I hope a couple of self publishing authors see this post . . . . I am somewhat tired of "New York is afraid of good books/publishes only crap/I am just too literary and stylish to ever sell to the Durrty Masssses..."
I am sick of people in conversation who make lofty declarations about popular works "not being any good" or being "badly written" as if 1. There is one obvious and universally understood standard for good writing, and 2. They are an unassailable authority on how to spot this quality, or its lack.
It sometimes seems like "bad writing" is supposed to be some kind of trump card. Even in cases where I agree -- for example, I think the prose in Twilight is quite clunky and amateur -- maybe it would be more instructive if you tried to understand what it does right? Because it is obviously doing something right, although maybe not a thing you care about.
I think it comes down to people having different requirements for literary works. I don't think the contempt of people on either side of the equation is warranted ("That popular book is trash!" "That literary book is boring!"). I think we need to recognize that each group is working with different parameters
( ... )
I don't think the contempt of people on either side of the equation is warranted ("That popular book is trash!" "That literary book is boring!")
No, contempt is not helpful. What I think I would like is for people to more honestly take ownership of their personal artistic reactions and opinions, instead of hiding behind a cover of supercilious literary scorn, or ill-informed reverse snobbery.
Unfortunately, our culture for some reason elevates "literary" over "popular" for reasons that go unquestioned.
I think it might have to do with the way literature is taught, especially by teachers who aren't particularly good or passionate. My favorite lit teachers wanted to teach us about books -- increase the variety of our reading, or increase our understanding and appreciation for what we read.
My least favorite lit teachers seemed to want to instill in us "proper" tastes. We were kids, and so largely unable to recognize the difference between brilliant and entertaining, even if such a difference was there. So I think maybe some kids
( ... )
I find it interesting, especially with the emphasis on what a business publishing is lately, that "popular" books are still such a hard sell while the industry keeps looking for "good" books. Agents and publishers are still looking for "good" and often overlooking what might be popular. Most books considered popular tend to make it in spite of a lack of faith or marketing from their publishers. They're often "flukes."
I think most editors are looking for ideal books: books with exciting stories, strong characterization, and surprising and interesting use of language that is nevertheless accessible to most readers.
Editors are first and foremost readers, but they are readers who cared enough about books to go into it as a business, despite long hours and low pay. This makes them in general different from your "I just want a fun book" reader (who constitute the bulk of readers). It does not surprise me that more "literary" people might want to be editors.
Genre editors are probably slightly less literary than mainstream editors, but still generally more literary that general readers. And some are, shall we say, insecure enough to want respect from the literati. It's high school cliques all over again, just in a different setting with different standards.
Do you feel like there's anything to be said for books that sell purely based on a "movement?" I'm thinking of the Left Behind series, which are dreadful, worthless books on every conceivable level, literally, creatively, and morally, yet which became a best-selling 12-issue series purely because Fundamentalist Christians have been trained by their pastors to snatch up anything which promotes their end-times dogma, regardless of the package it comes in.
Is there a lesson that aspiring writers can take from even this, or is it possible that a book can succeed in the way of a snake-oil salesman, by objectively lacking any merit whatsoever, yet preying on human psychological vulnerabilities that it is ethically wrong to exploit? Or are the ethics of the situation irrelevant to the larger point?
(Non-rhetorical question here; apologies if it comes off sounding snarky or anything, that's not how it's meant.)
And, having reread your question now with Even More Tired in my head, I seem not to have answered it...
The ethics of the situation are irrelevant to the larger point. The larger point is an intellectual exercise.
On the ground, however, the ethics of the situation should be part of one's evaluation of action. I recognize the rights of other people to do things I consider stupid. I do not respect that right if their stupidity is starting to adversely effect things I value.
Comments 17
Reply
Reply
Reply
Glad you liked the post!
Reply
Thanks for the clarification. I saw it was fb specific but wasn't sure about your feelings on twitter so thought better to just delete and check.
Reply
I am sick of people in conversation who make lofty declarations about popular works "not being any good" or being "badly written" as if 1. There is one obvious and universally understood standard for good writing, and 2. They are an unassailable authority on how to spot this quality, or its lack.
It sometimes seems like "bad writing" is supposed to be some kind of trump card. Even in cases where I agree -- for example, I think the prose in Twilight is quite clunky and amateur -- maybe it would be more instructive if you tried to understand what it does right? Because it is obviously doing something right, although maybe not a thing you care about.
Reply
Reply
No, contempt is not helpful. What I think I would like is for people to more honestly take ownership of their personal artistic reactions and opinions, instead of hiding behind a cover of supercilious literary scorn, or ill-informed reverse snobbery.
Unfortunately, our culture for some reason elevates "literary" over "popular" for reasons that go unquestioned.
I think it might have to do with the way literature is taught, especially by teachers who aren't particularly good or passionate. My favorite lit teachers wanted to teach us about books -- increase the variety of our reading, or increase our understanding and appreciation for what we read.
My least favorite lit teachers seemed to want to instill in us "proper" tastes. We were kids, and so largely unable to recognize the difference between brilliant and entertaining, even if such a difference was there. So I think maybe some kids ( ... )
Reply
Reply
I think most editors are looking for ideal books: books with exciting stories, strong characterization, and surprising and interesting use of language that is nevertheless accessible to most readers.
Editors are first and foremost readers, but they are readers who cared enough about books to go into it as a business, despite long hours and low pay. This makes them in general different from your "I just want a fun book" reader (who constitute the bulk of readers). It does not surprise me that more "literary" people might want to be editors.
Genre editors are probably slightly less literary than mainstream editors, but still generally more literary that general readers. And some are, shall we say, insecure enough to want respect from the literati. It's high school cliques all over again, just in a different setting with different standards.
Reply
Reply
Is there a lesson that aspiring writers can take from even this, or is it possible that a book can succeed in the way of a snake-oil salesman, by objectively lacking any merit whatsoever, yet preying on human psychological vulnerabilities that it is ethically wrong to exploit? Or are the ethics of the situation irrelevant to the larger point?
(Non-rhetorical question here; apologies if it comes off sounding snarky or anything, that's not how it's meant.)
Reply
Reply
The ethics of the situation are irrelevant to the larger point. The larger point is an intellectual exercise.
On the ground, however, the ethics of the situation should be part of one's evaluation of action. I recognize the rights of other people to do things I consider stupid. I do not respect that right if their stupidity is starting to adversely effect things I value.
Reply
Leave a comment