In the annals of Great Ways to Annoy Literary Agents (TM), saying you wrote your book because you couldn’t find any good books to read (or, its crass corollary: because so many books are “trash”) may not be in the top 10, but it is at least in the top 5,000. (The list is infinite, by the way – this blog may be here a while).
Let’s examine why calling most or all or even some books “trash” is akin to slowly inserting a sliver under your prospective agent’s fingernail while hitting them over the head with a wet fish:
1) The agent is currently working their gluteus maximuses to the maximus to sell books that are actually really great, and is probably having a hard time with some of them because this business is too tight to sell all of the really good books agents come across, let alone anything that could remotely be considered “trash.”
2) The agent has represented any number of incredible, awesome books that are just sitting on bookshelves waiting to be discovered by people who are overly quick to dismiss everything or lots of things as “trash” and not quick enough to go looking for said gems when in fact there are way too many good books published in a single year for anyone to read in an entire lifetime.
But let’s be honest, hmm? Avoiding the list of Great Ways to Annoy Literary Agents is not the real reason aspiring writers should hesitate before bashing swaths of literature as “trash.”
Here’s why: when a writer calls a book “trash” they have closed themselves off from learning anything from that book.
Taste is extremely personal. Amateur cultural anthropologist Nathan’s theory (that’s DOCTOR Amateur Cultural Anthropologist to you) is this: we are hard-wired to want to be a part of the “In” group. We want people to like us, and we want people to like the things that we like. When something that we can’t stand becomes very very popular some sort of survival instinct kicks in, and we want to tear that popular thing to shreds so that we are not left out of the group. And we will even turn ourselves into Crazy Raving Lunatics in order to make this happen.
Horrible Amazon reviews, irrational hatred of Stephenie Meyer or Dan Brown, slandering of books as “trash”: one part jealousy, five thousand parts making taste overly personal.
People very quickly forget that every book they consider “trash” is someone else’s most favorite book ever. And what happens when writers of all people do this is they turn the book they hate into the “other.” The book (and the author who wrote it) becomes the enemy. And then they learn nothing from it.
Every popular book is popular for a reason. Sure, chance is a big reason, but if thousands or hundreds of thousands or millions of people like a book and are talking about it and passing it along to their friends: the author has done something right.
It may not be a great work of literature, it may not be something that you personally would want to read, it may have some typos, it may drive you to the brink of insanity. But the author has done something well if they are published and their books are selling. If you have hopes of reaching a big audience someday you would do well to absorb and learn from what that “something” is.
In other words: sure, go ahead and irrationally hate something. It’s in your DNA! (Note: probably not true) But try and resist the “trash” syndrome, especially if you’re a writer. Not only have you probably stopped learning, but don’t forget: someone else thinks your books are trash too, and they’re no more right than you are.
Jill Edmondson says
A humbling reminder… My book will be released in November, and someone will hate it, someone will say it is the greatest thing since sliced bread,
I think it's irresp[onsibble to say "trash" though – it implies no redeeming qualities. Even the books I least enjoyed had something good about them, something of value, something I could learn …
Cheers, Jill
http://www.jilledmondson.blogspot.com
Laurel says
It seems worth considering that denouncing a book as trash is particularly self-destructive for aspiring authors. Talking smack about bestsellers sounds a little jealous but apart from that it would make me wonder if a writer is really plugged in to what might be commercially viable. Not to mention the possibility that the agent who repped that book might read that you question both their taste and sanity in thinking it was worth printing.
I'm sure agents read blogs, too.
Anonymous says
Thanks for getting Oscar The Grouch stuck in my head.
I love trash,
anything dirty or dingy or dusty . . .
So, anyway, point taken. I shall now call all other books "rubbish."
Terry says
Well put, Nathan.
There seems to be a certian amount of snobbery involved as well and a holier-than-thou attitude.
Whether you're writing for love or money, it's not an easy job. In fiction, especially, you not only use your head to write but often, if not always, your heart is in it.
All of this trashing must hurt the authors, no matter how thick skinned.
