Self-published/Indie book platform

Harry Potter IMHO is badly written

Tolkien is lord of fantasy
I'd argue that JK Rowling is the modern female version of the 'Lord of Fantasy' and is a much better writer than a lot of people give her credit for. There are people who argue that Tolkien's overuse of description makes him a bad writer. It's all subjective. There's no accounting for taste. Personally, I like both the aforementioned authors.
 
The only thing I pick up from the publishing industry is that they very much prefer an established name over an unknown since an established name is a guaranteed sell, and that they haven't the slightest idea what makes for a successful novel before it becomes successful. Publishing is a cutthroat game and the field is littered with corpses so I doubt the average editor has the luxury to apply his own preclivities to manuscripts; he's trying to find something that will sell and goes about it the same way a man would who's stumbling around looking for the light switch in a pitch black room.

You are right, of course, because they are there to make money rather than to find great works. Sometimes the two things align, but not necessarily. And there is a great aversion to risk in publishing, as in other forms of media. If I have $100M to make a movie, I can either do something genuinely creative and groundbreaking - which may or may not be successful - or I can make the next superhero movie and take the guaranteed $150M proceeds (as punters dutifully go to watch it no matter how bad it is). At the other end of the spectrum are - literally - millions of self published efforts that are overwhelmingly garbage because there is zero quality control. But even if only 0.1% of them are worth reading, that's still a lot of books out there waiting to be discovered.
 
I'd argue that JK Rowling is the modern female version of the 'Lord of Fantasy' and is a much better writer than a lot of people give her credit for. There are people who argue that Tolkien's overuse of description makes him a bad writer. It's all subjective. There's no accounting for taste. Personally, I like both the aforementioned authors.
My take is that Rowling had the smart idea of plonking fantasy into the contemporary world to an extent that I don't think up to that point had been tried by anyone else. She's consciously writing for children and I grant the writing is competent enough, by and large not getting too patronising, but it does on occasion become embarrassing:

'S-s-sorry,'sobbed Hagrid, taking a large spotted handkerchief and burying his face in it. 'But I c-c-can't stand it - Lily an' James dead - an' poor little Harry off ter live with Muggles-'

There are plenty of authors who write for children far better than this. Try Steel Magic.

As regards Tolkien, LOTR is the most sold work of fiction after Don Quixote and A Tale of Two Cities and it founded the modern fantasy genre which Rowling piggy-backed on. It's an immensely rich book but I grant it requires more effort from the reader than a series of Tweets. It's far superior to the Potter universe.

But this is now way off topic (again).
 
Exactly, which is why I got bored with trad-published books. They're so hyper-focused on 'will it sell,' that they keep repeating near identical storylines because such-and-such sold well last time, maybe it will again if repackaged as another story :rolleyes: . They're often too formulaic and predictable. With indies, they have much more creative freedom.
Agreed. Trad publishing is like a 3 or 4 story office building. Some are better than others, but you know what you're going to get (Sturgeon's Law still applies, though). Whereas, self-publishing is like a pyramid: A lot wider floor (more to sift through), but the occasional gem reaches higher than anything you're likely to find in the other building.*

*-I also could've gone with the Applebee's/McDonald's versus Fine-dining
analogy...but, I'll probably overeat plenty today, without doing that to myself.
 
I don't want to hijack this thread by a discussion on this.
If Lovecraft and Capote--two different writers and decades apart, said the publishing field was restricted then, who am I to argue with them? They didn't know what they were talking about? If Stephen King says that a short story writer in 1950 was earning far more than a short story writer in 2000, I cannot dispute that--if you can, then fine.
I didn't need that delirious recipient of the final John W Campbell Jr. award to provide further ammunition on why corporate publishing is so sickly and restricted, but it doesn't hurt the argument. There's an obvious anti-nativist sentiment being pushed --Lovecraft and Capote were aware of it--and it has not decreased. It has grown.
Yet Dracula, Conan, Sherlock Holmes, and other thematic material that existed well before the vice was squeezed is sold and republished and new readers come along. People still read it so I am convinced the restrictions on creativity has little or nothing to do with people's tastes shifting to narrower themes and characterization.
One can have a detailed discussion on the type of ideas that are restricted, but it's not the subject of this thread.
Agree, on the broader point. Pre-internet, in the near past, the record is replete with (what both critics and audiences seem to agree were) masterpieces that were rejected by every major publishing house in existence at the time. The initial books of The Dune Chronicles, The Chronicles of Thomas Covenant, and The Harry Potter Series come to mind as examples.

