Publishing: The Big Change?
I was recently reading this post regarding what might be a change in the way publishing works around these parts (these parts being everywhere) and it got me thinking: maybe there will be a change, but that change might actually be a bad thing.The author of the post I linked sites examples within music (Nine Inch Nails and Radiohead) in which the musicians bypassed the traditional route (record labels) and recorded/published their work themselves. The problem I see with the argument is that these aren’t good examples of “self-publishing” within the music industry. Both NIN and Radiohead were popular before they broke from their labels. Granted, NIN had a lot of issues with the music industry from the get go, but they were still popularized while with a label. They’re not good examples of folks bypassing traditional routes and becoming popular. But that’s really not directly related to what is being argued.The argument is that the introduction of services like Lulu and Amazon’s version of self-publishing (plus loads of other sites offering free publishing services using a POD model) now allows a lot of folks to publish without incurring the cost during the process (mostly, since you do have to pay a small fee to be able to distribute via Amazon and what not). But will this become a means by which everyone goes to bypass publishing traditions? Even a better question is whether it should?Well, for obvious reasons the first question is pretty much answered. Folks are using Lulu and such. They are self-publishing their work and distributing it. This is good and bad at the same time. It’s good because there are authors who simply can’t get with a traditional publisher because they write niche stuff, and now such authors have a place they can publish without paying a year’s worth of wages for printing. I just finished a book that had this very issue that was self-published and it was actually a fantastic read, in all honesty. But that also means that loads and loads of horrible garbage is printed that wouldn’t be picked up by a real publisher even if it were the proper genre/style. I’ve been exposed to this too. In fact, there has been a recent feud over at YWO regarding this very subject: one young author published his book and could not take the criticism offered by those that did not share his enthusiasm of greatness. This author has, of course, gone off the deep end and begun attacking me on Twitter as well, seeing how I was apparently the most brutal of the bullies, when really I only submitted that his book was horribly written, because it was (it was practically unreadable and just because you self-published something doesn’t make you a great writer).I have a lot of issues with the inclusion of the ease of self-publishing. My main problem is that it’s a self-damning process. Yes, there are going to be a few fantastic books done through Lulu, and likewise there will be many good books, but for every one fantastic book there are about two hundred wretched books, and that leaves it to the customer to wade through all the crap just to find something that is even readable. At least when you go to Borders or B&N you know that the vast majority of things in the store are at least edited, copy edited, and basically readable. But with self-publishing you’re basically taking a wild gamble no matter what you buy. Maybe you’ll get a good book, but most likely you’ll end up with something under-par, something you’d rather not have wasted $17 on in the first place.So, I see problems with the self-publishing model, especially the fact that it is so easy, and I see the change as more negative than positive. If more folks were spending the appropriate time and cash to edit their novels, it might be different (and Lulu offers these services for a fee, by the way), but practically nobody is doing this. We’re left with unedited tripe that floods the self-pubbed market and makes it impossible to wade through. I’ve never bought anything directly from Lulu because of this very problem.Perhaps we’ll see more authors taking control of their work, but will this be a good thing overall? Perhaps for popular authors, ones who already have a following, but I don’t see the self-publishing model improving in quality, just in quantity. Yes, Lulu is a great service. It’s wonderful if you need a printing for something you want to put out and don’t want to spend thousands of dollars. Lulu has also made it tremendously easy for folks to print works as the “publisher” rather than the author, which is fantastic for the rise of independent presses. The problem, however, is that such things are a rarity, and that is perhaps because many of the folks who would be up for such a thing are burdened by the negativity that comes with vanity presses and even Lulu. Lulu is great, but we all know it’s a self-publishing firm and that there are thousands of hopelessly terrible books floating around in its catalogue.The question now is whether I truly feel there will be a change in publishing. Yes, and I’m very much against it. I fully and totally agree that the current publishing models adopted and desperately clung to by the larger publishing houses is outdated and is in great need of adjustment not only for the sake of publishing in general, but for readers and writers alike. But, and this is a big but, if changing means reducing the quality of literature–and by quality I mean simple things like writing that is readable both stylistically, grammatically, and spelling based–then we are going to deal with what might be the first actual death of literature. Do any of us honestly believe that people will keep reading if all they get is garbage? None of us like wading through trash to find something we’ll
Author’s that you “should” like, but don’t?
