Publishing in the Modern World

Image result for person reading a book


Publishing in the Modern World


The impossibility of publishing seemed like it was a mere dream of a madman. The definition of publishing is “the occupation, business, or activity of preparing and issuing books, journals, and other materials for sale.” The selling of words is what makes most people think they can work at home and never leave the house. During the Empire age, from the Boomer generation all the way to Gen Xer’s, they had to face more problems when publishing a book. This is when Bret Easton Ellis said, “Maybe your dreams will not come true.” This is a scary thought to a millennial. It’s the reason why most who have come forward into the modern world, have not yet established their identity. Identity has become a word that obsesses millennials. Most millennials are creating YouTube pages and they are making short films about their favorite films or books. The Film industry is also another business that has changed from cameras on phones, but that’s for another topic. As of writing this, I have written 59 books of fiction, one book of poetry, and many works of journalism. But today, there is a silent aura of the book industry that seems like a 19th century profession, but most people today can achieve their dreams. If publishing is the acrimonious call to an ancient dead time, so is the world of publishing. “The computer has become the biggest advancement since the printing press. Nothing is unattainable anymore. Men could probably communicate with angels if they wanted to, but the determination of the Internet is that anyone can do anything. I received my Bachelor’s of Arts in English online at University of Phoenix. I make videos online on YouTube. I do everything online.

A typewriter sits in a case, but that was hardwired to fit into my computer. The instance of communication in the modern world has changed the publishing industry. E-Books came as a cheaper alternative to paper. Paper is the reason why most publishing industries do go out of business. A contradiction of publishing is the artistic side of writing. But the publishing side is about making money. Money is good, but the reason behind why people who make money independently is a mystery to most others. Sometimes it can be made through the government, which is how Andrey Tarkovsky made “Stalker” where he tried and failed many times. The result is a masterpiece. The contradiction of making money in the arts is what makes people really question the meaning of why they write. Sometimes it’s a personal motive. Publishing is a noun that can create many puzzling consequences. The problem of knowing what others think about writing is a problem as well. People want to make money, but publishing is a long running game. It’s not a quick fix. In his Sculpting through Time, a woman writes him, “The Film is so unlike anything I have ever seen that I don’t know how to go about it, how to appreciate either the form or the content. Can you explain?” (Andrey Tarkovsy. Sculpting in Time. Knopf. 1987. pg. 8) It’s not the artists job to explain everything, and however one might change their minds about the work, the publishing industry has no answers when fans or critics write with these questions in mind.

The understanding of writing is that it’s not a personal gain that can be achieved in one day. The ultimate problem of the source of publishing can be explained in the sheer destruction of the industry. It’s the denigration of the written word that can curse a publisher. A complex sentence broken down can destroy the intellectual prospects of a source. Publishing means that the people who are trying to help you are destroying it as well. The complication of publishing is the idea that everything must be simple and be attractive to everyone. The idea of it reminds the auteur is that they are not in control. They have given up control so that it can reach a wider audience. Sometimes, reworking what was meant to be an artistic endeavor into the readable format loses what most others would see as a work of genius. Clockwork Orange was immediately accessible and reminds that most auteurs can make it today if they want to change the format of reading in general. It’s the reminder that this author, as of writing this article, had been accepted under Xynobooks, a small tiny independent publisher, which has published five of my works, but I had no funding or distribution power to get people to read it. Try asking people to read a book when they don’t want to. It’s impossible to negotiate with that reader if they aren’t getting a gift card out of the deal.

The impression of knowing that you need people to review you also says what your book is about. People only read what’s on the back of a book, but do they really know the insides will be the magic that one creates their world. I have had so many books fail but failing is the reason why most people achieve greater things. A complicated decision to make is the dumbing down of one’s work. It’s the dedication to know that the people who want to help you also want to destroy your work. Publishing is the meaning of what makes your art attractive, but people think they know better. Sometimes they do, but don’t. The imperfection of work is not appreciated anymore.

