Hi all:
I know it has been a while, and my apologies for that. I used the holiday season for some much needed rest and recuperation, and to unplug from social media a bit. But now in the past few days I have checked my Facebook (*gag*), Twitter (*more gagging*), and Tumblr (*smdh* If you’re gonna spambot me with scantily clad people, could you at least make them Scott Evans, John Barrowman, or (sweet mother of god) Jonathan Groff ???). Thus, it’s time to start recommitting. The holidays are over.
I have a manuscript I’m shopping and two works-in-progress I wish to make significant progress on this year: A short story horror collection inspired by Ray Bradbury’s October Country and a Sci-Fi Wartime Refugee novel inspired by Bela Bartok’s Romanian Folk Dances. There’s creation to do in all its aspects of work and play. but before I get to that, I’d like to take a meditational-historical-intellectual detour. Maybe to vent. Or purge. or something. Bear with me. This is first draft ground.
Decades ago, I studied technology as a tool for teaching writing. I read 1990s texts about the digital age: Negroponte’s Being Digital, Clifford Stoll’s Silicon Snake Oil, Janet Murray’s Hamlet on the Holodeck, and others. Twenty-five plus years later, I find myself at an interesting crossroads: while my engagement on social media is proliferating once again, I find myself more averse to it than ever before.
I have or have had accounts on Facebook, MySpace, Twitter, Tumblr, Second Life, Mastodon, and spent a brief period of time engaged in Object-Oriented Multi-User Domain design and construction. I have avoided Instagram and TikTok only because I work in the written medium for the most part, and what visual offerings I have are static, amateur, and not really worth displaying. Should I ever follow my dream of storytelling and poetry reading in video form, I may reconsider those social media options.
I remember sitting in a meeting, maybe ten or so years ago, where a young man in his too-cool grad student phase (I should know; I went through it myself) all but labelled me a luddite for not indiscriminately adopting every possible use of Twitter in my classroom. Of course, it didn’t help his cause that I greeted his assertion of its significance in the digital age with skepticism. He did, of course, suggest that I might be left behind by my resistance to full-throated endorsement and adoption. I suggested in turn that I was never a very fast adopter, could be clumsy and tended to watch my feet, but that although slow, I got where I needed to be in good time nonetheless. I haven’t changed.
My only reason for engaging social media at all is that I like telling stories, and I hope to publish my works. Therefore, I need web and social media presence. I’ve tried it before, and flamed out spectacularly. I find that devoting time to writing on social media detracts from writing the actual stories and manuscripts that I want to publish through a publishing house. I am trying to break that habit with this blog, which I link to social media platform accounts under my pen name. I question the value of such an effort, but every time my manuscript goes out or I read an agent blog or review Duotrope or QueryTracker, I am forced to concede that this is a necessary evil. Which is silly. Technology is neither good nor evil; it just is. Good and evil are in the implementation of technology–anything, really–in relation to personal and civic values. Still, a desert island looks really good these days.
The disinformation and misinformation age is upon us. Well, it has always been upon us, but the tools are really expanded and the people less inclined to critical thinking and textual analysis right now. Digital attacks, photoshopping, bubble communities, and the like have moved me from patient adopter to “only if I absolutely must” status. Yet if I am determined and desperate enough, I can publish my work without the industry–via online platforms, self-publishing routes, or simply by posting here. They are not my first choice, because I still aspire to the cachet and support that comes with the traditional process. To me, agents and editors form a valuable part of the publishing chain. That’s a statement many people would be inclined to disagree with, and a belief that may not stop me from self-publishing larger works in the future. But I’d like to reflect on the value of the traditional process a little further.
