There's a virus going around the Internet right now that threatens to change the way you look at the world. It seems to be infecting unpublished and "under-published" (unsuccessful) writers at an alarming rate.
Once you're infected, everyone you come into contact with becomes an "arrogant gatekeeper" standing between you, the unpublished, hardworking writer, and the audience you so richly deserve. The MFA system is now "conformity-driven." The publishing industry is a "hype-machine." Successful writers are "prima donnas or untouchable mystics." Editors are "overpaid." Agents are "illiterate." Reviewers are "stupid."
At least according to HuffPost columnist Anis Shivani, who is urging writers to reject the literary establishment in favor of his "new rules for writers."*
Every published writer, myself included, was at one time unpublished. All writers know what rejection feels like. I understand what Mr. Shivani and tens of thousands of other writers go through every day when they walk through a Barnes & Noble and see stacks of books from seemingly untalented hacks. Or see that Snooki has "written" a novel. It's easy to feel spurned, especially when you return to your apartment and stare at the hundreds of rejection letters tacked to your bulletin board.
After finishing my undergraduate work at the University of Iowa, where I took creative writing classes taught by Writer's Workshop students, I applied to half a dozen MFA writing programs (including Iowa's). The rejection letters came back one by one, including a rejection from the Iowa Writer's Workshop (a beautiful, hand-signed letter of apology from then-director Frank Conroy).
Did I whine? Hell no.** Instead, I vowed to apply again the next year. And the year after. Until, finally, the Iowa Writer's Workshop accepted me for a summer semester of graduate coursework. Although my path to publication was similarly arduous, I wouldn't trade my experiences for anything in the world. For better or worse, they made me the writer I am today.
You cannot let the bitterness infect you. If you do, you'll be become toxic to the very same people -- readers included -- who you want to read your work.
The "gatekeepers" are not "overpaid fat-asses" trying to protect the gates of academia and publishing from assaults by unpublished writers. The agents, editors, and MFA "gatekeepers" I know live for the thrill of discovering the next great talent in the slush pile or in their inbox. "Nobody works in publishing for money," agent and novelist Jason Pinter tweeted. "They do it for their passion for books."
There are many ways to deal with life's disappointments. Calling editors "fat-asses," however, is not one of them.
****
*I'll leave it up to you whether or not Shivani's article is intended as satire. If it is satire, it fails in its intent to be humorous, and much of it his vitriol is in line with Shivani's previous screeds against MFA programs and the New York City publishing industry. As he explains on his website, Shivani is particularly concerned with "the decline of American fiction and poetry since the peak of high modernism and the current state of writing under the MFA/creative writing regime."
**OK, maybe I whined a little.
Follow Andrew Shaffer on Twitter: www.twitter.com/andrewtshaffer
Andrew Shaffer: The 13 Most Obnoxious Publishing Stories of 2010 (SLIDESHOW)
Anis Shivani: New Rules For Writers: Ignore Publicity, Shun Crowds ...
Andrew Shaffer: Reject the "New Rules For Writers"
New rules for writers - Book & Reader Forums
For someone so down on the publishing establishment, his website bio (http://anisshivani.com/about/) proudly lists all the establishment literary journals he's published in, the establishment awards that have come his way (even the ones where he's been long-listed, runner up, or received honorable mention), and quotes the reviews he's received in establishment publications like Booklist. He's also a member of the establishment National Book Critics Circle (an organization made up of the "stupid reviewers" he mentions in his rules).
You could make the case, as some have, that Silvani's rules are intended as satire, but the bitter, angry, nasty, snide tone, and the absence of even a trace of irony, argue against that. My theory: He has his, and he's crafted his New Rules for Writers to keep would-be authors unpublished, unread, unknown, unemployed and unhappy—a preemptive strike to limit his potential competition.
He's also bucking this whole civility thing people keep trying force upon us--see his references to illiterate agents, arrogant gatekeepers, stupid reviewers, and fat-ass editors, just to cite a few. It's all very in-your-face and mavericky.
A provocative piece, Shivani's, to be sure. Not all that well written really, but I love the overall response. We are such literal thinkers, we Americans. And not very subtle readers.
My theory is, Shivani is simply tired of the Industry with a capital I that publishing has become, foisting upon the world untold numbers of books not worth the pulp they are printed on. Thanks to the Nook, Kindle et al we aren't wasting so many trees, though I'm not sure all the rare earth metals are a fair trade.
www.offthegridmpls.blogspot.com
www.offthegridmpls.blogspot.com
They shadow play to extremes and desperation in simulacrum of over-romanticized literary passion.
Copywriters, teachers and editors with pretensions to greatness and old boys and girls pub. house connections.
So,this is way i accepted what you wanted to say;no pompous and unnecessary noise,only a patient,genuine and persistent soul longing to reach the world of readers and grant oneself with a wonderful feeling of leaving some magic words and get some victories with own inner world.
There are ones so eager to love it in way to belong them.
Of course it's possible to opt out. And don't let Franzen fool you; he loves the attention. I'm sure it's difficult at times, even painful, but he's fine with it. Who wouldn't want to be one of the most talked about writers in America?
As for opting out, I would rather die of starvation down by the river, than be a corporate stable pony. But I'm half wild. Most who write would rather live the life of the stable pony. And why not? It's a nice life. Very comfortable.
www.offthegridmpls.blogspot.com
Also, I think it's worth noting how important reading is when pursuing a writing career. What better way is there to learn about storytelling than by being told stories? Original narrative structures, quality characterization, rhetorical techniques like stylistic parody or self-consciousness (not that these are exclusively good traits in a book; they're simply examples), and everything else concerning storytelling are best learned when experienced, analyzed, and unpacked by oneself. That and it's a lot of fun.
Even if their motivations are pure, professors, agents, and editors do influence writers, and not always for the better. And I have heard too many stories to believe that all of their decisions are always based on "love of books."
The best thing that one could take from Shivani's piece is that there's not just one way. You do not have to play the game. You do not have to write "for the market." You do not take your novel based in South America and set it in Iran because "that's more timely." Of course, you may not have any readers or recognition; that's the risk you take. But there are risks on the other side as well.
It doesn't have to be either/or which I think is the inherently faulty basis of Shivani's argument.
Unlike her, though, I took Stanley Kunitz's advice that too many workshops are a fool's errand, and beyond getting help with a few major tenets on technique and reading, no writer needs more than one.
Okay, so I"ve stipulated to the idea that workshops have a purpose and a life and in a limited way are very helpful, maybe essential for most writers.
But the downside is huge, and apparent.
My friend was/is a remarkable poet, with some publications. She entered their MFA program as a poet, not a fiction writer (the strength of that program shines in its fiction writers, having given people like Michael Chabon and Mary Karr (a good friend of Tobias and G. Wolff) big boosts on their way to becoming recognized authors, among a host of others).
But, as she fell under the tutelage of her advisor, a poet at UC whose style of writing was quite different than hers. He was more concrete, she was a startling image maker and story teller.
Two years later she produced a manuscript that was decidedly pedestrian.
Her poems, some written while I knew her, had been hollowed out, over workshopped, critiqued to death, and ultimately, neutered.
Conformity and comity destroyed a poem, and a poet.
I ask you: what does one have to do in order to make a living from writing?
And, more importantly, why is making a living from writing, the writer's main goal? In your post you don't seem to be making any concrete points on how one should pursue a writing career. You spend time quoting Shivani and talking about your own experiences and successes but have zero insights on why so many others who follow the same mantra as you -repeat submissions, writing classes etc- end up doing other soul-killing jobs and abandoning their dream or, more disappointingly, end up destroying their talent.