People must be able to read it and if it’s not readable, it doesn’t matter. Well, fuck that disputable bullshit. The idea of reading a difficult work is not that painful. The problem of having to read an Ian McEwan book would drive me into a nuthouse. The problem of accessibility is what is leading the world into a reading slump. In the UK, ebook sales are plummeting as younger generations seek print books. “More than 360m books were sold in 2016 – a 2% jump in a year that saw UK consumers spend an extra 6%, or £100m, on books in print and ebook formats, according to findings by the industry research group Nielsen in its annual books and consumer survey. The data also revealed good news for bricks-and-mortar bookshops, with a 4% rise in purchases across the UK.” ( The acceptance of children reading is what makes children gain empathy. The promise of what readers have to expect in what most readers have to gain. The promise of what makes others decide the impression of the soul makes others decide their reading choice. Every type of genre can benefit from a reader, but it’s all about what makes a reader want to read. Reading is subjective.

A promise of the reader is what makes writers expect large quantity of readers. But the author, being inexperienced in the ways of real physical books, but it’s the problem of having the expectant fluency of a reader’s attention. What the loss of readers mean is the catastrophe of the language one lacks. It’s the deception of a lack of language that thinks it can create art. Yes, Jackson Pollack made brilliant works of art, but paintings do not represent a comic book or a movie. Publishing means to have an ongoing communication with readers. Like one is praying to God, ongoing communication is what makes a reader stay in touch with the writer. Publishing means taking a long time to publish a book. A reader must wait for the writer for his book. A book takes time, but articles do not. improper language is what makes a publisher cringe. Fuck is a word that publishers do not like. As Chuck Palahniuk said on the Joe Roegan show, “You can’t have fuck in the first sentence of the book.”

There is a type of self censorship that runs throughout the industry. It’s easier not to say something offensive than try and risk a lawsuit or a fatwa. Salman Rushdie had been sentenced to death by the Ayatollah Khomeini, in 1988, for writing about the origins of Muhammad. It was a cluster fuck, to be honest. The problem of having to deal with ideological warriors, on the left and the right, is the impossibility of how one can create art today. The risk of publishing one’s real name can damage one’s reputation, and however the same might know is the same as they can. Salman Rushdie’s “Shame” which is about Pakistan’s Prime Minister Al-Hauk, was banned for blasphemy. So one who courts controversy should expect it, but death threats is the last thing an artist should have in order to find a way through most publishing problems, but the history of publishing was always in the pursuit of controversy, never placating the reader. Lawsuits are easier to do, but they are expensive. The problem of lawsuits is that it is causing harm to one or more people. Censorship is a problem that exists in the modern publishing world too.

The deception of self-censorship is acclimating clean language to avoid controversy. If writers thought of this, they would never write. They would never create art. The modern publishing world has more rules than a Chinese fortune cookie wrapped in playdough. The impression of clean language is not only lying to a reader, but it’s not how reader’s or regular people think. Burroughs once said in the documentary, “Naked Making Lunch” he said, people use four letter words for all sorts of occasions. “Walk down the fucking street to the fucking park and saw a fucking broad and had sexual intercourse with her” (Naked Making Lunch. so the idea is common enough that people use foul language, and anyone who doesn’t is either a priest, Rabbi, or Caliph (who probably screams death to America all the time when preaching) but the idea of having no more speech is what can ruin a publishing industry. You can’t start censoring people or you are really living out the darkest nightmares of Orwell’s 1984.

The idea of censorship in the publishing industry even followed James Joyce as Ulysses was taken to federal court for obscenity laws. The possibility of someone suing you for the idea of having offended someone is retarded. Yes, it’s a bad word, but this fits the definition of retarded. The complication of censorship is the idea that if the public can be censored, so can the censor board. The fear of America turning into China is a real possibility. The idea of never opening our mouths or laptops in the fear of angering someone is not how to live. If people have no right to speak, that destroys the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. In China, the revolution has begun. The Chinese government censors its people and the American people do nothing. They live with the fear of censorship everyday, and they are spied upon by their government. This is a nation of dictators that studied all the information that could lead to punish people. The opportunity to censor people starts at wanting to make people pure or show no weakness.