In The Rise of Writing, Deb Brandt suggests that we may have moved from a culture of readers to a culture of writers. In her interviews with a wide range of people (99, I think) across a variety of professions and stages of life, she discovers that although they generally don’t call themselves writers, they nearly all use writing. For years I heard it from my students: they weren’t writers, but they used writing all the time. My experience has suggested that people call themselves writers depending on the kind of writing they do. “Functional” writing–classwork, grocery lists, letters to grandma-don’t make you a writer. But engaging in the creative process and generating fiction or poetry or “creative” writing? That makes you a writer. because so many people don’t value their own creative capabilities as writers, they rule themselves out from the identity. I think people should take more inspiration from Brenda Ueland. But perhaps I am speaking too soon?
When I focus on a culture of readers, I think of a society in which many people read and fewer people publish–maybe they always wrote, but Aunt Gardenia’s rhyming couplets claiming that her colorful English garden was the divine product of a toga-wearing white guy on a cloud probably wouldn’t have made most of the cuts. The discernment about what was quality enough for civic consumption and what was not was made by agents, editors, publishers, and the like, and their range of influences depended on their location and finances. More money = bigger press in a major city with big reach. Less money? Tiny press. Specialized. Maybe even radical.
This is the way things were.
Now, we are in a more tragic and hopeful culture of writing in which everyone writes but no one reads with discernment. Everybody has a mommy blog or a garden blog or a Facebook page of fictionalized stories of nationalism and religious fervor and incessant tweeting anti-conservative, anti-liberal, your dog is a bastard, my T Rex ate your zombie family crap. There are gobs of “writing” out there, but now, instead of crazy Uncle Earl penning off-color stories on a yellowed legal tablet that he only recites after too much moonshine, Earl can put that stuff on the web for mass consumption. Every crazy thought, every unscrutinized idea can be published in one capacity or another, with varying levels of crafting, care, attention to detail, wordsmithing, etc. Some of it’s good. Most of it isn’t.
Like that Nihilist pablum your angsty younger brother has been writing in the basement? It’s now available to his angsty angstmates all over the country, who link in with other angsty people of varying ages, though mostly of one gender and race in the U.S. Et voilá! Crap, hateful ideologies and radicalism available for mass consumption. While some of us get radicalized, the rest of us gobble down Aunt Gardenia’s poetry or Uncle Earl’s stories so we can sing her praises or titter behind his back at Christmas or over tea. Tragic.
This is not to say hopeless. I did say the situation was tragic and hopeful, didn’t I? Sites like Webtoons and AO3 provide fertile ground for writers and artists to develop their skills and tell the stories they don’t see anywhere else. And unlike the social media goblins who create bubbles of sycophantic followers who read without question, these platforms have a process of discernment–monitors, reviewers, editors–betas, they call them in the fanfic world–who try to ensure content and quality according to some standard. Don’t like the standard? Find a new platform. Agents, editors, and reviewers have persevered into the “culture of writing” phase of this digital age, and their discernment is key. Where artists and authors want quality, editors and reviewers have been recreated.
So what am I actually trying to say, and what does it mean for me as a writer trying to publish in a traditional manner? Here’s what I think I think:
- This “Culture of Writing” is recreating the traditional means of discerning publication quality to some degree, and it’s a good idea to submit to that process for your own benefit. Therefore–
- We should take the time to scrutinize ideas and posts, even if only first draft material like what you’ve just read. Feedback from a quality reader is important. Don’t just leave this to your mother (Mine loved me quite a lot, and loved what I wrote, even when it was trite, queasy, pimple-scratching stuff).
- I am opening posts up to comments from now on–I didn’t do that before. We’ll see how it goes.
- I hate being on social media, but if I want to publish, I need to have a presence here in some meaningful capacity.
- In order to increase the value here, I am considering writing a full length work specifically for this medium, so that I have a standing obligation to developing my writing in this space, even if that means I can’t turn around and publish it later through traditional means.
Okay. I think I’m done griping. Let’s see what happens next week. There’s a story about a mansion-turned old-folks-home in suburban Philadelphia that I’ve wanted to tell. A sinister figure lives among the residents. An odd, shuffling delivery man who spends more time listening to the song in his head than minding the present has arrived, and he has brought a small, strange package…








You must be logged in to post a comment.