Tuesday, March 06, 2007

Self Publishing Debate, Round Two


A Ms. Shamontiel Vaughn, the author of Change for a Twenty, recently read my article on the artistic pitfalls of self-publishing, and as a writer who has self-published took great exception to it. After emailing me and informing my of her impending rebuttal, she wrote the following response:

Shamontiel Vaughn Rebuttal [back online]

The writing in this piece shows intelligence, and knowledge of her industry. But even more so, it shows the intellectual disconnects between commercial and literary fiction writers: we have dramatically different ideas about what constitutes good writing, we have dramatically different ideas as to what constitutes literary success (entrepreneurial versus artistic), we also differ completely on the central importance of literary criticism (which just isn't done in the commercial world, so is misconstrued by them as personal attack, or "player hating"). We even disagree on that absolutely primal element of all good writing: improvement of the text through extensive editing and revision (many of them see attempts at editing their work as attacks against their original vision). The divide is so great that at times it shows how futile these dialogues can be: we seem to be having two entirely different conversations even when we use the same words. Yet I keep talking, in the hope that these back and forths may still be helpful for beginning writers to see, regardless of what path they choose.

I've been over all this before, but here it goes: I don't think the physical act of self-publishing hurts a writer, just that the hustling involved takes away from time that could be spent developing craft, which is essential to do in the beginning before bad habits set in. I don't think publishing with a major publisher helps or insures the quality of a work in any way, in itself. And I don't give a damn about the business of selling books, or typos. My focus is on originality of prose, storytelling, and thought. I don't think a writer has to write literary fiction—there is a time for popcorn and there is a time for steak—but I don't think the two should be confused, or that burnt stale popcorn is okay. My primary goal is helping those who want to write literary fiction (like the works of James Baldwin, Toni Morrison, Ralph Ellison, etc.) avoid modern day publishing pitfalls.

I don't like hurting people's feelings—most of these self-published authors are nice people, just trying to make a success of their lives. I don't even like to hurt Omar's feelings: I just singled him out because of his repeated insistence that his entrepreneurially motivated tomes are actually "classic" literature. But I do care very much about African American literature. I do care about its quality, its future, and the writers who seek to be the next ones to load the cannon. Without honest criticism, none of those things can be properly maintained.

Labels:

12 Comments:

Rich in the Stl said...

Mat, I'm like you on some levels, but not on others. I love writing and improving myself as much as possible. I want to be like one of the greats; Baldwin and Wright come to mind.

I also feel like someone else can edit my prose after I'm done expressing myself. Trying to remember all the rules sometimes gets in the way of creativity.

Nevertheless, I look forward to being compensated for my talent. That is one of the promises of God; that your gift will make room for you. There is no honor in being a starving artist. It doesn't make you pure.

BTW, I'm not making the assumption that you feel that way with regard to the starving artist comment, but I just decided to throw that in for free.

11:41 AM, March 07, 2007  
Mat Johnson said...

Yo Rich,

I basically agree with you, actually. I guess I just believe, perhaps niavely, that if you do really good work that eventually the compensation will most likely fall into place.

I'm lucky enough to be well compensated for my books, ironically earning bigger advances than the majority of writers motivated primarily by dreams of riches. I do think there is honor in starving for an unpopular artistic vision, but I don't think there is any dishonor in being well compensated for your efforts.

12:17 PM, March 07, 2007  
Rich in the Stl said...

True that, I feel that way too. The money will come.

I'm with you though. Garbage writers shouldn't be paid just because they pander to the easily impressed minds within the culture (I know I'll get heat for that statement). It's one thing to offer real language and situations, but it's yet another to debase the work for the sake of getting paid. And yes, self publishing has made that easier.

Since some people think that those writers (I will offer no names) offer good literature, then in my mind those authors owe it to the community to improve upon their craft thereby inspiring the minds of a generation and causing their readers to grow.

If all we are going to do is articulate ebonics, ghetto life, and sex then we might as well just offer them BET and call it a day.

Fun literature has it's place, but it should still be well written.

4:08 PM, March 07, 2007  
Michael A. Gonzales said...

i suppose there is good and bad in everything, but i'm with you about the attitudes of some self-published AND publishing house writers who have drank the marketing kool-aid. there are many people who have never paid any dues as writers, never honed their chops as stylists or rewritten pieces till their fingers bled. it worries me that these folks don't take the art of writing as seriously as the art of selling.

it all reminds me of the 1980s spike lee vs matty rich debate. but, you see who is still making films and who has become nothing more than a footnote.

10:45 AM, March 08, 2007  
Mat Johnson said...

I forgot about that Spike vs. Matty Rich debate. That is similar. I remember asking someone if Straight out of Brooklyn was good and they said, "No. But you should still go see it." I still haven't seen that movie.

2:31 PM, March 08, 2007  
persistence said...

I actually got a chance to read Ms. Vaughn’s article, and you’re right. The disconnection in the discourse between commercial and literary writers is vast, and has been almost perfectly demonstrated as such in the dialogue between you two. I appreciate your being able to make a statement without being abusive, defensive or condescending to those who do not share your view. I for one believe in establishing a firm, literary foundation and understanding all the rules before attempting to challenge them (even if we didn’t make the rules). I too have a couple of manuscripts that probably could’ve been published, but now that I have been able to study my craft (they way I should have twenty years ago), I am so glad that I didn’t. While I credit those commercial writers for getting a lot of people who might not otherwise read to do so, I also sit and contemplate how to get those new readers to elevate their appetite and expectations of literature. Trust me though, I’ve read my share of Iceberg Slim and Donald Goins, but as a reader, writer and human being, after a while I want to be challenged to think higher. Being entertained is one thing, but I guess I’m a bit of a liberal humanist in that I believe literature, like most art, is a medium that can also elevate (or depreciate) our spirit and reveal our true potential.