Aidan over at A Dribble of Ink recently posted a new post regarding authors we should like, but don’t. For me, I would have to say Margaret Weis and Tracy Hickman. Nothing against them, but I could never get into any of the things they wrote. I started reading Dragonlance stuff, but not with work they had written. I just never liked their stories and whenever I see their names it turns me off. I dont know why. I don’t hate them or anything and I applaud them for their huge success (they’ve done a great job, after all), they just never appealed to me.And I also don’t like David Eddings. That might be because I have only read one book by him and it was one of his later books, but it was horrible and I can’t bring myself to try his earlier stuff yet.Lastly, which will probably make you all despise me: J. R. R. Tolkien. Yeah, I know, he’s wonderful and stuff, but I can’t stand his writing. The story is awesome, but he couldn’t write worth crap and I’m not going to pull my punches on this. His books are not that great. He spends way too much time babbling to doing things that are annoying and there isn’t enough action. Too much description. I love the story, I do like the detail, but I can’t stand his writing style and have only read LOTR once and never will again. Sorry, that’s the truth. If I need a LOTR fix for some reason, I go to the movies. The LOTR movies are a rarity because they may be one of the first incidences where the movie was far better than the book. But that’s just me. Anywho!
Poul Anderson: One of the Greats
If you’ve never read Poul Anderson, you’re missing out. I recently came across this article that profiles his work (discovered here).I’ve been a fan of Poul Anderson’s work for a long and have set out to collect all his printed works (I have most of them actually). His writing has always been inspiring to me. I first read “Call Me Joe” by him many years ago and it was the spark that got me into science fiction in the first place. It was a strange story, and I think that’s what made me so intrigued: it had that sense of wonder and amazement.Shortly after that I started buying up old SF titles and even spend quite a few bucks one christmas building up a collection of Analog SF backissues (from way back when, actually; I currently have two big boxes full of these things and they’re wonderful). I’m not as well read as most SF nuts (I’ve yet to reaed all the classics), but if it hadn’t been for Poul Anderson I don’t think I would have ever started writing SF. Maybe I would have if I discovered some of the writers I admire today, but that’s shaky at best. Poul Anderson was the catalyst for my newfound obsession with SF. Granted, other writers preceded him and it was them that got me to eventually read Poul Anderson (Richard A. Knaak, actually, was my introduction to fantasy literature, with the exception of a little Tolkien and some classics I had read, and without Knaak I probably wouldn’t have jumped into fantasy as much as I did; Knaak is one of my favorite fantasy writers and I’m somewhat disheartened by the fact that he doesn’t write enough of his own stuff and spends most of his writing time on shared world things, which sucks, cause the Dragonrealm books were good).So, here’s to Poul Anderson, a gem among gems, if that makes any sense. And now I’ll bring it back to you:What one author got you to read science fiction or fantasy? Or, what author got you interested in reading at all, since some of us have only recently realized the wonders of reading?
Fantasy Is Easy: Ha!
