I have been going through self published novels on Feedbooks and Smashwords trying to find some worthwhile science fiction to read. To be perfectly honest, it is really, really hard.
If I ignore the famous self published authors like Cory Doctorow, then the pickings are even slimmer.
Perhaps I find it more difficult than other readers because of my peculiar tastes; I like distopias and I like strong visions of alternative societies. I like surprising technologies. I like minimalism, but I like info dumps. I like a good grounding in real science and I like a little irony.
I despise much of the pseudo-spiritual garbage that is released as science fiction these days. I am not interested in vampire romance. I am not interested in magical technologies where the reader has no chance of comprehending how they function. I like some space opera, but you better have a good grounding in astrophysics and some amazing ideas about meta civilizations.
Cowboy stories in space with ray guns have not cut it since the 50s.
When I read Science Fiction I want new ideas, not familiar stories with laser pistols thrown in.
My personal taste aside, I have to say that unless you are completely unconcerned with the craft of writing then going through Feedbooks and Smashwords is worse than going through a dumpster trying to find something to eat. I have personally lived off food I found in dumpsters for six months, so I can say this with full authority: Half an hour of scrounging in a good supermarket dumpster can yield several days of supplies. By comparison it took me an hour of scrounging in Feedbooks to find something that wasn't written by someone who wasn't thoroughly inept at story telling.
I know you think I am being too harsh. I am being controversial for the sake of it. The reality is I am telling you the truth, many of these books should have been recognised by the authors for what they are: desperately in need of rewrites.
Why do I persist in trolling through this garbage you ask? Other than the fact it is free, and I get to blog about it. The answer is that I believe in it, I am an idealist, I believe in the new friction-less models of creativity. I love reading about the success stories of John Locke and Amanda Hocking. Most of all I love seeing the traditional media industries being made to sweat, complain and ultimately work harder.
I have to say though, in the arena of liberated art forms, writers are letting the team down. The progress made by independent musicians and filmmakers vastly outperforms that of the DIY writers. I am not talking about the volume of output or the money being made. I am talking about the development of the craft itself. Musicians are learning music production, engineering and producing high quality recordings from home. Amateur filmmakers are constantly getting better at editing, effects, directing and producing better films every year ( just explore the indie short films on YouTube ). Why then do the open source publishing houses seem to contain large volumes of talent with infantile skill levels?
I think it is partly a question of an absence of technologies to help people become better. To produce better writing, a writer needs good feedback and resources that explain how to overcome weaknesses. The criticism needs to be presented in a way that they will accept, from someone they trust, and they need to engage personally with addressing their own shortcomings.
At this point, none of these things seem to be solveable with better technologies. Local writing groups are the tried and true method of addressing these issues. But not everyone has access to such a group, and its usefulness depends on the membership. This problem should have been solved by some kind of online community. However, those that exist, are sorely laking (I will critique them in another post).
To be fair to writers, one of the reasons that musicians and filmmakers seem to have made greater advances is due to the development of technologies that disguise their weaknesses. As an example consider auto-tune. This is a audio engineering plugin that allows an engineer to disguise the fact that a musician or singer has not performed in tune. Similarly, errors made by camera men, lighting people or set designers can be fixed in post-production, it is costly and time consuming, but it can be done. I will grant that using these tools requires a skill of its own, nevertheless we have to admit that it creates the illusory appearance of great strides of improvement in craftmanship.
If writers had equivalent tools, they might be able to apply a filter to a chapter that removes superfluous adjectives. Another that forces the verb tense to be consistent. Finally run a plugin that changes word choice, via similies, in descriptive paragraphs so that the imagery is similar to their favourite author.
You may think I am joking, or again exagerating for effect. However all of these suggested tools have direct equivalents in audio engineering. Furthermore, we have precedents for these tools in our grammar checkers and plagarism scanning technologies.
When computer scientists get around to really cracking natural language processing by computers, then all of these, and many more, technologies will emerge to help amateur writers produce professional output. When this day comes the gap between a story idea and a professional novel will be much shorter. At which point Feedbooks and Smashwords will start to resemble libraries, rather than dumpsters.
Interesting. A few things I'd like to say in response.
ReplyDelete1. How about you write the fiction you want to read, but that you can't find. This has been the motivation for many a great writer. Specifically, it sounds like we should be in for a treat of minimalist, near-future, dystopia with clever, surprising technologies and interesting social configurations.
2. stop dumpster diving. As a reader, it's better to read the best; and as a writer, you should be reading the best. Mediocre writing is often just a copy of what successful people were doing 20 years ago, anyway. It was an interesting experiment and now it's time call an end. I don't believe it's good for you to indulge in bad art too much. Great art uplifts, so go and find something that will uplift and carry you away.
3. There was always this much crap out there, the difference is that the filters (agents, editors, etc) can now easily be bypassed. The same thing has happened to music. New filtering mechanisms will emerge because the consuming public can't cope with the deafening white noise of mediocrity. You've gone out there and faced it. You must know this better than anyone.
Thanks for the comment.
ReplyDelete1) I am trying :-)
2) I have actually found some uplifting art by going through the self published material. Hugh Howey's Wool is an excellent and original piece of Science Fiction writing. He inspired me to start work on a new project.
3) I personally believe that bypassing these filters is the best thing that ever happened to the music industry. The problem with the traditional filters is that they are 'Professional' people, who are often jaded and have a very different opinion about what is worth publishing than the reading public.
The quantity of time I spend reading the bad stuff is proportionally small. Even before you finish the first chapter you can tell whether the author has taken any time to learn about the craft of writing, much like ten seconds of listening to a recording tells you whether someone spent time practicing how to play an instrument.
It is the same thing as browsing through a book store, pick something up, read a little, decide whether it is worth reading the whole thing. The only difference is that you notice immediately that much of it should have been edited.