Thursday, May 17, 2007


by Alvin Abram

There is some controversy as to what constitutes an author. The suggestion is that an author is a person published by a traditional publisher.

What is it about a traditional publisher that places them in a category above anyone else in the industry? Is not an author someone with the ability to create prose of merit with the quality of a craftsman?

What is it that suggests that a traditional publisher has better judgement in determining who is an author or not. Am I to understand that everything that a traditional publisher publishes is worthy of being put into print?

I doubt that.

Lately, the products produced by traditional publishers have made self-publishing a respectable alternative. Authors with international reputations of quality have at some time in their young careers taken a walk in the shady side of publishing and produced stories on their own after being rejected. Am I to understand that because these stories had not been published by traditional publishers they were unworthy of being in print?

I doubt that.

I believe it is necessary to define what constitutes an author on its own merit. Being a published or self-published author does not make an author. To join the two as one is relegating the efforts of good authors to a category of second class writers instead of rejected authors. And what is being rejected by a traditional publisher represent? The content of a story is subjective. One publisher’s rejection is another’s cash cow.

How unfair.

I was initially published by a traditional publisher. I found the experience demeaning and unprofitable. Publishing is strictly a business. Writing is a desire first, than an income. The two individual principals should never be joined as one.

No comments: