Maria Savva's Blog - Posts Tagged "andrew-franklin"
Notes from The Literary Consultancy's conference 2013 - Writing in a Digital Age: "Literary Values"
One of the panel discussions at the recent TLC conference was about literary values. How has the digital age changed literary values?
A definition that was put forward of 'literary fiction' was: writing that uses language in an interesting way, re-invents language in a way, challenges the world. I think a quote from author Hilary Mantel was that literary fiction provides us with "news from the world".
There was a lively panel discussion on this subject. There definitely seem to be two camps: those who think self-published writers should be burned at the stake, and those who welcome the innovation and change that has been forthcoming from the diversity and wealth of new fiction and non-fiction flooding the market with the digital revolution.
Personally, I think this an exciting time for literature in general, and if we as self-published authors make the most of it we can enhance the publishing industry.
One important point that was raised was that with the ease of self-publishing, it is very easy for writers to publish 'too quickly'. I agree with this. You can write a story today and upload it onto Amazon Kindle tomorrow. In most cases that story will be in need of editing.
Editing is such an important part of the publishing process. New writers often don't appreciate how important it is. It's an easy trap to fall into: new writers are keen to publish their masterpieces to the world, but it is so important to hold back, take time to make sure the work is as perfect as it can be before it's published. The reason self-published writers are getting a bad reputation is because of those who are too eager to push the button and publish.
I am strong supporter of independent writers and I know there is a wealth of talent out there. But--and it's a big BUT--lots of authors cut corners when it comes to editing and this leads to all of us getting a bad name.
For example, one of the panel members at the conference, Andrew Franklin, of Profile Books, stated that the "overwhelming majority" of self-published books are "rubbish". He said being a self published writer is like standing naked in the pitch dark. He said a "miniscule number" of self-published writers will break out and succeed. He called the self-publishing world "deeply corrupted", referring to how it's possible to buy Facebook 'likes' and friends. He said to compare self-published books to traditionally published books, is like comparing Alcopops to good quality wine. While I totally disagree with all of that and feel he went a bit too far, worryingly I can see why he said it.
I read a lot of independently published books because I want to support indie authors, but some of the books make me wonder if writers are taking themselves seriously. There is no excuse for publishing a sub-standard book. If you're a traditional publisher or a self-published author, you must make sure your product is the best it can be before you publish it.
The e-book and digital age is a great opportunity for talented authors and authors who care about their craft, who care about the future of literature, to carve a niche for themselves in an industry that was once beyond their reach. It makes no sense to bring down the industry by letting standards drop. All writers should get their books professionally edited and proofread before publishing. Anything less leaves the door open for critics such as Andrew Franklin to make such sweeping and derogatory remarks about self-published books.
I don't know how many times I have repeated myself about this issue, but it is an ongoing one. People can forgive maybe the odd typo in a 200 page book, but where you find a typo on each page or every other page, it is really off-putting. From my own experience of reading lots of indie books I do know that more writers are investing in an editor these days because I am finding less editorial issues. I hope that somehow the message is getting across to people that it's unacceptable to call yourself a writer and yet produce a book riddled with grammatical and typographical errors.
The message is: take your time and make sure you edit your work, get feedback from a proofreader or beta readers.
One of the other points that was brought up by editor Toby Lichtig in this panel discussion, that I agree with, was that in the old days of publishing there were gatekeepers i.e. editors who would decide whether a piece of work was ready to be published. With the ease of self-publishing, the gatekeepers are no longer there. This not only means that people can publish whenever they want, easily, but it means that writers are not being challenged to improve themselves.
Writers can only become better at their craft when there is criticism of their work. They are then forced to try harder, push themselves further. One of the concerns raised in the panel discussion is that with this ease of publishing writers won't be taking the time to develop their craft.
The other side to this argument is that perhaps what readers want from fiction is changing, perhaps the old 'literary values' are no longer a prerequisite. Maybe I am just a dinosaur holding pre-historic views about the need for good editing in fiction.
An example is the growth of fan fiction.
Fan fiction, for those who are not familiar with the term is where readers will go onto various forums/websites that have been set up to enable them to make up stories using their favourite characters from fiction. Probably the most famous recent example of where something like this made an impact is the 'Fifty Shades of Grey' series. That series started off as fan fiction on a fan fiction forum, where the Twilight characters were used to create a new story. That went on to be published by a major publishing house and sold millions.
