• I published my blogs as a 300-odd-page paperback last week. The process is almost trivially easy: just get ChatGPT to convert the webpage to a Word document, print it as a PDF, and use Amazon Kindle Direct Publishing to obtain a proof.

  • From research to receiving a proof, the whole process took around two days (with 5 hours of work put in). Printing is done on demand so there are no upfront costs: in my case, I can get a copy delivered to myself for around GBP 5-6 (including postage).

  • The experience prompted me to think about the publishing pipeline and the distinction between literary authors (who are typically published) and amateur authors (who typically self-publish).

  • The most informative essay I found on this is by editor and non-fiction author Kevin Kelly.

  • Promotion is key. Kelly writes in his blog post Everything I Know about Self-Publishing,

    So when an author today pitches a book to an established publisher, the second question from the publishers after “what is the book about” is “do you have an audience?” Because they don’t have an audience. They need the author and creators to bring their own audiences. So, the number of followers an author has, and how engaged they are, becomes central to whether the publisher will be interested in your project.

  • He goes on,

    There are no more paid book tours. Few, if any, book reviews in newspaper or magazines, or author appearances on TV. Fewer ads for books. If any of these do happen, they will be arranged and paid for by the author.

  • But if promotion is so important, are contemporary literary authors any different from other kinds of celebrities or influencers? Are they all simply competing for attention?

  • My current answer is “yes”, but they are competing for a special kind of attention: the attention of hardcore readers that trickles down to popular culture over the years.

  • Professional YouTubers compete for likes and subscribers. Success is determined in a matter of days and weeks. Their impact is immediate.

  • Professional literary authors aim to please literature professors, students, and other self-appointed arbiters of taste. Success is measured in years, even decades. Their intended impact is on other authors/hardcore readers (of their preferred type), who may then go on to hold influential positions in various fields. It is not a kind of impact that is easily measured e.g. by immediate sales figures.

  • Compared to other ecosystems, this trickle-down arrangement works comparatively well in the English-speaking world. English is a widely used and self-confident international language: contemporary literature in English (e.g. Sally Rooney) commands cultural cachet on a global scale.

  • But the arrangement doesn’t work in the Chinese-speaking world. While Chinese is gaining prominence as a global business language, contemporary Chinese literature still commands little cultural cachet even among the Chinese.

  • Celebrities in the UK want to be seen as people who have read Sally Rooney. Celebrities in the Hong Kong/China also want to be seen as people who have read Sally Rooney. They likely would not have heard of (let alone read) contemporary Chinese literary authors.

  • Is the answer for Chinese-language literary authors simply to write for their own pleasure (regardless of readership)? Some of Dung Kai-cheung’s writings suggest a move in such a direction on his part, e.g. by blurring the distinction between literature and fan fiction.

  • My answer is “no”. Literary authors (e.g. Dung) invest an enormous amount of time and effort on their training. They invest in their craft to an extent that is simply beyond compare for the amateur blogger.

  • It is psychologically abnormal for such a person to be content to write for their own fleeting pleasure without regard for reception and readership.

  • Put another way: it is comparatively healthier for literary authors to put in the effort and be frustrated about the lack of proper reception, than to deliberately hone their craft to a high standard and then turn around to say “there are no such things as standards, every piece of writing is as good or as bad as anyone says it is”. The former may be sad but the latter is schizophrenic.

  • A counter-argument may go as follows. Consider a cardboard image of Kafka: someone who writes top-drawer novels only to burn them. Kafka is clearly a literary author. The (cardboard version of) him writes merely for his own pleasure. The cardboard Kafka is therefore a counterexample to the distinction put forward between amateurs and professionals.

  • I don’t think the counterargument is right. There are no watertight responses, but one move is to bite the bullet and say that the cardboard Kafka is an exceptional/pathological case.

  • Another move is to say that the cardboard Kafka is a product of the pre-social-media era. The current acute awareness of who is reading whom changes everything.

  • In the 2020s, we (1) all live our own bubbles; (2) are aware that everyone else lives in their own bubbles; and (3) are also aware that attention translates into money and influence.

  • A cardboard Kafka who lived before acute awareness of (1)-(3) may be willing to invest their time to hone their writing to a high level, only to discard everything.

  • That may only have been mildly eccentric in his age. But now that (1)-(3) are well known, it would be pathological for someone to do what cardboard Kafka did.

  • So my current mental model on what makes someone a (contemporary) literary author is as follows:

    • authors now fragment according to how they engage with this market. There are YouTube authors, Twitter authors, blog authors, Sci-Fi authors etc. etc.

    • Among all these niche markets is the niche market of literary authors, who write first and foremost for an audience familiar with the Western (and/or other) Canon.

    • Literary authors are not to be confused with amateur authors, who (a) can opt out of the attention market but (b) are practically guaranteed not to be read because (i) they are not addressing anyone in particular and (ii) are therefore not honing their work to any non-idiosyncratic standards.

    • Some environments (e.g. English speaking world) are more conducive to literary authors, with a wider readership, cultural influence, institutional support. Others (e.g. the Chinese speaking world) do not benefit from the same healthy ecosystem.

    • But it is no answer for Chinese literary authors to self-demote and see their work as mere fan fiction.

    • Literary authors either are or are not addressing and aiming for the praise from a readership steeped in the Canon (a time-expensive habit acquired over years of reading).

    • If they are, literary authors have to accept that recognition (even recognition after death) matters to them. If recognition is beyond reach, this is a proper matter of (mild, nostalgic, healthy) regret.

    • If they are not, then they should switch over to become amateur authors. Everything is then inverted. An amateur should be pleased even with a low single-digit readership. Any attention paid to them is an optional extra, a happy surprise.