Marilyn Peake says
Your blog today had so many hilarious lines in it, I found myself giggling through much of it. You’re hilarious, Nathan! Nevertheless, I’m of two minds on some of the points you made.
I agree wholeheartedly with the points you made in your first paragraph. There are so many brilliantly written books published today, I often wonder, when writers say they wrote their book because they "…couldn't find any good books to read (or, its crass corollary: because so many books are 'trash')…" if they actually don't read many books.
I also agree with your anthropological theory. In fact, I recently heard a similar psychological theory for why our society has become so obsessed with celebrity. The theory goes like this … In earlier times when we lived in small villages, it was a survival instinct to have a brain that immediately gravitated toward faces we saw on a regular basis. Those people were members of our tribe, the group that gave us security. With human brains now hardwired that way and cable TV constantly televising news stories about specific celebrities, many people come to think of those celebrities as members of their own tribe. We want to know how they’re doing. We want to know the tribal gossip about them.
To expand on that theory in regard to agents, by the way, I think most agents defend the publishing community because it’s part of their tribe, as well as where their bread is buttered. Writers, not so much, because many creative types tend to be rebellious. Many writers are whistleblowers – Think about THE JUNGLE by Upton Sinclair, THE GRAPES OF WRATH by John Steinbeck, or the many Russian novelists sent to Siberia for writing literature not approved of by the state. After your book’s published, Nathan, don’t be surprised if the writer part of you suddenly rebels against the agent side of you. Just kidding. 🙂
OK, here’s where my other mind kicks in. Despite my strong feeling that so many great books are published today that it becomes a huge mistake to think that "only trash" is published, I think it’s way too morally relativistic to say that no "trash" is published. I feel the same way about TV: many shows are better than ever before, but there’s also a lot of trash. And our news has been incredibly watered down and turned into celebrity gossip and schoolyard fights in order to draw people in and make money. Think about the major news stories on TV right now – How many are about really important world events that will impact our future, and how many are about celebrities and inflammatory arguments? Is it morally acceptable to downplay important world events to make money?
Scott says
There are books I like, and books I don't. There are movies I like, and movies I don't. Everything is subjective – a glowing or caustic review doesn't necessarily mean that a book/movie/whatever is glowing or caustic, just that a reviewer thought so . . . and that's his/her personal taste.
Anonymous says
Wow wow wow! I cannot believe the comments I am reading here.
Nathan, ordinarily I agree with you and I think your blog is awesome, but not today.
I'm sorry if the rest of you don't consider literary criticism legitimate and you think giving a book a bad review is "mean," but that's your opinion, not mine.
Book reviews are very important to me. I read a lot and almost every book I read is based on recommendations from other people (reviews). Those recommendations count for zero if nobody is permitted to give books negative reviews. Negative reviews are important to literature. No great reviewer I know of gave good recomendations by only giving positive reviews. You need to see both sides of the coin for it to count.
And the argument that negative reviews are mean and that reviewers are just jealous is, quite frankly, childish. Seriously, grow up. People like me enjoy and value book reviews. You want better reviews? Then write a better book! That's the way to do it, not lamely accusing negative reviewers of "jealousy."
Marilyn Peake says
pjd said:
"I had to write my own comment on this post because all the other comments are trash."
That is hilarious!! ROFLOL.
Nathan Bransford says
anon-
There's a pretty huge difference between writing a negative review and calling something "trash." I never said people shouldn't write negative reviews, just that writers should avoid shutting closing off their mind to the books they don't like.
Maureen says
Well said. Thank you. The "trash" term is very negative and those who use it rarely define why they dislike a book. That type of arrogant criticism is insulting to so many people.
As you and others have said reading likes and dislikes are personal and every choice doesn't have to be enriching. I like to think of the fluff as dessert reading — the whip cream on top of the sundae. Ahhh! Just smile and enjoy.