Fan fiction is on the rise, whether we like it or not. The 'Fifty Shades of Grey' series, is an example, in my opinion, of traditional publishers letting 'literary values' slide in favour of making money from a popular fad. I haven't read (and have no desire to read) the series, but from what I have heard, it was badly edited, if indeed it was edited at all. One panel member, editor Sally O-J, made a good point that perhaps if it had gone to a good editor it would not have sold as many copies as it did. It was the flaws that maybe made it popular. An editor may have changed it and it would not have been what the readers of that particular fan fiction wanted.
So, we can see that it's not only self-published authors who sometimes skimp on editing, but why is it always self-published authors who are blamed for this lack of standards? Makes you think, doesn't it?
The panel discussion highlighted that literary values are changing. Most fan fiction, it was stated, leans towards the Erotica genre.
Sally O-J said that it is worth looking at fan fiction to see what people like reading. Trends seem to go out into the world from these fan fiction websites.
'Literary fiction' as a genre does not appear to be at the forefront of this new digital age, and I don't think that is only down to self-published authors. Readers are voting with their feet. One of the most popular genres at the moment is crime, and with the rise in fan fiction, Erotica and Fantasy fiction are more popular.
The panel discussed the new Kindle Worlds product. This allows readers and writers to publish fan fiction and get paid for it. Ready made characters from popular fiction of the past can be utilised to create new stories.
I'm on the fence about that really. As a writer I like to create my own characters so Kindle Worlds doesn't appeal to me at all. But with the success of 'Fifty Shades' this is obviously a market Amazon want to tap into. There's undeniably a large readership for this type of thing.
To sum up, I would say that there is still a divide between traditional publishers and self-publishers, with strong attitudes held by each side. The tone of the debate made me realise that there are still some in the traditionally published world that will never accept indie authors. However, it seems that the boundaries are blurring with the likes of E.L. James being published by a large publishing house, and fan fiction becoming more acceptable as a product with 'Kindle Worlds'.
Literary values are changing, it seems, but one good thing that seems to have come out of the new digital age is that more people than ever before seem to be picking up books, or e-readers, and reading. That has to be a good thing, right?
A definition that was put forward of 'literary fiction' was: writing that uses language in an interesting way, re-invents language in a way, challenges the world. I think a quote from author Hilary Mantel was that literary fiction provides us with "news from the world".
There was a lively panel discussion on this subject. There definitely seem to be two camps: those who think self-published writers should be burned at the stake, and those who welcome the innovation and change that has been forthcoming from the diversity and wealth of new fiction and non-fiction flooding the market with the digital revolution.
Personally, I think this an exciting time for literature in general, and if we as self-published authors make the most of it we can enhance the publishing industry.
One important point that was raised was that with the ease of self-publishing, it is very easy for writers to publish 'too quickly'. I agree with this. You can write a story today and upload it onto Amazon Kindle tomorrow. In most cases that story will be in need of editing.
Editing is such an important part of the publishing process. New writers often don't appreciate how important it is. It's an easy trap to fall into: new writers are keen to publish their masterpieces to the world, but it is so important to hold back, take time to make sure the work is as perfect as it can be before it's published. The reason self-published writers are getting a bad reputation is because of those who are too eager to push the button and publish.
I am strong supporter of independent writers and I know there is a wealth of talent out there. But--and it's a big BUT--lots of authors cut corners when it comes to editing and this leads to all of us getting a bad name.
For example, one of the panel members at the conference, Andrew Franklin, of Profile Books, stated that the "overwhelming majority" of self-published books are "rubbish". He said being a self published writer is like standing naked in the pitch dark. He said a "miniscule number" of self-published writers will break out and succeed. He called the self-publishing world "deeply corrupted", referring to how it's possible to buy Facebook 'likes' and friends. He said to compare self-published books to traditionally published books, is like comparing Alcopops to good quality wine. While I totally disagree with all of that and feel he went a bit too far, worryingly I can see why he said it.
I read a lot of independently published books because I want to support indie authors, but some of the books make me wonder if writers are taking themselves seriously. There is no excuse for publishing a sub-standard book. If you're a traditional publisher or a self-published author, you must make sure your product is the best it can be before you publish it.
