Saturday, 8 May 2010

Clarification.

It occurs to me that I might be giving a false impression with my posts about the shortcomings, as I see them, of the publishing process. I might seem to be claiming that the only reason for my novel not being published lies entirely with those shortcomings. I need to correct that impression. As much as I hold to what I say, it might be that the novel simply won’t prove to be good enough, even if I do manage to get a publisher to look at it. I have no overblown opinion of the quality of my fiction. I am neither sufficiently egotistical nor sufficiently self-deprecating to make extravagant claims either way. My stories are very personal to me, they were written for me, and I like them. That’s what I meant by ‘a high opinion.’ That’s all.

I tried to get around to making a post about how we define quality in creative media, but my brain isn’t working well in that area today. Another time, maybe.

Enya’s song ‘Smaointe’ has just finished. I’ve been listening to that song for fifteen years, and it still does interesting things to my consciousness. It’s especially interesting when you consider that I’m not that big a fan of Enya. It’s that one song that really stands out, although I have an abiding fondness for ‘Caribbean Blue’ as well, but on a wholly different level.

And I still don’t know who Mela Ashton is.

4 comments:

Shayna said...

Jeff ~ it is very clear to me that you were not blaming the publishing people. The right publishing person has just not read your novel - yet. When art of any kind is off the beaten trail it only lies in wait for the right eyes and senses to discover it. I well know Enya's "Smaointe" - a most beautiful song. Mela Ashton 'follows' my blog, too - such a lovely name she has. I'd love to hear from her some day, too!

lucy said...

I think that's the way with everyone. Well, mostly everyone. A lot of people only pretend to be modest- I mean, if they wrote the story and they've edited it to the bone, then they must be satisfied enough, so they must believe that they've done a good job. I don't know if I make any sense coz I'm babbling, but I hope you get the jist of what I'm trying to say. No one is ever really not satisfied with their work. They all think it's good, but the real quality of the work depends on objective viewers, who are quite hard to find nowadays.

Anonymous said...

Jeff, I don't think you gave a wrong impression because what you have been addressing is the general attitude in the publishing world. Anyone who has looked into it would recognize your description, successful or not. In fact I've come across many blogs by successful authors who give uplifting, encouraging advice to new writers because they know just how frustrating a process it is. A quick question to Lucy – do you mean to say that no one is ever satisfied with their work or ever not satisfied? I wish I could say I was satisfied with my work, but I am never completely contented and know weaknesses linger in places. Can you say any book or film is perfect though it may come close? Writers especially can be riddled with self-doubt and I know more people who pretend to be confident than modest. But maybe that's an age thing :-)

JJ said...

Shay: Do you realise how pleased I am to find somebody else who recognises the beauty of Smaointe?

Lucy and Della: Thank you, ladies. Do have a heated debate in my backyard. I'm kidding. But this hints at what was going to be the basis of a post on defining quality. There are clearly two distinct views: the subjective and the objective. That is, the author's and everybody else's (although the author does well to attempt objectivity, too, but there are obstacles.) They both have merits (only the author truly understands the work, for example) and they both have a downside. The problem with the subjective view is that it's easy to miss things that are obvious to others. The problem with the objective view is that objectivity is too often based on learned conventions, rather than free appreciation. It doesn't necessarily represent the definition of 'real quality,' although it can. But, as Shayna says, it sometimes takes a very rare mind to see through the conventions and recognise something worthy but different.