Anonymous says
I’ve been through this. I used to say, “I can’t believe so and so is actually published. Who is actually reading this stuff?” Recently, I made myself read a couple popular authors in my genre that I would never normally pick up. Their storylines may not have intrigued me, but when I studied their writing, I realized they were actually very talented. And I did learn a thing or two. I haven’t made a comment about so and so since
Anonymous says
When I used to review books for a major city paper, I was in awe of the authors, even if I didn't love their books. But I called one top mystery writer's book "leisurely-paced" instead of plodding, and another book "detailed" instead of cluttered. Boy, am I glad–now if I ever meet these authors in person, I won't have to hide. LOL
i.e. You can state your opinion without trashing an author's work–maybe that's the best they can do, even if you don't like it.
As an aside, I saw the movie Twilight cuz I thought it was a fast way to see what the fuss was about–and I was mesmerized! I'm an adult–I don't read YA or vampires or paranormal, but loved the movie. Go figure!
Marilyn Peake says
Stephenie Meyer writes about literary agents’ reactions to her original query letters for TWILIGHT on her website: here. It’s interesting reading, including her comment that her "queries truly sucked", that one agent sent her a particularly "mean" reply, and that she was incredibly "naïve" about the publishing world.
Livia says
I notice that in grad school, the younger grad students are more likely to trash papers they've read. I think it's because it's safer to trash something — no one will think you're stupid for pointing out flaws. It's more of a social risk to say you like a piece of work and leave yourself vulnerable to critics who point out the flaws in the work that you missed.
Paul Neuhardt says
Huzzah to Nathan!
I learned this lesson more years ago than I care to admit, when in my 20's I was told to read a Stephen King book.
"But he's a horror writer, and I hate horror books," said I.
"I can't stand horror either, but trust me. This guy tells a story well enough to transcend a dislike of the genre."
I took the advice and read "The Shining." I've been a Stephen King addict every since, because my friend was right. Damn, can that man tell a story well.
And isn't the point of a novel to tell us a memorable story?
(Side note: With the exception of "Carrie," "The Shining" and "The Shawshank Redemption" I've always been disappointed in movies made from King novels. I have always wondered how many people have judged his novels from the movies and not by reading them. Another case for occasionally reading books we think are "beneath us" or not something we might like.)
J. R. McLemore says
Bravo Nathan! I agree with this whole-heartedly. Even when I don't like (or even hate)a book or story, I still think that there is something I can learn from it. I've read Stephen King's book, On Writing, and out of the many truisms he mentioned, the one that I find myself thinking of most often is that "even the bad books have something to teach". I read widely, and I've learned quite a bit from those I've considered badly written. One of the things I've learned (from other agents' blogs) is to never call another book trash, because you never know if that agent or editor has ever been a proponet of said book. While I am not a fan of some of the wildly popular books, I know that their authors have done something right. I just hope my book will be as successful!
Kudos on your blogs, they are always insightful and inspiring.
Laura says
Some good thoughts.
I'll add that it comes off as incredibly arrogant to say a book is trash, though I tend to feel that way about Meyer's work. There are enough technical problems with the writing that you can't call her a good writer, even if she does have a flare for plot.
But yeah, I'll leave that out of any discussions with folks in the biz. After all, like you're saying, who am I to judge? If it'd been up to me, most of Faulkner would never have made print. Too convoluted and boring! (see? I have no taste as far as "academics" are concerned, though most of them might agree with me on Meyer.)
Anna Claire says
Oh snap, Nathan. You are so right on all levels.
Nathan Bransford says
Both political comments have been deleted.
Pete says
"let alone anything that could remotely be considered "trash."
I don't know how you can even say that. Have you been in a bookstore?
DG says
Great as usual Nathan.
As a physical therapist by training I couldn't let you get away with your spelling gaff: no "o" in gluteus. And the plural is glutei maximi.
Lydia Sharp says
In the words of our dear friend, The Rejectionist, "Nobody likes a jerkwad."
That applies to so many things.
Nathan Bransford says
pete-
Have you spent more than 5 minutes in one?
