Number Two: Chris Rhatigan and Pablo D'Stair:

Three dialogues on literature

By Pablo D'Stair

[Part 4]

NOTE: This dialogue is presented over the next four weeks in a style of "progressive fragments." The exact order of inquiry and response as presented is not the order of inquiry and response as it happened between the two dialogue partners. Therefore, 'Statements' and 'Responses' from one week may not be directly addressed by both parties until subsequent weeks.

It is the hope of both parties that the spaces between these responses allow readers the time and opportunity to more fully and experientially engage with the propositions, for themselves, rather than looking at the dialogue as a closed circuit.

Why say "ideally" you would publish or release everything you write? Why not just publish everything you write?

I am intrigued by this, particularly, due to some recent conversations I've had.

Especially considering the way the wind is blowing with both ease of print publishing and absolute ease of E-publishing (and not only publishing but distribution in myriad ways, for money or not, directly to ready, eager audiences both specific and general) why do you as an author not set up shop more "As An Author" than go along with a more traditional (though not as long a tradition as people seem to credit it as) way of "getting work out there"?

I, let me say, can never bring myself to think it would be a silly or a poor decision for a writer to make every bit of their writing (even unfinished writing, even abandoned writing) available to be read and interacted with by as many people as possible. And in particular, as there are no restrictions in effect, no truthful reason to think that if I make an Ebook of some of my stories available for awhile, that's all I can ever do with them" (for just one example) why not put it all out there?

Sober

I mean, being serious and sober (which is the aim of this conversation) most indie presses are started just by a few (or single) authors doing just that, for themselves and other people they know or have come to know, and it strikes me that you, yourself, would be keen to be published by any number of them. And if X set of readers/other-authors are enthusiastic about your work when Y Publisher puts it out, would it not serve to reason that same set of X readers/other authors would be enthusiastic if you started a "press" yourself and put it out?

Not to mention the reality that there is an interminable number of readers out there who truly could not give a hoot about publishers and previous credits etc. who would gladly (right now let's say the writing is available for free) read a book if you put it in front of them. And if a large enough amount of folks come across your work for free and dig it, would this not, indeed, be better for even a careerist mindset, in the bigger picture?

Potential

It costs nothing to do an Ebook and, let's be truthful, when people take a free one that isn't "a sale lost" it's a potential reader gained.

And just to further a tad bit more: if you already have it in mind you will "keep the day job" (which I feel all writers, no matter the level of success, should do) then doubly why not just put everything you write out there, yourself.

CHRIS RHATIGAN: I don't publish everything I write because much of what I write sucks and I don't want anyone else to see it. The percentage of what I write that I publish is increasing, but it's still maybe 50 p.c. Essentially, the only benefit I get from publishing my work is being proud of it and connecting with readers-so I'm not going to put out anything that I don't believe in.

Idea

The point that you're making, and correct me if I'm wrong, is that I should self-publish literally everything I write. This is something I've never heard before. I would never want to do this. In fact, I have no idea why anyone would. Now, maybe you're confident enough in your writing to say, "Let's just see what happens," but I'm not.

I'm also sceptical of your claim that there's an "interminable number of readers out there who... would gladly read a book if you put it in front of them." I'm fairly certain that the kind of stories I write only appeal to a very small audience.

The vast majority of people either A) don't read; B) are perfectly happy buying the kinds of books they like and nothing else, certainly nothing as negative and nihilistic as what I write. Sure, maybe they'd try my book for free, but the vast, vast majority would either not like it or not really care. So I don't really understand your point there.

I have no issue with making things free and getting them out there to as many people as possible. I will probably do this at some point. It does make sense-you can only gain readers. But I also don't think the kind of fiction I write has any commercial viability. So I don't have any kind of "careerist mindset" anyway.

PD: I certainly do not doubt (and have seen) that formatting can be a problem with self and small E-presses. Sure. In my own past as publisher and self-publisher, I have even learned some things (more with print publishing) and sigh when I see certain early editions of stuff I put out.

But, with e-publishing (something I really like about it) you basically can upload a Word document, it looks the same and just as nice as anything else on the device screen for the reader. "Nothing fancy" but who is God's name needs "something fancy" in print or electronic format, right?

I guess the straight question is: I get that you'd be wary of submitting to an outside publisher who seems to do shoddy work, but if you, yourself, took the slight amount of time (very slight) to simply go through an ordinary Word document, make sure breaks and indents are uniform, therefore guaranteeing a perfect product-why not do it yourself? Surely, in dead earnestness, it's pretty simply to format an ebook for Kindle and all, it's honestly not like paginating a print book (and even that isn't so hard, not so hard as to allow for egregious errors very often).

Prodding

And, a little more prodding, couldn't it be (with you and even with other people you know) that it's all just the fact that you want someone else to do it and, nowadays, kind of look for any reason to make that sound more on the up-and--up? Most of us coming up, we had our foundational ideas of "how books come to be" set according to what are now outdated and outmoded ways of doing things. Isn't it, to a large extent, kind of "wanting what people got previously" so you have a kind of bragging rights?

CR: Are you really arguing that small presses and e-presses serve no function at all?

Well, you didn't mention cover art, which is something that you think doesn't matter, but I do.

Sure, I could do an adequate format job, but there are little things I don't know how to do that I think make for a better reading experience, like hyperlinking the table of contents to the rest of the document. If I can make the reader's experience even slightly better, I will.

Errors

And don't small presses and e-presses still, you know, edit books? Even if they're just catching proofreading errors and forcing me to take another look at some questionable phrasing, that's still providing a better experience for the reader. An excellent editor can even take a story from "good" to "great."

As you mention, there is sort of a "joining the club" mentality to signing on to a small press, both for one's ego and (hopefully...) for readers to bunch you into the same class as that press' other writers. To me that's a side benefit, but a benefit nonetheless.

Also, you make it sound like working with a small press is much more difficult than publishing it yourself. I disagree. I think it's somewhat easier and offers some benefits. For me to work with a small press, all I have to do is email someone I already know and float them an idea. That's really all it takes.

For example, Nigel Bird and I are working on a sequel to the crime anthology Pulp Ink. We floated the idea to an e-press. If they like it, great, we'll work with them. If not, we'll happily do it on our own.

Crime

PD: For me, in crime/noir especially, the events, the stakes, the "plot" or however we want to name it, it's always the most irrelevant. In fact, I've always said that there could literally be just one Storyline, one Set Of Events and that all crime fiction Must Be About That and really, provided the writers are talented, no two would even superficially seem alike. It's all "in the telling" for me with crime/noir and the Big Picture of the narrative is to one side.

But, leaving my own thing for a moment, turning to your remarks about working as an editor.

You say that you ask yourself "What happened so far? What's this about?" early on into something. Now, you explained what happens if you cannot answer that, which I understand. But-what criteria, to you as an editor, goes into the decision when you Can answer?

For example, you have one story, you can answer the questions and it's something not so general, you haven't heard this sort of story before, and you have another story, you can answer the questions and it's a trope you're familiar with, maybe even heavily familiar with ("someone finds bag of money" etc etc)-what factors in, if you can have just one published, to your final choice?

And just to cement the question, very solidly, I'll directly ask: would a unique-to-you storyline, maybe not as sharply written, rendered, just for the sake of it being "more unique" win out over a story that you are "familiar with" but that is more sharply written, has more bite? (Would you publish "I've never heard this before" of so-so quality over a "someone finds bag of money" story that is very good?)

CR: When I ask "What's happened so far?" I'm more concerned with something going on than how unique whatever is going on is. If the answer to that question is, "People are competing for a bag of money," fine-if the answer to that question is, "A man is sitting on a couch and thinking about what he wants for dinner," well, unless that writer is ridiculously talented, than it's probably going in the reject pile.

Crime fiction

What I look for is developed short stories (not flash) that are about criminals, sound like crime fiction, and have well-designed (or at least serviceable) plots. That eliminates about 50 p.c. of the submissions I receive. From there, the other I cut out about 30 p.c. mostly based on my own tastes.

As to your hypothetical question, I don't know. Your question sounds like this to me: "Would you publish this lousy story that happens to be original or this excellent story that happens to be unoriginal?" Obviously I'll take the excellent story. Though I think your position on 100 p.c. not caring about what happens is ridiculously extreme-if every story had the same premise, I'd probably go insane.

Overall, I would say I care less about plot than most crime writers. I'm more concerned about style and atmosphere, and, sometimes, character. But what happens in a story still matters. I recently rejected an otherwise good story that was about a mobster betraying his best friend who was also a mobster. I've seen that story way too many times.