I understand Victor Rangel-Ribeiro's concern, which he has voiced on earlier occasions, although I may not remember where.
Without getting into who writes what and perhaps even why the need to write, one expects every writer to be able to stand their ground. So, there are sloppy writers overseas and in Goa, both of whom self-publish. What gives self-publication a bad name is not that "sloppy" writers self-publish, and other sloppy writers who do not have to self-publish, having patrons within the publishing industry. What strikes a chord among published writers is that by self-publishing one is not abiding by certain rules -- largely unsaid, but adhered to by those who were picked up by publishing houses. And also the resentment, that someone being regarded as a self-published writer being feted or even marginally being celebrated in their communities (it is usually in such situations), or worse having to share the same dais -- suggesting perhaps to the audience and even to themselves that they are being seen as equals. If people are blind, then not much can be done about it. Much like stating that cricket is a gentelman's game. Any rules were designed by the publishing and other industries to streamline talent, control and sometime shape it, and to decide even later who becomes a flagship representative in any field. So there is no rule as to who should and who shouldn't publish. Not being cynical here. But often writers surpass any system and also get rewarded in the process. Adn teh work id dulu justified at being printed. Its not just that the work speaks -- a work may be very good, but may not speak to numerous houses resulting in the work remaining unpublished. But this does not mean it has to be self-published per se. But self-publishing is an avenue that has to be seen for what it could be. Its just that perhaps on account of such practices (not unethical) better writers may not be noticed, as one may conjecture based upon the perception that there happen to be many published writers around. And a non self-published writer may not stand out and get noticed for advances, and a successful book leading to accolades and a true non self-published career. But does a non-self published writer need to stand out? Is that a meaningful motivation,much like applause after a dance. Am I being unkind here? And particularly one who may have some reputation, or is it the fear that reputation gets effaced with so many writers around, to include the self-published. What can one expect from a people who read so little. What may one expect from a people who have not been taught to read. We were taught to read everything, but does that help one be discerning. No. Can one read a newspaper, leaflet, a bulletin and really learn how to read. Not just read -- but learn, make connections, hear the voice of the writer -- so I am talking about our formation. There are also self-published writers whose voice one can hear. The technique could be another story. I do not think one may find solace and joy among a people who do not cherish what many societies have embraced (and they in turn their societies) over time: their writers, poets, thinkers, and others who contribute to the collective mind, in essence building community -- constantly moving the society to see itself differently, interjecting social change. And not to forget publishers remembering that with ever few generation books often have to be translated again. Why? Because the writers tone has to be relayed again to a more "advanced" generation. Besides that, are publishers really weeding out the good from the glorious, and going through the crop of writers with the rigor that thei field demands. Are they really? One only has to look around. And besides that, do they not indulge the self-published as a matter of course. Perhaps there a few who do get an audience. If so, they must be happy to have taken the initiative. I have better chances of getting published on account of a few calls that people may may on my behalf, than not sloppy writers who under extenuating existential circumstances went ahead and got their work self-published. I hope people get my point, and I note that if I were to get published, some genius would bring this up. On a parallelnote, if Indian publishers did not publish books where writers pay to get their works published, then many overseas writers would not get tenure. Look at our four major publishers of History, Paleography, and other subjects. How about the critics? Are they decent literary critics or is their true calling journalism. Not that one may not be able to both equally well. How about when the literary critic is also a writer and has particular tastes to seek the mundane. | Do ones best, and let the chips fall where they may. Rue ones people rather than their desires at seeking fame, or even oneself. Perhaps there are those who are self-publishing just to hold themselves together mentally, or because there are grants to be had or for reasons we may not know. venantius j pinto __________________________________________________________ >From Goaclips 1003 The doyen of Goan writing in English: "Expat writing is no different from the work of writers in Goa. We have our good writers and our sloppy writers. The main difference is that our sloppy writers overseas fall by the wayside much faster; in Goa, they rush to a local printer and become 'published' authors. The sloppy writers in Goa, who self-publish their books then given self-publication a bad name, thus muddying the waters for the good writers in Goa who also decide to self-publish their books." [Writer Victor Rangel-Ribeiro in an interview with Frederick Noronha in Herald Mirror]