This is the rule that dictators follow, just as well as publishers. The opportunity of censorship shows like this in the publishing industry. The common misconception of publishing is that you should stay away from foul language. Fuck them and their mother’s ass where they were born from. The idea of having to censor ourselves is a denial of the right to freedom of speech. The impossibility of not using language we find reprehensible is the monster that creates a wall to defy all impurity. Liberals hide behind those walls every day, but publishing companies never followed the PC culture at all. It’s the problem of what makes businesses think they can control people and what they do. The outline of China also fits the norm that publishing countries had followed. Publishing companies would like to fire people more just because of what they say on the Internet. Milo Yiannopolus’s book deal fell through at Simon and Schuster because of a “pro pedophilia” comment but even when hearing the comment, it was just off color and as Bret Easton Ellis said in his podcast, “the punishment didn’t fit the supposed crime.” (The Bret Easton Ellis Podcast. Sam Outlaw. March 27, 2017

The publishing companies, who think they can control people, have no power over the Internet. The Internet is the gateway to all free speakers of thought and decisions made. The publishing world has not yet been able to meet the demands of the Internet. It’s the idea of having to meet censorship demands when the Internet, and most who search through the IDW (Intellectual Dark Web), but the Internet and the publishing companies do not relate to their equal ideologies. If a publisher found out the tweets I made, they would cut my contracts into pieces and take the royalty money back. “Morality clauses have been around for over a century in Hollywood. Movie studios used contract language to fire talent whose personal exploits damaged studio reputations. In more recent decades, morality clauses have become prevalent in the publishing world, especially with faith-based publishers. The term has various aliases, like a Moral Turpitude Clause or Termination Clause. Some have even dubbed the morality clause as the “keep your pants on” provision. In general, morality contract provisions center on moral turpitude, a legal term that means any inherently base, vile, or depraved action contrary to social standards of morality and done with a reckless, malicious, or evil intent. Moral turpitude is a broad and subjective term that usually includes offenses such as murder, voluntary manslaughter, kidnapping, robbery, and assault. Acts of moral turpitude can result in criminal convictions or deportation for foreigners, and as applied to the contract world, can be grounds for firing and contract termination” (

The idea of censorship in this way, destroys the natural flow of creativity, and just because people make nasty sentences, doesn’t mean they are bad people, but tweets are now the new norm of getting people fired, but if you wanted to blame human nature, it’s worse than you think. The censorship of the publishing industry means that what was once sacred, freedom of speech, doesn’t matter anymore. Publishing under a huge corporation is what makes it harder to make money in an industry that censors the most puerile thoughts. After surviving first hand from a small-time publisher, no writer or creator wants to live under those extreme conditions. If this were an exile, it already took place with the arrival of Harry Potter, and the Shitstain goblin fury (sounds like a better Harry Potter books than the books that were written by J.K. Rowling). It’s not the witchcraft that bothered me about it, but the accessibility and the lack of puerile thoughts that made the movies and the books readable and ultimately boring. But whoever thought it was a masterstroke of literature is fooling themselves. Now, J.K. Rowling is the most despised women in all of entertainment. She updates what Harry Potter would be like today, and it seems to make her case seem worse for “forced diversity.” (

Forced Diversity is another issue that most other writers tend to go along with, and it makes the case of the books continuity seem like a trifle, but when an audience asks you to stop making your work relevant in cases of “diversity” it’s what can ruin an author and their legacy. All the years of success can be ruined by censorship and political leaning, but to confront that side, Kanye West only saw more fans from the Republicans for accepting President Trump. What makes the case for censorship more pervasive is that writers, YouTube creators, are facing a purge like no other. It’s not that we have any rights, but watch them disappear, and I will pick up an AR-15 so quickly. The deception of censorship is allowing our better nature to be ruled by society.

The complication of self-censorship should not force the artist to redirect their work. Diversity in the culture is what is supposed to make the world a better place, but it’s not the reason why most people pick up a book. The reader wants to read about a handsome man and woman, but the idea of having to write to meet a mass audience, when there are no characters that weren’t created by the author himself. The deception of having to appeal to people isn’t what can be made in a kitchen, but it shouldn’t be forced. Forced Diversity is the idea that all checkboxes must be checked off so that we won’t offend or leave anyone out. Inclusivity is what kills a work by not remaining true to the author or creator’s intent.

