Two personal investigations of literary dependence and independence:

Writing and Publishing:

Independence in publishing

By Pablo D'Stair

Part 2 :

Most of the things that I feel define me I cannot define-many of them I do not seek to define, some I resist the definitions of. I write and I publish books. Both of these things, I do not so much know what they mean to me-I know they are integral to my identity, but I do not know how I feel about them. An interesting little quandary that sometimes occupies my mind, though, has to do with how I am involved in the art of publishing, how I perceive a dual nature in myself.

I run what is commonly called an independent press-a term-of-art if ever there was one-and I am quite comfortable in leaving such a distinction undefined. However, as I publish my own work through the press, the same press through which I publish the work of more than a dozen other artists, I find I am also involved in what is commonly referred to as self publishing. This second distinction is too blunt to leave undefined, of course, and it brings into question what I see as the difference between how I am published and how the authors I publish are published-forgive the oddity of that construction-and it makes me curious: do I prefer what I do for myself or what I do for them?

Reading at a library

I realise I cultivated a desire to be published long before I spent even a moment considering what publishing might be comprised-comprised not only in the sense of what it means to "be published", but what it means to "publish somebody else". In fact, I would say I cultivated the desire to be published even before I had wholly, considerately, decided that I wanted to write.

***

Already I'm on the wrong path-I have never considerately decided that I want to write. As often as not, I genuinely desire to stop. It would be more appropriate to say that, even during the long time in my life I was writing and doing nothing actively to pursue publication-a time during which I had absolutely no thought of publishing others-even while I had no distinct thoughts of publication the notion of it remained a presence, tied somewhat inexplicably to the act and art of writing.

Understand, I do not think that writing and publishing need be joined, not at all. Writing, in the sense of the unconscious, inborn imperative to render impression of self to the page, long predates books-books predate books-as-common-objects, books-as-common-objects predate books-as-commoditized-objects, books-as-commoditized-objects (by choice) predate what I feel is a modern mis-notion that the commoditizing, production, desire and creation are all a selfsame unit.

But, I was born when I was born and into the surroundings I was met with-writing just to write, as much as I liked the idea, was honestly never without the interior nudge towards publication.

***

A large part of the reason I publish others is to have mirrors of myself, to explore something I find curious outside the shuttered conceits of my own mind-so my dual identity, self publisher and independent publisher.

I have said that I publish other people "the way I wish a press would publish me", that I do everything in my power to offer others exactly what I would like to be offered, myself.

Right away, this seems questionable: If I have the ability to offer others what I want, why does giving myself what I give others lead to separate definitions-in fact, why can't I give myself what I give others?

Primarily, because something I always wanted was someone else, I wanted to send my work off, have a third party decide to bind it and run with it-deciding to do that for myself is a fundamentally different thing. No, I can't give myself what I want, so I give it to others.

Well and good, though it leads to the further inquiry: Do I not want what I give myself? Or better: Would I prefer what I give others be given me, would I prefer to be independently or self-published?

I will confess-though much of my rhetoric elsewhere might seem to contradict this-I would prefer to be Independently published. I would. Even if the package put in front of me is not the package I put in front of others, the very notion that it is someone else doing it would be preferable to me.

***

Of course, I have every possibility to pursue publication the same way as any other writer-the same as writers who approach me, for instance-I know what is involved in going about it, have abundant opportunities to take my chance, even arrogantly feel I have advantages that could nab me up my prize.

But I don't move a muscle to act.

In my mind, silly as it sound, the reason for this-or as close to a reason as I can come across-is that I don't want to relinquish the independence I already have to be Independent. Witticism aside, this is exactly the reason, and so to explain:

My heart always turns to the author. It is somehow unacceptable to me to turn a literature into anything else than an auteured process-indeed, the notion of publication may only have ever been in my mind and palatable because I thought it essential, thought that staggering obstacles needed to be vaulted to produce even a single copy of a book (honestly, I didn't think single copies of books could be made, I thought large volumes were somehow a requirement). My personal experience, due largely to era, has shown this not to be the case. So, because of the options I have readily at hand, I cannot find a way to earnestly argue myself out of the author mindset, to make a communal process of something so deeply individual-individual to the point even of detriment, a romanticized idea I find is definitive to my notion of art.

***

So fine: that is me. And in realising this, I realise, perhaps, why the particulars I offer as publisher are not acted on by the individuals I publish as I would act on them were they offered to me by some other publisher. In the very act of an individual submitting a manuscript to me, they are admitting to a desire to relinquish the author identity (or they are admitting they never had such an identity to relinquish). So when I set up channels and opportunities meant to allow for autonomy-third-party financed autonomy-it should not surprise me that they are not acted on.

But, let me tell the truth, again: It does not surprise me-it disappoints me.

How so?

In one sense, because it reinforces the truth of my position as auteur-this is not a position that can be offered by someone else, so it is not a position that is going to be offered to me, it is self-ordained and self-contained, there is no way to be halfway with it.

In another sense, because it seems to suggest a self-imposed limitation to the notion of Independence. As a publisher, I feel I am perceived as a part of a larger thing-the publishing world-that in taking the stance of publisher I not only am reinforcing the common perception of what this means, but tacitly admitting acceptance of a system that considers it necessity. People come to the press I run not as a definitive thing, but as part of a larger mechanism-in this, whatever particular avenues of self-experimentation I offer are unneeded, perhaps even detrimental.

