I. PETITIONERS’ ARGUMENTS
Petitioners state, first of all, that series have become detrimental to the quality of modern fiction, particularly that of indie fiction. Petitioners argue: “It is a sad time in American literature when novels must be qualified with the term ‘stand-alone,’ as if suddenly the majority of stories cannot be contained in single volumes.” The series, Petitioners proceed to say, has become the “Absolute Truth” in the indie market.
Petitioners argue that the sole cause of this new “Absolute Truth” is money, nothing more. “Indie writers are savvy,” Petitioners say, “and are using one book to sell a half dozen more.” Petitioners claim there are “essentially no” reasons related to the craft of writing for the recent explosion of series publications: “A series should exist because the writer’s idea is too expansive for one book: too many characters, too massive a world, too many possibilities. A series should not exist because a writer inflates his or her story just to increase book count. How many ideas are truly too expansive for a full-length novel?”
Petitioners provide as proof of their claims numerous examples of series by independent authors, most of which are published on Amazon.com, that they say are “blatantly derivative, unnecessary, and sloppy.” Petitioners claim that only an injunction, and ultimately a legalized ban on series publishing, will save the “indie publishing world” from “imminent self-inflicted devastation.” Petitioners quote the famous rule of quality writing “omit needless words” and conclude by saying: “Due to the embarrassing fact that seemingly every indie book available on Amazon is ‘Book X’ in some series, the indie market has unfortunately reached a point in which it must OMIT NEEDLESS BOOKS or it will indeed fall in on itself.”
II. RESPONDENTS’ ARGUMENTS
Respondents begin by acknowledging that, “as with any other given market of the arts,” the indie publishing scene is, yes, "occasionally abused," and it is "littered with series that simply do not need to exist and represent forced attempts to sell books.” Respondents claim, however, that a ban on the publishing of series would be a ridiculous and unconstitutional stifling of the freedom of creative writing, both as an art and business.
Respondents say: “Novelists should write what they want and write what comes naturally to them. A work of fiction should be an honest labor of love for its creator.” Thus, Respondents continue, a novelist who wishes to write a series should be allowed to write and publish a series. Respondents conclude by scoffing at the idea that any one series could be used as evidence that series generally should be banned from publication:
"How does the saying go? ‘One man’s garbage is another man’s treasure’? Petitioners' arguments are nothing more than opinions. If Petitioners don’t like the series they cite as ‘proof,’ Petitioners are free to log into Amazon’s website and review the series negatively and fairly. Who are Petitioners to determine, for the rest of us, what is good, bad, or worthy of the light of day?"
III. OPINION
First of all, a confession: I agree with Petitioners on just about everything. I agree that the series has become the “Absolute Truth” to many indie writers. I agree that, since the series is the default mode for so many writers, we are indeed seeing that the quality of many indie works is not as strong as it should be. It is true, I think, that less is more, and unless you are composing the next voyage to Mordor or the Dark Tower, or unless you are following, say, a certain student through his years at a particular school, your work will likely be better off undergoing some legitimate editing and being confined to the space of a stand-alone novel.
I can hear Respondents now: “This is a business, Judge. How much money have you made with your artistically-honest stand-alone?” Point taken, Respondents, and to an extent, I agree. But allow me, for a few more sentences, to continue playing the role of a fiction critic: If you’re in the business of a creative endeavor like fiction writing, you should love what you do, or you should go find another business. And we should not bastardize what we love. You should not artificially inflate stories, just as you should not ignore stories with which the muse blesses you just because they don’t lend themselves to the series format. Put simply, Respondents, even in commercial fiction, integrity matters. If authors forget their artistic integrity on a mass scale, then I predict Petitioners will be proven right, and the industry will suffer and perhaps even collapse under the weight of its own excess.
Having said all that, it is not my role as a judge to force trends in the arts in one direction or another, and it is not appropriate for me to tell authors and publishers what they can or cannot write and publish.
Petition for injunction denied.
Sebourn, M., Judge.
No comments:
Post a Comment