I is for Indie...

Being a writer has it's advantages. Unlike any other job you can turn up in your pyjamas, you don't have to shave to go to work and can take off early for the day if you're in a bad mood. I love being a writer, even if it is only part-time, but there are downsides to it. The pay is pretty crap, you can end up working long hours and your Christmas party is pretty lame with just you sitting there in a party hart wondering if you can fit your ass on the all in one printer-scanner-photocopier like at a traditional office party. It can be lonely and so over the last week I've been trying to engage other writers, other like minds to remind me I'm not alone in the world.

I've been reading a lot of blog articles and samples of people's work. Opening my mind to other authors and points of view. It's made me feel a bit more connected to other people who are in the same boat as me. This week I've been impressed with Mike Whitacre's Injury Inn and WillowRaven's artwork. I've also been engaged by Emma Hunneyball's article 'Four Legs Good; Two Legs Bad' which examines the pros and cons of indie writing. As an indie writer, I felt I had to comment on this further.

I hate literary snobbery. I hate it with a passion. Some people may argue that it's because I lack an understanding of the literary conventions - but I have a degree in Literature and a Masters in English - so there! There is too much emphasis placed on getting a publishing deal and an agent to be seen as a 'proper' writer. It's all bullshit. As Emma points out Katie Price/Jordan has a publishing deal - no more needs to be said on that point. She sells books. It's not quality, but people who wouldn't read other works of fiction, read her books. That to me gives her just as much right to be published as anybody else.

Indie authors face a double whammy of not being able to access the editorial support and being frowned upon by the establishment. But what qualifies you to be part of the establishment? A degree in literature? Years of experience reading the same type of book? Analysing trends in literature and maing a prediction on whether something will sell or not? Tell me, is there anything there that cannot be achieved by Indie authors?

I think we need to look back in history to see how the literary establishment has embraced change. In the late nineteenth century, the advent of the printing press saw the street of Victorian England flooded with literature for the people, by the people. Books were too expensive for most people to afford. They were rented out in libraries in sections for which people had to pay subscriptions. On train journeys, people could rent a book or a volume of a book from a little shop called WHSmith and drop them off at the end of their journey. Magazines such as Pearsons and The Strand serialised novels or had short stories in them. If it weren't for magazines like these, we wouldn't have H G Wells or Sir Arthur Conan Doyle. It's because of these different outlets for reading that we have crime fiction and s/f novels now. Charles Dickens, now regarded as one of Britain's greatest ever novelists serialised his work in newspapers and was widely condemned by the literary establishment at the time as being popularist. How times have changed.

There are obvious parallels between Victorian England and the present day. Books are increasing in price, but cheaper alternatives are available. Post modern society is creating a new innovation in bookselling and as a consequence, new ideas. I love Stieg Larsson's books, but it angers me somewhat when people talk about Lisabeth Salander as the most original heroine in years. Lisabeth Salander is a staple in Cyber-punk literature and I have no doubt that cyber-punk influenced Larsson. Without a thriving paranormal romance sector, would Stephanie Myer have written Twilight? And I won't even get into the whole Shakespeare was an Elizabethan soap opera writer debate. It's the same in film, watch The Hidden Fortress and then watch Star Wars. Watch The Seven Samurai and then watch Reservoir Dogs. Let's look at music too. Without a thriving indie scene (or college rock in the US) would we have had The Smiths, The Pixies, The Arctic Monkeys? The influence of indie culture is plain for all to see.So what next? We've seen the likes of Dickens and Doyle accepted into the literary canon. We've seen the reconsideration of the likes of Raymond Chandler and Dashiell Hamnet as credible authors. In fifty or sixty years what will be considered to be part of the establishment?


Here is a simple fact: Most signed authors of 'literary fiction' sell less than 1000 copies, unless they're selected by Oprah Whinfrey or Richard and Judy to be showcased on TV. Meanwhile the Kindle revolution has seen sales of John Locke's books propel him into the Amazon Million club. Who will it be next? 

I is for Indie. It is for Innovation. It is for the inevitable change that ignorant publishers choose to ignore.