But first, a word on yesterday’s You Tell Me, which was one of the most fascinating discussions evah.
While I will leave it to everyone else to decide how they personally feel about the appropriateness or accuracy of King’s statement, I would like to address the broader question of who can and should decide what books are “good,” and push back a bit on the notion that “the reader” is or should be sole arbiter.
Yes, individual reader opinions are all valid in their own way. But I would not say that all opinions are equally valid, and if we as a culture completely devalue the role of experts and critics in shaping and helping define what we consider good I think we will lose a collective appreciation and elevation of artistic merit.
You would not value my opinion on particle physics, nor should you, because all I know about particle physics is that wave and particle duality makes my freaking head hurt. So would you value a particle physicist’s view on books equal to a book expert’s? Have we gotten to the point where everyone’s opinion on books, no matter their expertise, background, insight, and level of literacy, should be treated with equal reverence?
Yes, art is at least partially subjective, we all read different books for different reasons, and there is something to appreciate and learn from in every single successful book. But in terms of opinions and discourse, the American Idolization of culture can only go so far. Otherwise we might as well just do away with Oscars and National Book Awards and crown whatever books are most accessible and successful “the best” and scrap the notion of ideal books that, yes, not everyone might appreciate or find easy to read, but which advance the art form, represent an artistic ideal, and break new ground for those who follow.
Anon@9:37 this morning put it more eloquently than I could: “One of the worst things happening in public discourse about the arts is that there appears to be an attempt to bring criticism down to the level of mere opinion, with the further claim that everyone’s opinion is equal, and that all opinion is “just opinion” and nobody’s opinion is more valid than another’s.
This false conflation of criticism with opinion and the misguided egalitarianism in which it’s wrapped is leading to the death of informed criticism, which is being drowned in a sea of uninformed opinion.”
Word.
I hesitate to describe King as a critic because he’s primarily an author, and in no way should the preceding be construed as an endorsement or rejection of his views. Call me Switzerland. I also will freely admit that the “experts” sometimes get it spectacularly wrong both in the short term and from a historical perspective. But consider me a little nervous about the pendulum swinging too far toward an artistic elevation of mass appeal and the yes, “misguided egalitarianism” of treating all opinions as equally valid.
Now then. There was news in publishing this week, and I aim to bring it to you.
The big news today is that HarperCollins reported a 25% drop in sales in the last quarter compared to the final quarter last year. Let that sink in. 25% drop. I can’t even bang my head on my desk that’s so depressing.
Meanwhile a new website geared toward all things self-publishing has gone live, edited by one of the best self-pubbed authors out there, Henry Baum. His excellent book NORTH OF SUNSET was named one of the best self-published books by POD-dy Mouth in Entertainment Weekly.
It turns out that Pilot Sully, he of dropping a plane down smoothly in the freezing Hudson, had a library book in his luggage, which he lost in the crash. What was it? A book on professional ethics. OF COURSE IT WAS. Can we please appoint Pilot Sully to the Supreme Court or name him pope or something? My goodness. Also the library waived his fees. Which he then probably insisted on paying anyway.
HarperStuido had a (typically) great post this week: they asked an independent bookseller three things publishers could do better, and then dished right back on three things independent booksellers could do better. The answers were insightful.
Google and Amazon are making waves today as Google announced plans to bring Google Book Search and its 1.5 million public domain books onto the iPhone. Meanwhile, Amazon dropped a huge bomblet by suggesting that they’re going to make Kindle books available on mobile devices. (hat tip Pub Lunch)
Meanwhile, thanks to reader Jan Whitaker for a great article about the past, present, and future of e-books. Written by an e-book junkie, it’s really worth a look as it puts both the past and future in perspective
And finally, Anne and May (Dayton and Vanderbilt) have killed many characters over the course of their writing careers, and Anne recently wrote a hilarious look back at the poor saps who were edited out completely. RIP, suckers!
Have a great weekend!
Anonymous says
Nathan,
Partical physics and reading? I’ve never even heard of partical physics, but I, along with the majority of the world, have been reading since 1st grade. Someone mentioned a doctor or lawyer, same thing, never studied medicine or the laws, but I have been reading for a very long time. Reading is something we are all exposed to. The experts know what they like, and I have to tell you I know what I like better than you and the rest of the experts. No one can look at a book and tell me (as was suggested by the art correlation) the critic says this is a good book so you will read it and like it. You may fool someone intermittently into buying a Marc Chagall because an expert says it is a true work of art, but the only reason I would hang it in my living room would be to show off my wealth. I’d have to cover it with a blanket the rest of the time. There are priceless books out there, but not because of the words printed in them. I would think most people do not buy books because they are a narcissist, and have something to prove by showing the world we only read he finest literature. I’m not going to buy an ugly rug, because it is woven finely, not matter what an expert tells me.