The e-book and digital age is a great opportunity for talented authors and authors who care about their craft, who care about the future of literature, to carve a niche for themselves in an industry that was once beyond their reach. It makes no sense to bring down the industry by letting standards drop. All writers should get their books professionally edited and proofread before publishing. Anything less leaves the door open for critics such as Andrew Franklin to make such sweeping and derogatory remarks about self-published books.
I don't know how many times I have repeated myself about this issue, but it is an ongoing one. People can forgive maybe the odd typo in a 200 page book, but where you find a typo on each page or every other page, it is really off-putting. From my own experience of reading lots of indie books I do know that more writers are investing in an editor these days because I am finding less editorial issues. I hope that somehow the message is getting across to people that it's unacceptable to call yourself a writer and yet produce a book riddled with grammatical and typographical errors.
The message is: take your time and make sure you edit your work, get feedback from a proofreader or beta readers.
One of the other points that was brought up by editor Toby Lichtig in this panel discussion, that I agree with, was that in the old days of publishing there were gatekeepers i.e. editors who would decide whether a piece of work was ready to be published. With the ease of self-publishing, the gatekeepers are no longer there. This not only means that people can publish whenever they want, easily, but it means that writers are not being challenged to improve themselves.
Writers can only become better at their craft when there is criticism of their work. They are then forced to try harder, push themselves further. One of the concerns raised in the panel discussion is that with this ease of publishing writers won't be taking the time to develop their craft.
The other side to this argument is that perhaps what readers want from fiction is changing, perhaps the old 'literary values' are no longer a prerequisite. Maybe I am just a dinosaur holding pre-historic views about the need for good editing in fiction.
An example is the growth of fan fiction.
Fan fiction, for those who are not familiar with the term is where readers will go onto various forums/websites that have been set up to enable them to make up stories using their favourite characters from fiction. Probably the most famous recent example of where something like this made an impact is the 'Fifty Shades of Grey' series. That series started off as fan fiction on a fan fiction forum, where the Twilight characters were used to create a new story. That went on to be published by a major publishing house and sold millions.
Fan fiction is on the rise, whether we like it or not. The 'Fifty Shades of Grey' series, is an example, in my opinion, of traditional publishers letting 'literary values' slide in favour of making money from a popular fad. I haven't read (and have no desire to read) the series, but from what I have heard, it was badly edited, if indeed it was edited at all. One panel member, editor Sally O-J, made a good point that perhaps if it had gone to a good editor it would not have sold as many copies as it did. It was the flaws that maybe made it popular. An editor may have changed it and it would not have been what the readers of that particular fan fiction wanted.
So, we can see that it's not only self-published authors who sometimes skimp on editing, but why is it always self-published authors who are blamed for this lack of standards? Makes you think, doesn't it?
The panel discussion highlighted that literary values are changing. Most fan fiction, it was stated, leans towards the Erotica genre.
Sally O-J said that it is worth looking at fan fiction to see what people like reading. Trends seem to go out into the world from these fan fiction websites.
'Literary fiction' as a genre does not appear to be at the forefront of this new digital age, and I don't think that is only down to self-published authors. Readers are voting with their feet. One of the most popular genres at the moment is crime, and with the rise in fan fiction, Erotica and Fantasy fiction are more popular.
The panel discussed the new Kindle Worlds product. This allows readers and writers to publish fan fiction and get paid for it. Ready made characters from popular fiction of the past can be utilised to create new stories.
I'm on the fence about that really. As a writer I like to create my own characters so Kindle Worlds doesn't appeal to me at all. But with the success of 'Fifty Shades' this is obviously a market Amazon want to tap into. There's undeniably a large readership for this type of thing.
To sum up, I would say that there is still a divide between traditional publishers and self-publishers, with strong attitudes held by each side. The tone of the debate made me realise that there are still some in the traditionally published world that will never accept indie authors. However, it seems that the boundaries are blurring with the likes of E.L. James being published by a large publishing house, and fan fiction becoming more acceptable as a product with 'Kindle Worlds'.
Literary values are changing, it seems, but one good thing that seems to have come out of the new digital age is that more people than ever before seem to be picking up books, or e-readers, and reading. That has to be a good thing, right?
