Validation

[Jude Hardin]

Most professions require a rigorous course of study, and then some sort of Big Test to acquire licensure or accreditation. If you’re a lawyer, you had to pass the bar in your state at some point. Doctor or nurse? Board exams. Engineer, teacher, astronaut...

You name it. Practically every vocational pursuit requires validation from an outside source.

Why, then, should writing be any different?

But there’s no Big Test to be a writer, you might say. Anyone with basic communication skills can put pen to paper and in a few months have The Great American Novel in front of them. Writers are artists. Writers don’t need outside sources to validate their competence.

Well, yes and no. If you write primarily for yourself, as a hobby, with mostly friends and family in mind as readers, then no outside source is required. You can send your manuscript to a POD press and in no time be holding a real live book with your very own name on it. Or, you can format it and try to hawk it on Amazon’s Kindle site or something. You might even make some money.

If, however, you want to be a professional writer, what the industry typically recognizes as a published author, then you’re going to need the green light from a traditional house, one recognized by the industry as legitimate.

That’s right. Publication is our Big Test.

Some writers don’t feel as though they need an outside source to tell them they’re good enough, and that’s fine. Good for them. Sometimes I wish I felt that way.

But I need it. I need the sort of validation only a traditional publishing contract can provide, and I’m going to keep working toward that goal until I achieve it.

How about you?

[Jude Hardin]

Eric: You're not serious, are you?

[B.R.Stateham]

Gate-keepers are, by definition, entities who become very conservative in nature (unless you are the gate-keeper for the avant-garde). If the big publishing houses and the established literary agents are the gate-keepers in the publishing world, what you should expect is a filtering out of writing styles and and a purification process limited to only the styles which guarantee a profit. In other words, what you get is the clone of the clone of the original.

Which, in my opinion, is exactly what we see in the publishing world today. The reason why we are seeing the explosion of new small indie publishers is because there is a shortage of selection.

But here's a question: What if, in needing this 'validation,' an indie publisher was eager to publish your works and help you build a small but dedicated fan base, and you keep saying 'No' in anticipating a New York publishing house is going to pick you up---but that invitation never comes. What do you want as a writer? Fame and fortune--or fans who love what you write and can't get enough of it?

[I. J. Parker]

The outlook can get pretty bleak (a loyal following notwithstanding) when you have to worry with every book if the series will be continued, and when it becomes impossible to sell anything else because you've been branded with your sales figures. That business of being "discovered" 30 years later doesn't look all that hopeful then.

And B.R. is right that we need gatekeepers. These days everybody writes, thinking they can produce the next Harry Potter or James Patterson or Dan Brown. Maybe we need better gatekeepers. Readers are not reliable judges.

[Dan Coleman]

It would be a great idea if would work, but who would it be and what would be the determinants? If not readers, who would be best qualified to judge whose work is worthy of investment and exposure. There are as many opinions as there are readers, almost.

[Jack Getze]

Excellent last point here, BR. After a couple of NY rejections, my agent took me to this tiny POD place for exactly the reasons you state. Do a couple for them, then move, was our plan. Though small, I do have a fan base, and those letters and emails have been a great validation. Nothing better than people enjoying your work and taking the time to contact you. That's exactly why I'd like to move up to a NY publisher -- with better distribution, widespread acceptance by retailers, I hope to get a lot more nice emails!

But whether I have enough of a fan base -- and that dreaded "platform" -- remains to be seen.

[Jack Getze]

My manuscript might play into it as well. :-)

[Dan Coleman]

I would accept the first offer, no matter from the small or larger publisher because it is my opportunity and can't hurt me in any way. It can only get better for me. You're playing into the crap shoot if you wait for a better offer that might not come, 'cause it probably won't.

You're right, too, about gatekeepers becoming conservative. As they become self-appointed filters, and writers accept it, they narrow the opening, bottleneck everything. What has happened over the years is writers have come to believe the bullshit the publishing/agency community has passed off as authority. It's just the power of the dollar. Once upon a time, agents and editors were most or all people with a healthy respect for literature and those who write and deal in it. That ain't necessarily true today. No one gives a rat's ass about the quality of a book because most in the field are not qualified to distinguish between a truly good work and a comic book. So screw them. Use them when you can, like they use you, but don't deify them.

[Sandra Ruttan]

There's a lot I could say. I could commiserate with Jack, because my first publisher was similar and I was an outcast as well (and even now many places refuse to label me as an author, and that with my fourth book out this December, and only the first one was pod - the rest have been with a respected NY publisher).

But I'm going to sidestep all the talk of sales, co-op money, respect from reviewers, etc. and reference something Ian Rankin once told me. That no matter how successful, how many awards, how many readers, how many wonderful reviews, what keeps driving you is the desire to write the perfect novel. Because no matter how great any of our works are, they're never perfect, and it's striving for that perfection that drives the most successful authors to keep writing, despite having millions in the bank.

I think ultimately, that's what will keep me going. Just focusing on the writing. I don't have much control over the rest anyway.

[I. J. Parker]

I very much doubt that authors with millions in the bank keep writing in hopes of having a perfect novel. I think they keep writing to put more millions in the bank.

[Dan Coleman]

I agree writers who make millions continue to write for more money. They'd almost be nuts not to cash in. But I think writers and artists seek something aside from capital gain. I think writers, including myself, want to stand out in some way, be unique, and create something that not only will have a reward of some kind now, but will outlive us, like the initials carved into a tree or desktop, the inscription on a grave stone, a will leaving an estate to benefactors, etc. We just don't want to die, and if we can find a way of staying around, we'll do it, even if not in the flesh. We just want our lives to be important in some aspect, not to be a waste. I think that's why writers write and painters paint, even long before it occurs to us we can actually make money or be famous for it. And we'll continue doing it into oblivion, without ever making a dime or anyone knowing it. It's just part of one's personality, one's character. Just can't not do it.

Not so with some other professions, such as law or medicine, maybe. If a lawyer has no clients, nor an employer who supplies them, he'll cancel his practice and do something else. Same with a physician with no patients. Or a football coach with no team. But not so with writers and painters. I guess it's like the lady down the block who stays in her garden planting flowers every waking moment. She loves it when someone compliments her for it, but she really doesn't need the reinforcement because she'll do it anyway.

If my take on it is correct, then it probably will never be important that some other entity or person "validates" us. It would always be nice, but the bottom line is we just don't give a damn.

Well, I don't, anyway.

[Jude Hardin]

I agree, Sandra. We should focus on the writing, and everything else will come of its own accord. Or not. But still, the writing, the craft, is the only thing we have any real control over.

How do we know if have what it takes? I feel somewhat validated since a reputable literary agent agreed to represent me, but I won't feel fully validated until one of my books sells to a legitimate traditional press.

[Sandra Ruttan]

Getting a literary agent is huge. Often harder than getting the publisher. It doesn't always happen with the first manuscript, but with a good agent, it will happen.

And honestly, I think writers who achieve a certain level of success would do well to stop writing at a certain point, because they're more heavily criticized. I know Ian, for example, has had a lot of critics tell him not to quit his day job when he wrote an Operetta (or whatever they call it). People are very quick to compare every new project to what he was most successful at. But then, if he was really just interested in money in the bank, why did he retire Rebus when nothing else he's done has ever matched that level of success? Why wouldn't JK Rowling keep Potter going?

For a long time there's been a history of authors ditching popular characters (ie: Sherlock Holmes) and trying to break free of the constraints of writing one thing that's been very popular. If they're just writing for money why would they do that?