It’s the destruction of art that turns most artists into priests instead of perverts. Artists by nature shouldn’t be moral guidelines to the world, because an artist can be a moralist without having to put it in his art. The act of morality should be within what humans can do within reach, but writing is a base form. No one uses high vocabulary unless they are in academia. The terror of using words that no one really uses is not the problem. The censoring of that language because it might make people feel unintelligent is the reason why we should censor art. Sometimes, it’s not the high art that causes people to murder. Unless the book is “Catcher in the Rye” and Holden Caulfield is possessing you to go out and kill the author, or your neighbor that refused to have sex with you.

The complication of censorship allowing you to sue or be sued, is another issue entirely as well. What makes the idea of censorship by a publisher is an act of tyranny on the creator. What would the publisher be without someone who thinks of new or daring ideas? They would only publish cookbooks, which they would love to do instead. Cook books sell well. Maybe they should sell a deplorable cook book then. Maybe they would be selling more books. But the ability to create art means that the artists should take more risks. But the problem is no one wants to take risks. The publisher not wanting risk worthy fiction or nonfiction is what destroys the publisher. The complication of not taking risks is a strategy that Sun Tzu would not want. Distraction is a key role in fiction, having many narratives is what makes a complicated work more interesting. The evidence of simple work only produces simple results.

The possibility of making a difficult work easier is a death sentence for a publisher. The complication of having to reduce complexity to purity is not a good choice for the artist nor for the publisher. There is nothing in purity that can be found in vulgarity. The idea of pushing for censorship is asking a writer to not think the things he would normally say. The idea of not saying rude things is what makes the publisher look like naïve and convoluted to begin with. Not only are they destroying the original idea of a work but they are censoring it for the lack of creativity. The desperation of a publisher acting on behalf of the reader is asking for trouble. It means (A) you will make an inferior project that will not sell but it will become a critical success, which is bad, (B) let the work stand on its own because the publisher believes in the artists originality, and get reviewed poorly, but retain some critical success on its own without the help of the mass media, or (C) the work was neutered for the mass appeal and it didn’t make a splash critically or sell enough books to recoup the cash. Good reviews rarely help a book sell anymore. It’s around word of mouth and the way the critic can explain the work or give people enough reason to read it. Bret Easton Ellis, in his book White, has detailed that his work was received with a loving contradiction.

Praised for some qualities, and snubbed for a few details. It helped him consider that critics were always going to have a middle ground disposition toward his work. It helped him have a “grown up view” of the world. It’s not that people should all like the work being published. People can have their opinions of the work in question. But let’s admire a few of the outcomes of the theories presented. (A) you will make an inferior project that will not sell but it will become a critical success, which is bad. Why is it bad? The idea of turning an inferior work, such as the Da Vinci Code, by Dan Brown, which was shit to begin with, a book that lived off the back of Umberto Eco’s Foucault Pendulum, which was meant to be bad on every level, becomes a world wide phenomenon, is the deception of what makes art good. Not only does it make art terrible, but mediocre. If such a book like Clockwork Orange is going to be considered a mess because it doesn’t fit the guidelines, you are looking at it too hard, and you shouldn’t do that. A book like Anthony Burgesses’s Clockwork Orange is a classic because it made the author famous, as it did change the way books are meant to be read and written. “If you don’t know the sentence “Great Bolshy Yarblokos to you” you haven’t read a book. If we changed everything about Clockwork Orange, or even Paradise Lost, by Milton, it would be incoherent and it wouldn’t make any sense. The problem of changing works of art to make it less offensive is not going to change human nature. This is the problem that drives modern publishing and the world itself. Being correct all the time is not going to make people happy. Nor will it make an audience like your work.

But if the work is inferior, as the Da Vinci Code is an example, it was not meant to last longer than it was meant to succeed. The complication of a shit work, like the Da Vinci Code, is meant to be taken seriously, it’s a mere gesture of stupidity towards the audience it panders to. Entertainment is good, but if it was meant to be shit, its success was an anomaly, and not meant to be seen as serious literature. The problem is what is shit also. Fifty Shades of Grey is better than the Da Vinci Code. At least it lived up to the name of sex and the puerile things it wanted to be. Da Vinci Code, which is shit, is meant to be an anomaly. The perception of its success is not to be taken further than the pages it was printed on. If it is entertaining to some, fine, but it wasn’t high art and shouldn’t be put up as art. The Mona Lisa on the cover of the book is the only good thing it held for the reader.