Nathan Bransford says
anon-
I’m sure you do know what you like more than any expert does. But I wouldn’t confuse personal taste with a critical consensus (if there is one) of what is “good writing” or “good literature.” You may not want to read those books, which is fine. Everyone reads books for different reasons. But I think the world is better off with the existence of an artistic ideal that is usually (but not always) different from what is the most commercially successful at any given time.
Bane of Anubis says
Nathan, while I agree somewhat that we should allow critics to critique and should value their judgment incrementally more, your particle physics analogy is specious…
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, whether that’s a stuffy suit or a bare-skinned Bohemian… String theory, quarks, GUT and all that mind boggling boggledom of physics is not the same thing – Being a left-brained person, I need a right-brain to right-brain analogy, not a right vs. left.
Ultimately, I believe that art critics, movie critics, literary critics, etc. are overvalued (frequently by themselves) – they’re useful for those who follow them and can trend their opinions and thus know whether said critic is someone whose opinion they respect or can discount. Ultimately, their opinion trends are more valuable, not their individual stand-alone opinions.
Nathan Bransford says
Also, I don’t think just reading throughout one’s life necessarily translates to expertise. I have played the piano all my life, but I’m no Rachmaninoff.
Nathan Bransford says
bane of anubis-
I actually agree with you that critical consensus is more valuable than any one critic. This whole argument isn’t going to apply to individuals, it paints with too broad a stroke. I just think we’re better off with the notion of a critical hit (implying a consensus of experts, or at least the ideal of one) vs. just bowing to mass appeal.
Ink says
Call me Satan, aka the Devil’s Advocate (Yes, I represent myself. Who else would I trust?)
Let me say that we’d all better believe in writing experts, because that’s what we’re trying to be. Or at least all of us who see ourselves as writers (which I assume is most of us here in Bran Land). To say otherwise is to strip all the meaning from what it is we’re trying to do. What are the choices a writer makes except to write something that’s “good”? Why do we choose one word over another except that it is in some way a “better” word for the story? To deny expertise, to make all opinions equally valid, is to deny your own talent and knowledge, your own sense of artistic merit. If all things are merely subjective taste then why revise at all? One choice is as subjectively valid as another. But we all do. We realize when a word isn’t right, a sentence stumbles, a rhythm falters. We feel when there’s a lack of clarity, when there’s a rift in the vividness of the dream. We edit, we choose, and in so doing we validate our belief in good writing, our belief in our own expertise. We validate that all writing is not equal.
How can we do otherwise?
Now, subjective taste is a part of this. Everyone has a subjective opinion. No one can say what’s “good” for us except us. But this amounts to what we like, not what is objectively good. Expertise is earned. It’s talent and knowledge applied. And whatever our credentials the words are merely opinion until we back them up. And if we are experts we can back it up, whether creatively or critically. The better an expert we are, the more convincing our words will be.
As writers we want to be published. When we’re looking for an agent, do we want a random subjective opinion to represent us, or an expert? Who will be better for our book? Do we want an “everyone’s equal” opinion at the editorial stage, or the views of an expert, the views of a successful editor? Grab a hundred people off the street, and then grab a hundred of the most successful editors in the publishing world. Now have them all read our novels and offer constructive criticism. How often do you think we’ll take the advice of the people off the street?
Let’s say we have a person… a smart person, someone who likes books. They read a thriller or two every year, every now and then a self-help book. So in fifteen years they’ve read thirty or so books, most of them by a few favourite authors. Great. They have the right to decide what they like, what they think is “good”. Their subjective tastes are perfectly valid. But that’s a limited view from which to try and decide any objective value in regards to writing.
An expert in the business will have studied extensively. Writing, critical theory, reviews… and they will have read widely in many fields, quite likely thousands of books across different genres and time periods. They’ve worked with writers, worked with editing and copywriting. They know the history, they know the market, they’ve kept up to date. They’ve seen successful books, and unsuccessful ones… and they’ll understand many of the reasons for both. Perhaps they’ve written a few million words themselves…
Who has the better basis for forming an opinion on what is “good” writing? Who will be able to make a claim and back it up with evidence and analysis? If it’s you in the cookpot, who are you going to ask for advice? Better hope there’s an expert around…
All stories set forth their own parameters, construct their own expectations, whether it be to entertain or edify. How well they meet those expectations reveals their quality. And the experts are the ones who are best able to reveal the efficacy with which writers accomplish this, the ones who have devoted their lives to understanding the craft.
