As anyone who has written a novel will know, it is almost impossible to obtain any recognition unless you are lucky enough to stumble upon a literary critic who is prepared to take a risk on the next new thing or unless you are writing in a recognised, current and popular genre, or unless you are an established writer already.
Like a demoralisingly large number of other persons, I do not fall into any of those categories and so I am consigned to that great slush pile of works, good and bad that litter cyber-space. At least I can take comfort in the fact that I don't also litter the offices and cupboards of literary agents with my discarded and unspent paper manuscripts because I , presumably like many writers, won't waste the time and planetary resources printing off an infinite number of paper copies. Well, who am I really kidding - I don't want to afford the cost of paper, printing ink and postage.
Of course that last fact brings out one of the big issues in the world of story telling today. With the internet, anyone with two fingers (or perhaps even one if used rapidly) can hammer out a series of letters on a keyboard, look up a couple of dozen email addresses and whack out submissions with relative ease. This veritable effluvia of output from a seemingly infinite number of large primates will, no doubt, in time throw out another William Shakespeare but what does it do for the rest of us in the meantime? Well it does nothing, of course and all those seminal possibilities litter the hard drives of ISP servers with the same lack of regard for waste as is demonstrated by the reproductive process.
In simple terms, the barriers to creative entry in story telling are pretty much non-existent in the more economically developed countries and with the flood gates agape, anything and everything gets through. The result, a superabundance of text, some very good, some so-so and some not bad: some not so good at all and some pretty damned awful. As a prospective reader, how do you tell the difference?
Traditionally, the endorsement of the publisher gives an indication that the tale is at least worthy; that the text is accurate and relatively free from error. A well written blurb on the back of the book or somewhere on Amazon, especially if drafted by someone whose name and or credentials are recognised also take the prosepctive reader further in on the seduction. It doesn't guarantee a good tale and it certainly doesn't offer good quality literature. It offers, in truth that which is seen to be saleable: that which offers a good possibility of the publisher making a turn (if they are lucky in many cases I suspect).
This is not available to the great unpublished - or perhaps I should say the great self-published ( and I place myself amongst these). How many wonderful tales are lost in the darkness?
Perhaps it is time to take a new look at story telling. After all, no matter what anyone says, the printed book is going the way of the illuminated manuscript - soon to be consigned to the halls of history with just a few skilled specialists who consider it worthwhile to craft new works in paper, ink and card. Don't get me wrong here. My home is stocked with all manner of books ( I refuse to classify these further as 'paper' books or 'printed' books) that I have lovingly collected to read over the past years (and I will continue to do this until they nail down the lid on my coffin - might even slip in a few when I go). I do truly like the look , feel and the smell of books but as a medium for story telling, the paper sheet is becoming as archaic as the oral tradition of story telling.
The model is broken and we need to find a new model. I don't have an answer: I was perhaps hoping that you might. Well, maybe? Maybe not. I'll return to this another time.
No comments:
Post a Comment