The current Amazon/Goodreads regime doesn't seem to have helped that much, IMO.

The instinct to publish only that which is a repeat of previously successful stories seems, self-evidently, the prime directive of traditional publishing. And that seems consistent throughout history right through to the present day. I wouldn't think that is contoversial.
 
The instinct to publish only that which is a repeat of previously successful stories seems, self-evidently, the prime directive of traditional publishing. And that seems consistent throughout history right through to the present day. I wouldn't think that is contoversial.
No that point isn't controversial but that is not what Lovecraft and Capote were saying. They were not suggesting it was dictated by commerce, which suggests some kind of populism is the cause. That is what we always hear to explain why movies are so awful now-"it's what the people want."

The publishers dictate what can be published and advanced and advertised and talked about it. If they control what is available, they can control what becomes popular (although I think nowadays it's becoming much harder to do that--it feels more chaotic and fractured than ever before). It's like a choice between politicians. The choices are restricted and outsiders cannot get in there. That isn't controversial. Why are politicians so corrupt?

Lovecraft and Capote were specifically blaming the publishers for only publishing and marketing according to their narrow tastes which was heritage-determined and it was causing many voices to be excluded. Neither of them opposed those voices being promoted, but they were mad that it was so narrow and disrespectful to alternative voices.
It's like this--if there is a dozen Italian pizza restaurants in the city and some people from elsewhere come along and buy up the restaurants and then change the menus so they are not really offering true Italian pizza any more--i.e. they add Chinese and Angolan ingredients. That's fine for those who like it--but what about those who want authentic traditional Italian pizza or want to learn how to make that traditional pizza?
The culture of pizza cuisine has been transformed--and not by the Italians or their customers.
That is what Lovecraft and Capote were saying. There was a manipulation of culture--it was not being guided by the population, and it was leading to a sterile and limited range of ideas.

It is so obvious now. If they put someone transgender on the cover of a swimsuit magazine--that is completely 100% going against popularity or commercial sense.

And at the same time, John W. Campbell Jr. is condemned (in the so-called mainstream or upper echelons of SF publishing) for making editorial choices that reflected his heritage and tastes.
Talk about double standards!
It is morally grotesque.
 
I am not as familiar with Lovecraft and Capote as you apparently are (although I know that Lovecraft takes some crap from modern readers, just as many dead white males do—sometimes for real prejudices of their time, sometimes for prejudices that were grotesque even then, and sometimes they take crap just for being dead white males). But I will take your word for what they have said and what their arguments were.

I was a Marketing major lifetimes ago; and what you present was very much a topic of discussion in the field thirty years ago. To wit: Is Marketing following the market, or creating/leading it?

It was a real debate for a long time—but, I think our modern world and its technologies have settled that: Social Media and modern marketing machines clearly lead more than they follow. Entire governments have been subverted/overthrown by Marketing. People are routinely manipulated against their own interests by Marketing (even if you want to avoid political discussions, just think about the food industry). So, of course, I agree with you about the negative effects of modern Marketing in the traditional publishing industry.

I only add: Like most things, it's not 100% an "either-or". Rather, it's a both-and, a double-helix: marketing changes popular tastes, which in turn affects future marketing choices, and back and forth, etc etc. With the overall trend perhaps not being what we would wish.

Finally, slightly off-topic but since it tangentially relates: Being culturally sensitive without being illiberal is something I really did a deep dive on. In fact, I wrote an entire four-part blog post on Cultural Appropriation, if you're interested. I don't know if I'm allowed to post links on SFFC but Google the followng: site:coffeebeatcafe.com "cultural appropriation"
and you're there.
 
No that point isn't controversial but that is not what Lovecraft and Capote were saying. They were not suggesting it was dictated by commerce, which suggests some kind of populism is the cause. That is what we always hear to explain why movies are so awful now-"it's what the people want."
If you want to keep using Lovecraft and Capote as examples then please give us references, actual quotes etc, so that the learned audience can draw their own conclusions.
 