Anything else is artistic anarchy.
Your friend,
Satan
(please ignore the sulfur)
Eiko says
As writers, I think we absolutely need experts – to help us improve our work. The public can tell us what it does or doesn’t like, but I don’t think it can tell us how to make our writing better.
Yes, there is a certain amount of subjectivity in novel writing. Yes, the success of a novel is partly defined by its sales – but I think sales are due to the heart of a story (which I don’t think can be taught). An expert can tell us how well our writing communicates what we’re trying to get across, and more importantly, how to improve it. Ideally, those same experts tell us what “good” is.
I find it particularly sad that one should ever aspire to be “good enough”. Meyer writes an engaging story, to be. But she’s targeting a particular audience, and even admits to her limitations https://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1734838-2,00.html.
If the worth of books were based solely on public opinion, we’d be at the mercy of one big popularity contest.
Bane of Anubis says
True, but if you know you’re a beer and pizza type of guy in some area, you probably appreciate the popcorn gallery’s opinion more than the champagne’s…
Perhaps the best thing about things like this SK brouhaha is the dialogue it’s created — I wonder how many people went to check out Twilight just b/c King bashed it? Perhaps the literary world needs a few Lindsay Lohan/Paris Hilton spotlit falling outs (or a Christian Bale style throwdown on his agent for checking his grammar :).
Kristan says
I agree with (and appreciate!) your response to my comment: writing isn’t infinitely subjective. If one person likes it, that doesn’t make it good (except to them), and if one person hates it, that doesn’t make it bad (except to them). I guess that’s why I was objecting to the idea of a critic/expert’s opinion mattering more: at the end of the day, that’s still just ONE person.
So, “I just think we’re better off with the notion of a critical hit (implying a consensus of experts, or at least the ideal of one) vs. just bowing to mass appeal.”
Agreed. I think that’s a key aspect to all of this: consensus. (Or at least majority?) Whether from the critics or the masses.
Anonymous says
Just a note about that self-publishing link….an authoritative looking site but some of the companies linked to and talked about within the site do not work within the best interest of the authors. There are a number of self-proclaimed sites on self-publishing with the stated intent of providing “legitimate” info on self-publishing but the real intent is to scrape as much money as possible from naive authors. Got to be careful in the murky world of self-publishing.
Anonymous says
Do you listen to only musical masterpieces? Are new bands told how they should play there music? Do we get new masterpieces because they follow the rules and someone told them exactly how to play? You may not be Rachmaninoff, but I would bet that is not the kind of music you prefer to listen to on an everyday basis. Nor would you listen to only Rachmaninoff advice if you were writing music. I would bet you would write the most poular music you could, what normal everyday people want to hear, which isn’t Rachmaninoff. You may not get it right for everyone, and certainly not the professionals, but like music which has changed every year I have been alive (and that is more than you)books should change too. What my children listen to I would never call art, but they would. As professionals we need to grow and envelop new ideas. If we can’t see new techniques as art then we will get left behind. Books will get left behind. Harry Potter is a masterpiece. Twenty years from now, the proffessionals will say why aren’t they writing books like that anymore? You can study what has been done in the past all you want, but I would concentrate on the future.
Nathan Bransford says
The metaphor is breaking down, as now I’m completely confused. But! I’m not trying to say that there is only one good or fun type of book to read. I love just about every single book I read, even if it’s not what the “critics” deem the best. All I’m saying is that books benefit from the fact that we don’t simply deem whatever books are most popular “the best.” They might be the most fun to read. But artistic merit and good writing have their place, and for that, not all opinions are created equal.
Two Flights Down says
Sorry I missed the original discussion. I feel the need to put in my two cents, as I have run into people who like to rant at me about how unworthy or stuck-up critics are. Then, there’s the dreaded, “how many books have you written?” comment that people like to throw at the literary critics.
Critics are outside the world an author creates. The average reader doesn’t usually try to take that extra step back to analyze the writing on a different level. Most readers want to be entertained, enlightened, inspired, swept away, etc. A critic, however, takes this step back and looks at the piece of work from different angles. An interpretation from any one of these many angles can be an art in itself.
Anonymous says
Which modern day books would you consider good literature?
Nathan Bransford says
Ian McEwan, Cormac McCarthy, Michael Chabon, Margaret Atwood, Aleksandar Hemon…
Nathan Bransford says
Oops, those were authors instead of books. So uh, their books. And obviously just a spattering of authors. And just my opinion.
For the record, I don’t consider myself a critical expert, and I don’t have time to read as much of what is out there as literary critics. My job is very different. I have to stay up on what is considered good, but I’m not really a tastemaker.