Anonymous says
@ the recent West Hollywood Book Fair, there was a panel moderated by Eduardo Santiago about writers who went into prisons to teach – writing but also reading to young people.
The most provocative insight (for me) that came out of the discussion were the books most popular with prisoners: Nora Roberts.
Eduardo described a boy who'd been incarcerated at twelve and, at eighteen, because he'd never been with women, read Roberts for insight into the opposite sex and about romance.
Annalee says
On your actual point, being telling a literary agent that the industry doesn't know its *** from its elbow, I think you're totally right. Even if I believed that (and I don't), I wouldn't tell an agent that I think all their other clients are talentless hacks. That's just–well, duh.
On the word trash in general, I disagree in two directions:
1. I call some of my favorite books "trash" or "trashy." I don't mean it literally; I mean "this is not a challenging book that forces me to think." For example, John Scalzi is one of my favorite writers, but I've been known to refer to THE ANDROID'S DREAM as trashy. Not because I didn't love it, but because it's a book written for grown-ups that opens with a chapter-long fart joke (and it's awesome and you should all read it right now).
2. I don't have a problem with people using "trash" as a rhetorical device, given what other things people will say about books. I think it speaks volumes about an author's work if their asked to promote in and they've got nothing to say but "Dan Brown sucks," but I know of far worse ills than the t-word (book burning is the one that really gets to me. The one time I saw a book-burning protest, someone dear to me had to hold me back to keep me from injuring myself trying to save the books. Which was a stupid instinct, but there you go).
Buffy Andrews says
Nathan, I appreciate your post and all of the hard work you put into your blog. Here's something to think about. To be honest, it's bothered me for awhile. When I read it, it's like fingernails scratching across a blackboard.
I would not call another writer's book trash. And I also would not refer to reading manuscripts as "reading slush" or manuscripts as "slush." I guess I feel it's a lack of respect for someone's hard work. Am I weird or what? Do any other writers feel this way? It's not that I'm an overly sensitive person, I just wouldn't feel right. Since you brought the trash talk up, I thought this was a good thing to discuss as well. I have enormous respect for editors and writers and agents and everyone who works so hard at what they do each and every day. So, yeah, slush doesn't work for me. Does it work for you? Why or why not. Maybe I'm missing something here.
Nathan Bransford says
buffy-
I tend to use "Inbox" instead of slush pile, because there's neither a pile (at least physically) nor slush. I wouldn't take the term personally, though. I don't think it's intended as a slight.
hannah says
Not that I don't agree with this post, but the genre I write it wouldn't exist if not for one sixteen-year-old who wrote a book because, as she's said in numerous interviews, "everything out there for teenagers was trash." And I believe she's repped by Curtis Brown…
Scott says
Nice post, Nathan. Lopsided or one word reviews either positive or negative can be entertaining, but one should probably do one's best to apply as much balance to any literary critique as possible.
And to follow through a little on what Laura said, none of this should be to say there isn't poor writing out there to learn from, as well. A "trashing" writer may come off as a ignorant bore, but an overly diplomatic kiss ass risks doing the same.
To be fair (and to take my own advice, I suppose), the industry, especially now, is engendering a lot of bitterness, resentment and careerist aggression. There are more of us trying to be published and far more information about it at our fingertips. Thank goodness Milan Kundera wrote some of his authorially intrusive "telling" novels back when male fiction writers were welcome to do so. :^)
ajcastle says
Extremely well said! I have thought this very thing so many times. I see many many many — writers especially — trash talking other authors and their books. The very first thing that comes to my mind is "they're just jealous".
There are things that really aren't my bag, and it's totally fine with me if other people don't agree with my tastes. But I don't bash stuff that's not my thing and say they're complete and utter trash. Obviously, as you said, the author did something right in order to get published and sell that book.
Myra says
Preach it, yo.
Laura Martone says
Your grace never ceases to amaze me, "Doctor" Nathan. (Is that wrong, incidentally, to use emphasis quotes in this manner? LOL!)
