# This Might Irritate Some People



## T.S.Bowman (Jan 12, 2014)

If there is a better place for this thread, would the admins kindly move it?

I just started here a few days ago, and I see a lot of people mentioning how many "published" writers there are here.

Please forgive me if this offends anyone, but I want to know what you all consider to be "published". Especially since I have also seen that anything posted here anywhere but the prose workshop is considered to have been published.

I have my own definition of what being "published" means. But I want to know what the definition is here.


----------



## movieman (Jan 12, 2014)

It's hard to say these days. I'd normally use it to refer to those who've been trade published, but it gets hazy when many people have sold more copies of their self-published books than a typical new trade published writer.


----------



## escorial (Jan 12, 2014)

i would go with the notion..if someone pays to read your stuff then your published..wether your stuff is self/trade


----------



## Sam (Jan 12, 2014)

Published is published, whether self- or trad-. I've done both. There are several others here who have as well. 

Work posted in the Workshop is not published. In fact, it's designed specifically to prevent that outcome and keep first rights intact. So I'm not sure where you got that idea.


----------



## Gavrushka (Jan 12, 2014)

T.S.Bpwman said:


> I have my own definition of what being "published" means. But I want to know what the definition is here.



You haven't said what your definition of 'published' is, so I am unsure whether to be irritated or not! 

I think published is a broad term, and when I first came to this site I divided it into 'merit-published' and 'vanity-publication'. I've since changed that idea a little, and realised that there are three categories (in my opinion.)

1: Traditional publication

2: Self publication 

3: Vanity publication

I think the last option is reserved for much of what I consider substandard unedited dross that was thrown at Amazon with little thought for anyone over than the one who puked it out in the first place. - There's a hell of a lot of it out there.

All the people here that self-publish seem to care a great deal about the words they write, and it shows. - Vanity publication shows no empathy/understanding of the reader, whereas the self-publishers I've read on here are the exact opposite.


----------



## T.S.Bowman (Jan 13, 2014)

Sam said:


> Published is published, whether self- or trad-. I've done both. There are several others here who have as well.
> 
> Work posted in the Workshop is not published. In fact, it's designed specifically to prevent that outcome and keep first rights intact. So I'm not sure where you got that idea.



You misunderstood what I said.
_
"Especially since I have also seen that anything posted here* anywhere but the prose workshop* is considered to have been published."
_
I did mention that the workshop was the only place where that wasn't the case.

As for myself, I really don't think I could consider self publishing to be "published". To me, and this is only my own opinion, self publishing is tantamount to telling the publishing industry that you know better than they do. Maybe some people do. *shrug*

But the way I feel is if my stuff isn't good enough for someone to think they could sell it, who am I to try to say differently. I understand having confidence in your own ability. But I have also seen some "self published" stuff that was barely readable as the English language. It looked like the person doing it figured that since they were paying for it to be published (which is another thing altogether) they didn't need to have it edited.

The other thing about self publishing...again...just my opinion...paying yourself to have something put in print doesn't really mean (to me) that you have been "published". It just means that you have enough money to have someone print something you wrote. No one in the publishing industry has bought it or paid you for it...so how can you claim that it means you were "published"??

I am not using the word _you_ in a personal sense. So if this offends anyone, my apologies. These are only my opinions. I am just looking to hear both sides. There is a chance I may change my mind about self publishing because I happen to think my book is pretty good.


----------



## T.S.Bowman (Jan 13, 2014)

Gavrushka said:


> You haven't said what your definition of 'published' is, so I am unsure whether to be irritated or not!
> 
> I think published is a broad term, and when I first came to this site I divided it into 'merit-published' and 'vanity-publication'. I've since changed that idea a little, and realised that there are three categories (in my opinion.)
> 
> ...



But that is where I have an issue with trying to differentiate between _self_ publishing and _vanity _publishing. To me, if it isn't paid for by a publisher (and I don't care if it's just a small fly by night publisher that only does a few books a year) then it would seem to all come down to vanity.

