Where has all the talent gone?

As serious scribes are well aware, writing takes time, effort, and skill -- as do most interests.  But while a stamp collector, for example, can get by with minimal knowledge on the subject, simply acquiring philatelic wares which catch his or her eye, writers must have focus, direction, and ability.  Training is helpful, too.  I certainly credit my own years in journalism school for providing me with much-needed feedback and guidance, not to mention a forum of preparation for future career endeavors.  But with the advent of self-publishing auspices, whether online or otherwise, genuine talent is not necessarily a criteria for writing and publishing.  Anyone who wishes to do so can with the simple click of a button on a mouse.

But while some bloggers/self-publishers possess legitimate skill and deserve a forum in which to exhibit their talent, others are foisting unpolished written product on the public with neither ability nor respect for the rules of grammar to which serious writers adhere.  I personally believe that anyone who spends the time and effort to compose an article, poem or any other written work should be applauded for the attempt as practice is a prerequisite for talent acquisition.  But there are some who believe that the less gifted who self-publish make the craft and the forum seem a little less legitimate. But should amateur writers, regardless of ability, really be discouraged from exhibiting enthusiastic creativity and developing fledgling skill?  Who amongst us has the right to judge the talent level of self-publishers?  And should professionals not embrace the technology of new media and its energetic participants?  Or are we content to remain in a strident, almost snobbish rut?

This point was reiterated in Mathew Ingram's 2012 article, Publishing is no Longer a Job or an Industry -- It's a Button (http://gigaom.com/2012/04/09/publishing-is-no-longer-a-job-or-an-industry-its-a-button/).  Commenting on author Clay Shirkey's assertion that publishing as an industry may very well be dying a slow death due, in part, to amateur writers and online publishing auspices, Ingram doesn't necessarily agree.  Rather, he believes that professionals in the industry need to focus less on stringency and more on skilled service in an effort to distinguish themselves from non-industry writers and editors.  Editing, proofreading, fact-checking, and research remain as in-demand skills for all writers.  Ingram also believes that professionals need to acknowledge the accomplishments of their counterparts in the alternate publishing world, pointing out the success of the self-published Amanda Hocking, who recently garnered over $2 million dollars in revenue utilizing Amazon's Kindle as a platform.  Ingram also cites the success of John Locke, another do-it-yourself publisher, who has moved over a million units of his written wares.  Ingram's observations are certainly on-point with current trend and his advice is undeniably sensible, but it may not do much to boost the esteem of skilled writers and publishers who have spent years honing their skills, many in a professional environs.

So, where has all the talent gone?  Skilled writers will always remain and they'll always find a way to publish.  And the good news for the gifted is the aforementioned online and self-publishing auspices.  Ingram is correct in his assertion that we need to roll with the times and embrace new mediums and burgeoning talent, regardless of the source.  Technology is opportunity and opportunity should be widespread.  The last thing writers need is to revert to the days of the typewriter, the printing press, and narcissistic isolationism.  Sure, online and self-publishing forums are available to all, but the inclusion of eager amateurs doesn't mean the exclusion of those with the genuine gift of writing or the professional credentials to back up these skills.  Rather, it provides greater opportunities for everyone and ensures that publishing, regardless of its platform or participants, will never perish.