen years are simply too few -- as it's a good way for a better known poet to help the publisher pretend-by-image to be "literary" to make a greater profit, and to increase the poet's profile and "marketability" by showing his chops at translating a "classic".

Before long a person should be able to build a relatively small but "respectable" library of only translations of Letters to a Young Poet. And then there are the "collectible" promotional and other after-market materials to snap up . . .

I don't know about the rest of you, but I think I'll wait for the movie.

#199 --

I cavill when I see a young person reading pop-market trash, yet feel compelled to praise them for reading, in hopes that will encourage them to continue to do so, and perhaps begin to discern trash from worthwhile.

#201 --

You're older than I; but I can remember how "quiet" it was during the late 1950s through the 1960s. How much "empty" imaginative "space" there was that is now filled to overflowing with competitively-screaming advertisments of this week's crop of the nth repetition of the latest thing.

A recent/current example: the man who died suddenly who was known for yelling at you from the TV in effort to sell you the latest worthless life-improving plastic gadget. TeeVee actually gave him something of a tribute and eulogy by continuing to run his irritating, annoying, and stress-inducing browbeater's tirades/"infomercials". "Buy one, get one!" indeed.

You sir are offensive,

"not intelligent, well read folks." Need I say more?

#207 --

Who are you quoting?

#199 --

"I've read some pretty awful books by writers who publish through the normal channels too - and at least two of them were by Will Self."

Imagined psycholiterary bumper sticker:

"Will Self is Self-centered".

Or for the Shakespeariomystery "buff":

"Will Self be Self-centered?"

#18 --

"wannabe fools"

Better to be a wannabe fool than to be a success at the effort.

Looking back to the early posts, I only had one thought: obviously some people think the true way to prove their own worth as writers is to denigrate the work of others. These people will often use wide brushes to paint entire sections of the writing world, and there isn't any part that hasn't been under attack at one time or another, especially in the genres. Often, these attacks represent personal taste, but some people can't tell the difference when they are making judgments.

This doesn't mean I don't think there isn't a lot of bad work out there -- quite obviously there is, and in both electronic and print format. Self-published work on the Internet has a higher percentage of bad material because there is no gatekeeper at all, and many people cannot even begin to judge their own work. And besides, they don't want to work any harder.

The easy answer is not to read it. Move on. Write better work and prove yourself that way.

#211 --

". . . . many people cannot even begin to judge their own work."

I would say "most," including myself, though I've got a mite better at it in recent decades. Like many other things in life, especially those most worth doing (a normative judgment), it takes years to begin to get perspective . . . who wants to read what they wrote without the same degree of (emotional) investment, and the habitual effort to improve it?

It all depends on the definition of improve. Assume the obscurity of a work is a fundimental design element of the work (Wastelands, Finnegan's Wake, for example). I'd love to see how an editor for a traditional publisher might handle such work today. In the past, publishing houses actually went to bat for authors even if their work didn't have uch market promise. In those days, authors backed eachother's work, formed circles, added credibility to new writers, etc. Currently, there seems to be a "me generation" attitude. Writers don't seem to be interested in anything but market. Sadly, I think art and writing have parted company, at least for now.

Perhaps you need to look to the small press companies instead of the big name ones? I think, quite honestly, that some of the small press publishers are more akin to what the big name publishers were back when they first started out.

Publishers are providing entertainment, and you meausre success by sales. Smaller companies aren't as interested in -- and doin't need --the big market share. They're more likely to take on some of the novels that are not easily defined by things like genre and style.

Oh -- and I don't think it is art and writing that have parted company, but art (as you define it) and publishing may have.

I often read self-published authors. The reason is simple: I’m one of them, and I’m curious about the work of other self-published authors. There, I’ve confessed my prejudice. Unfortunately traditionally published authors aren’t so forthcoming. Of course they would disclaim self-publishing; it’s simply in their best interest to do so.

But that’s a side note, really. Why I chose self-publishing is more to the point.

Traditionally published work has advantages (huge advantages at that) that self-published work can’t hope to gain: third party credibility of sorts, editing at no cost, marketing efforts, brick-and-mortar bookstore availability, etc. Little wonder authors pursue the traditional option first. Unfortunately that option comes at a cost if realized.

I explored the option myself. I had the ear of an agent and one publisher (but I think the publisher was shady to be honest). I requested a contract for review from the agent. There was absolutely no possibility of signing it. The articles and paragraphs simply summarized that, upon consummation, I was no longer a meaningful member of the relationship: in essence, a total loss of creative control. “This says that I’m obligated to include all changes, creative or otherwise, that your editor makes,” I told the agent. She replied, “We always bend to the author’s opinion on changes.” “Why isn’t that in the contract,” I asked. “Well, from time to time, a heavy hand is necessary,” she replied.