"You won't buy it so I'll just do it myself because I know it's better than you think" seems kinda vain in and of itself. 

I am not really trying to irritate anyone here. Nor am I trying to disparage self publishing. I am simply offering my opinion on it.  I know that I am still very new here, but I figure I am going to find out pretty quickly whether or not speaking my mind will be acceptable here..lol


----------



## popsprocket (Jan 13, 2014)

T.S.Bpwman said:


> _"Especially since I have also seen that anything posted here* anywhere but the prose workshop* is considered to have been published."_



That is a matter of nit-picking by agents and publishers. WF doesn't retain any rights to works posted here, but a publisher may take umbrage to buying something that is available for free online. In that sense, they consider it to already be 'published'. Since they are the ones buying the rights to print your work it is well within reasonable action to toss out anything that the author has gone ahead and provided elsewhere.


----------



## T.S.Bowman (Jan 13, 2014)

popsprocket said:


> That is a matter of nit-picking by agents and publishers. WF doesn't retain any rights to works posted here, but a publisher may take umbrage to buying something that is available for free online. In that sense, they consider it to already be 'published'. Since they are the ones buying the rights to print your work it is well within reasonable action to toss out anything that the author has gone ahead and provided elsewhere.



Oh I completely understand why that would be.

I was just trying to make sure I had clarified what I was speaking of. And also making sure that I was clear on what I had read here.


----------



## Gavrushka (Jan 13, 2014)

T.S.Bpwman said:
			
		

> But that is where I have an issue with trying to differentiate between _self_ publishing and _vanity _publishing. To me, if it isn't paid for by a publisher (and I don't care if it's just a small fly by night publisher that only does a few books a year) then it would seem to all come down to vanity.
> 
> "You won't buy it so I'll just do it myself because I know it's better than you think" seems kinda vain in and of itself.
> 
> I am not really trying to irritate anyone here. Nor am I trying to disparage self publishing. I am simply offering my opinion on it. I know that I am still very new here, but I figure I am going to find out pretty quickly whether or not speaking my mind will be acceptable here..lol



So you don't differentiate? - That is exactly the view I held in the past.

So the self-publisher who makes a seven figure sum a year is making money out of vanity? I'd call that business, as in self employed as opposed to contracted to an agent / publisher.

I don't think there is anything vain for the other group who've spent a year or more working on a novel to then self publish. - They've likely worked with graphic artists, beta readers, proof readers and editors, and taken the rational decision to make it available for the public to buy it. - They _want_ feedback. They _need_ feedback to improve.

I _would_ agree that there is a significant proportion who self-publish _because_ they cannot find an agent. - IF my latest novel is not accepted for traditional publication, I will self publish it. - There is no vanity involved with that, just a combination of pragmatism and a desire to write and make money from something I love (which in turn will allow me to write more!)

Where there is, I feel, a degree of vanity in self published authors, is their belief that they are better than traditionally published authors. I can see how an author needs an ego, but to denigrate those who've achieved what many of us aspire to, is self-defeating. - IF I were to hold that belief, I'd pick up all the books that I felt should never have been traditionally published, and read them until I understood _why_ they found an agent. Oh there are a few stinkers out there, without a doubt, but to make disparaging remarks about successful authors is self-defeating and smacks, in some instances, of  snobbery! LOL.


There is one more reason that some wannabee writers cast a disparaging eye on self-publication, and I once numbered amongst them. This, I assure you, is not finger pointing... There is a stage in our writing career where we feel we are awesome. - It's that euphoria that is often associated with experiencing something new. - As a writer, I once believed I was so good that I would have agents begging to represent me. - I'd a sycophantic positive comment or two, and it fed my belief that J K Rowling was no more, for the Gavrushka was unveiled. - I even went as far as looking at a new house to spend some of my seven figure advance cheque on! LOL... And then came the knee in the balls from the agent 'I had Chosen'... 

