Skip to main content

Writing, Publishing, and the Craft

I've been thinking a fair bit lately about writing. Given that I blog, review, and work on projects that have yet to see the light of day, this isn't exactly a surprise. What I mean to say is that I've been thinking lately about writing and my own future. I'm now in my twenties, and what I do now will help set the stage for where I am and what I am doing in my thirties, forties, and beyond, though I truly hate to think about anything beyond thirty-five at this point. I have been writing in some form or other since I was in 5th grade, and I have always dreamed of someday seeing my work published. Ah, publication, the dream of nearly all writers--we imagine great reviews from Booklist and Kirkus, movie deals with prominent appearances by the author on the red carpet and the interview circuit, millions of book sales and book tours packed with fans who adore our work. 

For most writers this dream is just that; it is, in fact, an impossible dream for most published writers as far as that goes. Most people who write at all will never see publication through the traditional channels, and most people who are published will never reach the level of fame and book sales that accompany the likes of J.K. Rowling, James Patterson, and George R.R. Martin. Knowing this makes it all the harder to be willing to put in the months, years, even decades of hard, solitary and generally unappreciated work that writing entails. 

I realize that at this point I should stop and say a word about self-publishing, both in print and as an ebook. This is one sure way that a person's work will be published in some form or other. However, while I do not condemn or judge those who choose this route, I realized some years ago it would never be the way for me. I'm generally a shy person, and the joy at the thought of seeing my work in print is tempered by the thought of the self-promotion that would be involved in merely getting a book to sell more than a few dozen copies at best. I also feel that many of the so-called vanity presses are vampiric organizations that prey on the longing of the writer for publication and exploit it for their own financial gain, caring nothing for the writer or the craft. 

Regardless, I've been thinking a lot lately about the fact that, labor as I might, it is immensely likely that my writing in the form of short stories or longer works will never see print. And I must admit that the knowledge that I could write for decades to no more acclaim than the polite commendations of close friends is sometimes disheartening. This is, however, a risk we must all accept at the outset if we truly want to practice the craft of writing. Realistically, most of us who write will never be picked up and promoted by one of the major publishing houses. And this is ok. If we are to write and to write well, we have to be doing it for ourselves first of all. Writing shouldn't be solely about afternoon daydreams of New York Times bestseller status, though these dreams can help nourish and encourage us in the tough times. Writing should be about the desire to engage in that most human of pastimes, telling a story and telling it well, composing a story that is enjoyable, a story that we ourselves would want to read, one that may even say something about the human condition. 

This is why we write, to express ourselves and our humanity in a meaningful way, in a way that only we can. Our writing contains echoes of all those we've read and loved, those who have come before, but while we may touch on common themes each take is unique. So go and write, tell your story in the best way you can. Practice, read what others write, and practice again. If you do it well, publication may follow, but even if it does not you can still be satisfied with work well done. And if you are content with the quality of your work, then that is a reward in and of itself.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Today I Am Ashamed of My Alma Mater

Over a week ago, my alma mater, Clarion University of Pennsylvania, released what it touted as a "bold" and "ambitious" workforce plan for the next several years. The backlash was both strong and immediate, forcing the University Administration, currently headed by President Karen Whitney, to release a " Frequently Asked Questions " for its plan. The outrage on social media, as well as a MoveOn.org petition with several thousand signatures, doubtless have already channeled the displeasure of the community, alumni, and students with the plan. The University is accepting public feedback, but this seems to be only a political window-dressing for a plan that Whitney herself was  quoted  as saying "...is 95-98% a done deal." For over a week I debated over what form a blog on the topic would take, and while I realize that what I have to say here is little different from what I and others have already stated elsewhere, I feel the need to address thi...

How I Left Creationism

There is a discussion going on right now in the science community about whether or not we should debate creationists: it is a debate within a debate, if you will. There are good arguments on both sides, but I have to think that we should debate creationists, and we should do it as often as we can stand it. Why do I think this? Last week, I saw that Michael Shermer posted a link to a story of a woman who argued this very point. As a former creationist, it was going to debates between Shermer and Kent Hovind that began to convince her of the legitimacy of evolution and of science. I too was once a creationist. Without ever having read anything about it, without it ever having been mentioned in class (I never heard a word about evolution in high school), I was ready to pounce at the merest mention of the topic as false and godless, two of the favorite creationist talking-points. I look back at this self in amazement, at how ignorant and proud of that ignorance I was, how I failed to ...

The Hovinds...Still Poking at Straw Men

Kent Hovind, the false "Dr. Dino", and his ilk are at it again. In a new article on his website, Hovind (or whoever authored the piece, perhaps his son) claims that while creationists have no problems using miracles to explain events (a habit that perpetually makes them unfit to do real science), evolutionists criticize them for it, even though, in Hovind's mind, they rely on miracles just as much to explain their "religion" of descent through natural selection. This is, at its core, demonstrably nonsense. He claims that a "miracle" is needed to make stars and planets form out of gas, a supposed violation of Boyle's Law because there was no "outside force" acting on the gas and dust. How about gravity, Dr. Dino? That would certainly explain it, no miracles needed here. This attack is a non-sequitur. The objection has everything to do with astronomy and cosmology and nothing to do with evolution, which is the development of new species o...