You're right – taste is extremely personal, and as Melanie Avila wrote, I've never called anything trash. I may not like it, but rather than focus on the books I don't like, I'd rather spread the love about the books I DO enjoy.
I must admit that I have expressed my dislike for certain books from time to time (like The Princess Bride – sorry, Bill), but I would never call anything trash. I think it's fine to express one's opinions, as long as it's in a professional manner and not just vicious to be vicious (which smacks more of jealousy and mean-spiritedness than anything else).
There are a multitude of opinions in the world, and thank goodness for that! As Cat Woods so aptly wrote, If we all loved the same thing there would be need for only one writer, one agent and one publisher. Egads! I hope that never happens…
Anonymous says
I'm going to respectfully disagree with the bulk of these comments. From the outside, it seems like novels often get published because of their platforms – not because the writers showed originality of thought or true writing ability. I know writing a novel is difficult and that it takes a ton of diligence and hard work. But it's not really all about talent anymore, is it? For example, now that celebrity is so all-consuming, we have all these celebrity-penned novels. After the Da Vinci Code was such a success, a ton of similar books came out. Same with the Devil Wears Prada. And while there are many haters on the originals, I think we can at least recognize where these authors went right. But I also think there are a lot of poorly written books being published – perhaps they've made sense from a business perspective, but as a reader, it can often be a disappointing landscape.
Clarity says
Interesting but I have to disagree with you here. While I think many should be POLITE and diplomatic when discussing … another word for trash? … pulp reads (nothing wrong with them, but we know they're not Hemingways), it is vital to retain some sort of quality control in today's overtly and increasingly commercial "market place".
While I like how your description of book trashing reminded me of zenophobia ("The Other", abasement), I can understand how writers can feel like some publishing houses are not unlike vacuous blockbuster pushing studios.
At the end of the day, without these voices saying "No, we can do better", mediocrity will slowly become the norm and NONE of us want that, not even the literary Fang Farmers.
Clarity says
Isn't "Doctor amateur" an oxymoron?
Nathan Bransford says
anon-
It's really not true, especially for novels, that an author needs a platform. A platform can help break a novel out, but it's not much of a difference-maker when it comes to a book actually selling to a publisher.
And, again, what you consider poorly written might be what someone else calls fantastically written. People mock Dan Brown for his prose, but there are few better at pacing and cliffhangers and just straight readability.
Sharon Mayhew says
Really, Nathan? Really? People who are trying to get in the good graces of literary agents, slam other peoples work. Really?
If I was an agent and someone sent me a query that showed any negativity, they'd get a form letter.
Nathan Bransford says
clarity-
That's exactly right – some publishers are blockbuster studios. Other publishers churn out indie books that are literary, others focus on niche audiences.
Is this a bad thing?
I think what you and anon object to is that the more literary books aren't the ones that get the backing of the major publishers (setting aside that Ian McEwan, Michael Chabon, Margaret Atwood, Philip Roth, Jonathan Franzen, etc. etc. etc. etc. are all published by major publishers).
But publishers publish what people will buy. I don't think you can expect publishers to mainly publish literary works when there are huge segments of the reading audience that don't want to read literary books.
Bob says
It's like going to Human Resources at Microsoft and saying you think Microsoft sucks, but you want a job there. Every book published had someone put a lot of blood, sweat and tears into it.
I see it all the time when I teach. Writers bemoaning the 'crap' that is getting published while their masterpiece is ignored.
Write better books.
Courtney says
At the risk of this already having been said, I really don't care about literary quality.
Shocking, huh? The real stunner–I'm an English major who really doesn't care about literary quality.
The way I see it, if I like a book, I'll read it, if I don't like it, I won't read it. It doesn't make any difference to me whether the book has so-called literary merit, or whether the rest of the reading populace absolutely loves/hates it–that's their call.
And yes, I loved the Eragon books–despite their flaws.