5:25 PM, March 08, 2007  
Mat Johnson said...

Thanks, Persistence. Very we'll said.

6:03 PM, March 08, 2007  
nyc/caribbean ragazza said...

When did getting paid become the only way to measure "success"? This bottom line mentality is not healthy for the arts at all.

I wonder what happened to Matty Rich. He also directed the Inkwell. I really liked Trey Ellis' script but Mr. Rich was not the right director for that project.

7:53 AM, March 09, 2007  
Shamontiel said...

Judging from the past two blogs I just read, you seem to be elitist. You refuse to admit that someone who HAS gotten a publisher couldn't still improve their craft. You seem to believe that self-published authors didn't follow the same pattern that authors of major publishing companies have. There is no argument here. Somehow you've convinced yourself that you are holier than thou because you got a book published with a major publishing company. Well, I guess that makes all of the writers before you (who did not have major publishing companies and stood the test of time during the Harlem Renaissance) underneath you. To me, this whole conversation is a waste of time. Had I not seen the article in Morehouse's newspaper, I would've never even bothered to find this blog. You have your opinion and I have mine, but I know one thing...I will never support your writing again. I didn't call you out of your name, although I know who did, but honestly at the rate you're going, I can't blame her. I've argued constructively for YEARS. I almost got kicked out of college for arguing constructively because people couldn't handle it, and I do debate topics that I feel will reach a result, but with you, you've got all the answers, so continue collecting followers. I will not be one of them.

I'm out (for good).

5:36 PM, March 11, 2007  
Mat Johnson said...

Shamontiel-

Uh, uh, uh; watch the name calling. ;-)

Actually, I think all writers should focus on constant improvement from the moment they write the first word to the last. Publishing has nothing to do to it.

I really don't care who publishes a book, whether it's a vanity press or a professional one. What I meant by the first piece was that self-publishing has served as a trap for a lot of writers who get caught up in the business end of publishing before they learn their craft, causing their artistic bloom to be stunted.

You mentioned the Harlem Renaissance as an era of self-publishing, and in another post mention Langston Hughes and Zora Neale Hurston as early self-publishers. Not that it really matters, but that's actually untrue: both started at major publishing houses. Nor was the self-publication of novels a common occurrence during the era; the technology available made it far too expensive. People self-published magazines (Fire!), but usually not entire books. You could argue, in fact, that this was part of the problem, with white publishing houses like Knopf deciding what was published by black America.

Probably the best example of an early self-publisher is Oscar Micheaux (better known of course as a filmmaker). Micheaux was a very successful entrepreneur/writer who hand sold scores of books in the 1910s (more than a decade before the Ren.). Of course, those books are almost completely forgotten now because of the poor quality of the writing inside them.

Not every self-published author has let it harm their work ( I like to cite Brian Egeston). And there are of course tons of examples of published authors whose work is severely lacking. A critique of self-publishing early in one's career does not imply that published books are perfect.

There are an endless amount of potential pitfalls for writers. Some have to do with the publishing industry, and more are creative traps. Writing a good book is an extremely difficult task, one fraught with failure. But it's a noble thing to fail at.

I'm sorry you got nothing out of this little back and forth, but I must confess that for my part I have found it rather enlightening. Thank you for that.

Best of luck going forward.

7:27 PM, March 11, 2007  
Shamontiel said...

I'm back again (I have a terrible habit of having to get the last word, which apparently you do too), but I'm a hardcore Hughes fan and I have to point out that much of his early work was printed out and distributed within his circle. He did not start off with a major publisher. I've read pretty much everything written by him. Frederick Douglass is another one who printed his own stuff and it was later available to the masses. Publishing industries have an annoying habit of accepting what they feel will sell, regardless of the target audience's views. The same thing happened in the movie industry with Tyler Perry (for whom you don't seem to be a fan). I am glad you can finally admit that not all authors of major publishing companies are untouchable, which I got the impression you hinted at in the very first blog. Although I do understand that self-publishing IMMEDIATELY may not help a writer, since you seemed to give up on that thought, you also seem to insinuate that self-published writers did not TRY hard enough. There are some people who I know that have tried for years and finally just said "Screw it!" These is how so many music companies are born, movie production companies (Tisha Campbell and Duane Martin), and apparently how some new publishing companies were born. Again, my stamped answer to self-publish was when I made that marketing plan and came to grips with the fact that I can't see doing all of the work in sales (because publishing companies are not nearly as supportive as they were in later decades; too many books; too little time) and then getting a small sum of the profit. If I'm going to do 100% of the work, I want my fair share. And it's not even about money; I honestly REALLY REALLY enjoy my own work. If I was insecure about it and just wanted to put my name out there, maybe I could vibe with you more, but when I read my own book, I'm entertained and I can admit to writing some stuff that later I go "What the hell was I thinking?" I wrote "Change for a Twenty" almost four years ago and sat it on the back burner, went back to it, and still liked it. Whether you believe me or not, I really was hired to do a ghostwriting job, and from the constant nagging and blowing up my phone that the agent did, I was thinking "This sucks! I do not want anybody following me around hampering me about deadlines on these chapters! If I control my own work, I get it done when I want it done; I write what I want to write; and the only person who has to worry about it is me." The self-gratification process is endless. I'm not a team player. I prefer to work alone. Again, I am one person; I cannot speak for all self-published writers just as you cannot (although you seem to think you've got us all figured out). I just don't get it. I wish your book sucked so then I could add that to my list of reasons why you're annoying me, but I STILL remember liking it, which is even more disappointing. *sigh* Whatever.

9:21 PM, March 11, 2007  
Anonymous said...

Does anyone know how I can subscribe to this blog?

10:56 AM, April 11, 2007  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home