As Brian says, writers' lamentations over celebrity and commercialization are "a load of bunk." If you don't want to be soiled by commerce, don't publish.
It's undoubtedly jejune for writers to lament about being soiled by commerce, but it's equally untenable to claim that the commercial aspects of publishing have no influence on what gets written and published, often in subtle ways.
My own reasons for not publishing commercially are fairly straightforward - I appreciate my independence but, most of all, I can't be bothered! I like what I do (writing), at least on good days. Readers are merely a perk.
Well, that's a healthy attitude, Lee. And you're right, of course. The commercial aspects exert an immense influence on what gets written - and that is true of so-called literary fiction as well as genre fiction and nonfiction.
The logical fallacy in Brian Clegg's argument involves this statement: Publishing is commercialising (which I'm paraphrasing since I can't go back and forth). Is this true?
Publishing is publicking; and, yes, although many writers publish to make money above all else, I believe an equal number publish and are published because the writing warrants publication, not necessarily because it will see kaboodles and oodles of moolah.
A book is not a widget, IOW; and, if all publishing happened for commercial reasons alone, a lot of small presses wouldn't exist. Do all books make money, even with the big publishers (or, can one safely say that some of the big sellers do, in fact, subsidise their less profitable but no less valuable sisters and brothers)?
New Directions? Coach House Press? Black Moss Press? Brick Books? City Lights? Jonathon Cape? My own publishers, ECW, Dundurn, XYZ and especially, Oberon Press (whose mandate, on its portal page, expressly states its aims and intentions)? These publish commercially viable works only?
I wonder, for example, how well the Dalkey Archive does in terms of the bottom line? I know Shoemaker & Hoard (publisher of David Markson) eventually found itself forced to sell to the Dalkey (but, until it found itself in that regrettable position, it published amazing work/s, works it believed worthy, not works it believed money-makers).
Also, because Brian Clegg hasn't heard of Michel Faber, that says more about Mr. Clegg, IMO, than it does about Michel Faber. Just my deux, FWIW.
Lee, *I* like — no, scratch that, really like — what you write; and, IMO, your work deserves a wider audience. I do have high hopes for your new book (which is why I am encouraging you to complete it, not something I do lightly as my many haters and detractors will attest).
You possess a gift, Lee; and, by my way of thinking, you do honour (to) it. I think you undersell — AHA! — yourself when you suggest readers are a bunch of perks, hehehehe . . .
It's undoubtedly jejune for writers to lament about being soiled by commerce, but it's equally untenable to claim that the commercial aspects of publishing have no influence on what gets written and published, often in subtle ways.
ReplyDeleteMy own reasons for not publishing commercially are fairly straightforward - I appreciate my independence but, most of all, I can't be bothered! I like what I do (writing), at least on good days. Readers are merely a perk.
Well, that's a healthy attitude, Lee. And you're right, of course. The commercial aspects exert an immense influence on what gets written - and that is true of so-called literary fiction as well as genre fiction and nonfiction.
ReplyDeleteThe logical fallacy in Brian Clegg's argument involves this statement: Publishing is commercialising (which I'm paraphrasing since I can't go back and forth). Is this true?
ReplyDeletePublishing is publicking; and, yes, although many writers publish to make money above all else, I believe an equal number publish and are published because the writing warrants publication, not necessarily because it will see kaboodles and oodles of moolah.
A book is not a widget, IOW; and, if all publishing happened for commercial reasons alone, a lot of small presses wouldn't exist. Do all books make money, even with the big publishers (or, can one safely say that some of the big sellers do, in fact, subsidise their less profitable but no less valuable sisters and brothers)?
New Directions? Coach House Press? Black Moss Press? Brick Books? City Lights? Jonathon Cape? My own publishers, ECW, Dundurn, XYZ and especially, Oberon Press (whose mandate, on its portal page, expressly states its aims and intentions)? These publish commercially viable works only?
I wonder, for example, how well the Dalkey Archive does in terms of the bottom line? I know Shoemaker & Hoard (publisher of David Markson) eventually found itself forced to sell to the Dalkey (but, until it found itself in that regrettable position, it published amazing work/s, works it believed worthy, not works it believed money-makers).
Also, because Brian Clegg hasn't heard of Michel Faber, that says more about Mr. Clegg, IMO, than it does about Michel Faber. Just my deux, FWIW.
Lee, *I* like — no, scratch that, really like — what you write; and, IMO, your work deserves a wider audience. I do have high hopes for your new book (which is why I am encouraging you to complete it, not something I do lightly as my many haters and detractors will attest).
ReplyDeleteYou possess a gift, Lee; and, by my way of thinking, you do honour (to) it. I think you undersell — AHA! — yourself when you suggest readers are a bunch of perks, hehehehe . . .
Again, though, just my deux.