Skip to main content

All authors are not created equal

Self-publishing as a profession is so new that we haven’t got established words for calling authors who publish their books themselves. There are several options though. Which one do you prefer?


The tweet above prompted – deliberately, I’m sure – yet another debate on how to call self-published authors. I’ve followed and participated in a couple of them and they’re mostly the same. This time, too, some opinions were for being called an artisan author and some were against it, calling for other options, and some were so bizarre I couldn’t quite follow the reasoning so stopped reading.

I personally dislike the name artisan author. I understand that it’s supposed to convey the idea that we do everything ourselves, by hand, if necessary. I do, but that’s not true for all. Most of us buy the editing services at least; many buy the cover design and maybe even the formatting for their books. What remains, then, is the writing itself, the ‘author’ part of artisan author, and marketing. And I defy you to find a marketing person who’d allow themselves to be called an artisan. So why should we?

I oppose the name artisan for another reason also and that may be cultural. I understand an artisan to be a skilled craftsman that (often) employs otherwise forgotten techniques to produce artefacts that, regardless of their beauty, aren’t quite art but products to sell for a living instead. There is, then, a two-tiered system of artists above and artisans below.

Making a living is important for everyone, but if that were a factor when giving names, all authors would be called artisans. It’s the idea of a two-tier system that bugs me in this. It brings home so clearly that artisan authors are lower tier authors. Moreover, it gives me a notion that some books aren’t art because of the way they’ve been published. That it would be factually true – that my books aren’t very good – is beside the point; it's not the publishing system that makes them so. Besides, there are those among us who are actually very skilled and deserve the chance to be recognised as such.

When I published my first book, I found the name self-published author slightly annoying too, but I’ve grown more accustomed to that one over the course of the year. It’s a factually true definition: I publish my books myself. Nevertheless, I like the name independent author, or indie, more. The word independent has such a lofty ring to it. I’m not dependent of anyone or anything; I’m independent. But some participants in the Twitter debate yesterday objected to that one too. According to them, it would disdain independent publishers. The argument that there have always been indie artists outside the system didn’t seem to carry any weight. I like it though.

I’m also developing fondness for a new word authorpreneur. I’m not sure where it came from, but I find it clever. It seems to have both sides of the occupation covered, writing and marketing, without being negative. As a neologism, it also lacks the burden the old words have when being used in new contexts. Of course, those that cherish the purity of language and don’t want new words – especially such bastardised word – to be created may find authorpreneur annoying too.

What is wrong with all these definitions, however, is that they are given to a group of people by people who don’t belong to that group. It’s a basic tactic with which majorities always treat those in minority: trying to make sense of the other by giving it a name; deminishing the threat the other poses by defining and marginalising it. Human race has done the same for millennia. It doesn’t really matter if the name is accurate or not, it’ll always convey a sense of being labelled for those thus named; being looked down to by those who do the naming. 

We, the authors outside the system, are the other. We are the different and the not-quite-acceptable. In this case, acceptable into the community of authors. It isn’t a unique way to treat minorities in the literary world either. Everyone knows we have authors and women authors. Nothing has happened to that labelling either, so indie authors can’t really expect to be free of labels any time soon. 

It’s a nice dream that we would all be called authors one day. Until then, the best option would be that we don’t let others define us but do it ourselves. So what would you like to be called?


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Reading resolutions (and resolute reading)

It’s a new year and time for a new reading challenge. I’ve participated in the challenge on Goodreads for four years in a row now, and each year I’ve added to the number of books I’ve read. Last year I read sixty books, though I’d originally pledged to read fifty-five. To be on the safe side, I kept it to fifty-five this year too. I usually pick my reading based on how I feel, and it seems I’ve felt like reading quite a lot of urban fantasy and fantasy last year. You can check out here what I read last year.
This year, I decided to be more organised about my reading. So I made a list. I never make them, or if I do I don’t follow them, but a list of books to read has to be easy to stick to. Especially since I didn’t make any difficult promises, like reading classics in their original language.


My list has fifty-six books at the moment, so there’s some room for changes. And it seems I’ll be reading a lot of urban fantasy (27) and fantasy (22) this year too, and quite a lot of it from auth…

Temporality and passage of time in serial fiction

I’ve been binge watching Star Trek: Enterprise lately. I didn’t see it when it aired in 2001-2005, but thanks to the streaming services, I’ve been able to indulge. For those who aren’t familiar with the series, it’s set a hundred years before the adventures of the original series with Captain Kirk and his fellows, and follows the crew of the first starship Enterprise. I’ve always been a Star Trek fan and I’ve liked it in all its incarnations, but Enterprise might be my favourite. There are many reasons for my preference, but what sets it apart from other series is how it allows the passage of time to show.

Many episodic TV series, regardless of the genre, are curiously atemporal. Passage of time is only implied to, maybe with the compulsory Halloween, Christmas, and Valentine’s Day episodes, or if the series is set in the school world, with the start and end of the term; if it’s a long-running series, the students move from one grade to the next from season to season. Other than that, …

Reading recap: March

I had a good reading month last month. Everything I read was delightful and entertaining, on top of which they were good books too. Again, I didn’t quite stick to my reading list; two out of five books were outside it.
First up was A Gathering of Shadows by V. E. Schwab. It’s the second book in her Shades of Magic trilogy set in a world of parallel Londons that have different levels of magic and which can be travelled between by a special person with enough magic and right words. Grey London is in the Regency England of the ‘real’ world with little or no magic, Red London is abundant with magic, and White London is in permanent winter and constantly struggles to regain its magic by any means necessary. In the first book, Lila gets accidentally drawn from Grey to Red London by Kell who can travel between the worlds, and decides to stay. In this second book, she enters the stage as a pirate and ends up taking part in a tournament of magic. Most of the book is taken by the tournament, and…