What good is third party credibility if it’s the third party that shapes the work? What good is free editing if the cost is expression? Etc. My answer was, none. So I went it alone, for better or worse. At least I know this: should my book find itself in the hands of a reader, the opinion that reader is mine to hold. That means something to me. Rather a small audience than an audience reading a book by “anonymous” that just happens to display my name.

Hi Roger, Nice to see you here. I hope you're finding readers here because your book deserves to be read. I am certainly enjoying it and I would presume others here would like it, too.

As for Will Self and his opinions, he's certainly entitled to them. Sure, not everyone out there has a good novel in them (by my definition,) but they might have a novel in them that others would want to read. By my definition there are hundreds of best selling authors out there who sell utterly tasteless dreck. And a lot of their dreck is even ghostwritten according to a formula they have established. But, like most tasteless dreck it sells. Why? Because most readers don't know the difference between good quality and bad. All they know is what is popular and they assume that if it's popular, it must be good.

What I like about the Internet, Kindle, Sony Reader, and POD is that it makes possible for anyone to be a creator or producer of culture, and not just a consumer of whatever the established publishing houses think we should be reading. Saw this on TED.com Read/Write v. Read Only Culture. That is a very appealing notion, regardless of what it does and does not produce.

I think Self may also be forgetting how hard it is even for good writers to get published. It is an extremely rare bestseller or work of literary genius that hasn't been through a slew of rejections before getting published. Publishers (and copy-readers) aren't perfect and they don't spot every good book that lands on their desk. Even if they notice that a book is 'good', if it doesn't fit in with their subjective opinion or simply the 'style' (often meaning is it or isn't it a weak imitation of the latest blockbuster?) then it goes into the reject pile. I'm not a self-published writer - don't have the persistence: I write for my own enjoyment and if I can get something published fairly easily that's fine - if not, I give up and move onto the next thing - but then, I'm not doing it for the money (as is also the case with the majority of those who choose to self-publish) - maybe it's not so for Mr Self? Nobody makes him buy anything he doesn't want to so I really don't see what his problem is.

There's certainly lots of chaff out there on the internet, but I've found plenty of wonderful self- or unpublished works on places like Authonomy and Smashwords. They're not exactly rare, but it does take a bit of effort to locate good writing that conforms to your tastes. I can't count the number of times I've walked out of bookstores empty-handed because I can't find anything worth reading. The agent/publisher vetting system isn't exactly perfect. And do editors still edit? Oh, the stuff I would have chopped or rewritten in some books I've read recently (you won't find THOSE, on my list here, but it includes some top ten best sellers).

Thought that name didn't look familar so I checked and you're a newbie. Welcome to LT ASparrow - hope you have lots of fun here!

Thanks Sloth! For someone who's been crawling around the internet ever since the bulletin board, dial-up days its an honor to be considered a newbie again.

I just discovered this place. It seems sort of active at least, compared to some other places I've been.

Oh, it's active all right! And, on the whole, more friendly and less into point-scoring than a lot of sites. I think you'll like it here.

Writer-readersama,

Re. editing. A friend in academia told me his academic press was no longer doing any editing to speak of.

So, under the philosophy that I should not have to split my royalties and raise my price for nothing, I do my own books.

Some write that I could use an editor. They are correct.

That is true, I could. But, the problem is rather that I could use some money.

I know people who could help, but they deserve money to do so.
And, to be blunt, I have myself edited others for money and could edit myself if only someone were willing to pay for it . . ..

By the way, I would not mind an agent and a publisher but how many are asian language enabled?

I publish myself though, once upon a time, I was published by three top publoishers in Japan, because it is the only way I can keep my books at a decent price while retaining the Japanese I translate in the text.

My bigest problem is, shall we call it what it is? loneliness, -- once I worked for a Japanese publisher and now i am alone living in the woods of N Florida.

I would be delighted to hear from readers who may see my books, 100% readable at Google books.

robin d gill

ps. i use the world's largest printer/distributor and find myself treated as well as ny large publisher. If you ask me, the only bottleneck to excellence coming to public attention lies elsewhere: namely, reviews. Librarything readers should realize that they can influence the future of publishing.

Hmm. I came to this thread because it was an intriguing subject and I saw it was recently alive. But I'd read a good 25 posts before I noticed that its first (and wildest) life was in 2007. Oh well.

I do especially appreciate the general tenor of what's been posted here in the second life, especially the confessions of some self-publishers. I've just joined you, and through the route that's riskiest in terms of potential disregard by association, but seemed to me easiest and least pocket-picking: Kindle.