"_Dear Gavrushka, 

We assume your submission was meant to humour us, and for that we thank you. We particularly liked the bit about the dog who admonished itself for barking in a squeaky voice, and the sentence that rambled on for so long that we printed it out longways, and managed three complete circuits of our office in 12 point. On the off chance this was a serious submission, we'll put our literary hats on and say it's not really our cup of tea... Oh who are we trying to fool? You're so bad that I'd rather lick my fat aunty Edna's armpit than read your prose, -  and she died three weeks ago. Perhaps you should take up golf, or discover what punctuation is."


_


----------



## T.S.Bowman (Jan 13, 2014)

Gavrushka said:


> So you don't differentiate? - That is exactly the view I held in the past.
> 
> So the self-publisher who makes a seven figure sum a year is making money out of vanity? I'd call that business, as in self employed as opposed to contracted to an agent / publisher.



Originally, yes. That writer, at some point, had the thought that went something along the lines of, "well...no one wants to buy this in the traditional way. But I know it's really good, so I am gonna just do it myself." That line of thinking, no matter the verbiage, comes down to ego/vanity. I'm not saying that is necessarily a bad thing.



> I don't think there is anything vain for the other group who've spent a year or more working on a novel to then self publish. - They've likely worked with graphic artists, beta readers, proof readers and editors, and taken the rational decision to make it available for the public to buy it. - They _want_ feedback. They _need_ feedback to improve.



I am not saying it isn't a rational business decision. Far from it. I know that, when it involves my own money...I won't be doing anything rash. 



> I _would_ agree that there is a significant proportion who self-publish _because_ they cannot find an agent. - IF my latest novel is not accepted for traditional publication, I will self publish it. - There is no vanity involved with that, just a combination of pragmatism and a desire to write and make money from something I love (which in turn will allow me to write more!)



I think, for me, the biggest problem is that I am not a salesman and I have never been much good at self promotion. 



> Where there is, I feel, a degree of vanity in self published authors, is their belief that they are better than traditionally published authors. I can see how an author needs an ego, but to denigrate those who've achieved what many of us aspire to, is self-defeating. - IF I were to hold that belief, I'd pick up all the books that I felt should never have been traditionally published, and read them until I understood _why_ they found an agent. Oh there are a few stinkers out there, without a doubt, but to make disparaging remarks about successful authors is self-defeating and smacks, in some instances, of  snobbery! LOL.



I can definitely relate. I would like to find the person who decided to publish Clan Of The Cave Bear (the first one of the bunch) and slap them with that tome.




> There is one more reason that some wannabee writers cast a disparaging eye on self-publication, and I once numbered amongst them. This, I assure you, is not finger pointing... There is a stage in our writing career where we feel we are awesome.


 
That is most definitely not me. I can barely keep a straight face when I tell people that I am writing a novel. I know it's pretty good...but not THAT good..lmao



> - It's that euphoria that is often associated with experiencing something new. - As a writer, I once believed I was so good that I would have agents begging to represent me. - I'd a sycophantic positive comment or two, and it fed my belief that J K Rowling was no more, for the Gavrushka was unveiled. - I even went as far as looking at a new house to spend some of my seven figure advance cheque on! LOL... And then came the knee in the balls from the agent 'I had Chosen'...
> 
> "_Dear Gavrushka,
> 
> ...



I am expecting several of those in my future.


----------



## J Anfinson (Jan 13, 2014)

As long as the author cares about producing quality work, I don't care which route they take. I've come across traditionally published books that were horribly edited, if edited at all, and I've found self published books that I can't understand why an agent would turn them down. As long as the quality is there, I see no difference other than pride in being selected.


----------



## Gavrushka (Jan 13, 2014)

There is also the size of the market that has to be considered. - IF a story is in a niche that is currently being squeezed for readership, commercial pressure may suggest that anything other than the most exceptional of stories would be rejected by agents.

It would be good to hear from one or two of the successful self-published authors on this site, who make a living from their craft.