Clarity says
Well you know the publishing world better than I so can say,
"there are huge segments of the reading audience that don't want to read literary books"
The fact that the literary book in your response went under the indie churning publisher category stood out. I may seem like an odd defender because my book is of the "commercial" variety but the labels struck me. Are smarter books not right for the common denominator? Can we quantify this? I'm being serious because I am concerned that books may die a slow death in my youtube generation and well, I would hate the last remaining text to be Paris Hilton's fifth autobiography.
What do you want to represent Nathan, that intrigues me, beyond what will sell or not, what work would you like to represent?
Rachel Blackbirdsong says
Whenever I see one writer trashing another I always chock it up to sour grapes. That's especially true for those who haven't been published who seem to thrive on putting published authors down. I once knew someone who would deface books for typos and grammar to make himself feel superior. He'd never published anything, but hated those who had. Another put me down for having my poetry published by saying, "It's easy to get poetry published." So I told him to try it and I haven't heard from him since.
There are many of us who have written books, and that's something to proud of. But there are many who just do that and never risk rejection. Getting published isn't easy. You do have to have a thick skin and learn how to accept rejection. So for those who get their books published they have nothing but my deepest respect.
So what if the subject matter isn't my cup my tea? Clearly an agent or publisher thought enough of it to put it out there. Hopefully someday that can be the case for all of us who are working on books.
Jeff Adair says
Bravo! Well said…for a literary agent.
(I kid, I kid!!)
wendy says
We-ell, I'd never admit this to an agent/editor, but one of the reasons I started writing was to create stories I wanted to read that weren't out there. Stories that were powerfully, haauntingly beautiful – as I define it to mean – and had elements of 'fantastique', speculation but not conflict – indeed, something I thought much better.
I haven't succeeded, but I persist. *g*
Anonymous says
My advice is read something that pushes you out of your comfort zone from time to time. You might be surprised what you learn.
Mireyah Wolfe says
Trashing another writer is just bad form.
How can they justify alienating another person in their field? There is always going to be someone out there who doesn't like somebody else's work. It's a fact of life. But to humiliate both yourself and the other person is stupid. It only hurts the person doing it.
The writing community is fairly small, and I imagine things like this spread like wild-fire!
lora96 says
I've read books before and capital-letter HATED them. The thing about their authors is, they got me to think and talk about the story. They inspired me to use my critical thinking skills to analyze, disparage, and detail their work.
If a book gets you thinking and incites you to talk about books, it can NOT be "trash". No one discusses their actual garbage because it's dull.
Love it or hate it, if it elicits a strong response, it is a powerful piece of writing.
And that's just cool.
Plus, bashing other authors is an insult to the self and the craft. That is, of course, not cool in the least.
lora96 says
One more thing:
I teach 2nd grade. I read the kiddos tons of books I love and find worthy of celebration.
I also get copies of books I do not adore, such as Captain Underpants and some novelization of the Hannah Montana movie…because I'm not 7 and they can love something whether I understand/like it or not!
I don't have to quiver with laughter over "The Wrath of the Wicked Wedgie Woman" for it to be worthy of notice.
I am not such an accomplished arbiter of excellence as that.
Richard Lewis says
In my youth, when I could tolerate heat and mosquitoes better, I went on surf adventures to rainforest jungle reef points, deliberately carrying a trashy book or three, ones I very carefully selected and knew I would enjoy reading. As I read in the heat of the day or by flashlight & firelight at night, I'd rip out the pages to use for certain, um…oh, never mind. I think I'm regretting writing this comment already. But hoofing that weight in was a great honor to the authors. Seriously.
(And growing up on a small tropical Asian island, where there was no TV, I devoured all books I could get my hands on. I loved them all. I even once stole a novel from a hippie's backpack in a public bus…I've told that story elsewhere on the Internet.)
Ryan Ashley Scott says
I have made 2 negative comments about authors in my life, both of which happened with the last month. I'm feeling a bit like my 16 year old self who's mom just caught her smoking a first cigarette behind the garage. Note taken.
On the other hand, maybe I can sneak this message to the voice in my head that keeps wondering, "will someone make fun of this?" when I'm trying to write.