Pens With Cojones On Indie Literature
February 14, 2011
I’d like to welcome guest blogger Mayowa Atte from Pens With Cojones who has provided the second installment for my 2011 On Indie Literature Series. I met Mayowa in the blogosphere a few months after launching One Girl One Novel and we have stayed in touch across the various platforms that connect people these days.
Mayowa is a vocal supporter of indie literature and a big fan of Sometimes That Happens With Chicken. As you’ll see from this post, we share a passion for bringing high qaulity to the self-publishing arena.
So, without further ado, here’s Mayowa from Pens With Cojones on indie literature…
______________________________________________________________________
Pens With Cojones On Indie Literature
Of late, there has been a spike in the number of skirmishes between indie writers (self-publishers) and well, everyone else. As frequently happens, writers (both traditional and indie), industry professionals and commentators weigh in with cautionary tales about the euphoria and reality of self-publishing, indie writers respond with communal fury worthy of a Siberian wolf pack.
This I think is how things should be.
Stab, parry, and thrust, posts and counter-posts, tweets and tumblelogs, fact and snark, experienced fear and brave naiveté; we should all question indie literature and its practitioners should remain undeterred and unafraid. This is how we will find holes in the model, this how we will preserve the fierce independence and attitude of indie literature.
But in the wandering around the blogosphere and kindle boards, I find evidence of a fallacy festering in the indie community. The fallacy in is the idea that it doesn’t matter how many bad self-published books are put out into the world because readers will filter out the dreck and the cream will rise to the top. The idea that it doesn’t hurt anyone if, “Shiralee from Nebraska uploads her barely edited manuscript to Amazon.”
Generalized Perceptions are Unavoidable
“Why do so many Indians work in IT, they smell.”
Those words fell, flip-flop casual, from the mouth of my then boss, a hip thirty-something who had hired me (a Nigerian) as an intern and taught me a great deal. He tapped the sheaf of resumes on his desk with a finger and looked around as if expecting the universe to make the answer manifest.
He hired a white guy from North Carolina, a nice fellow who I became good friends with.
I tell this unpleasant anecdote to illustrate the power and ruthlessness of perception. It colors every moment between two parties; boy-girl, seller-buyer, producers-creators, employee-employer, stranger-stranger, writer-reader.
The accumulated weight of our experience – every memory, connotation, stereotype, nugget of shared culture – lay heavy on the brow of every interaction. There is no escape, and if we cannot escape perception, we also cannot escape generalization.
My ex-boss from above was acting on his (horrid) generalized perceptions of Indians. You are also guilty of acting on your generalized perceptions. Quick! What’s the first thing that comes to mind when you think of Mexicans? Car Salesmen? Hipsters? New Yorkers? Tea Parties? Well tanned jocks of Italian descent from Long Island?
Guilty.
Independent bookstores are great for literature but are terribly managed. The big six are prestigious vultures. Literary fiction is boring. Trashy novels are read by sexless housewives. Genre fiction is terribly written. Writers who complain about publishing are frustrated (this one’s true actually). Self-publishers are bunch of “me me me” wankers. NY critics are stuffy, inbred elitists deaf to the peoples’ heartbeat. Generalized perceptions are alive and well in the book world.
And so we come back (after a lengthy diversion) to this idea that it doesn’t matter if a lot of indie literature is bad because the cream will rise to the top and the readers will act as filters.
It is, to be blunt, bullshit.
Kumbaya or Else
A fecal reading experience with one indie book affects other indie writers in the genre, other indie writers, other writers, and literary culture across the board (in varying degrees). Readers who suffer at the hands of an indie author WILL remember their suffering the next time they consider a book by any indie author, not just the offender.
We are in this together, whether we like it or not.
There is a delusion common among writers, this idea that we are special, that our stories are uniquely beautiful and deserve to be told. A voice whispering from our writerly guts, providing assurance that we are CREAM and we shall rise to the top. Even terrible writers are assured of this and you and I may very well (it’s quite likely actually) be one of the deluded. It doesn’t matter if your story is great if a potential reader refuses to read self-published books because of a bad experience.
There are no exceptions. Kumbaya or else.