----------



## Kevin (Jan 13, 2014)

> i would go with the notion..if someone pays to read your stuff then...


 So the title of "published" to me, is diminished, perhaps worthless. _Who cares if I'm published? Did I sell? Was I good enough that people actually paid to read it?_


----------



## D4MD (Jan 13, 2014)

T.S.Bpwman said:


> ..._
> _
> As for myself, I really don't think I could consider self publishing to be "published". To me, and this is only my own opinion, self publishing is tantamount to telling the publishing industry that you know better than they do. Maybe some people do. *shrug*
> 
> ...



dunno about that ...there are a few classics out there that were self-published, e.g. _Huckleberry Fin, Ulysses, Lady Chatterley's Lover_, etc. I doubt there's any question that those are published works.

here's a list of self-published classics-- http://staffweb.hkbu.edu.hk/ppp/ppp/classics.html



T.S.Bpwman said:


> ..._
> _
> But the way I feel is if my stuff isn't good enough for someone to think they could sell it, who am I to try to say differently. I understand having confidence in your own ability. But I have also seen some "self published" stuff that was barely readable as the English language. It looked like the person doing it figured that since they were paying for it to be published (which is another thing altogether) they didn't need to have it edited.
> 
> ...



i can agree to that to an extent. but then again, just because one or two people doesn't like what you wrote doesn't mean others won't--despite the bad writing.

case in point, a few years ago i picked a self-published novel from a used book store. The writing was so unbelievably horrendous (and that's coming from a mediocre wannabe writer like yours truly) i kept wondering how in hell it ended up in print. But you know what, i actually read the whole thing from cover to cover because it had a great fun story (one of those "so bad it's good" type of thing) that i didn't mind the bad writing at all.


----------



## Gavrushka (Jan 13, 2014)

T.S.Bpwman said:


> I know it's pretty good...but not THAT good..lmao
> 
> 
> 
> I am expecting several of those in my future.



Then you're one up on me - I don't know how good I am, and the only reliable guide, I feel, would be book sales. - The point where I once knew I was good, was a falsity based on the opinions of friends and relatives. - Elsewhere on here, I posted my earliest words that I thought would inspire a nation. In reality, they did no more than inspire a gag reflex.

I can see, from the last comment that you are going to try for traditional publication. - The only advice I can give is to ask you to post some of your work on here for critique. - I wish I had done that years ago, I really do.


----------



## movieman (Jan 13, 2014)

Kevin said:


> So the title of "published" to me, is diminished, perhaps worthless. _Who cares if I'm published? Did I sell? Was I good enough that people actually paid to read it?_



Probably. I think there's an argument that all it should mean these days is that your books are out there available for readers to buy. The problem is that, in the past, 'published' has been used for writers like the gold stars my teachers would stick on kids at school to show they'd done better at school work than the other kids; but, today, an unknown writer who self-publishes a novel may well sell more to readers than an unknown whose novel was published by a trade publisher.


----------



## Justin Rocket (Jan 13, 2014)

I usually don't care about that sort of thing.

But, if I did, I'd limit 'publishing' to anything which was accepted by a professional publisher (someone other than the writer) who was a stake holder in the financial success/loss of the story. I'd, also, differentiate between someone who was published by, say, Little Brown, and someone published by Uncle Ed's print and gator bait shop (who was paid for a print run by Our Lady of Sweet Misery's Ladies' Bazaar as a missionary fund raiser).

Otherwise, we could all call ourselves 'published' since we could write a string of consonants and vowels and sell it on our web pages.


----------



## Gamer_2k4 (Jan 13, 2014)

My badge comes from one of my short stories having been selected to be included in the newsletter this site publishes every month.  It wasn't a conscious decision on my part, and while I don't mind the recognition/exposure, I won't truly consider myself published until I've purposely submitted something and it gets picked up by an actual publisher.


----------



## Jon M (Jan 13, 2014)

Publishing by traditional means is not necessarily a measure of the writer's talent. It's essentially a business venture, subject to trends, etc. So it seems a bit naive to hold oneself to that standard and look down on those who have opted, for whatever reason, to take another route to publication.


