(this might be a bit long because the original content hit me hard, so bear with me)
As a technical writer who is working to turn over a new leaf, I’ve been spending some time visiting forums to look over advice for new writers. Since I have generated plenty of books in my time (from concept to published works), I know what advice to listen to and what to ignore. But when I read diatribes over what “you have to do” in order to achieve a successful writing career, it raises my fighting instincts towards non-conformity. As I’ve always said, it’s not easy being the square peg in a round hole…
There are plenty of people out there who have gone the traditional route of publishing in hopes of becoming the next BIG writer de jour. They slave away at each book, writing and marketing it as they would a war campaign because it’s all about the sales. And once they’ve tasted that success, they fall into the trap of complacency and forget the passion for the writing. They even forget that the audience is vast, shifting, and always searching. The volatility of the market is there mainly because of the volatility of the audience. It’s hard to trap a genie in a bottle because the genie doesn’t want to be caught. Sales never seems to get the message.
So when many established writers and editors offer advice to the next batch of newcomers, we have to realize that they are allowing the established system to continue simply because it’s already there. We hear the phrase “don’t fix something that isn’t broken” and tend to think of this as sage advice. Why would you want to possibly interfere with something that chugs along doing what it’s intended to do? My question is “why wouldn’t we want to make it better”?
Of course, the established system involves writers, editors, publishers, marketers, and more who all participate in the final product. But there’s nothing there that should stop writers who either have the necessary skills and network to publish in their own ways. Self publishing is tantamount to “garbage” in the eyes of some established professionals. Well, that is because no one teaches those who self publish the necessities of book development. There is no right way to write or publish a book. If the book makes some of the audience happy, then it is doing what’s intended. Because the audience is vast and different, a single book will never make everyone happy. We should be doing everything possible to allow more books to reach that hungry audience.
Yes, books should be able to grow and mutate as needed to become better books over time. What is good in one period of time, might become great in another. Sales shouldn’t be the judgment call over which books become revised or published. All books should have that opportunity, because with this opportunity, more people can be incorporated into the process. It’s a win for everyone.
A book relies on the intent of its creator. If the creator is only after something tangible like sales, then the book will never reach its full potential and that’s a shame. But if the writer is like many writers, and the intent is to make a pleasurable experience then it should be brought into light in any way possible. The desire of the writer will be the energy of the book. People are thirsting for new experiences.
Yes, we can make things better:
We’re a nation of innovators, although lately that doesn’t seem so apparent. No matter what your age is, the capacity to develop something that makes change worthwhile is always there. What we do to make these innovations come to life indicates how healthy that society is. A healthy society is still in its growth stages and must make new things in order to sustain their growth and existence. A healthy society stays curious and keeps seeking for more.
Once the society starts to age, invariably mechanisms are put into place to dissuade any activities that are geared to change. The “system” must be maintained because it’s the accepted norm. But if all of us weren’t consulted about whether that accepted norm should stay the same forever, then should it simply be accepted on blind faith? I would say that the answer is “NO” because faith should never be blind. We should use all of our senses and instincts to see what changes are possible to make things better.
There are non-conformists in society that do this and are consider to be anarchists. In many cases, I think that we’re looking at them in the wrong way because throwing away the rules isn’t their intention. Many of them are only out to find ways to make things better because they see the flaws in the system. Because humans are meant to be creative, it goes against their nature to be held back and instructed on proper do’s and don’ts.
Personally, I see these instructions as guidelines that should be modified when the situation dictates. If a system has built-in failures, why would we want it to continue? After all, we’re supposed to be pushing for quality and yet we have systems that personify deficiency. How that equates to perfection is beyond me. Why shouldn’t we ruffle the feathers of establishment? I’d say go for what you think is best for you, because no one knows you better. Just do your best to produce your best each and every time!
In Closing:
So, all of you well-meaning experts, I thank you for your “opinions” and realize that you only want to protect status quo. But this is one writer who will probably stay out in the cold void and make what she wants while trying to reach her audience with something good. Because I don’t want to be satisfied with “good enough”. Yes, we creative types can be frustrating that way. It might be hard, but it’s worthwhile!
And a final thought: All over the news, people are discussing the end of books as we know them. Those experts entrenched in the current market place are surprised because many changes are already successfully affecting the industry (e-books anyone). The Net has made it possible for new authors to reach their audience directly, and many are building large followings with little guidance from the establishment. If the change is wanted, then nothing will stop it from happening. This might be something that experts may want to start considering. Change can be good when the intent is pure and universal, so my suggestion is to not stand in its way.
(ok, my diatribe is now over – thanks for listening – now back to more pleasant things)