If you want to keep using Lovecraft and Capote as examples then please give us references, actual quotes etc, so that the learned audience can draw their own conclusions.
It's a 1960s Playboy interview with Capote and I don't remember where I saw the Lovecraft comments-I assume it was a private letter.
The Stephen King comments were from a 1999 or 2000 article he wrote.
Anyway I broke my vow--I wasn't going to comment on it again but since I was directly quoted, I found it difficult to ignore.
 
It's like this--if there is a dozen Italian pizza restaurants in the city and some people from elsewhere come along and buy up the restaurants and then change the menus so they are not really offering true Italian pizza any more--i.e. they add Chinese and Angolan ingredients. That's fine for those who like it--but what about those who want authentic traditional Italian pizza or want to learn how to make that traditional pizza?
The culture of pizza cuisine has been transformed--and not by the Italians or their customers.

What is traditional Pizza? Tomatoes are not native to Europe so what we think of as an 'authentic' pizza is nothing of the sort as they are older than the Europeans finding their way across the Atlantic. (Wikipedia says, "The word pizza was first documented in 997 AD".) Everything is the result of cross cultural adaptation and transformation.
 
What is traditional Pizza? Tomatoes are not native to Europe so what we think of as an 'authentic' pizza is nothing of the sort as they are older than the Europeans finding their way across the Atlantic. (Wikipedia says, "The word pizza was first documented in 997 AD".) Everything is the result of cross cultural adaptation and transformation.
Sure but that's not the point-- it's about restricting a specific heritage from artistic expression! If someone said, Italians have no right to make pizza--people would say what an obnoxious idiot. But there's no political angle to pizza--at least not yet.
There are people embedded in the hierarchy of SF literature media who believe John W Campbell Jr was wrong to make selection decisions based on his heritage (and biology) just because someone from another continent whined about it. It's insane. It's so disrespectful and barbaric. Complaining about literary tastes in another society from 50-80 years ago? What kind of rude imbecile would say that? And yet there was support for that position.
It's anti-merit in design and an attack on talent and audience freedom.

We live in really looney times. My national radio station was asking today why protestors are obsessed with the word freedom--ignoring that freedom is enshrined in the national anthem lyrics.

I wish Lovecraft was wrong but it seems like his remark that "official" culture was heading for an "unplaceable chaos" is coming true.

I heard they just closed the oldest pub in the UK because of the pandemic (which came from another continent, the consequences of alien infiltration, like in Who Goes There?).

It's not all benign cultural enrichment like tomatoes.
 
It's a 1960s Playboy interview with Capote and I don't remember where I saw the Lovecraft comments-I assume it was a private letter.
The Stephen King comments were from a 1999 or 2000 article he wrote.
Anyway I broke my vow--I wasn't going to comment on it again but since I was directly quoted, I found it difficult to ignore.
Thanks. It s a really long and interesting interview with Capote in the March 1968 Playboy. I think you are misremembering it. Capote talks about cliques dominating the intellectual literary scene, not corporate publishing per se, or morality clauses, etc.

Playboy: For many years, American letters seemed dominated by Southern writers, but, as you have said, “during the last ten years the large percentage of the more talented American writers are urban Jewish intellectuals.” How do you feel about this shift in ethnic, geographic and literary emphasis?

Capote: Well, it has brought about the rise of what I call the Jewish Mafia in American letters. This is a clique of New York-oriented writers and critics who control much of the literary scene through the influence of the quarterlies and intellectual magazines. All these publications are Jewish-dominated and this particular coterie employs them to make or break writers by advancing or withholding attention. I don’t think there’s any conscious, sinister conspiracy on their part—just a determination to see that members of their particular clique rise to the top. Bernard Malamud and Saul Bellow and Philip Roth and Isaac Bashevis Singer and Norman Mailer are all fine writers, but they’re not the only writers in the country, as the Jewish literary Mafia would have us believe. I could give you a list of excellent writers, such as John Knowles and Vance Bourjaily and James Purdy and Donald Windham and Reynolds Price and James Leo Herlihy and Calder Willingham and John Hawkes and William Goyen; the odds are you haven’t heard of most of them, for the simple reason that the Jewish Mafia has systematically frozen them out of the literary scene. Now, mind you, I’m not against any particular group adhering to its own literary values and advancing its own favored authors; such cliques have always existed in American letters. I only object when any one particular group—and it could just as well be Southern, or Roman Catholic, or Marxist, or vegetarian—gets a strangle hold on American criticism and squeezes out anybody who doesn’t conform to its own standards. It’s fine to write about specifically Jewish problems, and it often makes valid and exciting literature—but the people who have other messages to convey, other styles and other backgrounds should also be given a chance. Today, because of the predominance of the Jewish Mafia, they’re not being given that opportunity. This is something everyone in the literary world knows but never writers about.

