Many forms of art can be practiced either solo or in a creative ensemble. A pianist can play piano solo, in a trio, or in an orchestra. Dancers can dance solo, as a couple, or in a group, as can singers. However, some forms of art, like fine art painting, sculpture, and the like, are usually solo efforts. Movies, TV shows, and plays on the other hand are almost always ensemble creations. So where does writing fit in?
Traditionally published books can be said to be ensemble work since traditionally published books go through an extensive development process, which these days, may start with re-writes requested by the agent even before the work is offered to publishers. Once the book is purchased by a publisher, a team of editors, artists, designers, and publicists , go to work to make the work as commercially appealing as possible.
Because all these publishing house contributions are anonymous, it is hard to say how much of the final shape of the story they have contributed, but judging from the praise authors often give to their agents and editors, (which I’m certain is not a symptom of Stockholm Syndrome) as well as a page or two worth of credit to others who have helped them write the work, one has to wonder just how much of the initial form and words of the story end up on the cutting room floor. Indeed, one gets the impression that if publishing was like music, the book cover would read “Author X and the Z Publishing House Book Staff.”
Which brings us around to self-publishing. One would think that the name itself – self-publishing – would tell you what’s going on in this type of publishing. I suspect that once upon a time, it was actually a true description. Those days may be long gone. My impression is that a more accurate term these days would be “self-financed publishing,” since it seems that a traditional publishing mindset is taking hold in the self-publishing world. While I am sure that self-publishing authors have long sought feedback from other people, and the assurance that they wouldn’t be making a fool of themselves if they published their story, these days it seems that self-publishing authors are expected to employ as many professionals as they can afford to publish their work. All of which makes the only difference between traditional publishing and self-publishing being who pays the wages of all the various professionals involved in producing the book, even as traditional publishers are shedding editors and other staff positions.
This trend annoys me in self-publishing. Especially the case for hiring developmental editors in self-published works. But on reflection, I believe that is because of my particular view of art, arising out of both as a painter and from my age. I started writing all of my published works after the age of 60, when I had read close to two thousand books and knew what I wanted in a story. Thinking about it however, I realize that for writers thirty or more years younger and less read than me, a case can be made for using editors to help these writers find their way, and in a lot less time than it took me.
That said, while I have no issues with writing as an ensemble art form, it simply isn’t my ideal of art. I view my stories like I do my paintings, which is to say a unique expression of me. I want to tell my story, my way. I think it works. I know from my experience in painting that all art finds its audience. The only question is how large of an audience it will find. In art, size doesn’t matter. While iIt does matter if we’re talking about creating a product, as art, no.
And by the same token, I embraced the whole process of “publishing.” As a painter, though not an illustrator, I could nevertheless produce some sort of cover. I also worked in the printing business, so I had an understanding of the requirements for print books. Where I lack the ability – I can’t spell and I’m far too careless and blind in proofreading – I found much-need help with volunteer beta readers. In addition, I’ve been exploring other options to help me produce better books, like adding on-line grammar checkers to my process. All of which is to say, I have pursued both my writings and my publishing, as solo art. And for the same reason – I want my art to be mine. And mine alone.
As I said at the top, I’m not against writing as an ensemble art. It may be necessary for commercial products, though with only a 33% success rate, and that 33% due in no small amount to the promotional budget of a book, one has to wonder just how essential certain aspects of it are. So for me, writing as a solo art is the most authentic form of writing. Which is why I love self-publishing.
Still, where do you guys land on this topic? Are you all in on the traditional publishing method, feeling that it produces a superior outcome? Or are you all in the do everything yourself camp? Or somewhere in the wish-y-washy middle? How much input do you need and use from other people to (re)shape your story? How much of the story do you think this input contributes? As someone who has the mindset that “here’s my work, warts and all, like it or lump it,” I’m curious to hear the viewpoint of writers who are perhaps more of a perfectionist than I am, or who are more open to embracing the cooperative approach, readily incorporating into their work the ideas of alpha, beta readers, and editors.
Writers Supporting Writers 