Scott says
You skipped me Nathan, but that’s cool. I still got yer back, here.
Nathan Bransford says
Also Scott.
~Jamie says
I am happy you remained neutral on the little King v. Meyer showdown, there’s no reason to get involved in that.
Now, about this Kindle… I used to hear that word once every couple of weeks, and now I hear someone mention the Kindle at least once a day… that alone is telling me that this entire industry is about to make a CRAZY change. It is so remnant the CD to mp3 transition we all witnessed a few years ago… and with that, we all saw how crazy the transition was… it’s going to take a little while for this industry to right itself… we just have to hope it happens soon!
Scott says
*thumbs up*
Audrianna says
Just wanted to point out that, regardless of what everyone else thinks, Stephenie Meyer has made no comment on her website or elsewhere (as far as I know), so one of two things:
1. She either really doesn’t care and is just blowing it off and letting the situation cool down
Or
2. She is still too angry/upset/sad/(insert emotion here) to respond just yet.
Or both…
Granted, the story only hit the Arizona Repulic three hours ago (online, anyway) so she just may not have heard anything yet, though, I seriously doubt it.
Hmm…I guess that’s four options, not two. Anyway, just thought I’d add my two cents’ worth. 🙂
Dara says
I see the need for critics, but I generally don’t pay much attention to what they say. 😛 I know, I probably should care, especially if my book gets published, but I have a hard time with agreeing with their evaluation.
That sounds bad, I know, but I’ve read books that critics hated and simply loved them. And also vice versa.
Maybe I need to brush up on who are considered the good literary authors as I’ve only heard of two on the list you posted a few comments up (Margaret Atwood and Cormac McCarthy).
Ann Victor says
Great post Nathan! It’s a worrying trend and I don’t think it’s limited to the arts.
candicekennington says
I agree that there are critics whose opinions are more important than your average consumer of lightweight novels. But I would argue that critics are just as guilty of the “idealization of culture” as everyday readers. Critics are nothing more than informed, educated readers who, by the nature of their profession, have the need to distinguish themselves in their opinions. As a result, I believe they are particularly susceptible to the promotion of what is considered “forward thinking” or “highbrowed” in the current cultural or political climate. I consider that many award winning books and films are nothing more than critically acclaimed propaganda for whatever social movement or crisis happens to be at the forefront of the public consciousness.
I think that the “misguided egalitarianism” of treating all opinions as equally valid would be to assume that any single individual’s opinion is as valid as another’s. But I do not believe it is misguided to consider that mass opinion can and does often distinguish works of artistic merit. But those works are generally only recognized as having that merit by so called experts if they are socially and politically expedient in elite literary circles. This is not to say that all wildly successful, bestselling novels are worthy of critical acclaim.
Theophagous Monkey says
Andrew Keen, who happens to live in the Bay Area, I think, has been writing on this subject for a while. “The Cult of the Amateur,” I think is the title I read. It’s worth a read for anyone interested in this argument – and it is an argument of prodigious proportions in these times, as we move from the Web to the Cloud, as in Cloud Computing. Keen makes a good case for the role of critics and other experts in mediating the onslaught of so much content, in helping us, as readers, for instance, or as consumers of music, etc. to ferret out what’s worth having a look at. I want to know what’s worth spending time just thinking about spending more time consuming. The marketing departments are so good now at picking titles and cover art and hype that I for one want to hear from an at least nominally disinterested party before I spend the time even thinking about thinking about buying and then spending more time consuming a book or a recording. Once in a while you come across a great book that has not been blessed with great reviews. Not often though. Think about it. You do hit the odd stinker that got great reviews, yes, but the odds are in favor of the critics – as opposed to any one critic at any one time – getting it right.
Cheers
Anonymous says
Well said Mr. Bransford – everyone is entitled to an opinion, but uninformed opinion cannot be said to have the same value as that of an expert.
Harpers as just one case study / job losses / future of e-publishing and effects on bricks ‘n’ mortar stores. Is there no move afoot in the industry to work together in a business forum to make things better? Reps from both big and small houses, agents, e-channels and booksellers (chain and independent) to see how the process works today, where it’s going and optimize it for everyone involved to make more sales? Each function would need to map out its current processes – decide what doesn’t work, and want to improve, then all come together and see where the similar points can be achieved? They could achieve a lot in two days, in a conference center with enough breakout rooms and neutral process leaders. Is no one wanting to take up the gauntlet of making things better, rather than waiting for the further demise of the industry and each pointing the finger?
Luc2 says
Nathan, It seems from your comments that literary critics are mainly experts in recognizing “good writing” and “artistic merit”. How would you define both?