Why is it that some people believe that fantasy is easy?Fantasy isn’t easy folks. In fact, to write good fantasy it takes a lot of thought and, well, talent. Good fantasy is hard. Good fantasy doesn’t take all the major cliches, put them in a book, and say “there you go, an original piece of fantasy literature”. It’s quite the opposite. In fact, to assume that writing–the process–is simpler just because one is writing fantasy is really a plain idiotic thing to say. All writing is difficult. For many, it’s a job, and very few superbly crappy novels–novels which clearly display the writer’s lack of talent or interest in what he or she is doing–are actually published these days (at least, not by real publishing houses). Crappy novels, of course, do exist, but generally crappy novels are crappy because they are poorly written. Fantasy itself is also quite difficult. Remember, fantasy writers are working in created worlds, worlds that do not exist and never will. Such worlds are populated by humans and other creatures, some humanoid and some not, all of which have their own separate cultures (or a collective culture). The result is that an author can’t just sit down and regurgitate a decent, well rounded fantasy world in one go. Readers will catch on; they’ll know that the author didn’t put their all into it. Writers who write good fantasy–the type that has something to say, that addresses issues that don’t rely on common cliches, character ripoffs from other fantasy works, and entirely pointless bits of “fantasy nonsense”–put a hell of a lot of work into their writing. They have a lot to consider that writers in other genres do not: everything from fantasy races to invented cultures. Some writers are dealing with weird forms of fantasy, the kind we’re not really used to (perhaps Jeff Vandermeer is a good example here). You can’t just say “well I write fantasy because it’s easy”. What exactly is easy about fantasy? You can’t just make it all up and think it will work. Fantasy follows rules. Granted, those rules may defy the laws of physics as we know them, but they do follow a set of rules within the created world and good fantasy does not violate these rules. Magic, for example, is only interesting if it has limitations, and what qualifies as a limitation determines the value of the magic to the story. If there are no consequences for the use of magic, what’s the point? Quite frankly, I find it rather annoying when people say that fantasy is easy. It’s a display of ignorance in the arrogant vein and indicative of the narrow-minded mentality that dominates the anti-genre crowd (yes, I am aware that some people simply don’t understand that fantasy isn’t easy and aren’t necessarily “haters”). There are plenty of fantasy novelists who do, in fact, work their butts off to write a good fantasy book. Perhaps some of the people who say that fantasy is easy simply think so because it comes more naturally to them, while other forms of writing are more difficult. But then, that would mean to someone who writes fiction, fiction is easy and essay writing is suddenly not, right? And is that a fair assessment on essay writing or fiction writing? Just because it seems easier doesn’t mean that it actually is. Or, perhaps what people actually mean is that fantasy is fun? Generally when we are having fun doing something, that something is more entertaining and we’re more interested in it. Again, this doesn’t make it “easy”. It makes it fun, and that’s all. You’re exerting energy at a different level, but it’s attached to the happy side of your brain and not the side that is screaming at you that it’s bored (generally speaking, all writing should be fun, even in difficult times). So, let’s think about this folks. Any time you want to say that fantasy is easy, think about it first. Consider why you think it’s easy and assess those thoughts logically. Is something necessarily “easy” because it’s fun, or because it seems easy to you? And then, to those that treat fantasy negatively in this respect, perhaps you should read the genre more before coming to the conclusion that it is easy. Or, maybe you should write your own fantasy book, sell it, and make millions on it and tell us just how easy that was. I can almost guarantee you that it will prove to be very difficult indeed.
Should SF/F authors read in their genre?