You are better off reading Umberto Eco. (B) let the work stand on its own because the publisher believes in the artist’s originality, and get reviewed poorly, but retain some critical success on its own without the help of the mass media. The best type of writing comes when the work will stand on its own with a good word of mouth campaign. Different writing needs to be honored too. David Foster Wallace’s Infinite Jest, while a mammoth herculean novel that has many twists and turns, wasn’t honored in its time. The critical status of the work is that while it was highly academic in nature, and rather highbrow, it seemed to create itself a tornado which the public frenzied on. D.T. Max’s biography is a treasure trove of the real life and times of David Foster Wallace. It’s not making him into a saint, which the real David Foster Wallace would have had problems with anyway.

The deception, or saintly prostitution of David Foster Wallace is a maniacal hamstring that shouldn’t be pulled in order to make an un-relatable author palatable for his death. Yes, he had problems, and that shouldn’t be avoided, but maybe if an author decides to commit suicide, maybe he has no more ideas. Yukio Mishima killed himself after he had written all his life’s work, but to contest that David Foster Wallace was out of ideas, it makes little sense to blame his suicide on that reason alone. If he had survived just long enough for him to finish The Pale King, it would have been a masterpiece, and in some circles, it is the quiet reflective version of David Foster Wallace that was resigned to live and write as he always did. The complication of one’s suicide doesn’t mean an author’s legacy will live on, but does it mean that an overly complicated work should infuse more of the author’s thoughts and ideas to last, but did a work like Infinite Jest deserve it?

Harold Bloom hated the novel, and though it was just showing off than focusing on story and plot. Infinite Jest does have plot, but not at the behest of the reader’s ability to follow it. Infinite Jest holds up and should cement the author as a one of a kind, but does it remind the author that not all large books should be judged by the size or the density of the work it intones. A book has pages and to find out what an author means, readers open books. But does a genius like David Foster Wallace have to explain himself now that he’s dead? No.

The perception of Infinite Jest is what drove most readers to not read the book. The idea of a work of genius being hard to read didn’t bother David Foster Wallace. He was intelligent and expected, as the gamer community coined, “get good” to understand the work and come to the novel on his own terms. In the years it was published, Infinite Jest is the quintessential Gen X’ers book about drug addiction, conspiracy theories of a video tape that’s so good it destroys the persons will to live. Yes, it does sound like the Ring, but both works do not resemble each other. While in the Ring, a spirit moves from the tape, but there is no sign of a ghost in Infinite Jest. Just the idea of a perfect movie that could destroy a person’s will to live. If David Foster Wallace was writing Infinite Jest, he didn’t know the Ring existed, because Ring-u, was published in 1991, and David didn’t seem to be the type of person to copy someone’s work because he mostly existed inside the vacuum of his comfort zone, and rarely read other authors. If he did and the journals come out later that he knew, but it’s purely speculation. But one can speculate.

The idea that an experimental work is accepted by the media without the media’s help is why many writers are disparaged by the critical community. They probably hold voodoo dolls and hold séances to wish your book to fail. Critics are just the reason why artists are destroyed by their phallic conundrums who don’t seem to get the book. They are still mad that they couldn’t create a book so they pray and hold goats head over a séance pit and they chant the name of your book wishing you ill. Critics in their temporal brain, have little to rub their fingers together, except when they masturbate about being loved for a novel and then they would get their father’s approval. Critics, who somehow suck and blow every editor to find the job, have to breathe in the snobbery, never allowing them to walk down the street without sucking their own farts everytime they read a John Irving novel. Critics in their own way, masturbate to every culturally diverse opinion in their arsenal. Porn is involved if they are having sex with their palmeranians and putting peanut butter on their balls so their dogs can lick their vagina or ballsack. The opportunity to shit on a creative person is eagerly becoming to a critic who thinks they know everything.