I think that these definitions are relevant to this very interesting discussion.
I just want to respond to one of you statements: Also, I don’t think just reading throughout one’s life necessarily translates to expertise. I have played the piano all my life, but I’m no Rachmaninoff. Then what does? What makes these people experts? Having degrees in English, or literature? Because your statement seems of the mark: most of these critics have not written masterpieces a la Rachmaninoff.
In my field of work, I’ve met and studied many experts, with an impressive scholarly background, publications and years of experience. I admire many of them, but there are more than enough who aren’t that impressive and don’t deserve to be labeled as experts. And that isn’t just my opinion.
So what makes a critic worth listening to?
Kimber An says
While I respect your opinion, I still hold to mine. Readers rule!
Rick Daley says
Alrighting is up too the reader if, its good or not. You no what I mean? That means it is all ways objective, even if words are miss-used wrong and not spelt write.
All hyperbole aside, you don’t need to agree with a critic to enjoy the viewpoint. I read Roger Ebert’s movie reviews regularly. I agree with his ratings most of the time, but even when I don’t agree with his assessment of the film’s quality, I think he does a good job of stating his opinion. He is usually very clear as to why he didn’t like something. Maybe it’s just that he’s a good writer.
terri says
Nathan – I am taking my birthday off from my two jobs and catching up on blogs, articles, etc. Thanks for the great links, I plan on following up on them on this wonderful lazy day.
A few quick comments:
1. Great post on the library book and the pilot. In the big rush of everyday life, we tend to overlook the everyday heroes. The people with such high standards and ethics that they refuse to compromise. Surprised by your post? Not one bit. I want to go out and book one of his flights just to show my support!
2. I do believe SK qualifies as a critic. He was a professor and is a student of language and storytelling. When he uses some dreadful adverb in his story it is because he wanted to, or felt the need to, not because he didn’t know better. As I said yesterday, he was offering his opinion on the story, not the storyteller. SK has always had a lack of ego about himself and his work, more writers should adopt his attitude. Had that comment been directed at me, the sting would have been far over come by the thought, “Stephen King read my book!”
3. You are correct, there is a place for experts. I read a lot of SK. I also read the experts analysis of SK and use this to find depth and breadth in the stories that I didn’t see the first time.
4. I take the Harpers 4Q results with a grain of salt. 4Q of 2008 was an unusual period of lack of consumer confidence. Things are already starting to turn around just a fraction and the proverbial proof will be how things go in 2009.
5. A Kindle is on my 2009 Christmas wish list. I figure they will have worked out some of the initial bugs and I put a bit aside every week to take the plunge. Can’t wait! I love short stories and novellas and that format is going to be alive and well in ebooks!
Love the blog, and going back through some of the posts and links is definitely on my ‘day off’ to-do list.
Wanda B. Ontheshelves says
People Don’t Make Ugly Rugs
Re: “I’m not going to buy an ugly rug, because it is woven finely, not matter what an expert tells me.”
and
“Wanda, If not enough buyer’s want to buy the rug then it becomes worthless.”
Rugs, old rugs, handmade rugs – it used to be textile arts were handed down from one generation to the next – their beauty was a source of individual, family and/or community pride. Therefore: People didn’t make ugly rugs!
You, today, may not like a particular style or color combination – the market as a whole may not be interested in those kinds of rugs at the moment – that doesn’t make the rugs “ugly” or “worthless.”
I point out it is possible to not like something, at the same time recognizing it’s beauty – “just not for me.” As well, as time goes by, you may find you DO start liking that particular style. One thing I used to do in art history classes, I would ask, “why is that supposed to be a great work of art?” And yes, your professors – or Sister Wendy 🙂 can tell you.
Regarding rugs and writing: Most of us don’t learn how to write novels the way people used to learn rug making – as a communal activity, handed down from one generation to the next, with the expectation that someday, you’ll be the oldster teaching the youngster. I mean, even if you join a writing group (as an adult) in Illinois, you could always pick up and move to Texas and join a writing group there – or you could post on a certain blog, then one day stop, and start posting on some other blog – with a “different identity” even – we’re just not tied to each other, or dependent on each other (?) as previously…not saying better or worse (why do I get the feeling though, I would have been one of the ones branded a witch and burnt at the stake? Or at the very least, illiterate and never having written a single word…) So maybe I’m saying now is better…no, wait, union membership in US stands at 12%, the bestest would be for that number to be around 50%, because then my own personal finances…ai yi yi…
Wanda B. Ontheshelves says
Re: “You may not be Rachmaninoff, but I would bet that is not the kind of music you prefer to listen to on an everyday basis.”