----------



## Justin Rocket (Jan 13, 2014)

Jon M said:


> So it seems a bit naive to hold oneself to that standard and look down on those who have opted, for whatever reason, to take another route to publication.



I don't think its 'naive' so much as it is the best measure possible (noting that there's a big difference between 'best possible' and 'faultless').


----------



## Jon M (Jan 13, 2014)

Justin Rocket said:


> I don't think its 'naive' so much as it is the best measure possible (noting that there's a big difference between 'best possible' and 'faultless').


But I really don't think it is the best measure possible. Traditional publication is only one way of getting your story out there. I think some writers, including a few here, are pursuing this route because it is extra validation--they believe the hell of writing queries, hunting for agents, etc. is worth the trouble. And maybe it is--certainly for them. But it's also part of the circus, another step in the dance. And it is foolish to immediately associate 'traditional publication' with 'quality'. It has been shown over and over that more goes into the decision to publish a writer's work than mere quality. For example, one of the writers here, Louise, is having a heck of a time getting her book picked up because multiple publishers have told her it's just "not a good fit", basically that they adored the work but had no idea how to profit from it. 

As for me, if I'm totally being honest, I don't even care about being published anymore. I know what it feels like, to even be paid for my work, but in general I lose interest in the stories that get accepted. By then they're not for me anymore, but everyone else.


----------



## popsprocket (Jan 13, 2014)

Perhaps you should alter your definition of published to be something like 'published works with external approval'. So you can publish traditionally or you can publish online, but the real measure is having people buy and like the book.

That way neither mode is dismissed but you still end up with a line that you can draw in the sand.


----------



## dale (Jan 13, 2014)

a couple reasons i'm for traditional publishing over self-publishing.

 1. although both means have a lot of garbage to their credit, at least there are some standards to traditional. with self? there are none.
2. it makes me feel good that someone else other than me thought my work was good enough to invest themselves in.


----------



## Justin Rocket (Jan 13, 2014)

Jon M said:


> I think some writers, including a few here, are pursuing this route because it is extra validation



Sure, just like being an Olympic level athlete is extra validation.  And, just like non-Olympians are not equivalent to Olympians (except in very special circumstances), authors who don't depend on being commercially published for their livelihood are not equivalent to those who do.



> As for me, if I'm totally being honest, I don't even care about being published anymore. I know what it feels like, to even be paid for my work, but in general I lose interest in the stories that get accepted. By then they're not for me anymore, but everyone else.


  I've always thought that part of the -job- of being an artist is figuring out how to be true to one's vision while being exposed to as many people as possible.  Who cares if the author has a unique voice if he's speaking in a place where no one is listening?


----------



## Kevin (Jan 13, 2014)

> basically that they adored the work but had no idea how to profit from it.


 sounds like the politics of fashion



> just like non-Olympians are not equivalent to Olympians


 One would think that it was purely merit based--that each country would send their absolute best--and one would be mistaken. Politics there too.


> authors who don't depend on being commercially published for their livelihood are not equivalent to those who do


 I'm not so sure about this...there are authors who took up writing as an aside...the money made was just gravy. They already had careers. I suppose you could say that they were 'good enough' (whatever that means) to get paid for it, but they didn't 'need' the money... The word vocation comes to mind.


----------



## movieman (Jan 13, 2014)

Justin Rocket said:


> Sure, just like being an Olympic level athlete is extra validation.  And, just like non-Olympians are not equivalent to Olympians (except in very special circumstances), authors who don't depend on being commercially published for their livelihood are not equivalent to those who do.



Comparing a new trade-published writer with a 5,000 print run to an Olympic athlete is a bit silly. At the real 'Olympic writer' level of Rowling, King and Patterson, no self-published author is ever likely to compete since they're largely the product of mass media marketing. But the typical new trade-published writer who gets a few thousand dollars as an advance and disappears after one to three books is hardly 'Olympic level'.

