While reading this article, all I could think of was, "How many artists have we witnessed accepting their award, having broken all previous records and saying 'Look at this ... and know that every single one of you turned me down ... rejected my work. Someone finally put it out and look ... it was a HUGE HIT.' What does that say about the gatekeeping process ???"
I find the whole argument of "gatekeepers are good because they avoid readers from having to wade through the muck" ridiculous. First, because it's very condescending (as if a reader couldn't decide what he likes). Second, because it's a straw man argument. I mean, it's not like there aren't enough book reviews out there that you can't figure out if something might work for you or not. And those can really help sift through the muck, heh.
As for the bit about losing in prestige by publishing through Substack... well, that of course is unless you draw a huge crowd and end up with a contract with one of the Big 4 ("The Martian" comes to mind) and then suddenly you're art? Wait, what?
People are strange... even Jim Morrison figured that one out ;)
PS. Lindsey Stirling is amazing! (and I don't even particularly like violin haha)
This one resonates - I've been diving into the world of comedy/humor writing lately (gotta study up) and that sort of gate keeping snobbery definitely comes up.
An example from a podcast I heard: In the movie "Nutty Professor II: The Klumps" Eddie Murphy plays basically everyone. He plays 7 characters, including a married couple, and does it well enough that viewers sometimes forget that it's all him. That's amazing!
Did he win a Best Actor award for it? Of course not, cause they don't give awards to people in movies like "Nutty Professor II: The Klumps" no matter how well they act. It's not the right "art".
I agree that there can be art in self-published fiction. I think the issue of art is entirely orthogonal. But I don't agree that it is all art. The distinction I would make is that there are other things of value in literature and entertainment besides art, such as virtuosity, spectacle, and courage. A work does not have to be art to be worthy, nor for the creator to deserve their money or their fame. When I sat down to express this, though, it became a whole thing and turned into my latest newsletter: https://gmbaker.substack.com/p/in-which-i-ask-if-literary-art-is. A good newsletter idea is worth its weight in gold in this business, so thanks for the inspiration!
Ha, I suspect you've waded into controversy here, Elle. :P
Couple of thoughts -
I think there's always been a bit of an issue not so much with the 'gatekeepers' at the front of the process (the agents, the editors, the publishers etc), but at the other end: the critics. A critic's job and reason to exist relies too often upon ranking the creations of other people; as a role critics trend towards being elitist and exclusionary, beacuse without the ability to be declarative - "THIS is art!" - they lose the authority to be The Critic. If 'ordinary people' are just as capable of identifying and choosing the art they like, then what is the purpose of The Critic?
There are many amazing critics, of course, who don't go down this route. Mark Kermode in the UK is a wonderful film critic who is able to appreciate all kinds of films and does so always with an eye on the intended audience. John Walker is a video game journalist who celebrates all sorts of games without limiting himself to a certain subset.
Which brings me to my second point - video games are a bit of an anomaly here. The conceptual and cultural split between traditional and self-published simply doesn't exist in games. The notion of 'indie' can mean traditional or self-published and both are equally valid. A game can be made and released by a team (or even an individual) and made available via major platforms such as Steam, without support form an official publisher, and it will be regarded alongside the latest mega-AAA title from a major studio. Perhaps it's because games have self-publishing baked into their DNA from the earliest days in the 80s, before there even was a games 'industry'? Whether it's passing code around on disks, or copying it out of a magazine's pages, or sharing over a school network, there's always been more of a DIY culture there.
So while you have major publishers and studios in the gaming landscape, they've grown up in and around the indie and self-publishing equivalents. Self-publishing in gaming terms has been there from the start, one way or another, which seems to have educated the gaming audience into regarding both as equally valid.
“As though being low budget, so niche only a few people will like it, and so depressing that someone's bound to win an Oscar from it, define it as art—whereas the films people actually enjoy are decidedly not.” I laughed out loud. So frustratingly TRUE! Great article, as always. Thank you, Elle.
I missed seeing the dare! Was that in the nonfiction section? Also, I love Lindsey Stirling! I expect the derision she faces from "true artists" stems more from jealousy and sour grapes than anything else, though I'm sure there's also an element of snobbery. Lindsey's work is brilliant!
I agree with your point of view completely. Dry, boring prose does nothing for me and calling something art because it fits that bill has always seemed unreasonable to me. Art, I believe, should be accessible, not only open to the few. That is exclusionary elitism. Definitely not my cup of tea.
When I first started self-publishing in 2014, it was pretty common to hear from people, "But you're not *really* published, right?" Last year I was speaking to Sarah Meckler of the GSMC Book Review podcast and mentioned it to her. She said (in effect), "I was hearing that kind of thing a few years ago. I don't hear it so often anymore."
