Betty Crocker Vs. Self-Publishing.
Both say something important about our “quick and easy” world.
“A writer is somebody for whom writing is more difficult than it is for other people.” Thomas Mann
I got in trouble on social media last week suggesting self-published writers weren’t necessarily seasoned. The response was swift and merciless. One person even told me to go eat a cookie. I know that’s code for something worse, so I thanked her for keeping it civilized and not calling me a “dickwad.”
Other responses focused on the fact that self-publishing attracts all sorts, and I shouldn’t judge everyone by traditional standards. As one woman explained, “…some of us just want to see our creative works in final, attractive printed form and don’t want to waste resources on annoying process and people.”
Some didn’t want to waste the time or the resources. Others just wanted to be out there, getting their names in print.
That “annoying process” seems to be a common theme against traditional publishing. Some didn’t want to waste the time or resources. Others just wanted to be out there, getting their names in print.
“After two or three drafts,” one guy wrote, “I’m done. I’m moving on to my next book.”
I suggested to him that Hemingway rewrote For Whom The Bell Tolls twenty times. His response? “So I’m not Hemingway,” he said. “Neither are you.”
A woman went even further, saying, “My goodness, your book (Skyhorse, 2014) only got 21 reviews. Who are you to judge us?”
Another added that she had over 10,000 reviews and, by definition, was doing a lot better than me. “I’m getting along just fine,” she added.
Many of these people claimed to be doing just fine. To add substance to their argument, I was directed to an article published by The Alliance of Independent Authors. Their research showed that self-published books went up 53 percent between 2021 and 2022.
That’s quite a remarkable growth trend. In fact, as growth trends go, the only comparable I could find was when instant cake mix first hit the market back in the early 50s.
They even stopped saying they were baking a cake. They said they were making it.
Touted as the “cake anyone can bake,” companies like Betty Crocker made instant cake mix a nationally popular staple. Housewives were thrilled for a while—then they weren’t. They didn’t feel the same sense of accomplishment their mothers did making everything from scratch. They even stopped saying they were baking a cake.
They said they were making it.
Before I get any more angry comments—possibly telling me to go eat a cookie again—let’s look at other similarities between Betty Crocker and self-publishing.
Back in the early 50s, one out of four women had jobs. After an eight-hour shift, you still had kids, and a husband, and all the domestic responsibilities. “Quick and easy” products seemed to be the answer (and still are).
In some respects, isn’t that what attracts people to self-publishing now? Many of the comments I received said they had a lot on their plates. Either they had other jobs, or they had other books.
Besides, being able to publish in days — instead of years — isn’t just a way to get your book out there. It’s also a psychological advantage. Like those 50s housewives, you’re getting things done without the fuss and worry. Who doesn’t want that?
As one psychologist pointed out, “We were all laborers at one point. That doesn’t leave us just because we have better tools. We’re still creatures who enjoy the fruits of our labors.”
So why didn’t those 50s housewives enjoy what they had if they were so busy? It could be that “fuss and worry” is built into our genes. As one psychologist pointed out, “We were all labourers at one point. That doesn’t leave us just because we have better tools. We’re still creatures who enjoy the fruits of our labors. It’s what continues to make us better.”
I know a lot of you are saying, “Look, if you want to waste time with traditional publishers, go ahead. We’ll have four books out before you have one. And we’ll be earning income.”
You could be right. But is it making you better? Are the fruits of your labor somehow lessened by the ease of self-publishing? Or are you saying, “I don’t want to be Hemingway, anyway.”
Let me leave you with this last thought. During the actor’s strike earlier this year — following the screenwriter’s strike — one of the demands was protection against AI. Why the concern?
Because, if we’re not trying to be Hemingway (or any writer of note), then the whole idea of writing as a skill gets lost. In fact, our only hope — in any field or endeavor — is creating what AI can’t.
In other words, AI is already capable of replacing anyone whose work is not, let’s say unexpected.
All AI can ever do is emulate what’s already there. Thousands of stories and articles, plays and novels have been fed into it (while ignoring publishing rights). In other words, AI is already capable of replacing anyone whose work is not, let’s say unexpected.
Again, you’re probably saying, “Who cares?” In fact, you might even be saying, “I’m using AI to improve my writing now.”
Here’s the thing: AI won’t need you much longer. That’s already the concern in Hollywood. AI can crank out a script in minutes. Without guarantees against it, AI could take over the whole industry. And I wouldn’t put a lot of faith in guarantees—not Hollywood’s, anyway.
What screenwriters — and everyone else — needs to do is simply be better than AI. That means putting in the time, putting in the energy, and putting in the humanity that AI simply doesn’t have (at the moment, anyway).
I know it’s a lot of “fuss and worry,” but if we don’t do it, arguing over what’s better, traditional or self-publishing, becomes a moot point. Both could be lost if we don’t try harder.
Housewives made that point about Betty Crocker back in the 50s.
Now it’s up to us to keep making it.