One of the great things about Kindle for me as a reader is that I can download as many free samples as I want (actually to my iPhone) and invest the very smallest amount of my (nonmonetary) resources to decide if I want the whole. I will admit that every time I've decided to buy the book so far, it's been some hardcopy edition, which means I'm not buying books like my own.

But then I do plan to publish this material in hardcopy, even if not exactly parallel editions. I've discovered a magazine POD project from Hewlett-Packard, to promote sales of their high-end Indigo printing machines to the likes of FedEx Office and UPS Store franchises. It's called Magcloud, and you simply supply a pdf file of any multiple of 4 8.5x11 pages (they print on 11x17), and they offer your mag for you at magcloud.com/your "publisher" name. When someone orders a copy, they pay whatever price you've set, and HP puts all but 20 cents/pg into your PayPal account. I've done 3 magazines so far, including a children's picture book for which I've been getting kudos but no publishers for 25 years. And no, I haven't sold to anyone but myself and by relay to people I know personally. But see below as to the obvious reason. This method works especially well for me because I have a magazine background, sophisticated design software, and a dangerous history of looking over the shoulder of a truly great designer. So yeah, I'm one of those too.

What I most miss in both Kindle and Magcloud, and probably would in other self-publishing avenues, is (a) yeah, editing; (b) promotion; (c) advances. (I've worked in both book and magazine publishing as an editor back in the gummed-paper days of annotation, and in magazines as a freelancer and a corporate ghostwriter; talk about "I most certainly am a writer!" because they've written tech-journal articles.) But I share the opinion that real editing, even from the biggest publishers, is a dead art. I first learned it when one of Updike's books, some time ago, persisted in giving his Presbyterian characters Episcopalian terminology to use. And let's not even start about copyediting, which is even less noticed or, should I say, missed? It doesn't speak in my favor to the "real" publishers that my work doesn't need help on continuity or spelling because they don't do any of that any more for anyone.

What I really want and have so far been unable to find, even in densely populated, intellectually pretentious New Jersey, is a critique group that will really critique. It's very distressing to listen to doggerel (though in no way do I fancy myself knowing anything about poetry) from a community-college writing student who says "The most important thing is for my writing to be fun!" and then lectures me that I shouldn't edit as I go, it must be a separate step! It's almost as distressing to listen to the genre writers who think calling their work fantasy and disclaiming interest in having it published gets them out of any need to know what a bone breaking really feels like or what the physics of hand-to-hand combat are. And this particular fantasy writer's work I basically enjoyed and appreciated being taken outside my genre comfort zone. But they don't want to hear that there has to be a way for a reader to get into the story and a reason for them to keep reading.

As to promotion, that's what I have to learn. And yes, that's about all the big traditional publishers are able to add to the mix these days. But to get them to promote your book, you have to have a completed manuscript and promote it yourself through the very deep woods of getting an agent to get you the contract.

I don't have that luxury. I've been writing professionally (i.e., getting paid for it) for almost 30 years. I've won awards. But it hasn't mostly been art. I quit my corporate job almost 15 years ago to write art, but continued to have to support myself with work that was sometimes writing and editing, sometimes informative to my writing, but never quite left me time to write the art. I've just taken most of the last year, with the help of a small windfall, to try to write without a day job. (And yes, I have a supportive, though not much better funded, spouse.) I did meet an agent who is a publisher a few weeks back, and they have the project I've just Kindled (in part).

I think of myself as an artist dependent on an industry that has lost sight of art and a lot of its own technique. And I recognize that the industry has moved away almost entirely from supporting artists like me to complete our works. Like the best financing deals on cars and houses, advances go only to those who need them least. Exactly the conditions that make my work both need and deserve support -- my lack of constraint by obligation to an academic or religious (this work's Bible interpretation) institution -- and my work's status between easily identified genres keep it from fitting into the slots on which harried traditional publishers must rely to evaluate whether to even look at a project.

So I'm glad for the likes of Kindle as an option to get my writing under the eyes of some readers. I'm about to tell that agent/publisher, along with anybody else who might take a look or pass the word along to someone else, that I am "published." Yes, I will qualify that claim, but not with apology. I'm actually pretty thrilled to be this much in control of my own destiny as a writer, and more than excited to see where this new branch of the industry might take me.

Everyone should be allowed to be creative.

Agreed, MaidMarian, though I would go even further: Everyone should be encouraged to express themselves creatively. For writers, we need to be published. The traditional publishing industry has gotten too desperate economically to give us that encouragement. So we're redefining publishing through things like Kindle. Unfortunately, that means we have to spend our energies on a lot of things that aren't creative, and readers have to wade through a lot of unedited crap.

Since writing 224, btw, I've found my critique group, in a New Jersey org called Women Who Write.