Should this be “the slush-tsunami-ing of today’s writing”. Internet arrives and wannabe writers orgasm about their words showcased to the world. Most serious published writers regard words on websites, message boards, blogs etc as words at second removed, words copied into monumental virtual mountains of un-evaluated tosh. Heavy believers in online words are more often the sour grape fraternity who either don’t have the ability or staying power to deal with ten or twenty years frustration before they get taken in by an authentic professionally skilled publisher. The online landfill mass of creative writing is great for real writers who are really published - it makes their journey through the eye of the needle that more heroic.
The democratization of writing is a very good thing, I believe, because the ridiculous gatekeeping and overall cultural whiteness of "real" publishing, along with the 2-year timeline, have made it essentially obsolete except for those who like to remain in the lily bubble of specialness. There is so much great work out there that is not being put out by the Big 5, while the Big 5 fight to maintain the status quo.
Without the opportunities of democratisation I wouldn't have been able to get much of my work seen - nor that of the many others I have published through collections, anthologies etc. So I'm grateful for that. And I do so agree that there is much great work that is not being seen, or wouldn't see seen otherwise.
I love the analogy of being a singer or painter! Perhaps we should refrain from labels. Instead of saying ‘I’m a writer’, say ‘i enjoy writing’ or, when appropriate, ‘my profession is writing’ (ie, i earn a living from writing).
Perhaps the difference with writing is that language is such a fundamental aspect of our being. I found this to be true when I taught writing. Student take feedback very personally. I used a trick a professor shared with me: marking papers in any colour other than red, as red resembled cuts and bleeding 😅 Writing tends to reflect who we are, whereas singing etc is more what we do. Notice how we react differently to a song when lyrics are written and performed by the same artist.
Thanks Brenda. I think the singer / painter parallel works really well. I wonder what it is about writing that some people think makes it 'special' and not subject to qualification. Maybe because they desperately don't want to be 'disqualified' as writers themselves; happy not to be called 'a singer', but not to be called 'a writer'...
Your are right about 'information overload' and the notion of 'group therapy' (in your article). One of the things writing offers us is a means to try and understand the world. Maybe the perfect storm is the world becoming ever more complex (and therefore harder to understand) allied with so many contemporary means of being able to voice our (written) attempts at its unravelling.
I self-published my first book in 1972, using the then-new technology of photocopying. It was a rather beautiful little book of seven poems. The original was handwritten. The copies sold for 30p!
I've been thinking about this for years now. Especially when I'm asked for advice from an aspiring writer about where to publish, how to publish. What I've negotiated in my own mind are two things . . . 1. Publishing is only the act of getting your words out there. How it's done is a matter of gatekeeping or not, platform, and goals. What is it that you want to do with your writing? And 2. I think there is a difference between an author and a writer. A writer writes because he must. It's in the DNA and "publishing" is a byproduct. How it's "published" sometimes doesn't matter. An author is someone who has a specific goal -- to get their memoir, for example, out in the world and seeing it in print. Holding it in your hand. There's a tangible goal that MUST include publishing in some fashion. I'm OK with the modern world of publishing. More voices is always good. But "democratization" also means that with those many voices comes various levels of skill and craft, and that can be a kind of collateral damage with now have no choice but to accept.
Thanks David. I've noticed some people making the Author vs. Writer distinction (and presumably Poet vs. Writer etc.). Personally, I've not settled suitable definitions / that argument in my mind yet.
I agree with your comment about the double-edged sword of democratisation: it's great that there are so many people now writing - but it's also something that must come with some downsides.
Should this be “the slush-tsunami-ing of today’s writing”. Internet arrives and wannabe writers orgasm about their words showcased to the world. Most serious published writers regard words on websites, message boards, blogs etc as words at second removed, words copied into monumental virtual mountains of un-evaluated tosh. Heavy believers in online words are more often the sour grape fraternity who either don’t have the ability or staying power to deal with ten or twenty years frustration before they get taken in by an authentic professionally skilled publisher. The online landfill mass of creative writing is great for real writers who are really published - it makes their journey through the eye of the needle that more heroic.
The democratization of writing is a very good thing, I believe, because the ridiculous gatekeeping and overall cultural whiteness of "real" publishing, along with the 2-year timeline, have made it essentially obsolete except for those who like to remain in the lily bubble of specialness. There is so much great work out there that is not being put out by the Big 5, while the Big 5 fight to maintain the status quo.
Without the opportunities of democratisation I wouldn't have been able to get much of my work seen - nor that of the many others I have published through collections, anthologies etc. So I'm grateful for that. And I do so agree that there is much great work that is not being seen, or wouldn't see seen otherwise.
I love the analogy of being a singer or painter! Perhaps we should refrain from labels. Instead of saying ‘I’m a writer’, say ‘i enjoy writing’ or, when appropriate, ‘my profession is writing’ (ie, i earn a living from writing).
I wrote an article on the topic that you may enjoy: https://open.substack.com/pub/brendaaboukhalil/p/the-bridge-of-communication?r=2csvl6&utm_medium=ios
Perhaps the difference with writing is that language is such a fundamental aspect of our being. I found this to be true when I taught writing. Student take feedback very personally. I used a trick a professor shared with me: marking papers in any colour other than red, as red resembled cuts and bleeding 😅 Writing tends to reflect who we are, whereas singing etc is more what we do. Notice how we react differently to a song when lyrics are written and performed by the same artist.
Thanks Brenda. I think the singer / painter parallel works really well. I wonder what it is about writing that some people think makes it 'special' and not subject to qualification. Maybe because they desperately don't want to be 'disqualified' as writers themselves; happy not to be called 'a singer', but not to be called 'a writer'...
Your are right about 'information overload' and the notion of 'group therapy' (in your article). One of the things writing offers us is a means to try and understand the world. Maybe the perfect storm is the world becoming ever more complex (and therefore harder to understand) allied with so many contemporary means of being able to voice our (written) attempts at its unravelling.
I self-published my first book in 1972, using the then-new technology of photocopying. It was a rather beautiful little book of seven poems. The original was handwritten. The copies sold for 30p!
I've been thinking about this for years now. Especially when I'm asked for advice from an aspiring writer about where to publish, how to publish. What I've negotiated in my own mind are two things . . . 1. Publishing is only the act of getting your words out there. How it's done is a matter of gatekeeping or not, platform, and goals. What is it that you want to do with your writing? And 2. I think there is a difference between an author and a writer. A writer writes because he must. It's in the DNA and "publishing" is a byproduct. How it's "published" sometimes doesn't matter. An author is someone who has a specific goal -- to get their memoir, for example, out in the world and seeing it in print. Holding it in your hand. There's a tangible goal that MUST include publishing in some fashion. I'm OK with the modern world of publishing. More voices is always good. But "democratization" also means that with those many voices comes various levels of skill and craft, and that can be a kind of collateral damage with now have no choice but to accept.
Thanks David. I've noticed some people making the Author vs. Writer distinction (and presumably Poet vs. Writer etc.). Personally, I've not settled suitable definitions / that argument in my mind yet.
I agree with your comment about the double-edged sword of democratisation: it's great that there are so many people now writing - but it's also something that must come with some downsides.