Personally, I've done the whole 'seeing my name on the bookstore shelves' thing, so the only validation I need is the hundreds of sales a month on my Amazon reports. Though I'm hoping to hit thousands a month at some point in the next couple of years.


----------



## Folcro (Jan 13, 2014)

Kevin said:


> I'm not so sure about this...there are authors who took up writing as an aside...the money made was just gravy. They already had careers. I suppose you could say that they were 'good enough' (whatever that means) to get paid for it, but they didn't 'need' the money... The word vocation comes to mind.



I think the point being made is that those who have achieved the _capacity _to write for a living have proven to be on a higher rung than those who do not. I'm not so sure I disagree. Though there is a difference between what you can prove and what you actually are. I think the level of publication isn't a bad way to tentatively gauge a writer's abilities... though we all know there are exceptions.


----------



## Justin Rocket (Jan 13, 2014)

Kevin said:


> sounds like the politics of fashion
> 
> One would think that it was purely merit based--that each country would send their absolute best--and one would be mistaken. Politics there too.
> I'm not so sure about this...there are authors who took up writing as an aside...the money made was just gravy. They already had careers. I suppose you could say that they were 'good enough' (whatever that means) to get paid for it, but they didn't 'need' the money... The word vocation comes to mind.




But we're talking about using a metric that is the best possible, but not flawless.  In other words, it acknowledges that there are exceptions.  So, answer this question, *in general* an author who doesn't depend on being commercially published for their livelihood is better or worse than one who does?


----------



## T.S.Bowman (Jan 13, 2014)

Jon M said:


> Publishing by traditional means is not necessarily a measure of the writer's talent. It's essentially a business venture, subject to trends, etc. So it seems a bit naive to hold oneself to that standard and look down on those who have opted, for whatever reason, to take another route to publication.



Well...I am not arguing the talent or lack of part. I think Stephanie Myers should be slapped. But I think the publisher who took on that teen trash should be slapped harder. I tried my best to read the first Twilight book. I really did. But it was horrible. There are several others as well.

I am not looking down on anyone for self publishing. Not by any stretch. I am just trying to find out what the definition of "published" is here since I see it bandied about quite a bit.


----------



## Folcro (Jan 13, 2014)

T.S.Bpwman said:


> I think Stephanie Myers should be slapped.



If you hold her down for me.


----------



## dale (Jan 13, 2014)

movieman said:


> Comparing a new trade-published writer with a 5,000 print run to an Olympic athlete is a bit silly. At the real 'Olympic writer' level of Rowling, King and Patterson, no self-published author is ever likely to compete since they're largely the product of mass media marketing. But the typical new trade-published writer who gets a few thousand dollars as an advance and disappears after one to three books is hardly 'Olympic level'.
> 
> Personally, I've done the whole 'seeing my name on the bookstore shelves' thing, so the only validation I need is the hundreds of sales a month on my Amazon reports. Though I'm hoping to hit thousands a month at some point in the next couple of years.



actually, comparing an olympic athlete to a professional is a bit off the mark in itself. olympic basketball proved this. for some reason, they let the pros
play for america with jordan, pippen, and bird. it was a joke. there was no comparison. it was like a harlem globetrotter skit.


----------



## T.S.Bowman (Jan 13, 2014)

Gavrushka said:


> Then you're one up on me - I don't know how good I am, and the only reliable guide, I feel, would be book sales. - The point where I once knew I was good, was a falsity based on the opinions of friends and relatives. - Elsewhere on here, I posted my earliest words that I thought would inspire a nation. In reality, they did no more than inspire a gag reflex.
> 
> I can see, from the last comment that you are going to try for traditional publication. - The only advice I can give is to ask you to post some of your work on here for critique. - I wish I had done that years ago, I really do.



At this point, I'm not so sure that, given the content of this thread, me posting any of my novel here (in the Prose Workshop since I don't want to be "published" just yet) is going to be a good idea. It seems like I have struck a bit of a nerve.