I listen to Tchaikovsky every day (I struggle with properly spelling his name, but that is a separate issue). When I was growing up, my familiarity with Tchaikovsky consisted of hearing Swan Lake and Nutcracker jokes in TV sitcoms. I also saw The Nutcracker ballet on TV once, but not the whole thing, because my siblings wanted to watch something else (the after-school battle between watching Dark Shadows and Hogan’s Heroes was INTENSE).
I love Swan Lake and The Nutcracker, and Symphony #6. I listen to them because they give me insight into the tone of my novel, as well as one of my characters, who is Russian and of a certain (implausible) age.
You add lime or dolomite to sweeten the soil – adjust the soil’s pH. I think music is a wonderful (nonverbal) way of adjusting the pH of your novel – sweetening it, if that’s what’s needed. Interestingly, you add sulfur (the devil’s powder!) to make soil more acidic. I think of acid rock – or maybe heavy metal.
I also listen to KC and the Sunshine band and a lot of disco – I’ll go out on a limb and say there is a lot of similarity between disco and Tchaikovsky!
Moral: Feel free to explore hoary old works of art, translations, and music people make jokes about – the pH of your novel may depend on it!
Wanda B. Ontheshelves says
Hi Terri,
Happy birthday. Two jobs – a day off (even if you did put it in scare quotes) – definitely a reason to celebrate.
Geoff Thorne says
In discussions like this I’m always reminded of the Scarecrow receiving his “brains” from Oz in the movie. The Scarecrow was already smart but he needed that sheepskin diploma to “prove” it to the world (and himself). In the literary world I see the critic as Oz and writers who buy into the paradigm as very much Scarecrows.
The way it works for me is this:
1) If I’m lucky enough to have pro writers whose work I respect and who’re farther along in “the game” than me vet my work, I will take their criticisms to heart. I won’t necessarily follow their advice 100% of the time but I will take it extremely seriously. I listen to them the same way I’d listen to a pro athlete giving me tips on how to adjust my batting stance or swing.
2) If enough lay people or fellow journeymen read my work and I begin to see patterns turn up in the aggregation of their crits (“What’s with the constant allusions to sunrise, Geoff?” or “Do we really need the strange repetitions on page X?”) I will look to that. The more people who read and have the same or similar response to your work, the closer you can come to “objectivity” in criticism of that work.
3) If a professional critic gives me a good review- especially if they clearly understood what I was going for and actually read the story (not always the case. Sometimes they skim)- I will be very happy. Conversely I will be unhappy if said critic gives me a pass.
In both cases my response is largely due to the fact that some people buy books from writers they don’t know based upon pro critic reviews and so negatives in this area hurt my sales. And, of course, we all want to be loved by everyone so any falloff from the desired 100% makes me wince.
Personally, I don’t believe there can be true literary criticism in an objective sense as there are too many different tropes from genre to genre, too many different goals from writer to writer (certainly different styles) and massively different tastes from era to era.
We love Shakespeare and Austen or Twain and Lovecraft but just try and let a modern writer attempt something in any of their styles and wait for the sound of slamming doors.
Empirically (heh) you have to consider all artistic criticism as expressions of personal opinion and taste. The professional and/or “scholarly” crits are just more wordy and can be footnoted. That doesn’t make them superior to the opinion of the “Average Joe,” only more verbose and shouted from a soapbox.
On a side note:
Those who consider Mr. King to be inherently subpar or genre-restricted should really take a quick look at his DIFFERENT SEASONS collection of novellas. THE BODY and RITA HAYWORTH AND THE SHAWSHANK REDEMPTION are two non-genre stories that stack up against the best stories in our language.
In my opinion, THE BALLAD OF THE FLEXIBLE BULLET (from the SKELETON CREW collection) is one of the best pieces of short fiction ever written in or out of genre. In the top five certainly.
These don’t make his opinion of TWILIGHT any more or less valid (no more than does the crappiness of some of his output) but they may change some minds vis s vis his own relative abilities.
He may call himself a hack but I think he’s just being modest. Jury’s still out on Ms. Meyer and the rest of the noobs.
Ink says
Geoff Thorne,
Some interesting points there. I’d have to say that a good critic’s opinion is better than an average opinion, though. Now, not everyone who is a “critic” is a good one. Credentials don’t make a good critic. Fine critique makes a good critic. And a good critic has the skills and knowledge to understand the workings of language and narrative. Yes, there’s a vast diversity among different genres and periods… but a great critic will evaluate a piece of writing on its own merits, on the expectations that piece of writing sets up for itself. A great critic won’t evaluate Stephen King’s Dreamcatcher against the expectations of Cormac McCarthy’s Blood Meridian. The stories are attempting different things. A great critic will, however, be able to evaluate Dreamcatcher against the expectations the narrative sets for itself, and how well it meets these expectations.
