When
someone said (this was sometime ago) about one of our products,
she didn't think Silverfish published 'that kind of book', we were
gob-smacked. Our first reaction was, "What, what, what?!" as if we
had been caught with our pant-zipper down. We were certainly
confused. After we calmed, we asked ourselves, "Why did she think we
wouldn't publish this?" It was quite obvious that she thought we
were a bunch of snobs, but what kind?! It was important to ensure
that one stood accused of the right type of snobbery. Then, we
laughed.We have met many types of book snobs in the fourteen years we have been open. Some will come into the shop and declare loudly (as if it makes a difference to us) that they don't read Malaysian books (oh dear), or only read business and management, or self-help, or non-fiction, implying that everything they don't read could be classified as rubbish. One friend even came in and declared that she only read thrash! I love her!
Anyway, going back to the title that upset the madam so much, it was a book of short stories by one author. Nothing embarrassing about that. The stories were anecdotal, but told with plenty of humour. Was humour the problem, then? In all the years we have been reading manuscripts, it is interesting to note that humour is an ingredient that is glaringly missing from Malaysian writing. Strange, isn't it? Yes, we have satirical cartoons and jokes. We love to tell Irish jokes with local minorities featured as characters, not to mention local political ones, but, as a people, we appear to have completely lost our ability to laugh at ourselves. We can laugh at others, but not ourselves. How many Malaysian writers would we regard as funny? Well, Chua Kok Yee is one, although some have remarked, "Aiyoh, why he write like that, one?" completely missing his humour. You know the Hokkien word, "Siow?" That's what Kok Yee is!
But, we have reason to believe what madam really meant was, "It is not literary." Again, "What, what, what?!"
Okay, let's go back a little in history. 'Literary' was a label publishers stuck on books that they otherwise couldn't sell (or as a reaction against Faber which had establishing itself a notch above the rest, at the time). It was, we believe, a trend that started in the late seventies, or thereabouts, and reinforced by the Booker (and other) prizes. It was generally considered to be language driven, as opposed to plot. They came to imply good prose (that beautiful turn of phrase), a slice of life, a pithy statement about the human condition, all told subtly in an understated tale. I was a snob, and I wouldn't read anything else, in the late nineties and the early naughties. To quote my favourite minstrel: 'I was so much older then, but I'm younger than that now'.
In the last thirty years, Anglophone 'literary' titles have become mere products, another commodity, albeit one with very little appeal amongst most readers (except 'snobs'). General readers have largely abandoned them in droves for sci-fi, fantasy, horror, crime (marginally still acceptable to the L-types), thrillers, chicklit, soft porn, romance, etc, etc, where the money is. Literary books, on the other hand, have increasingly been regarded as boring. Sure, there are many that are still good, but their authors tend to be older, or the usual suspects. Unfortunately, several (including prize-winning ones) appear to be nothing more than exercises in self-gratification. Still, these are products that keep publishing houses looking respectable while they make their money elsewhere (even when they are run by CEOs who publicly -- and infamously -- declare that they do not read). An Arab-American author I met recently said that Fifty Shades was paying for her book! She would not have been published otherwise. (Someone in the industry recently proposed a new 'literary' genre. What? To drive more people away?)
Anyway, this is how we choose books to publish at Silverfish. First, there must be an interesting story, whatever the genre, solidly structured, well argued within its own internal logic, and told with empathy from the points of view of all characters. If you preach, we will reject your work. (We will also reject books on self-help, business & management, academic & text, and teenage angst (no matter how old the writers) with or without an honest reason.) Second, adequate language to convey the meaning of the story. If language skills are better, they should enhance the storytelling and the reader experience, but never stand in the way of comprehension, or shout, "Look at me, look at me. See how clever I am!" Please bear in mind that poor language skills can be fixed; a poor story cannot. (Ironically, the simpler it is, the harder it is to write.) Third, we like writers who do not have a problem with working hard, and are not unwilling to rewrite. (We can suss them out fairly quickly.) And fourth, we like writers who make a difference, who are not afraid to push boundaries, who research their work well, and who are honest.
Yes, the madam was right. We are snobs indeed, but we don't apologise for being interested only in the best of Malaysian literature.
