Publishing is a problematic business

On one hand, I have come to the conclusion that establishing oneself as an independent or small press publisher is fulfilling a desire to become that corporate publisher you despise/admire only on a smaller scale. That is exactly how Johnny Temple comes across with lines such as: “Nearly every Akashic contract gives the writer full creative control on both the editorial and design levels.” That was eerily close to “virtually fat-free.” On the other hand, Temple did offer a lot of good ideas for new and emerging writers to help get the work noticed. I concluded that he’s informing writers that not only do we have to write it, but come up with unique ways to promote and convince people to buy it. Does that mean that if you’re not doing it yourself then you’re just giving a portion of profits to a publisher to use their name because you have to know what your book needs and what you should do because no ones going to work harder for your books than you. Besides a large advance, why should it be anyone’s’ goal to sign a contract with a “conglomerate” publisher? Creativity and capitalism don’t float in the same bowl if you know what I’m saying.

It’s like he said, but not limited to the two decades following World War II, it’s more a matter of the absence of “the magic that fiction writers exerted upon the public” after that point, that is condemning his dream of literary take over. There just aren’t as many or as prolific writers roaming the roads in droves like there were then. People either don’t take the time to create anything individual or they see art (literature) as a diary entry they can write on the weekend. A lot of people actually believe that everything has already been thought or done before, so why try. Sometimes I feel that the truly intelligible age of creativity passed with the boomers and its just neo faux now with people who think just reading a lot makes them artist. No honey you have to think a lot too. If I have to hear another drug or blow job story…