Again, lots of people call themselves critics, and some of these won’t be good at it (and, yes, politics and theory cliques can be a problem). But lots of people call themselves writers, too, with equal results. That doesn’t mean there aren’t great writers or great critics. Both, I think, have something important to offer. And the proof, as always, is in the pudding.
My best,
Bryan Russell
MzMannerz says
Re: the King/Meyer drama
My thought that the reader was the final decision maker was less romantic and more realistic. The reader buys the book. Plenty of bestsellers (Meyer’s, in fact) have been critically panned by important people, and plenty of critically acclaimed books, movies, television shows, etc., have never found an audience.
Of course an expert’s opinion *should* carry more weight, but in the end, the layman’s dollar is actually king.
No pun intended.
Nathan Bransford says
luc2-
I think it’s partly the amount of time that experts devote to it, partly talent. Casually reading books over a lifetime isn’t the same thing as, say, Michiko Kakutani devoting her career to it, and then writing provocative and insightful enough criticism to be taken seriously. Yes, there are terrifically insightful people who don’t read often and are talented at spotting good books, but there is something to be said for a group of people who are insightful and devote their lives to it. Those are the experts.
Anonymous says
Expects aside, I keep thinking about SK’s book ON WRITING where he says something to the effect, here are the rules…now feel free to break them. He also stresses write to your “reader”. Obviously SM was able to reach a few of those.
SK also (in his book) likens Danielle Steel’s novel’s to something you might have to read in hell, as well as taking Nicholas Sparks down a notch or two as a writer. IMHO…I think SK is on point with all of his observations.
zoewinters says
I think it’s up to each person to decide which authorities they consider authorities. While I agree that not every viewpoint on any given topic is equally valid for a variety of reasons, each individual will decide for themselves who is an authority and who isn’t. Someone I think is an authority on something, you might disagree. So how do we pick who the authority is?
When it comes to art, my best friend’s view in the end normally carries a lot more weight than a well-known critic.
Also, most people reading fiction are looking more to be entertained than to participate in the intellectual exercise of higher criticism.
On the Stephen King specific issue, I think the whole thing has been blown up way too big. He is one person and one opinion. People who are major Stephen King fans for the most part unsurprisingly supported him and his right to voice his opinion whether or not they personally agreed with his view of Meyer’s writing.
Those who are Meyer’s fans unsurprisingly might take a bit of umbrage at King’s viewpoint.
My point (I promise I have one) is that at the end of the day, every individual human being must decide for themselves whose views are valid and what views they’ll listen to. The Pope is a high authority for people who are Catholic, but I’m not Catholic, so his views on things are only of mild passing curiosity to me.
We can’t really close Pandora’s box now that it’s open. What we can do instead is teach critical thinking skills so people can better gauge who should and shouldn’t be an authority “for them” on any given topic. But the days are gone where we’ll ALL just nod and smile and agree that the same people are the “authorities” on any given matter.
Mira says
Discussions like these can become complex because whenever you identify something as ‘good,’ there can be a hidden factor of ‘value.’
I do agree that art can be evaluated in terms of it’s beauty and purity.
But that doesn’t mean that less beautiful, or even ugly, art isn’t valuable and necessary.
I will never write great works of literature. Beauty in art isn’t my talent. But I can write things (I hope) that are useful and potent.
I’m in a writer’s group. One writes lyric description; she writes beauty. Another writes pure entertainment; she writes fun. A third writes emotional pieces: she writes ‘wake-up.’
They’re all valuable.
Maybe we can all aspire to make our writing beautiful, but it’s not a requirement for value. That’s what I think anyway.
JTF719 says
How do you explain the entire universe of 19th century art ‘experts’ failing to find any value whatsoever in the impressionist movement? I’ll buy your logic with the qualification that’experts’ in the field of art and literature have a long history of being comically wrong – the results being too often tragic.
Mira says
I was thinking of a quote to ‘beautify’ my argument. And I found it!
“Use what talents you possess: the woods would be very silent if no birds sang there except those that sang the best.”
– Unknown
Steve Ballmer says
… well written people, I enjoy a good, interesting blog!
Vic says
What worries me about critics is their focus on ‘literary’ works and their apparent willingness to ignore genre fiction.
It also troubles me that it is occasionally only after sufficient time passes that some works are considered literary. Lord of the Rings, for example, now seems to be acknowledged as a masterpiece, despite being dismissed by critics during Tolkien’s lifetime.
It has always struck me as a kind of Emperor’s new clothes kind of thing – along the same lines as those art critics who admire art that could have been produced by my five year old.