Giving a 21-year-old Clockwork Orange or Infinite Jest is a dangerous book to give them. Are they ill equipped to read a masterwork when they have not yet even started their lives yet. A reminder that this doesn’t extend to all 21 year olds, but if they haven’t read the Godfather, they would never be able to handle the brutal chaos of a brilliant work that has to make them “get good” before they can read it. Yes, a 21-year-old thinks they can get Clockwork Orange, but until they make a language that makes sense and congeals with the work, they haven’t yet become the masters of their bookish fate. They can pretend they are Tolkien, but just not figure out the language that came with it. Yes, a language is beautiful, but it has to mean something, and 21 year olds can’t do that until they are settled into their own chaos. But a work like Infinite Jest or Clockwork Orange comes from suffering, and trying to get people to like your tweets, are not comparable to the achievement of writing a novel.

Tweeting is still sub-par communication, but it isn’t art. No one should be famous for social media unless they have sucked enough dicks that it can get their name out there. No interns, don’t suck off the president, like Monica Lewinsky, who forever is remembered for blowing the worst president in History. At least Nixon didn’t screw up that badly. But again, Clinton sold secrets to the Chinese and took bribes left and right. But publishing requires a strong backer, and if your publisher isn’t willing to back you through every disaster, they aren’t your publisher and it’s best to be rejected by them first. They won’t accept your masterpiece, let alone your sub par work. The compliment of having a publisher who backs your work, no matter what the critics say, and they should be able to handle your PR mistake. The difference between a weak and a strong publisher is that they don’t give a shit what people think. Even if the book is hated, the publisher has to live with it. If there is a rule that publishers must follow is not everyone is going to like the book, so don’t even bother trying to appeal to an audience that wants to tear down your business.

It takes guts to show SJW’s, who don’t buy books, the guts to stand by their authors, even if they should be fired. Public hysteria is a weapon best left in the trash can. People, no matter if they have a twitter account, can’t move your personal desires to run a company. Being hated is an honor if you know you were right in the first place. Being right means you have to take some losses, and if the work is original, you have nothing to worry about. Just promote the work and leave the tweets in the “DO NOT CARE” box, and delete them like they were a hot prostitute in a hotel room. Splattered with come and begging for more.

People will pay to fuck just as much to read a book with pornography in it. Either in visual or in prose format, no matter how it’s written or photographed. The common occurrence that while all who have written a book, no matter how difficult it is, it is the problem of the reader to situate his own purpose to the work. It’s the general disgust of the reader to try and find something wrong with it. The promise of what makes the difficult persuasion of the reader to unfortunately give him the chance to unfold toward the destiny of the work. But if it makes it without the help of the critics and remains artistically nuanced in the presence of the work, it shows the way through his work. The brilliance of a work that stands for artistic integrity, without the help of the MSM, can bring the work to new heights.

Or there is (C) the work was neutered for the mass appeal and it didn’t make a splash critically or sell enough books to recoup the cash. The problem of how much is aligned with the despair of what makes others decide what the work had to be. Usually this is made because someone thinks the work is awful and they try to push their lack of artistic integrity on the work. A deception that the writer’s work is awful and doesn’t see the whole plan surrounding the projection of the work is the absolute cosmic problem of what makes art a sacrifice, and not a product. The complication of how they know others who have yet bound their gentle assuasion in the hope that while the movement through the work proves that while it’s bad to read, the editors believe what they are doing is right.

They are no better than Nazi’s pulling gold out of Jewish people’s teeth. It’s the problem of having to live by the code of ethics to follow the artists intent or just live without ethics and question and prod the work, but it comes as no surprise that publishers want to make money. Yes, it’s awful to try and make the problem further aligned with company ethics who have come from the same problem of having to clean something that looks like the way they see it. It’s called euthanasia. The compliment of having the perception of what they know in the bold direction of future desperation. The cleaning of one’s work does feel like a burden to them. The unaddressed grammar riles their bones, as though they see others looking like the problem is the author not the editor or the publisher themselves.