It will take time, but I think more readers are coming around to the idea that traditional publishing gatekeepers are not the final word on what is art and what isn't.
Elle, you raise some interesting and longstanding questions.
When I think of gatekeepers, I wonder "gatekeepers" to what? Culture? Correctness? Orthodoxy? The gatekeepers in publishing, I think, gatekeep their own economic viability, which they should do - it's their money/time, their skin-in-the-game, their risk be they literary agents or traditional publishers. Interesting also you picked Lindsey Stirling as she's highly skilled and is consumed in developing her craft and performance. I think that publishing now, in all it venues (not just traditional) has a good comparison in the world of food - there's haute cuisine, high-end chop houses, high-end/low-end chains, diners/drive-ins-and dives, fast-food, street food, specialty food trucks, and all types of ethnicities, even fusion. But what distinguishes one from the other, even in their niches, is a highly developed sense of craft and craft needn't be complex, but the right ingredients with technique. When thinking who could be the new "sifters", I hope they sift for craft.
Snobbery in the arts is alive and thriving as always. The desire to write great "literature" and win the accolades of critics is strong for many. The desire to write popular commercial fiction and make money is equally strong with others. Then there are those unfortunate souls who write what they love and it doesn't fit either "market." 🤣 But they also have the opportunity to do something unique and are not limited by the rules of traditional publishing. If they are smart and driven, they might even make a living (or fortune) doing it. 😉
Ah, loved this one Elle. Lindsey Stirling is badass - I saw her in concert years ago at a big music festival when she was just getting started and she blew my mind. Had no idea she was such a successful artist, or about the NYT piece.
This piece makes me think the difference between "creators" and "artists." Creators, IMO, occupy attention. While artists contribute to society by adding beauty, pointing out its injustices, hilarity, profundity.
So Stirling cashing in with teens gets her labeled by the NYT as a creator, which I agree misses the point of what she's doing.
Very thought-provoking. Thanks for this and especially for sharing the video. I was not aware of her before. Such talent and exuberance! Wow.
While reading this article, all I could think of was, "How many artists have we witnessed accepting their award, having broken all previous records and saying 'Look at this ... and know that every single one of you turned me down ... rejected my work. Someone finally put it out and look ... it was a HUGE HIT.' What does that say about the gatekeeping process ???"
Nice article, Elle!
I find the whole argument of "gatekeepers are good because they avoid readers from having to wade through the muck" ridiculous. First, because it's very condescending (as if a reader couldn't decide what he likes). Second, because it's a straw man argument. I mean, it's not like there aren't enough book reviews out there that you can't figure out if something might work for you or not. And those can really help sift through the muck, heh.
As for the bit about losing in prestige by publishing through Substack... well, that of course is unless you draw a huge crowd and end up with a contract with one of the Big 4 ("The Martian" comes to mind) and then suddenly you're art? Wait, what?
People are strange... even Jim Morrison figured that one out ;)
PS. Lindsey Stirling is amazing! (and I don't even particularly like violin haha)
This one resonates - I've been diving into the world of comedy/humor writing lately (gotta study up) and that sort of gate keeping snobbery definitely comes up.
An example from a podcast I heard: In the movie "Nutty Professor II: The Klumps" Eddie Murphy plays basically everyone. He plays 7 characters, including a married couple, and does it well enough that viewers sometimes forget that it's all him. That's amazing!
Did he win a Best Actor award for it? Of course not, cause they don't give awards to people in movies like "Nutty Professor II: The Klumps" no matter how well they act. It's not the right "art".
I agree that there can be art in self-published fiction. I think the issue of art is entirely orthogonal. But I don't agree that it is all art. The distinction I would make is that there are other things of value in literature and entertainment besides art, such as virtuosity, spectacle, and courage. A work does not have to be art to be worthy, nor for the creator to deserve their money or their fame. When I sat down to express this, though, it became a whole thing and turned into my latest newsletter: https://gmbaker.substack.com/p/in-which-i-ask-if-literary-art-is. A good newsletter idea is worth its weight in gold in this business, so thanks for the inspiration!
Ha, I suspect you've waded into controversy here, Elle. :P
Couple of thoughts -
I think there's always been a bit of an issue not so much with the 'gatekeepers' at the front of the process (the agents, the editors, the publishers etc), but at the other end: the critics. A critic's job and reason to exist relies too often upon ranking the creations of other people; as a role critics trend towards being elitist and exclusionary, beacuse without the ability to be declarative - "THIS is art!" - they lose the authority to be The Critic. If 'ordinary people' are just as capable of identifying and choosing the art they like, then what is the purpose of The Critic?