On Respect
The most offensive portion of this attitude is the idea that readers will filter the crap. A reader’s time is a precious thing, invaluable even. No writer should ever take that the time a reader invests in books for granted and expecting readers to read and discard (or ingest with distaste) all the dreck out there is to misunderstand and disrespect both readers and the writing profession. Readers are not there to filter out our crap, we must respect them and ourselves.
Bad Indie Books Cost Us Money and Readership
If pride in our craft does not motivate us, we can dwell on this: every bad experience a reader has with a indie book lowers the chance that the reader will read another. These readers become lost sales and lost readership.
Scary stuff…but it’s nothing we can’t fix.
The Opportunity and the Message
Precisely because self-publishing stigma is receding in the literary community and self-published books are not yet fully mainstream (despite Ms. Hocking’s numbers), this moment in time represents a unique opportunity for us to shape mainstream perception of self-publishing. We must take control of the generalized perceptions about self-publishers and we must do it now.
This is the time to ask: why should anyone read an indie novel, is it better written than a traditionally published one? Is it fulfilling the needs of a forgotten niche? Is it better edited? Is it innovative in the way traditionally published books aren’t? Is it more stylish or more entertaining? Is it cheaper, of higher physical quality?
The Way Forward – Self Policing
Writers tend to be nice people. We are intimately aware of the hesitation and self-doubt wailing within each other and so our default mode of interaction is support. This again is how things should be. Nevertheless, no degree of politeness or writerly camaraderie should prevent us from self-policing our output. Many professional occupations are self-regulated (doctors, realtors etc.) and there is no reason we can’t do the same.
We don’t have to be the Gestapo, but we do have to tell the truth and when books are bad we have to say so and help the authors get better. Yes, it’s going to be messy and there will probably be spats until we can get the process formalized a little bit but we have no choice.
The way forward for indie literature is for indie writers to make it clear both to readers and to other writers that we are invested in producing high quality work as a community.
______________________________________________________________________
For more info re: Mayowa Atte visit http://www.penswithcojones.com or you can follow him on Twitter @PensWithCojones. Of course, these are my two favorite posts over at Pens With Cojones. Wink.
http://www.penswithcojones.com/2010/06/sometimes-that-happens-with-chicken/
http://www.penswithcojones.com/2010/07/sometimes-that-happens-with-chicken-the-cojones-review/
______________________________________________________________________
Many thanks to Mayowa for his continued support and his contribution to my On Indie Literature Series. If you’d like to read the first installment, click here for Ed Renehan On Indie Literature.
ttyl
Wanda
One thing I appreciate about you Mayowa, is that you are a really positive person. You’re sharp and lucid, but incredibly positive. I don’t think self-policing will ever happen in self-publishing, at least not on a wide scale. Tight but batshit crazy writers like Chuck Wendig might be able to pull it off (by the way, I invite everyone to go read his incendiary pieces about self-publishing on his web site Terrible Minds dot com.), but the average indie published writer went this way out of frustration and disproportional ego. I have met a dozens of them and swore to myself never to be like them.
I think if there’s a solution, it lies in a change in editing structure. Let’s say, traditional publisher charges you a fee, makes your book go through the necessary editing process and then, leaves you at the wheel of your destiny, with the same ressources an Indie publisher would give. It would cause a problem about authenticity of material, but at least it would re-establish some kind of quality treshold.
Ben,
Thank you for your kind words sir. And I second your recommendation to go read Chuck’s pieces on http://www.terribleminds.com, great stuff.
As to self publishers, in general I think they are a great bunch. There’s plenty of attitude and stubbornness, willingness to try new things etc. that I think are essential for writers in the new age of publishing.
But…and it’s a big but.
I see plenty of things which like you say make me not want to be like them. There’s a lot of the above thinking (ala it doesn’t matter how bad the books are)around, there’s a lot of self and communal deception (supporting bad books and not telling the authors they are bad, or someone with a terrible cover saying confidently that the cream will rise to the top) going on. Also too much of a focus on Sales (how traditional) and so on.
There are problems but I think they can be fixed (guess I am optimistic eh?). I do love your idea about traditional publishers becoming more of author services companies…I’ve always seen that as a viable alternative to the current path.
Thanks for the comment!
Hi Benoit,
I agree that the average self-published author is largely driven by frustration and ego, but there are those of us who self-publish by choice, who aren’t sitting on a pile of rejection letters. I think we’re all looking for a solution considering the ineffectual nature of traditional publishing business models. Re: the model you propose, What’s the difference between that and the current subsidy publishing model?