Apparently this is the next big issue that people are discussing across the blogosphere, and likely elsewhere. It all started, so it seems, with an interview Pat over at Pat’s Fantasy Hotlist did with David Bilsborough. Some people have taken great offense with certain things Mr. Bilsborough said and it has sparked a bit of a feud in the genre world about whether or not authors should read within their genre. Now, to what Mr. Bilsborough said that apparently has some people in a tiffy, and has other people raising their defensive walls: I don’t see why it [fantasy] should be respected. With the obvious JRR exception, (and possibly Bernard Cornwell’s “Starkadder / Vargr Moon”) I have to say that I’m not the greatest fan of fantasy, at least not the swords & sorcery tradition with all its preposterousness and banality. I’ve read a fair few fantasy books in my life, and am always surprised that such stale, hackneyed and vapid pulp should get published at all. I particularly have problems with US fantasy; there are definite exceptions, of course, but in my opinion the Americans just don’t get it, with their phony Olde-Englishness, green tights, bucket boots, square-jawed ‘Rone Garet’ heroes, pretty-but-with-a-hidden-fire ‘Fern Leah’ love interests, hissing insidious black-robed ‘Sith Mordax’ villains, or whatever it is they harp on about in their hollow regurgitations of Conan, Star Wars or Buffy. Is it any wonder spec. fiction has so little respect? This is what has got people upset, and rightly so. What really hits home is his apparent disdain for the genre. He specifically says, “I am not the greatest fan of fantasy.” How much clearer does it have to get that this guy pretty much hates the genre, with some very minor, and, albeit, obvious exceptions. Everyone says Tolkien is fantabulous, because to not do so is akin to telling Christians that the Bible was written by Satan worshipers. And then you throw out Cornwell, another who has quite a bit of respect in the same fashion as Tolkien due to the types of stories he tells. But, anyone can toss those names out without having read them, presuming that liking said authors is an indicator of one’s worth. And then there’s that opening line: “I don’t see why it should be respected.” Excuse me? You’re writing in a genre you don’t feel should be respected? So, by default, we should just look at you as another of those hack writers that you so despise, because, hey, fantasy doesn’t deserve any respect? I don’t really care if you read within the genre. That’s pretty much pointless to me. John Varley told me in an interview he reads mostly mysteries, but he writes science fiction. And he’s good at science fiction. One doesn’t have to be superbly versed in genre to write in it. I simply have problems with this presumption that just because the genre has quite a few writers who basically write derivative garbage that it should be treated with no respect whatsoever, with exception to a pair of writers who only until recently began pushing out of the land of “crap literature” into the literary academia (the supposed “good literature”). If that’s so, then all literature, by extension, deserves no respect. Literary fiction isn’t graced with a tremendous amount of originality, nor has it been founded upon only great books. There are plenty of crappy, completely useless and utterly pointless novels that have been under the label of “literary fiction” (and I have read quite a few of these crappy lit fic novels). The same can be said about every single genre that has been created and will be created. There are great and crappy science fiction novels, horror novels, romance novels, mystery novels, detective novels, etc. There’s no such thing as a genre of perfection, one in which all the novels are great. Yet we give respect to certain genres while shunning others (“we” being the literate and educated, primarily the academia), despite their imperfections and unoriginality. Of course fantasy has an abundance of what one might call “lesser literature”. Yet this is what people want. They enjoy it. It’s entertaining and that’s it’s purpose. Shouldn’t we respect it for that? Just because you don’t like a specific set of writers, or a specific class of fantasy, doesn’t mean we should shun it to the bottom of a well, forsaking it to be consumed by people who, I suppose, have to be mindless nitwits simply because they like such things. Sometimes entertainment is all you need. That doesn’t make those that read it particularly idiotic or mindless. We should be thankful that they’re reading at all, and even more thankful that it’s because of the people reading “such stale, hackneyed and vapid pulp”, as Bilsborough says, that we even have an industry revolving around the act of writing. Entertainment value, no matter how desperately you want to argue against this, is keeping literature alive. So I say celebrate vapid pulp, because without it there wouldn’t be a fantasy genre, or if there was one, it would be so small and under-appreciated that nobody would really care if Bilsborough released a new novel. Lastly, of course, is the comment about Americans, and I put this last for a reason. It doesn’t bother me all that much. Yes, I think it’s rather offensive that because I was born in America I’m suddenly devoid of taste, and that my choice of reading is cause for ridicule. What does being American have to do with it? That’s my question. This is a lot of that “Brits are better” attitude that I find to be rather silly. I think it’s an inborn pride that has never let up, and, of course, Americans have a similar attitude (or some of us anyway). Some of the discussions about the American comment have been somewhat ridiculous, in my opinion. While I would agree that calling Americans phony and essentially useless is offensive, I
Email Ethics: Replying to Rejections?
I have a curious question. Is it wrong, not recommended, or downright stupid to email back and editor and thank them for the comments they made in a personalized rejection notice?I don’t want to do something considered a “no no”. Any thoughts? (Don’t click the read more, there isn’t any more after this!)