Playboy: Aren’t you opening yourself up to a charge of anti-Semitism?

Capote: No, because anti-Semitism has nothing to do with it. As I’ve already indicated, I would be just as opposed to a clique of white Anglo-Saxon Protestant authors and critics exercising exclusive control over American letters and excluding talented Jewish writers. I’m against ghettoization from any source. And let me point out that this Jewish Mafia is based more on a state of mind than on race; gentile writers such as Dwight MacDonald who toe the line are made honorary members, while gifted Jewish writers are read out of the club for nonconformity. Irwin Shaw, for example, an excellent writer of Jewish origin, has been damaged by the Jewish Mafia, which has studiously ignored him, despite the fact that his early short stories are superior to any of the contemporary idols. Almost as many Jewish writers as gentiles have suffered at their hands. The ax falls, ecumenically, on the head of anybody, Jew or gentile, who doesn’t share this group’s parochial preoccupations. The regrettable aspect of all this is that there is so much room for diversity, plenty of space for everybody, if the Jewish Mafia could only accept that other people exist.
 
We live in really looney times.

Always have done always will. The world has and always be full of people with unconscionable ideas and the desire to impose them on others. Sometimes they succeed, sometimes they don't. Sometimes the accepted norms become outdated and change happens faster than those who have grown accustomed to, invested in, and benefit from are comfortable with. This is nothing new. They're banning and burning books in the USA today just like they did in Europe in the 30s and people are ripping bits out of classics because they offend current sensitivities today just as they did in Victorian times. These days it's terms that some find (or fear others will find) derogatory that people object to, back then it was things that would inflame passions and lead to 'impropriety'. The word Bowdlerized is not new. It comes from Thomas Bowdler who published an expurgated edition of Shakespeare in 1818 (I think I'm right in saying he changed the line in Othello from, "She hath played the strumpet in my bed." to "She hath played the trumpet in my bed." which is pretty fecking loony in anyone's books.

My national radio station was asking today why protestors are obsessed with the word freedom--ignoring that freedom is enshrined in the national anthem lyrics.

Well it's not in my national anthem (not that I respect 'my national anthem' in the slightest. The first five words contain two concepts I utterly disagree with and the whole sixth verse - albeit now no longer song officially - celebrates the subjugation of my country, Scotland. And it's a really boring dirge of a tune.) But freedom is an interesting word/concept and means differing things to differing people. And Freedoms conflict. My freedom to do something may impinge on (or even deny you) your freedom to do something else. Freedom, and the limits of it, it would seem to me, is a very good thing to be obsessed about and keep under discussion..


I heard they just closed the oldest pub in the UK because of the pandemic (which came from another continent, the consequences of alien infiltration, like in Who Goes There?).

"Alien infiltration"? I really don't understand. Are you saying Covid19 was deliberately spread from outer space????
 
"Alien infiltration"? I really don't understand. Are you saying Covid19 was deliberately spread from outer space????
Alien as in foreign. It is said to be due to a foreign infiltration caused by unrestricted travel from China, the utopia.
 
Wow. And that's some serious thread drift right there...
I didn't want to discuss it but others brought me into it again, like you are now.
I thought it was obvious thematically that Who Goes There? was using the age-old idea that there is danger from the foreign or unfamiliar.
It's hard to find a classical work that does not have some element of that. The Iliad, the Odyssey, Moby Dick, Dracula, Frankenstein, The Man Who Would Be King...
 
Re: Self publishing, I would point out that Edgar Rice Burroughs did start his own publishing company just so he could write & publish what he wanted.

Turned out well for him and his family.
 

Back
Top