Thanks!
Mayowa,
Great post. Thanks for linking to this and helping me find it! I like what you have to say. I agree with a lot of it. I do fear the solution you propose, though. On the one hand, it makes sense. And, being part of the scientific community, I do see the value of peer-review. But, for me, this somehow goes against the idea of self-publishing. It sounds more like community-publishing, and I can imagine factions growing from it as well as back scratching. I do think something more needs to happen in the self-publishing world to help readers find what they want to read, but I can’t think of a solution yet.
Hey Domey
Caught your comment on Pens With Cojones. This was my reply:
——
Glad you enjoyed the post, sir. Please fill me in (maybe a post for us all?) if you come up with a solution. The issue is a toughie and the more ideas the better.
As to peer reviews, the practicalities make them difficult to implement but I don’t think they conflict with the “self/independent” publishing concept. The independence and freedom of self publishing are from the traditional establishment and not from fellow self published writers (we are bound together due to categorization and stereotyping). As long as we review for hard quality (typos, grammar etc.) and not subject matter and marketability we should be safe from many of the selection issues that plague traditional publishing. Ideally we would look at more subjective quality issues but that gets really messy really quickly.
So anyone could publish whatever they want, whenever they want as long as it is of professional quality (this would be the requirement for support). This is where i’d start, authors making firm decisions to only support professional work instead of blind support.
Thanks for stopping by.
————————————
Thanks again for reading!
Wow, great thoughts Mayowa and well said, as usual. I’m all for the honesty approach. You say that “The way forward for indie literature is for indie writers to make it clear both to readers and to other writers that we are invested in producing high quality work as a community.” But, do you think that everyone has a different definition of “high quality”? Some people think that the Twilight books are “high quality.”
Hi Domey,
I really appreciated the end of your comment: “I do think something more needs to happen in the self-publishing world to help readers find what they want to read, but I can’t think of a solution yet.” I don’t have a solution either but in publishing as in life, I’m reminded of a second handed Geothe quote which says something like – All one can do is sweep one’s own front step. I’m not sure anyone needs to find a solution in this case. Indie film lovers manage to find indie films and indie music lovers manage to find indie bands without some overarching construct directing them and I believe the same will happen with indie authors. I think in both of those cases, the audiences were driven by a thirst for quality and as soon it was there, they found it. This does however bring us back to Mayowa’s emphasis on quality which I do think is important.
And hello also to Ingrid,
I’m very curious to hear how Mayowa is going to answer the question you posed. LOL! Vehemently I suspect. But I think you raise a very good point. I have been thinking about this point a lot lately because the evolution of simple grammatical rules and contructs alone makes it a very grey area. But like I said, I’m more curious about Mayowa’s response in this case.
Thanks to you both for stopping by.
HA! Vehemence describes me perfectly (fortunately and unfortunately lol).
@Wanda,
I’d love to believe that indie literature has the same connotations and quality levels as indie music and film but I don’t think it does. Even with lower costs, far fewer people can afford to make an indie movie or album than can afford to write an indie novel. People tend to really examine their skills and commitment when they have to shell out fifteen grand for a movie or album.
The lower numbers and high costs means there is much less dreck than in indie literature which makes it easier for consumers to find them. I bet there are already five times as many indie writers as filmmakers and bands (maybe more?)
Also the stereotypes for indie film and music are positive (due in part to the factors above) while the current stereotype for indie literature is anything but.
Those are some of the reasons I don’t think the organic approach will work for indie literature. Thoughts?
@Ingrid,
Thank you for the kind words
I confess to being on the more strident side of the quality discussion (understatement of the year) but that’s just my personal for opinion. For the community, I don’t think it’s difficult for us to agree on some base level of copy editing (typos, grammar, punctuation etc.) for starters.
The quality of craft is a lot more subjective and will probably be very messy to measure so we have to tread lightly there. There is this, we shouldn’t measure by subject or style (no picking on Twilight and the like) but we should try to look at craft regardless of what subject or style it serves.
As usual, I ramble far too much. Hope I was coherent at least.
I like what I’m reading here.
Thanks for stopping by Bill. Your blog looks very interesting.