The 'C' Word: Part 2- A Not-So-Brave New World

The 'C' Word 

Part 2: A Not-So-Brave New World

The conveniences afforded by modern technology are responsible for an explosion in the number of new writers emerging in the last decade. Literary hardware is no longer restricted by the physical limitations of ink and paper, and the advent of online connectivity has shifted the written word from a physical, tangible space to a limitless digital frontier; where enthusiastic individuals are capable of staking out their own marketable space and cultivating their own organic readerships.

 Laptops, smartphones and tablets function as miniaturised, portable publishing houses, providing users with unlimited access to everything from graphic design studios to global marketing platforms. Such vast and unprecedented powers have granted a professional literary voice to millions who might never have been heard before, due to their financial, geographical, educational, or even political backgrounds. 

This sweeping informational liberation is, of course, cause for great celebration. But all freedoms come at their own costs, and in publishing there is no exception—particularly when it comes to the determination, and regulation, of quality. 

Vanity or Self-Publishing? 

The self-publishing industry has benefitted hugely from the new digital age of literary distribution. Commonly mistaken with ‘vanity publishing’ (where offending publishers predatorily approach weary, downbeat authors with a tantalising offer of publication—provided that the author fronts the usually substantial production costs), self-publishing has undergone a complete shift in terms of its popular image and preconceptions. Self-publishing companies now offer increasingly sophisticated products: from high quality cover art to professional formatting and effective online marketing. 

There are also major potential benefits to self-publishing. It could allow for the exposure of new narrative voices with brave and experimental writing styles, and grant access to worldwide ideas on what it means to tell a story, and the roles and responsibilities that storytellers have to play in their respective modern societies. It could also be less influenced by the prevailing trends of profitably identified markets, allowing for more niche, and more challenging work to find a wider audience. It helps to get less professionally trained writer’s work into print, and as Jo Herbert, Editor of The Writers and Artist’s Handbook points out:

“Self-publishing has been around for years (Virginia Woolf did it, as did Mark Twain and James Joyce. William Blake did nothing else) and is considered to be a perfectly respectable way to get your book into the marketplace. In fact, because getting published by mainstream publishers is so tricky, many authors are choosing to self-publish in the first instance by way of a stepping stone. A high-quality self-published book shows the author is ambitious, organised and serious.”

This stepping stone can be a lifeline for prospective authors, and when combined with the effective employment of social media platforms, it is also capable of generating a very real income. The most successful self-published authors have established a surprisingly large following via services including Youtube, Instagram, and Facebook, with fans numbering in the thousands. 

But financial success in this arena requires a canny eye and ear for popular trends, and the creator’s online personality is imperative— he or she must be relatable, humorous, informal, and encouraging, with a professionally relevant yet carefree attitude to reading, writing, and life in general. A majority of successful online creators also tend to be young females, with an emphasised enthusiasm for the popular genres of Young Adult, Fantasy, and Dystopian fiction; most likely representative of the fallout generation from the Harry Potter and Hunger Games series.

Followers of these writers also stand to benefit, enjoying unrestricted access to their favourite authors and personalities via regular vlog updates (with almost confessional insights into the creator’s personal lives, should they choose to divulge them), and the ability to engage in very active community discussions to which the creator’s themselves frequently contribute, interacting on a face-to-face, grass-roots basis with their fans. 

Crucially, many creators also provide valuable advice regarding their own experiences in writing, including how they have navigated the task of self publication. This communal loop of support hopefully encourages followers to consider trying to write and publish their own work, and good advice regarding self-publishing can help make the enviable goal of a published novel seem far less unattainable than the traditional publishing route. 

Because the widely dispersed truth is that becoming published is a lot easier if you do it yourself. But self-publishing also allows the writer to evade the repeated disappointment of rejection and negative criticism from editors and other peers, and they can be far more selective about what, and from whom, they choose to hear in terms of feedback for their work. And it is precisely in this regard that many of the perceived benefits of the online self-publishing community begin to come undone. 

If You Haven’t Got Anything Nice to Say…

Western society continues to pursue an enabler’s mindset of enshrining opinions beyond the reaches of criticism, or even comprehension. The opinion of the individual is treated as sacred ground, regardless of its basis in any factual context, and it is increasingly considered rude to contradict or otherwise call into question the convictions of others, however brazenly mistaken or dangerous these beliefs may be. Such a zealously censored climate is especially inhospitable and intolerant of the hard-nosed probing of the sceptic and the critic—which is bad news for both readers and writers alike.

Reluctance to offend or upset has grave consequences for the free landscape of literature, and this is nowhere more acutely demonstrated than in the reception of critical reviews. It is seen as far better for the critic to review or critique only that work which they enjoy, or work for which they find they can provide only positive feedback. The negative review is too often lazily dismissed as being vindictive, ignorant, and even cruel; a low form of intellectual bullying. This perspective is (obviously) deeply fallacious.

