I’ve come to accept that many conventionally-published (read that as those published by larger commercial publishers who most likely have offices in NYC) are disdainful of anyone who is published by a small press, or who self-publishes.  Though regrettable, it seems sort of natural, like the attitude that was displayed by upper-crust Victorian-era folks toward those who were lower on the social ladder. Thankfully, there have been a lot of advances in social consciousness that have eliminated much of that.  (Not as much as we’d like, but the world is a work in progress.)

However, I’d like to make some observations about the sneering and hostility I sometimes see and/or hear going in the opposite direction, by individuals or groups of those who are unpublished or are published in a less “conventional” way (self-published, independently-published, etc.)

I have a foot in both camps, so perhaps my viewpoint is different.  But the way I see it, as long as self-published and independently-published authors continue to display a hostile attitude toward those who are commercially published, three things are evident:

1. It validates the lack of professionalism that commercially published authors often use to label the unconventionally-published.
2. It also shows a remarkable lack of acceptance of those who choose the commercial path of publication.  Isn’t that what the unconventionally-published are seeking for themselves, acceptance? If so, why not give it to others?
3. It makes the unconventionally-published look just as bad as those others who are acting like jerks because they were published commercially.

Perhaps the unconventionally-published have never read Orwell’s ANIMAL FARM. Remember what happened?  There was a revolution against oppression, and as time passed, the rebels became the oppressors.

Intolerance of a person’s choice of publishing path, and displayed hostility, animosity, or disdain toward that person’s simply because of the way they chose to publish, is a bad thing no matter from which direction it comes. I’ve seen the same sort of reverse snobbery occur when poor people sneer at the middle class, when middle class people sneer at the very rich, or when people on either side of a particular racial divide sneer at those on the other side.

That kind of attitude is not productive. It’s not professional. It makes those who do it look bad, and by association, others who are in the same group with that person. There is enough room in the book-publishing and book-selling world for all sorts of publication paths, and manifesting a sneering, sour-grapes sort of attitude makes for a very ugly reputation.

If you are conventionally published, wonderful!  I congratulate and salute you, and wish you many successes!

If you made a carefully-considered choice to self-publish or subsidy publish, or to go with a small press that does not pay an advance or print huge print runs, congratulations for that, too!  I wish you well, and hope you sell many, many copies of your book(s).

If you are a member of any of those groups, and you sneer and turn up your nose at those who are “the others,” I feel sorry for you.  You’re displaying a remarkable lack of maturity and way too much ego.  Focus on promoting your book by writing well, by showing us how great it is, by letting us know how much we will enjoy it.  Don’t try to make your own work or choices look good by cutting down the other guy’s choice.  It doesn’t work very well most of the time, and you just come off looking like a self-centered cretin.

I want to preface this with something… sort of a pre/postscript: Kevin Tipple pointed out to me that I was misusing the term “crossover” and although I disagree with his definition of the term, I agree that I was misusing it.  More correctly, I should have been talking about cross-genre novels, not crossover novels.  (See my comment in response to Kevin Tipple.)

But one problem is that in discussion among authors, the terms become muddled, and though the term “crossover” is sometimes used for “cross-genre,” I should not have added to the confusion by using it that way myself.  You have my apologies!  So… I’m going to change the post now to reflect “cross-genre,” where before I had written “crossover.”

**********************************

In one online discussion group to which I belong (Murder Must Advertise, in Yahoo! Groups), there has been some recent discussion about crossover cross-genre fiction, and how easy/hard it is to get it published or to sell it.  I understand how some fiction could be labeled as “crossover” cross-genre fiction, but I wonder how ultimately profitable it is to specify so closely all the possible pigeonholes into which an author could successfully fit his or her work.

For example, I really enjoy Louis L’Amour’s books.  Typically, most are classified as “Westerns.”  But in almost every one, there is a love interest, a damsel in distress who is somehow helped by the hero. Sometimes there is a love triangle; sometimes there is an evil man also fighting for the love of the lady, or an evil woman also trying to win the affection of the hero.  But almost universally, there is a love story that travels the length of the novel and often provides the driving force for the protagonist(s).

Do we classify L’Amours books as romance novels?  No.

The same thing applies to Tony Hillerman’s Navajo reservation crime novels. In each one there is the primary story, but there is also the romantic entanglement between Jim Chee and an attorney, another police officer, a teacher, etc.  And in some of the stories, there was a dual romantic thread with Jim Chee and his loves, plus the lady professor who has (somewhat) stirred the juices of Lt. Joe Leaphorn.  Again, we do not label these books as romance, but if the romance were removed, some of the plot lines would simply fall apart.

What drives us (authors) to try to classify/pigeonhole our work in so many ways?

Are we trying to find every possible way to interest an agent, editor, or a reader in our work?  Problematically, that doesn’t seem to work very well, at least for me.  It’s almost like the author can’t seem to settle on what the book is supposed to be if I am approached by an author who says something like, “This is an historical paranormal gay mystery set in 1800s London… with space aliens.”

As a publisher, this puts me in a difficult position. How the heck am I supposed to market a book like that?  Who am I supposed to target with mailings or ads?  And where in the world would B&N decide to shelve such a book? (Note: As Kevin points out in his comment, in the Sci-Fi section.  But would that satisfy the mystery fans?)

If I were an agent, what publisher would I approach?  Which publisher would feel comfortable with a book that has so many different genres thrown together?

It’s not that we can’t have romance in a mystery, or a gay protag in a suspense novel, or even a space alien in a book set in 1859!  I guess what I’m trying to say is, by trying to focus on every possible iteration or niche into which the book could fit, we weaken our position both by confusing the possible buyer(s) and by seeming to waffle on where we are headed with our story.  It’s like the author cannot make up his/her mind.

Of course there are valid “crossover” cross-genre novels.  But trying to ferret out every possible genre that might fit a novel manuscript doesn’t help things.  The old expression, “He’s a jack of all trades but a master of none,” could apply.  If you have written a romantic suspense novel, great.  Call it that.  If you have written a history mystery, that’s good, too.  But don’t try to force your novel into different genres or to be crossover cross-genre, if those other things are incidental.  If your story is science fiction and the protagonist happens to be gay, you don’t have to say it’s “Gay sci-fi.”  If you have read the McCaffrey “Dragon” novels, you know that a very large number of the characters in the novels are gay, but the stories are never called “gay science fiction.”

What is the primary purpose of your story/novel?  Is it to tell the story of the solution of a murder mystery?  And is it vital to the structure of the story that the setting is 1850s London?  Then fine, call it a history mystery.  But if it is simply a good story that happens to occur in 1850s London, and could just as well occur in Chicago in 1970 with a few minor changes, it’s a mystery, pure and simple.

Never complicate what you are trying to sell to someone else.  Make it simple for them to understand, simple to classify.  People like to be able to say, “Oh, it’s a …,” and be confident in that. But (in general) if you make it difficult for people to grasp exactly what sort of book you have written, you make it harder for them to decide to spend the time figuring it out by reading it.

OK.  Those are my opinions.  Disagree?  Hey, I’d love to read your comments!

Copyright ©2009  Tony Burton