The Writers’ Market – evil conspiracy against quality or readers’ friend?

-->

(warning: unedited, may contain grammatical gaffes & unintentional boasting)

The phrase “writers market” seems to be set off a storm every time I mention it in Al Ain. I have seen dignified professors splutter incoherently or wax apoplectic when I mentioned that the writers market might not be all bad. So I fear I may make a whole lot more trouble by dealing with this subject again in greater detail, explaining why I think it’s not such a bad thing. First there are two views of the writers market, one amateur, the other professional. Amateur writers are unpublished or hardly published writers who may have sent in a ms or two, been rejected, and gotten dejected and given up. If they give up at this stage, then they may develop a grudge against those who are published and ascribe it to an unfair writer’s market that doesn’t care for true literature or the authentically individual values they represent.

Professional writers [or semi-professional among whom I count myself as a part-time free-lancer with over 100 paid publications] on the other hand, view the writer’s market differently; for them it is a fact of life that can be seen, alternatively, as a necessary evil, a useful challenge (like the sonnet form) or a positive good that rewards them. Writers’ attitudes toward the market probably vary wildly but one would imagine in line with their degree of publishing success.

What is the writers market? It is the result of the competition of writers for the limited attention of editors and the even more restricted publishing space they command (whether paying or not) in periodicals, newspapers and books. All serious writers want to get published, but there are almost always more ambitious writers in any given market niche then can be accommodated in available space; therefore not all can be published, and editors may have the luxury of choosing between more or less talented, prepared and dedicated contributors. From the standpoint of editors (where I have been), competition improves the product and is to be encouraged. Is the writers market good for the writers, you may ask. I would argue that the market is a great teacher of effective style (concision, directness and vividness), organization and dramatic presentation. Writers who incorporate these iconic (ever since Strunk & White) qualities in their prose and deal with significant subjects have an excellent chance.

What the writers market is not: simply crass commercialism or an evil conspiracy against quality. The writers market is more likely a sorting out device that eliminates a lot of unreadable slush from the bookshelves. Since the writers market is inevitable – the fledgling writer would do better to accept it & study hard the kind of writing he or she wants to do--in examples he most admires --and try hard to imitate and surpass that genre.

I remember in one of the first things I ever published, an interview with theater people in Madison, Wisconsin, the editor complimented me on the technique I used to summarize conversations. Well, I confessed, I got it out of your own magazine.

What do writers want? Most say they want people to read them. It’s actually much easier to get published then to be assured of a readership because after publication you never know who if anyone reads your stuff anyway. If you have a good and careful editor (these are increasingly hard to find these days) you don’t need another reader. One editor who reads, criticizes and accepts your work is enough.

Still I hear aspiring, dissatisfied writers grousing: “Who needs an editor? If X or Z at the ABC Review doesn’t like my stuff, so what? I’ll circumvent, cut out and utterly forget about editors with their rotten commercial standards and incom-prehensible demands. By building my own community of readers.”

That actually may make some sense in this local and fairly corrupt environment where the publishing world is very circumscribed and limited and where neophytes will have a tough time getting started. I heard Alexander McCall’s slick & convincing presentation on building a community of readers. He has a chance of doing that since he is already published and has a readership.

For all the variations on self-publishing, I’ll only say this: is it really publishing? Once again, I’ll hold out for traditional publishing and state that you can’t say you are truly published until someone else publishes you. The reason for this is practical & philosophical. We almost never see our own creations clearly. Our children are always the most interesting, the most beautiful, the most intelligent; our story, our novel, our poem is the most moving, the most wonderful etc etc. Of course. The thing is though that because it is ours we can’t see it clearly. I always see on the page what I think is there, not what is really there. Whereas any editor worth their chili peppers can see much that I cannot.

Self-publishing means unedited, including this casual essay (I’m sure it’ll be obvious).

The intrinsic difficulty of the task of writing well and comprehensibly so as to truly inform & entertain a reader is often underestimated by beginning writers. It is in fact very hard to put together a piece of writing that succeeds on all levels, style, syntax, content, organization etc. Scratch “very hard” – say impossible. That’s why publishing has always prospered as an organization wherein some write, others copyedit and others research. This is why all writers even great ones need tons of editing.

Accepting the writers market and the need for editing to get your product to market (and not seeing those as bad words) is simply common sense and maturity for the professional writer who should be happy to find work in a creative, competitive field. IMHO the need to be read by millions, become famous and rich is a false ambition for writers who would do better in my opinion by looking for steady employment in his or her selected specialties and genres.

Lastly, I can sympathize with people who try to get started in this environment with its very limited chances in the English language press anyway, particularly in Al Ain. I have published in the main journals of Dubai and Abu Dhabi but don’t plan to much more of it. First, the limitations on content make writing the simplest thing a boring exercise in self-censorship. Then among editors, low standards, little competence and and not much interest in their job – so no meaningful feedback about what you write. I have only had one positive experience. To find out which editor it is, you can check my Mid East Books Blog website.
Finally, my recognition that self-publication is necessary in a corrupt or otherwise defective writers market -- ie. censored -- is shown by this email.