As I pointed out in my previous essay, a reviewer’s perceptions of a work are influenced largely by his or her own interpretations of that work. The resistance of authors to engage with criticism is often driven by a denial of interpretive legitimacy—by reflexively dismissing the critic’s opinions as a deficiency of interpretive capability, or claiming them to be the result of grudges, insecurities, or incredulities, the author may (temporarily) escape unfavourable feedback. But such arrogance ultimately lays waste to the vast collaborative ground shared between both reader and writer that is essential in bringing all artistic works to life.

Over Your Head, or Down to Earth?

A recent example of such critical rebuttal was that from self-published ‘Author-Tuber’ duo Sasha Alsberg and Lindsay Cummings, following the release of their co-written Science Fiction novel, ‘Zenith’ (the first in a proposed series titled ‘The Andromeda Saga’). Both authors are prominent figures in the Youtube writing and reading communities, each having established their own loyal following. The release of ‘Zenith’ was therefore greatly anticipated by fans, enjoying a great deal of online hype, followed by a well attended book launch. 

However, it was noted by some attending the event that the authors seemed unusually focused on discouraging other members of the Author-Tube/Book-Tube communities from posting or sharing negative reviews of the work of their self-published peers; as doing so may incur irreversible damage to their image and success should they ever decide to publish their own work in the future. 

Whether veiled threat or clumsy attempt at pre-emptive damage control, the intention and effectiveness of their strategy is debatable. Reviews of ‘Zenith’ were split between two extremes of high praise and borderline ridicule—a strong indicator of a community divided by fan loyalty and critical integrity. Those who chose to post negative opinions of the book were unfairly branded by the fan community as being jealous, or seeking to expand footfall to their own channels by means of notoriety. This accusation went unchallenged by the authors themselves, who stayed largely quiet on the subject. Those members of the Book-Tube community who shared only their honest opinions of the book were left defending themselves against an angry horde of Alsberg/Cummings loyalists who seemed incapable of differentiating between the authors as personalities, and the authors’s work as writers. 

The reasons for this happening are straightforward: by choosing social media as the primary platform from which to promote themselves,  Author-Tubers or other self-published writers are selling their personalities as people first and foremost—their abilities as writers come secondary. Their followers are not necessarily concerned with the quality of their writing, but the merits of their grounded, relatable character and online persona. This sense of loyalty is not only misplaced, but also counterproductive to its determined aims. Employing a protective cloak at the first sign of dissent will not help an author to grow—their lack of experience and professionalism, and their increased aversion to criticism will only serve to fester, rather than cleanse their inadequacies as writers. So we see that shouting down critics is at best a missed opportunity. At worst, it is creative sabotage.

~

Self-promoted, self-published work will continue to gain both acceptance and popularity as a means of mainstream literary distribution, which is largely a positive outcome for both readers and writers. Increased access to high-standard graphic, publication, and marketing resources will allow amateur writers to produce professional looking work that is easier to sell to prospective audiences. This much is certain.

Prince, or Pauper?

At the beginning of this essay, I attempted to roughly outline the key differences between self-publishing and vanity-publishing. It is important to establish that neither form of publication guarantees good nor bad quality writing on the part of the author. Vanity publishers tend to seek out and take advantage of authors who are very keen, or even desperate, to get their work into print. The self-published author, however makes the first move; pushing their work forward into publication. Because of this, self-publication requires dedication, discipline, and huge amounts of resourcefulness. 

Regardless, so-called ‘vanity’ publishers and self-publishers do still share one key thing in common: there is no selection criteria for what ultimately makes it into print. A self-published manuscript will rarely make it to within a couple of miles of any editor who would outright reject the work and deny its publication. So long as the author is willing to pay for it, the printers will roll.

If the reading public have no mediating body between what is being published and what is being read, it would be too easy for them to assume that a smartly dressed, well-publicised book must therefore qualify as an example of good writing. Sadly, for a lot of self-published work, this is the opposite of the truth. 

So what can we do to redress the balance? The answer lies in the widespread acceptance, engagement and participation of criticism. The best way to achieve this is to actively encourage a critical mindset in both the reader and the writer—rather than discourage it. Readers who are more discerning in the quality of the literature they choose to read also tend to read more widely; exposing themselves to the many styles, voices, and ideas that can only be found in good writing. This elevated capability and understanding of quality will place a level of expectation on writers to improve their own work, and to fully develop themselves as accomplished artists. 

So where do we begin?

In the final essay of ‘The C Word’, I will set out to explore how both readers and writers can engage with criticism to not only find better fulfilment in their relationships with literature, but to use such critical interaction to help foster a better environment for the expression of creative artistic ambitions and ideas.