All 'Established' Writers Raise Your Hand
"...We are talking about writing. I ask if they have ever thought of doing an issue devoted to the writing of Indian women. They are enthusiastic, ask me if I would edit such a collection. There is panic in my gut. I am not an 'established' writer. (To this day I don't know what those words mean.) I have never edited any work but my own. And I do not have the education. And to me, that says it all."
So lamented Beth Brant, the eventual editor of A Gathering Of Spirit, a powerful collection of short stories and poems by North American Women about North American Women. It was one of those books that jump of the shelves as you idly browse them. Thanks to Mentor, who suggested going to Payless instead of Borders during lunchbreak, this book came home with me today. But I'm digressing.
What I want to know, just like Brant does, is what makes an 'established writer'. Is it someone who has many published but poorly-received books? Someone who has won a literary prize? Someone whose work is only published online? A magazine journalist or reporter? A music, movie or book reviewer? Someone with credentials? And how many of us, like Brant, judge our writing abilities this way?
I've always believed that an established writer is someone whose work is widely read and enjoyed. Someone whose work inspires, delights, provokes and even enlightens. Someone who understands that words are not meant to be used as weapons but as beacons. Someone whose writing depicts his soul rather than his vast vocabulary or familiarity with 10-letter words. Someone whose opinions are respected and trusted because his writing is honest, strong and simple. Not because he is working for some hotshot publication or has published a book on How To Become The Next Malaysia's Most Beautiful. Some of the best writers I know are my own friends, who have yet to publish a book but who know more about writing than most local authors.
Second question - what qualifies one as an editor? Do you need credentials or a published book before you're allowed to even hold an aspiring author's manuscript? Or do you just need an intuition for a good story, a deep love for reading and an impeccable command of English? (Sorry, but the last is a must-have on my list.)
A fellow writer and I were tossing around names of possible editors for my book. He suggested someone who fits my above-mentioned criteria. I was reluctant to engage her, simply because I have a high regard for her opinion and was terrified she would be unimpressed at my work. (Yes, I know I have to set pride aside in this regard!) Anyway, my friend insisted on me calling her and inquired what books she had written. To my knowledge, this potential editor hasn't had any books published and I so I told him that.
His eyes immediately went cold and he sneered, "Then why is she passing herself off as a literary expert?"
"But she isn't," I corrected him. "Her readers view her as one because of her extensive knowledge, genuine love for books and generousity in sharing and spreading it."
Bottom line? Perhaps those who yearn to be known as 'established' writers should stop looking in the wrong places for affirmation. Perhaps they should start listening to their heart and their readers instead of indulging their ego and their idols. And perhaps people like my friend should look beyond contracts with MPH when assessing a person's literary strengths.
So lamented Beth Brant, the eventual editor of A Gathering Of Spirit, a powerful collection of short stories and poems by North American Women about North American Women. It was one of those books that jump of the shelves as you idly browse them. Thanks to Mentor, who suggested going to Payless instead of Borders during lunchbreak, this book came home with me today. But I'm digressing.
What I want to know, just like Brant does, is what makes an 'established writer'. Is it someone who has many published but poorly-received books? Someone who has won a literary prize? Someone whose work is only published online? A magazine journalist or reporter? A music, movie or book reviewer? Someone with credentials? And how many of us, like Brant, judge our writing abilities this way?
I've always believed that an established writer is someone whose work is widely read and enjoyed. Someone whose work inspires, delights, provokes and even enlightens. Someone who understands that words are not meant to be used as weapons but as beacons. Someone whose writing depicts his soul rather than his vast vocabulary or familiarity with 10-letter words. Someone whose opinions are respected and trusted because his writing is honest, strong and simple. Not because he is working for some hotshot publication or has published a book on How To Become The Next Malaysia's Most Beautiful. Some of the best writers I know are my own friends, who have yet to publish a book but who know more about writing than most local authors.
Second question - what qualifies one as an editor? Do you need credentials or a published book before you're allowed to even hold an aspiring author's manuscript? Or do you just need an intuition for a good story, a deep love for reading and an impeccable command of English? (Sorry, but the last is a must-have on my list.)
A fellow writer and I were tossing around names of possible editors for my book. He suggested someone who fits my above-mentioned criteria. I was reluctant to engage her, simply because I have a high regard for her opinion and was terrified she would be unimpressed at my work. (Yes, I know I have to set pride aside in this regard!) Anyway, my friend insisted on me calling her and inquired what books she had written. To my knowledge, this potential editor hasn't had any books published and I so I told him that.
His eyes immediately went cold and he sneered, "Then why is she passing herself off as a literary expert?"
"But she isn't," I corrected him. "Her readers view her as one because of her extensive knowledge, genuine love for books and generousity in sharing and spreading it."
Bottom line? Perhaps those who yearn to be known as 'established' writers should stop looking in the wrong places for affirmation. Perhaps they should start listening to their heart and their readers instead of indulging their ego and their idols. And perhaps people like my friend should look beyond contracts with MPH when assessing a person's literary strengths.
posted by starlight at 11:10 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home