6 Comments
Jul 31, 2021Liked by Elizabeth Marro

Thank you so much for sharing your publishing story! It’s interesting what things make us feel like something is art (having a hardback version, having the mark of a Penguin imprint on the spine). It’s like we need someone else to define it as art for us. But even that “someone else” might not have the same taste in art as us!

This is why I really love Grimes. I’ll admit I don’t really like her music, but I feel like she sees everything as art (her makeup, her clothing, her photography, her paintings, her music) and that gives her the freedom to make art in whatever way inspires her, rather than whatever way will get her a Grammy (or whatever third-party approval exists in her respective fields). As a result, everything she does turns out different and unique and inspiring.

Once I sat down and looked at who I thought made real art I realized that people didn’t think Alexandre Dumas was a real artist at the time (The Count of Monte Cristo was too popular, it was like The Davinci Code today.) And The Davinci Code! That was real art to me. Charles Dickins! (Oh but he was too popular at the time too.) Recently I fell in love with the book Latitudes of Longing and thought it was the most brilliant thing I’d ever read. I made my whole family read it and they all hated it! And it’s definitely not popular!

In the end, this exercise made me realize that I want to feel like an artist. I want to create something that feels, to me, like a masterpiece. If no one else things it’s a masterpiece well that’s fine with me. I wouldn’t want to stifle my creativity (or finances) to appease them anyway.

Loved this piece! And hearing more about how you published your book! Thanks Elizabeth!

Expand full comment
Jul 31, 2021Liked by Elizabeth Marro

Virginia Woolf was self-published. Emily Dickinson was never published in her lifetime. Did they create art? Of course they did.

Expand full comment

I adore, enjoy, and linger over your reflective posts, Betsy - moments of Zen...

Expand full comment
Jul 31, 2021Liked by Elizabeth Marro

Hi Elizabeth:

At the risk of being pedantic, there’s a definition of art in my “go to” dictionary, Merriam-Webster. Definition 4. a. applies:

“the conscious use of skill and creative imagination especially in the production of aesthetic objects; also works so produced.”

The definition is silent on "quality." If we add the litmus test of whether a publisher considers it to be of sufficient merit to be published, that’s another matter. My gut feeling about publishers writ large today, is that their publishing decisions are driven more by what they think they can sell to their market, than the manuscript’s artistic merit. Not that there's anything wrong with that. But given steadily declining fiction readership, it's filter largely unrelated to quality.

Doing art in any form is an intensely personal act. In the democratized open market, whether it “sells” or is saleable has, (IMO), less to do with merit and much more to do with marketing & where everyone’s tastes are at the moment of the buy/don’t buy decision.

Having read "Casualties," I am happy to confirm that yes, it is indeed art, (and good art, btw) but that observation is independent of how and by whom it was published. Just one broken-down, baggy-eyed old Marine’s opinion.

Expand full comment