Perhaps getting an unbiased critique may prove difficult.

No...I don't see any real anger directed towards me...but there may be a few who would like to let me know that I may not be as good as they perceive I think I am.


----------



## T.S.Bowman (Jan 13, 2014)

Folcro said:


> If you hold her down for me.



OMG I would be HAPPY to. LOL


----------



## Justin Rocket (Jan 13, 2014)

T.S.Bpwman said:


> Well...I am not arguing the talent or lack of part. I think Stephanie Myers should be slapped. But I think the publisher who took on that teen trash should be slapped harder. I tried my best to read the first Twilight book. I really did. But it was horrible. There are several others as well.
> 
> I am not looking down on anyone for self publishing. Not by any stretch. I am just trying to find out what the definition of "published" is here since I see it bandied about quite a bit.



For every Stephanie Meyers writing Twilight, there's a couple of hundred writing and self publishing Twilight fanfic (perhaps with the names changed).


----------



## philistine (Jan 13, 2014)

Going by the standard definition, I am a published author. However, I don't really consider myself one. I feel as though I got lucky, and am still waiting for my first 'break' to occur.


----------



## T.S.Bowman (Jan 13, 2014)

Justin Rocket said:


> For every Stephanie Meyers writing Twilight, there's a couple of hundred writing and self publishing Twilight fanfic (perhaps with the names changed).



And that right there is part of my problem. It's that garbage, being paid for by the people who actually write it, that far overwhelms the legitimate writers who may choose that direction of publishing.

ANYONE can pay, with their own money, to put something in print. Anyone.


----------



## Kevin (Jan 13, 2014)

> answer this question, in general an author who doesn't depend on being commercially published for their livelihood is better or worse than one who does?


 Well... it's sort of a backwards way of saying it, but if your livelihood depends on writing, then you need to be commercially viable. As far as the numbers of who does what, I don't know, but I would guess that someone whose job is writing would achieve, generally, a higher technical skill level, by repetition if nothing else. But then again we're talking art here, and not...house painting. So it does happen that artists starve and their masterpieces are never 'discovered' before going moldy and tossed, or occasionally discovered too late for them and again were talking about whatever trends are in fashion when, or not. The formula artist only seems to work for fast-food or the already established name.

So who here wants to flip burger-books and make a lot of money?  That's what I thought. You do want the money but you'd do it under a pseudonym...gotcha...


----------



## Justin Rocket (Jan 13, 2014)

Kevin said:


> Well... it's sort of a backwards way of saying it, but if your livelihood depends on writing, then you need to be commercially viable. As far as the numbers of who does what, I don't know, but I would guess that someone whose job is writing would achieve, generally, a higher technical skill level, by repetition if nothing else. But then again we're talking art here, and not...house painting. So it does happen that artists starve and their masterpieces are never 'discovered' before going moldy and tossed, or occasionally discovered too late for them and again were talking about whatever trends are in fashion when, or not. The formula artist only seems to work for fast-food or the already established name.
> 
> So who here wants to flip burger-books and make a lot of money?  That's what I thought. You do want the money but you'd do it under a pseudonym...gotcha...



I don't believe in starving artists, because I believe that part of the job of being an artist is to express their voice in a way that people want to hear it.  Well, I should say that, perhaps, starving artists can exist if they are stuck on an island somewhere.  So, let's say you are interested, as an artist, in exploring how geography and self-identity interact, it is your job to explore that in a way that people want to see it (or buy it), so if your art involves wrapping  your naked self in saran wrap and taking selfies of it, you're not a good artist.  As an author, if you want to explore the emergence of sexual identity in teenagers, but you write child porn that people don't want to see, you're not a good artist.  It is your job to come up with something like Judy Blum's "Are you there, God, it's Margaret".


