For those who have not heard about the buzz today, a fellow indie author, Jordin Williams, has been accused of plagiarizing other authors' works. From the evidence I have seen here, I believe that the accusations will hold true. Certainly, the actions of the author and of Amazon indicate that she is guilty.
I do not want to broach the validity of the claims, as that is up to others and I trust the right things will be done in response. However, I think a discourse about professionalism, ethical behavior, and dedication to the consumer must be engaged.
I will begin by saying that I find the actions of authors who plagiarize to be ironic. Hypocritical, even. We bemoan piracy of our work, but some among us are willing to steal from the others.
The fallout will come, if it hasn't already. I have not even checked The Guardian or other periodicals hostile to independent authors. I am sure the lambasting will continue. Now, the target of their ire will be the unethical independent authors who are allowed to steal from traditionally published authors' works and make it into the top 100.
The sad part is that they are right. We don't have any constraints. We have no "gatekeeper" to check our work and make sure it is original. It is bad enough that we have no one to validate our work in terms of its fitness as a literary work prepared for public consumption. We indie authors are rebels with a cause.
That will be the mud that gets slung at us. And they will be right. To a point.
I disagree that we do not have gatekeepers, that there exists no constraints, accountability, or repercussions for unethical business practice. I do not agree that we are all hacks with no talent that cannot get a "normal" book deal because our work is inferior. Or worse, we are in this book thing as a new business model to exploit.
Our gatekeepers, our constraints, our accountability is the market itself. The readers provide the ultimate in judgment. Not that their judgment is consistent. Even the best written books in history have 1 star reviews. Even the most popular authors have detractors. In fact, it seems that the more popular a particular author becomes, the more they attract disappointed readers.
But, I digress. Despite readers' fickle and contradictory natures, they provide a screen for what is deemed "good" or "acceptable." When something is wrong, and I mean really wrong, readers will sniff it out and that is the end of it.
In addition, I believe this characterization of independent authors as incompetent as a whole based on this case is unjust. Our lot are not the first to participate in such incredibly repulsive business. We will not be the last, either. Traditionally published authors have participated in plagiarism, lying, making up facts, and such for years. They are not above this behavior and neither are their publishers. Isn't that right, Quentin Rowan? New York Times? Washington Post? Isn't that right, Oprah?
The point, though, is that this behavior should not be condoned. Amazon did the right thing to pull it down immediately. People who went on the Goodreads page for Ms. Williams' book (which has now been pulled down, sort of) and flagged the book as plagiarized did the right thing. Readers who contacted the author with their displeasure did the right thing.
The author, who has disappeared digitally in just hours after reaching as high as at least 58 in the Kindle store, did not do the right thing. Even more irony: the title of her book. Amazingly Broken. Well, she got that right.
However, painting all indie authors with the "incompetent" or "exploitative" brush is also wrong. A few bad eggs exist in every bunch. We cannot all be held to the same standard as an outlier. That has been our argument all along. Whether challenging the quality of our contribution to "literature," or our devotion to our craft and art, whether pointing at the ugly covers, or the poor marketing choices, whether laughing at the rate of financial failure of authors, or staunchly defending old business models for their own sake, the critics of indie authors really have no leg on which to stand in this matter. Williams screwed up. She will pay for it. And, for a time, so will every indie author. That is unfair.
Showing posts with label Goodreads. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Goodreads. Show all posts
Thursday, June 27, 2013
Friday, January 11, 2013
Death of a Protagonist
I am almost 75% through with reading George RR Martin's A STORM OF SWORDS and have invested approximately 2600 pages of reading into this amazingly gritty and realistic fantasy series he has created. Last night, as I neared the 70% mark, I almost threw the book across the room.
I don't want to spoil the story. Besides, many may not have read the books. I was mad, though. Disappointed, infuriated, annoyed, and mad.
For those that are familiar with Mr. Martin, I am sure you know what I mean. One protagonist, fine. Several flamboyant tertiary characters, alright. After GAME OF THRONES and especially A CLASH OF KINGS, I was beginning to get used to perusing the back of the book and considering striking out all the characters who are now dead. It felt novel that an author was as free with the deaths of so many characters. To be sure, he has populated this world with more characters than I have Facebook friends. To kill off a few feels like culling a herd or at the least, As the World Turns. Turnover is inevitable when betrayal and violence are common.
But, at the end of the chapter after the Red Wedding, I was shocked even beyond the loss I felt from the two noble wolves of House Stark. The pup, too! It cannot be!