However the consequences of the work follows, the desperate changes they see until no one is allowed to fight further in the bold discussion of losing one or the other to follow the work to its initial end, but does it mean that however the problems with the work are merely with the editor, not the writer. The problems of a work that is meant to be a masterstroke for the writer, because his intent is pure and while the purity of the author is mistaken for incorrect grammar, the intent is not the same. The problem with every work looking the same or resembling a Young Adult romp seems to be the problem that the easier it is to read the better. Yes, the mirror in Snow White is saying “The better to read is easier my dear.” The complications of having such an easy alluring work is the forgettability factor.

The complications of what makes the difficult work more alluring is what the reader gets out of it. The easy work is neither the same as the hard work, but the easy provocation of the work is the lack of knowledge about the work later on. Yes, while it’s the problem of what the decision is to make a manuscript easier to read is not the way the work is read but the intent in how the work is read. The easier the work is the more digestible, but the easier the work remains, the unfortunate case of dissolving matter is related to the easier work. Dissolving matter is the lack of remembrance in the author’s work.

The comprehension of easy dialogue gives nothing to the reader other than an opportunity to become as bored as they are. Some would reject the work and call it trash. Some would praise it for being easy. These are two sides of the discussion. The easier the work the less traction it gains over time. If that was true, the Da Vinci Code would be taught for entertainment purposes, and not one based on literary skill. The complication of having to address the problem of literary skill is one that could be found on every page. The discretion of finding the problems with it are too many to tell.

The throwing up in the mouth scene on the first page is evident that this work is not meant to be taken seriously, but in its own way, it was meant to be a push back to what can be put in a first sentence. While that deserves credit, the style alone has no merit beyond Entertainment. People need entertainment, but to neuter the work for the basic strength of mass appeal proves that the author nor the publisher thinks the work is credible to last beyond the publishing date. While the problem of designing such complication of the work to be easy, the readability is the atmosphere one creates when the work is difficult. The consequence of those who have outright denied such pleasures are merely not looking hard enough at the text. The decision to see something as is is tricky.

The utterance of what makes the work more alluring is that while it may be easy, we shall remember that while Dan Brown has made his millions, the traction of his best seller status is the life of what happens to most fads. When Rosemary’s Baby came out in 1967, it made international best seller status all over the world. While the impossibility and alluring attraction of the work is easy to read, the pure sensation of the work cause a stir as Gary Crawford called it a “genuine masterpiece” (Gary Crawford, “Ira Levin” in Jack Sullivan (ed.) (1986) The Encyclopedia of Horror and the Supernatural Viking Press. (pg. 264). The reason why this book is so accepted that it was made to be alluring and edible and while the work of Rosemary’s Baby lives on in Roman Polanski’s 1968 film, the consequence of the book was made to show readers that something easy can be alluring.

The idea of the book remaining as strong as the reader proves that Levin didn’t have to make a sequel until 1997’s The Son of Rosemary. The implication of the hit book allows the decision to make the work alluring, and while this is an example of what makes an easy book alluring, for pure pleasure, the implications of trash work being elevated to high art is apart of the times of the culture response to an onset of political events or merely a decision to propel the art into the limelight. The more lime a work takes in, the less it outright inspires a new generation to find the work. A clear impersonal touch might make the work ironic, and might add some value. Chuck Palahniuk’s Fight Club is also an example of what makes a work alluring but trash pulp accessible.

The outcome of a work not being streamlined into artistic merit is the inevitable lifespan propelled to death before it even entered the public. But what makes the implication of the work seem a close secondary promise of the soul enter the book and into the reader’s imagination. It’s hard to say whether a reader has been seduced too easily into subpar works just because of lowering the difficulty of reading, or it’s the decision to make reading only a symbol of pleasure and not one for difficulty. Each purpose of the reader is to find what makes an author’s intent curious enough to a reader, but publishing, in its most basic form needs to contemplate whether these three things are what makes a work relevant or not. Some have other theories, but this remains a curious indication of the possibility that while publishing is a difficult exercise in the modern world, it’s the complication of the work that allows the reader to be inspired.

Discretion is best with any reader who can’t seem to make the work a possible classic, but the lowering of the bar is what makes the state of publishing a fearful place rather than one of creative expression. While it’s the decision of most authors to remain as difficult as they can, it’s the possibility while all who have come forward into the blind atmosphere of the work continually abated by the reader’s impossibility to be pleased. The consequence is no fault to blame, but publishers have much more to lose today to pass up a work that is intellectual and dangerous in nature.