----------



## ppsage (Jan 13, 2014)

What is a satisfactory definition of 'published,' for the purposes of giving a tiny fake medal icon on this forum, or for some fundamentalist notion of life and career validation, are two very different things. The former seems satisfactorily conceived, the latter, ridiculously ineffable.


----------



## Folcro (Jan 13, 2014)

Justin Rocket said:


> I don't believe in starving artists, because I believe that part of the job of being an artist is to express their voice in a way that people want to hear it.



I think it's worth noting that this is a very interesting outlook. I would say that it's an artist's responsibility to make themselves heard, but to whom, that varies immensely. There are artists who wish to appeal to those whose taste is so unique that a livelihood could not be made, but that minority may love this artist more than the average Twilight fan loves Stephie (just an example--- don't mean to keep picking on her... or do I?).


----------



## Justin Rocket (Jan 14, 2014)

Folcro said:


> I think it's worth noting that this is a very interesting outlook. I would say that it's an artist's responsibility to make themselves heard, but to whom, that varies immensely. There are artists who wish to appeal to those whose taste is so unique that a livelihood could not be made, but that minority may love this artist more than the average Twilight fan loves Stephie (just an example--- don't mean to keep picking on her... or do I?).



Consider Steampunk Giraffe, this is a band blending music and pantomime all with a steampunk motif.  That's gotta be niche, right?  But, they took their core concept and, still, are able to regularly fill concert halls.


----------



## T.S.Bowman (Jan 14, 2014)

Did you mean Steam Powered Giraffe??

I had never heard of them til you mentioned them. I looked it up on You Tube and (if that is who you meant) that is some cool stuff.


----------



## Gavrushka (Jan 14, 2014)

How I wish the deleted post had been left.  - It would have received a few likes, including from me! 

Naive self-belief is a powerful cloak that conceals reality until it is ripped away from us, on receiving our first critique, revealing our misshapen bodies beneath. We can then either start working out, or buy one of those funny mirrors that make us look other than we are.

Love and kisses, 

Misshapen Gavrushka.


----------



## dale (Jan 14, 2014)

Gavrushka said:


> Naive self-belief is a powerful cloak that conceals reality until it is ripped away from us, on receiving our first critique, revealing our misshapen bodies beneath. We can then either start working out, or buy one of those funny mirrors that make us look other than we are.



i don't know if i'd take it quite that far. "naive self-belief" can take a man to the apex of almost any goal...if he has the drive and a bit of talent or intelligence.

 i think "drive" is the primary key to success in any endeavor. look at hp lovecraft and quite a few others like him. there's been quite a few talented writers in the past who didn't really become known until after they were dead. why? because they didn't have the drive. but after they died? someone else had the drive for them.


----------



## Gavrushka (Jan 14, 2014)

Ah I agree that self-belief is important - But my point was meant to be that it is better to be informed than clueless. - Drive and commitment are key to moving as far forwards as you can, and they replace the hapless enthusiasm that we all emerge from in our earliest writing days.

I once thought that talent was enough, but I can see that it's just one essential part of a far bigger jigsaw, and some of the remaining pieces I am still searching for.


----------



## Justin Rocket (Jan 14, 2014)

T.S.Bpwman said:


> Did you mean Steam Powered Giraffe??
> 
> I had never heard of them til you mentioned them. I looked it up on You Tube and (if that is who you meant) that is some cool stuff.



Yeah, Steam Powered Giraffe!  

I'd provide a few links to my favorites on YouTube, but it'd be a mile long.


----------



## T.S.Bowman (Jan 14, 2014)

Justin Rocket said:


> Yeah, Steam Powered Giraffe!
> 
> I'd provide a few links to my favorites on YouTube, but it'd be a mile long.



No worries. I spent a bit of time checking them out. I really like it. 

Thanks for mentioning them. Very unique group.


----------



## T.S.Bowman (Jan 14, 2014)

Ya know...when I started the thread, I really wasn't expecting as big a response as it has gotten. 

I guess there really is no universally accepted answer to what "published" actually means. The responses have been interesting, to say the least.


----------