Before you respond with condolences and a spoiler alert, I already know. I was weak and flipped through looking for Arya's chapter. Found it. Now I am wading through more about the Onion Knight and this weirdly accurate witch, Milisandre. Sometimes I wish he had put some of these story lines into another book entirely. I am always tempted to skip them. I guess some other readers may want to skip the feasts and the tourneys with their endless descriptions of armor and weapons, food and names of folk we will never meet again or that will soon be dead.
Case in point: the singer that threatened to blackmail Tyrion. Why even bother? He's dead in four paragraphs and mentioned in passing during the feast. But to what did he amount? Another corpse to add to the considerable pile. Another sick joke. I dunno. I guess I feel Martin's greatness is dulled through the continual cutting of ties with so many well-fletched-out tertiary characters that come and go so quickly. Their deaths are often more flamboyant than their lives.
Which leads me back to my original complaint and the rubbing of my cat the wrong way, so to speak. I am developing a love/hate relationship here. I am aware that some of this is manufactured. The author is deliberately pulling the strings. Characters are created for effect rather than catharsis, or triumph. As far as I can see, the great lesson, the moral of the story, as far as the Red Wedding goes is two-fold. Lords will always have bannermen that envy their positions; the only way to deal with them is with strength. The second is something that I think the author plans to use going forward: to harm others to whom you have extended hospitality under your own roof is to bring a curse upon yourself.
Despite this, I feel empty, betrayed, and am loath to trust Mr. Martin going forward. I don't know. Is it just me? I feel invested in Catelyn and Robb, Bran and to some extent, Rickon. Jon and Sam. Dany and even Ser Jorah. If these people die after we have invested 2600 pages in them and knowing that we have 2000 more pages yet to come, are we not to feel their loss? Or is that the point? Unless we care, they do not matter? Or is it what Little Finger says to Sansa?
I don't want to spoil the story. Besides, many may not have read the books. I was mad, though. Disappointed, infuriated, annoyed, and mad.For those that are familiar with Mr. Martin, I am sure you know what I mean. One protagonist, fine. Several flamboyant tertiary characters, alright. After GAME OF THRONES and especially A CLASH OF KINGS, I was beginning to get used to perusing the back of the book and considering striking out all the characters who are now dead. It felt novel that an author was as free with the deaths of so many characters. To be sure, he has populated this world with more characters than I have Facebook friends. To kill off a few feels like culling a herd or at the least, As the World Turns. Turnover is inevitable when betrayal and violence are common.
But, at the end of the chapter after the Red Wedding, I was shocked even beyond the loss I felt from the two noble wolves of House Stark. The pup, too! It cannot be!
Before you respond with condolences and a spoiler alert, I already know. I was weak and flipped through looking for Arya's chapter. Found it. Now I am wading through more about the Onion Knight and this weirdly accurate witch, Milisandre. Sometimes I wish he had put some of these story lines into another book entirely. I am always tempted to skip them. I guess some other readers may want to skip the feasts and the tourneys with their endless descriptions of armor and weapons, food and names of folk we will never meet again or that will soon be dead.
Case in point: the singer that threatened to blackmail Tyrion. Why even bother? He's dead in four paragraphs and mentioned in passing during the feast. But to what did he amount? Another corpse to add to the considerable pile. Another sick joke. I dunno. I guess I feel Martin's greatness is dulled through the continual cutting of ties with so many well-fletched-out tertiary characters that come and go so quickly. Their deaths are often more flamboyant than their lives.
Which leads me back to my original complaint and the rubbing of my cat the wrong way, so to speak. I am developing a love/hate relationship here. I am aware that some of this is manufactured. The author is deliberately pulling the strings. Characters are created for effect rather than catharsis, or triumph. As far as I can see, the great lesson, the moral of the story, as far as the Red Wedding goes is two-fold. Lords will always have bannermen that envy their positions; the only way to deal with them is with strength. The second is something that I think the author plans to use going forward: to harm others to whom you have extended hospitality under your own roof is to bring a curse upon yourself.
Despite this, I feel empty, betrayed, and am loath to trust Mr. Martin going forward. I don't know. Is it just me? I feel invested in Catelyn and Robb, Bran and to some extent, Rickon. Jon and Sam. Dany and even Ser Jorah. If these people die after we have invested 2600 pages in them and knowing that we have 2000 more pages yet to come, are we not to feel their loss? Or is that the point? Unless we care, they do not matter? Or is it what Little Finger says to Sansa?
"Always keep your foes confused. If they are never certain who you are or what you want, they cannot know what you are like to do next. Sometimes the best way to baffle them is to make moves that have no purpose, or even seem to work against you. Remember that Sansa, when you play the game...The only game. The game of thrones."--A STORM OF SWORDS pg 841.What do you think?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)