PANCAKE BREAKFAST
by Benn Ray
We were having breakfast.
Rachel was having the banana pancakes, wheat.
I was having the blueberry pancakes, buttermilk.
We were also having one of those simultaneous, dual conversations. The one Rachel initiated was in reference to a Book Standard column by Jessa Crispin where she was talking about self-published comics vs. self-published books, and why (according to Crispin) self-published comics were cool and self-published books were not cool.
The one I initiated was in reference to the Diane Rehm Show (which was playing in the background as we ate), where she was discussing the sale of certain US ports to a company owned by the United Arab Emirates, and one of her guests was Martin O'Malley.
Rachel found her banana pancakes to be on the sour side. I found my blueberry pancakes to be on the undercooked side, which is no big deal really. I mean, I'd rather have undercooked pancakes (mmmm... batter) than undercooked hash browns, which I sometimes get, because, well, undercooked potatoes are kinda gross.
I think the reason that self-published indy comics tend to be better, where many self-published books tend to not be good is because the people who make self-published indy comics are not self-publishing because they can't find a publisher, but hope to one day. I think most self-published indy comics are done for the sake of doing, with no future goals or expectations. However, most self-published books I've come across are self-published because the project couldn't find a publisher, but the person writing hopes to have one one day
In that regard, I think self-published books are more like self-published super-hero comics. The goal of the creator is to one day be discovered, signed to a major press or at least get some work-for-hire. Rachel's take was slightly different, and seemed to involve more of the design elements (she had it written here, but there were problems with Blogger and she lost most of her post - and really, I should just rewrite this column and come up with something else because it kind of wrecks what I was trying to do here, not having her post there, but I was mostly done by the time I discovered she had problems, so...).
But in between threads of self-publishing, and bites of flawed pancakes, we were also discussing the UAE/US ports deal.
As I was explaining it, Rachel said, "that, right there. That tone in your voice. Can you talk about this without sounding that way?"
I sounded angry. And I was. My anger was switching on and off as we would slip from conversational strand to conversational strand. I wasn't angry at all talking about the self-publishing theories.
But as soon as I started to explain the problems with the UAE/US port deal, I would get angry. But I wasn't angry at Rachel. We weren't even arguing, I was merely trying to explain why it's seen as problematic by a lot of people. In fact, the way I felt about the actual conversation itself was very much the same as the self-publishing, but I could feel myself get tense and annoyed.
And I've been mulling it over all day.
The self-publishing conversation is an open subject. There may be no right or wrong, merely opinion, and while Rachel's opinion was different than mine, I found it interesting and wanted to hear it, and used it to help inform and guide what I thought.
However, with the UAE/US port deal (like so much of what passes for political "discourse" these days), I suspect is about one side trying to bullshit the other side.
One conversation involves people being honest about the actual purpose of the conversation, and floating ideas and theories back and forth.
The other is one side at worst trying to muddy the waters of what we know to be true, and at best, trying to win a debate even if it involves being disingenuous or dishonest.
Sour banana pancakes. Undercooked blueberry pancakes. UAE/US port deals. Self-published comics vs. self-published books.
Somehow it all made sense this morning.