Awhile back, an article came out that interviewed a pretty well-known person. Marketing advice was offered, I frothed and flumbled, and so it passed out of my mind. For the most part.
I’ve come upon mentions of that article here and there. Some people are dissing it while others are giving it acclaim, but recently I read a blog post that really disturbed me. The general jist was that the blogger had initially reacted to the article the same way I did. “This flies in the face of everything I’ve said and done for the last ten years. This doesn’t make sense. This is BAD ADVICE.” But then the really freaky thing happened. The blogger said (paraphrased),
“Then I started to think about it. This guy has written something like 10 books. Maybe I needed to reconsider *my* position because clearly they know what they’re talking about.”
And therein lies the rub, said Hamlet.
We’re all special, which means nobody is
Have you ever watched the Pixar flick The Invincibles? As an adult I have to say, “No, neither have I.” However, you might recall, if you had seen it, several repetitions of the idea that if everyone is special then really no one is special. How can everyone be special, right? Well, that’s kind of where we’ve gotten to in the publishing business, at least insofar as the online world is concerned. Factually, anyone can publish a book these days. It might be self-published. It might be online only. But I mean, heck, I *technically* have published a book. It’s floating up there in my masthead minding its own business. It’s not like Paul Giamatti’s character in Sideways or the dad in Little Miss Sunshine, both of whom had to peddle their wears to publishers.
Is this a good thing?
On the one hand, this ability to publish oneself at a whim is kind of exciting. I love that peoples’ thoughts (like Julien Smith’s, for example) are more readily accessible than they might have been five years ago. Much like Triberr touts itself as the friend of the little blogger, the new world of publishing could rightly tout itself as the friend of the author who wants to get published really really badly.
On the other hand, this also means that we have a lot of books that might be kind of like Wikipedia. They might look really good. They might be 90% legit. It’s that 10% that can be problematic. The thing is, while we have gotten looser about what we can publish, our reverence for the published word has not really changed. If it is in book form, it deserves to be considered. If a person has put a lot of thoughts into book form, they must know what they’re talking about.
Does this scare anybody else?
Don’t abandon what you believe or know to be true
More than the whole publishing conundrum though, what really worries me is that people are getting intimidated by authors who may have 6-12 books to their name. Don’t do that. Even the smartest people don’t know everything. Sometimes authors aren’t even the smartest people. If your experience has shown you that something is true, don’t just toss it away because someone wrote more books than you over the last decade. If you firmly believe something, read with an open mind, but stand up for your beliefs. You likely came by them for some good reason. Don’t be intimidated by people with lots of book titles in their bios. Especially these days. At least read all of those books first.
Does this make sense?
Image Credit: http://www.flickr.com/photos/jm3/4683685 via Creative Commons
Then there’s that woman. She’s written like 250 Harlequin Romances. I bet SHE knows what she’s talking about.
@KenMueller Ehem. Fair enough…:)
Am *really* interested in finding out just who was spewing the bad advice. But, alas, gut needs to be trusted.
@davevandewalle I’ll never tell 🙂
We forget, all the time, to back up our “learning” with example or, where appropriate, reference to previous works. Backing your ow new research up with self-reference is like saying “I didn’t cause this car accident because I didn’t cause the last one I was in” – and how stupid is that?
As with all works; “Valet secundum oportet.” Valid reference must exist.
@ianmrountree I love that, Ian. Yeah, the whole, “I’m right cuz I say I am” thing has never quite impressed me. Unfortunately though, if a person has a lot of power it can be enough to intimidate others.
I agree Margie. People forget to stand by their convictions, what they know to be right or wrong, and what is working in their particular situation, and what is not. The “popular wisdom” can be applicable to what we are faced with, but the particulars will always be different. And, the author is trying to sell books.
Trying new things is great, but can often divert time, energy and manpower that we do not have to spare. We know the people we work with, our particular and peculiar markets and a host of variables that the author does not take into account.
We must always remember check our hearts, our heads, and our guts.
Martina
@Martina McGowan isn’t that interesting? We forget to stand by our convictions. You’d think that would come pretty naturally, right? And yet, some people are willing to second guess themselves because someone claims to know more. Scary situation.
I have argued with many of the world’s greatest author’s in my head.
No matter what someones creds are, that doesn’t mean that skepticism need go out the window. I think it is good to re-examine our beliefs, but we don’t need to change them because someone with more “Kred” tells us to. It could be bad advice,
or it may just be bad advice for you!
You might need to stay on your path and find another way to do things. Then you can write 20 books about how that expert got it wrong (okay taking that self-publishing bit too far *lol* )
@susansilver Exactly. If you go the other way you’re being just as silly. “No, actually I know everything, so there!” Be open to new ideas and new ways of thinking, but don’t throw out your ideas just because someone has written more books. That’s not a good way to go either.
And yeah, 20 books on that topic might be a *bit* much 🙂
I think I know what article you’re talking about 😉
I’ve thought about the ease of publishing content and its effect on journalistic integrity. And, alas, I think it is a 100% good thing. Since everyone has a megaphone to say anything, we are first to be less lazy about what we choose to believe. When publishing was controlled by a select few “credible” sources, we were able to blindly trust what we were fed. Now, we’re forced to choose discernment or devastation. If we as rational human beings don’t have the sense to evaluate the legitimacy of an argument, then we’re going to be misled. David Meerman Scott makes this point about the blogosphere in The New Rules of PR and Marketing. We take in information, evaluate it, and form a judgment. NOTHING should be taken at face value. People that oppose a diversity of opinions, I think, have simply lost the ability or desire to make judgments. It’s like Dostoevsky’s Grand Inquisitor…they prefer to just let someone else decide on their behalf than to have to make decisions and be responsible for the outcomes.
@dougricesmbiz Ehem. Yes. Yes you do 🙂
I think that’s a really interesting take. Perhaps you are right that it is a good thing. I know many people who argue that way. But I think if we are all left to our own devices, we could only benefit from being confident in what we say we know and in what we believe. Otherwise you’re just a bit of driftwood letting the waves of the ocean carry you around. And that can make you pretty darned seasick after awhile.