There are many amazing critics, of course, who don't go down this route. Mark Kermode in the UK is a wonderful film critic who is able to appreciate all kinds of films and does so always with an eye on the intended audience. John Walker is a video game journalist who celebrates all sorts of games without limiting himself to a certain subset.
Which brings me to my second point - video games are a bit of an anomaly here. The conceptual and cultural split between traditional and self-published simply doesn't exist in games. The notion of 'indie' can mean traditional or self-published and both are equally valid. A game can be made and released by a team (or even an individual) and made available via major platforms such as Steam, without support form an official publisher, and it will be regarded alongside the latest mega-AAA title from a major studio. Perhaps it's because games have self-publishing baked into their DNA from the earliest days in the 80s, before there even was a games 'industry'? Whether it's passing code around on disks, or copying it out of a magazine's pages, or sharing over a school network, there's always been more of a DIY culture there.
So while you have major publishers and studios in the gaming landscape, they've grown up in and around the indie and self-publishing equivalents. Self-publishing in gaming terms has been there from the start, one way or another, which seems to have educated the gaming audience into regarding both as equally valid.
At least, that's my perception of it! :)
“As though being low budget, so niche only a few people will like it, and so depressing that someone's bound to win an Oscar from it, define it as art—whereas the films people actually enjoy are decidedly not.” I laughed out loud. So frustratingly TRUE! Great article, as always. Thank you, Elle.
I really appreciate your thoughtful piece. Adds another piece to the puzzle of writing and publishing.
I missed seeing the dare! Was that in the nonfiction section? Also, I love Lindsey Stirling! I expect the derision she faces from "true artists" stems more from jealousy and sour grapes than anything else, though I'm sure there's also an element of snobbery. Lindsey's work is brilliant!
I agree with your point of view completely. Dry, boring prose does nothing for me and calling something art because it fits that bill has always seemed unreasonable to me. Art, I believe, should be accessible, not only open to the few. That is exclusionary elitism. Definitely not my cup of tea.
When I first started self-publishing in 2014, it was pretty common to hear from people, "But you're not *really* published, right?" Last year I was speaking to Sarah Meckler of the GSMC Book Review podcast and mentioned it to her. She said (in effect), "I was hearing that kind of thing a few years ago. I don't hear it so often anymore."
It will take time, but I think more readers are coming around to the idea that traditional publishing gatekeepers are not the final word on what is art and what isn't.
Elle, you raise some interesting and longstanding questions.
When I think of gatekeepers, I wonder "gatekeepers" to what? Culture? Correctness? Orthodoxy? The gatekeepers in publishing, I think, gatekeep their own economic viability, which they should do - it's their money/time, their skin-in-the-game, their risk be they literary agents or traditional publishers. Interesting also you picked Lindsey Stirling as she's highly skilled and is consumed in developing her craft and performance. I think that publishing now, in all it venues (not just traditional) has a good comparison in the world of food - there's haute cuisine, high-end chop houses, high-end/low-end chains, diners/drive-ins-and dives, fast-food, street food, specialty food trucks, and all types of ethnicities, even fusion. But what distinguishes one from the other, even in their niches, is a highly developed sense of craft and craft needn't be complex, but the right ingredients with technique. When thinking who could be the new "sifters", I hope they sift for craft.
Nice article.
Tim
Another great one, Elle. I'll be continuing this conversation in my next newsletter and will be quoting you all over the place.
Snobbery in the arts is alive and thriving as always. The desire to write great "literature" and win the accolades of critics is strong for many. The desire to write popular commercial fiction and make money is equally strong with others. Then there are those unfortunate souls who write what they love and it doesn't fit either "market." 🤣 But they also have the opportunity to do something unique and are not limited by the rules of traditional publishing. If they are smart and driven, they might even make a living (or fortune) doing it. 😉
Another excellent newsletter.
I love your take on this subject and how you presented it. Nice job, Elle!! I’m excited for your book release.
Ah, loved this one Elle. Lindsey Stirling is badass - I saw her in concert years ago at a big music festival when she was just getting started and she blew my mind. Had no idea she was such a successful artist, or about the NYT piece.
This piece makes me think the difference between "creators" and "artists." Creators, IMO, occupy attention. While artists contribute to society by adding beauty, pointing out its injustices, hilarity, profundity.
So Stirling cashing in with teens gets her labeled by the NYT as a creator, which I agree misses the point of what she's doing.
Art that is targeted to teen girls is judged more harshly by critics and often ridiculed in our culture.