‘If we critics all agree that it is good, it must be good. And then the masses will see that it is so and they will bow down before our wisdom…’
Writing grew out of the tradition of storytelling. I don’t necessarily think it is a bad thing to praise those who write well and sell well. Because usually, the bestselling writers are great storytellers.
Sure, as SK suggests, (and I do think he shouldn’t be throwing stones on this subject, myself, but that’s an aside) it is possible to tell a good story and become immensely popular without being a great writer. However, I think it is wrong to devalue work that is popular.
I believe in any of the arts some inherent skill should be mastered and produced and therefore rewarded by the critics. For example, I’m uninterested in the writer that can’t structure a good story or writes poorly just as I can’t see why critics praise the artist that plants a dot in the centre of the canvas and calls it art.
I’m willing to listen to the experts and critics to a point, but their inclination to ignore popular works or genre fiction make them appear not only elitist but also narrow-minded. I feel they lose credibility when they do so.
Michelle says
I had a discussion of a very similar nature on a writing website recently. I reposted my answer on my blog, but in essence, I said that great writing (not just good or adequate) is writing that tells a deeper truth about who we are as people or the world around us.
While I see the difference between good books and entertaining books, those classics that stay with us for our lives have something much deeper and extraordinary in them.
My two cents, for what it’s worth.
Rick Daley says
Nathan,
You sure do attract a savvy crowd. Steve Ballmer visiting and giving props…That’s awesome!
Wendy says
Is it too late for us to get Pilot Sully to be our Vice President?
Anonymous says
For those procrastinating today — Reviewer X’s blog has a great question: Do you finish every book you start or do you abandon some halfway through/after a few pages if you are bored?
Interesting responses.
Anonymous says
While reading the comments about what is good in fiction, and who determines it, I was trying to sort out my thinking when Nathan’s comment above–and especially the concept of consensus–gave meaning and clarity to the argument. While that consensus is never sharply defined or immediate, it usually brings together all the people Nathan mentioned: writers, critics, and scholars–as readers. Nor is that consensus like a canon or an exclusive set of principles about story and style. Nor does it set the experts against the common knowledgeable reader.
I believe that a consensus over good fiction develops over time, and could be described as a convergence toward consensus. Like an inverted tornado, the publishing world picks up a vast array of material from the creative landscape, and much of it falls out at one stage or another. Works that remain can hold the public’s attention for a while, but they also fall away as time goes on, and those that remain the longest become favorites, classics, or expressions of a cultural period or setting.
Why? Because they contain one or more of the elements others here have defined so well–story, style, depth, relevance, and significance. Critics will disagree over which novels and writers should belong to the recognized body of superior literary works, but the determination of what’s good, and what belongs in or out of the consensus, is really beyond the scope of one critic, even a Harold Bloom.
So it becomes a kind of reality in itself, even though fluid–and does not rest on the whims of individual taste, knowledge, and opinion. You and I may differ over whether Hemingway is or is not a great writer, or as great as F. Scott Fitzgerald, but both will remain a part of the twentieth-century classics for decades to come.
In this respect, too, a writer’s style is integral to the story and can hardly be separated from it. Consider Fitzgerald, Hemingway, and John Dos Passos, who wrote the marvelous but formless trilogy U.S.A. All wrote about the same period of time, and all their styles were individual and distinct. One could argue that Dos Passos lacked the stylistic mastery of the other two (and his trilogy may become completely forgotten in time), but U.S.A. still provides an important window into American life in the early twentieth century.
One simple test for the power of consensus is to consider which writers, ‘literary’ or ‘popular,’ might become the subject of an English lit course. I certainly could see Stephen King and J K Rowling as subjects in this regard, even if the Lecturer on Hemingway complained to the department chair about the young Ph.D. who was abusing the students low taste for popular literature.
No one can really change the consensus except excellent, relevant, powerful writers.
Wanda B. Ontheshelves says
Re: “…John Dos Passos, who wrote the marvelous but formless trilogy U.S.A. All wrote about the same period of time, and all their styles were individual and distinct. One could argue that Dos Passos lacked the stylistic mastery of the other two (and his trilogy may become completely forgotten in time)”
But maybe…John Dos Passos’s “formless trilogy” would be more “excerptable” for download onto mobile devices, than Hemingway or Fitzgerald…that is, the impact of technology may include redefining canons…based on how creative you can get with a particular piece of literature…how “stretchy” it is – or “mobile.”
So, if the quotation police want to get on me, ok, guilty as charged!
Library of America has all 3 novels of U.S.A. in one volume – $30 bucks on amazon.com.