***

Detrimental how?

To participate as even a "third-party backed author" is to give the posture of not desiring to participate in the same version of publishing as non-author , full stop. And this does make sense to me, I understand that mindset, as much as it disappoints me. There is an interdependence even in independence-the notion, really, of independent publishing is just non-participation with one particular alternative, not a desire to be distant from everything, all at once.

Further, there is the suggestion that the content the author writer wants to produce is fundamentally alien to the material of the non-author.

That is, by publishing but not seeking common, or even parallel goals, it is understandable to suppose that the writing the author is producing is not to be looked at with the same eyes, with the same specific considerations of work produced in a more participatory fashion-taking the stance of "self-sufficient author" carries with it (fairly or unfairly) the stigma that one does not care how their work is addressed or even that their work is addressed. The stance is too cavalier.

"I wrote this, please tell me what you think" is the common, non-author statement. This seems inclusive, participatory, the audience being asked to do something, even vested with power-there is, I would go so far as to say, a suggestion of influence, that audience influences creation.

There is a difference though in the author statement "I wrote this, please tell me what you think-what you think will not influence or change anything, but I am curious to know." Any sniff of this comes off, yes, as cavalier, dismissive of influence, necessity, and interaction. The old question, perfectly reasonable, comes up: "If you don't care what people think about it, why write it? Or at least, why ask people to read it?"

***

In publishing, other than monetary currency, there is the currency of thought, of interchange-dialogue. This is, I think, the actual driving force, far more necessary to there being a pertinent need for books-as-objects than the tendering of monies. In fact, the notion of book-as-commoditized-object is satisfied by the request-if not requirement-of active readership. In this, I find a better articulation of my actual quandary.

Self-publishing carries with it (true or not) the swagger of the auteur-indeed, the term Vanity is often used in replacement of Self, though actual inspection of the definition of the word should logically remove it from the consideration, absolutely. That aside, the perceived vanity of Self (or author) especially with regard to commerce-of-interaction, is suspicious. It must be asked: "If one is going to produce their own book and if one is seeking nothing beyond that, why is an exchange of any kind being asked?

Is there not something of self-satisfaction inherent in asking for feedback that will be used to no end other than sating a personal curiosity? Is it not fair to say that the author who requests dialogue is asking to be made the central object rather than their work?"

Shamefully, though I wish I could concoct a fine rhetoric to say otherwise, yes, there is something of self-satisfaction, yes, it is fair to say that the auteur is asking to be made central object-the reciprocal nature of dialogue-as-commerce does seem to be being misused, the circle is halved, leaving no genuine communication.

Ah-but what can this mean? Isn't a book, the offering of the author, the published object, a communication-the author's communication out, the audience left to complete the cycle? To answer off the cuff, I would say that Yes, the book is the first half of the circle, the audience communicating some response to it closes the thing.

However, this only seems to work in abstraction-commerce desires reciprocation as close to equality as can be managed and the author and/or publisher's act of putting out the book is a singular one-a multitude of copies do not change that only one statement (the book) has been made.

So, by the time Audience, in the form of more than just a single reader, comes in to play, there is now a lack of reciprocation on the part of author/publisher-they have done one thing and gotten return on it a hundred fold.

***

So maybe I have cleverly looped-now it would be, for the sense of equality, essential for further communication (genuine communication) on the part of the author/publisher to happen, there must be a participation of author beyond the expression of the book (or participation of the publisher beyond the production of the book) to make communication level.

I feel that self-publishing necessitates the one-to-one relationship (author/publisher-to-reader) and further desires to cultivate this one-to-one relationship, perpetually.

A self-published author (author) has no choice but to be the focal point, to constitute a part of the currency of their work. Whereas the independent publishing (non author) model seems to countenance more a one-to-multiple relationship-author/publisher takes the point of primacy, a single somewhat-anonymous object approached by individual members of a larger throng.

A different slant on the term Independent than I had originally had in mind, admittedly. Now, self seems to lack independence while independent, in a manner of speaking, seems to lack self, or at least to not necessitate it.

In my admitted desire to have a third party take on my work, it is just this trade-off I personally covet, somewhat to my own surprise.

I would gladly disavow self for independence, autonomy for anonymity. Because there is, in my honest assessment, more value in reducing the role of artist to nil, in infusing all identity and import to the work itself than to keeping the artist personally as a focus, even with the best intentions, even in a limited role of reference. Publishing by a third party-what I have been terming independent-is a way of remaining largely anonymous while still being personally recognized and in this is closer to the disappearing act an artist should desire, to transmute themselves to the page and then to the impressions of others.

***

So, why not author but do so under some concocted identity? "Self" could be made-as far as anyone knows-into "Independent". Why not split myself, for example, quite literally in two-write the books but claim them under a different name?

I have done this, in the past, and other than my personal accounts-which only apply to me-I have no place to even answer my own question, there. The closest I can come, by way of giving some attempt, is to say that lying, misleading, is not the same as admitting lack of necessity-to multiply the self is indeed vanity, even if a vanity of disguise, effacement, and self-reduction.

So is there a difference then in how I can function as self and independent when the art is not writing but publishing? Doesn't it follow that I act as both out of vain desire to vanish but fear of being meaningless?

There is no answer to that question but the most truthful: Yes, it does.

I am, in the end, the lack of understanding myself. Most things I feel define me I cannot define-many of them I do not seek to define, some I resist the definitions of.