What makes publishing in the modern era so curious is another idea that has plagued the industry. Since the boom of the Internet, or the ARPNET, the birth, January 1 1983, there could have been no prediction as to what makes the author more feared than ever. The fruition of the Internet has allowed most authors to circumnavigate the system of regular publishing and become published on their own without the help of the mainstream publishers.

While this is obscene to every single publisher of the world, there is no other compliment to the writer of a work, who is regularly rejected by the publisher, the opportunity to publish one’s work has become even easier than expected. It’s the decision of most author’s to self-publish, but it’s not a bad thing anymore. The Internet, with all its vast expanses and ability to reach more readers, requires the author to promote more, and however the ability might seem easier with social media, the ability to create a author profile and then tweet about their experiences in writing or books is the ultimate reason why the Internet has become a domineering presence in the world of publishing.

Considering that publishers were behind the curve to see that this was open to more territories than they could imagine. Now, authors have twitter, Facebook, and Instagram pages. The complications of how one might yet come to expect this is the norm, was not the norm for many years. Many people die in the outward expansion of social media, but the ability to govern an online presence has helped in the self-publishing world. Self-Publishing has also helped many authors be received by bigger publishers. Lisa Genova, the author of Still Alice, had self-published her work but made certain that the publishers would see it. Her success story was of its time. No author thought to self-publish their work and send the novel to a publisher in hopes of mass distribution. While it was anathema for a real author to do this, it created a trend for many authors to try the self-publishing route.

Published in 2007 through iuniverse, it made the opportunity of publishing the novel a trend for a moment, but the lasting impact of this remains a sign that each fad is the same as those who enter so quickly. Call Ms. Genova lucky, it was called “clinical” when it came to “character emotion” which allowed the chance for some to grasp the nature of Alzheimer patients. Sue Ransohoff of the Christian Monitor writes that Ms. Genova’s “authority” make her subject “come alive” making the prospects of the subject of Alzheimer’s seem “less terrifying than one can expect.” (Ransohoff, Sue. Reader Recommendation: Still Alice. Christian Science Monitor. September 4, 2014.

While others might yet comprehend that many writers are born out of pain, the aspect of Alzheimer’s had rarely been achieved in most literature. While it became an international best seller, the prose was described as “clumsy” but did it matter since the book was meant to be rather cold and remote. Had the opportunity for what makes others decide their possibility of the work becoming a simpler test of the soul forever looking like it did once see the book as a true perfection of the artists intent. Not everyone thinks a book is clumsy as though others who have outright declared a book bad doesn’t mean that readers will think so. A comprehensive and alluring book sometimes might be cold and remote.

In 2012, Gillian Flynn’s Gone Girl sold “1.5 million copies in hard cover and e-book formats” and however one might see that as a realization that most unknown authors have trend with or without the help of self-publishing the rise of such anomalies such as Gone Girl prove the respect for most authors don’t necessarily have to be self-published to make it today ( But being self-published is a new form of self-expression. The readers and the writers win. The possibility of what makes the author more alluring is not just specified by one specific algorithm or prose style. The possibility of self-publishing also builds a resume for most writers who have yet to be published, just like independent journalism. The author can promote their work and still rely on the help of most independent reviews to help signify the books status. But does a book published on a big press or small press determine an author’s fate?

The possibility that authors have their own experience being self-published consequently accept the basic theory that all who have come forward, into the modern era are not undermined by the same delivery of a book when the absolute promise of publishing in the modern world is not limited to literary connection, mass appeal, writing style, algorithms, but an author’s voice and a genuine respect for their craft no matter what a critic says. A publisher should publish what they want and not be forced to apologize for the writer or the work they promote. A clear promise of readers is good, but the intent is the absolute change of theories forgotten until they know the absolute cosmic perseverance is the same as those who have yet found their experience forgotten as they did. There are no rules, but perseverance is the key.












Comments are closed.

Recent Comments

    Enter your email address:

    Delivered by FeedBurner