I have reached some sort of blog milestone in that I was halfway through writing a blog post about some writers focusing too much on the themes of their book in queries before I realized….. something felt a little familiar.
Then I realized: I’d written the exact same post before. Right down to the blog title. Whoops! Luckily I remembered before I unconsciously plagiarized myself.
Here is the original post, from March 29, 2007, which most definitely still applies, this time with feeling:
So you know how you spent four or more years in college learning about what books mean and how to analyze novels for hidden meaning, and where you learned that the best books are the ones with subtext upon which you can write a twenty page paper on the use of metaphor as an elucidation of the philosophical constructs of the protagonist’s society?
Yeah. Forget all that.
I get quite a few query letters that sound like this (btw this is made up, I will never make fun of your query letter in this space, agent’s honor):
“My novel explores themes of love and themes of passion. The protagonist fights against the evils inherent in our society and must come to terms with his inner sense of frustration and futility. But ultimately the novel is about how we as human beings must develop a sense of self and prevail in the face of society’s obstacles.”
No offense to myself for writing that, but that does not exactly make me want to read more of my own writing.
It’s really the oldest writing advice in the book: Show don’t tell. College teaches you to tell. It teaches you to look for subtext and it conditions you think you should pack your novel full of references and themes so future scholars will have a job. And then people write their query like it’s a term paper.
I’m not (praise Tyra) planning on writing a twenty page paper on your novel, so don’t tell me what your novel is about. Tell me what happens. And hopefully you’ve written a novel in which things actually do happen. Because I like novels where things happen. Happening is good.
To expand further on this topic, I recently attended a football game, (chronicled hilariously here by my friend Holly), and we were talking about how much some aspiring authors want to leave behind books with artistic integrity that they’re proud of even if they don’t sell, and I definitely respect this. (What else would you talk about on the way to a football game??).
At the same time, it got me to thinking: are writers artists or artisans?
I think the drive to write Literature/art sometimes leads some very talented writers, especially young ones, to write books that as an agent I can’t sell because there’s too much attention paid to the themes and the subtext and the meaning and other English-class-type concerns, rather than the narrative and the plot and the craft and other sausagemaking-type concerns. And this is reflected in how they think of and describe the work: these types of novels tend to correlate with queries that read like the aforementioned college papers.
There’s absolutely nothing wrong with artistic integrity and thinking deeply about the meaning in your book and writing books that are dense, weighty, and/or wildly experimental. But particularly in this day and age, the audience for novels where too little attention is paid to narrative and plot and storytelling was already small and seems to be shrinking by the moment. There are definitely a few places that still are open to this type of writing, but they tend to be small presses/collectives and you don’t necessarily need an agent to find them.
I also think that some of these writers have a bit of a mistaken belief about the books that are published these days that are instant Literature, like GILEAD and ATONEMENT and OSCAR WAO. These books have plots. They are not impenetrable. The narratives are complex and they flow. Yes, the writing is beautiful and meaningful and there’s so much to take away, but Robinson and McEwan and Diaz also not only prose artists, they are fantastic storytellers and craftsmen who keep their readers spellbound.
Please know that I’m not making value judgments about writers as artists vs. artisans – I love all types of books and they all have their place. But as an agent, I have to follow the market. If you want to write Literature and also be published by a major publisher, these days it’s rare to find a book that just has deep themes in an otherwise impenetrable book. It also takes a story that people can’t put down. While there are some exceptions, for better or worse mainstream literary fiction is increasingly found at the intersection of quality and accessibility.
Ink says
I must say (on topic for once) that I actually quite like that intersection over there at the corner of Quality and Accessibility. Some very fine establishments, and lots of parking, too…
Diana says
What I don't understand about the literary fiction crowd is why they want to write deep meaningful prose that very few people understand? What is the point of spending all that time and energy putting one's thoughts on the deep meaningful theme if the majority of people can't understand it or fall asleep while reading it? Seriously, if you're going to do that, you might as well write it in gibberish.
On the other hand, why does this have to be an either/or? Why can't a story written for the commercial market also explore those meaningful themes? It seems to me that a really powerful story would meld the best of both commercial and literary fiction.
Josin L. McQuein says
You shouldn't have to try for a theme. If there is one, it should flow naturally and sneak in under the radar. All those theme papers in school took analyzing because they're so obscure you miss them if you don't go looking.
If you try and force a narrative into a thematic mold, you're going to compromise the story. It'll show in the reading the same as it would if two different people wrote it and fused it together. It'll alter the voice, too, like someone giving a lecture they wouldn't want to sit through, much less deliver.
Thematic writing makes the characters puppets and lends itself to author insert scenarios where the characters don't make sense because they're acting on the writer's motivation rather than their own.
Wakai Writer says
The best books, in my opinion, are like layer cakes. On top is a delicious slathering of plot, some flashy, interesting characters that when you bite into them have a surprisingly complex flavour, and a pretty design that makes you want to pull the book from the shelf. On bottom is a solid foundation of not-too-heavy, not-too-light writing–solid enough to support the delicious bits on top but not so thick as to be the only thing you can taste.
Literary value is the fudge between the layers that is only there on the best cakes, and often not discernible beyond "My god what is that delicious taste?" unless you're really looking for it.
But you can't make a cake out of just that layer of fudge. Indeed, getting the portion right is half the trick.
Cat_d_Fifth says
So no themes in queries. Got it. But what about the 'hook'as described in another one of your terrific posts? Should a one-liner hook be included in a query, or should we trust the agent's judgement and IQ to pick up the hook from the brief 3-sentence synopsis that tells you what happens in the novel?
And can we write 'thirty-something' in the query? LOL
PS I think you've also picked up on the dichotomy between publishing as a business and writing as an art. You can write the best darn literary piece of the millennium, but if it's not going to be published anyway… And agents, of course, are in the business of publishing, so, hello!
Anonymous says
Write. Sell. Repeat…Write. Sell. Repeat…
~Anonypottimus
Adam Heine says
I was gonna say something meaningful to add to the discussion, but J. Matthew Saunders expressed my opinion exactly:
"There's no telling what people will consider literature a hundred years from now, so I don't worry about it. I just write what I would want to read."
blueroses says
As someone with AD/HD, it was all I could do to read college (and high school for that matter) literature. After reading the same sentence fifteen times, I began to worry that I might never graduate. I also worried about my desire to read, or lack thereof.
But thankfully, along came Janet Evanovich, Donna Andrews, Dixie Cash, Sue Grafton, and several others who made reading fun. Shallow? Maybe. Fun? Definitely. But I no longer read one sentence fifteen times–unless it's for the spice!
I still like the "deep" stuff, but I save the brain cells for that in non-fiction.
Maybe it just all depends on something as simple as what mood we're in.
Giles says
I think the idea of, "you can't truly understand the work because you are not the author" is really a snobby attitude to have. In my experience, that "impenetrable" concept is more about making the author feel good about them self rather than sharing something with an audience. It's their way of looking down at other people so that they can prove that they are "better" in some way.
Then again, I learned a lot of literature from an elite poet who believed anything "mainstream" was considered crap.
Nathan Bransford says
bryan-
I guess over the summer Mike Brown didn't take the time to learn a play other than "everyone stand around and let LeBron shoot/drive into 5 players."
P.A.Brown says
Define a great novel. Is it great because no one reads it? Or because it's too grand for any of us mere mortals to understand? I am not a stupid person by any means, but most of the crap that passes as 'great literature' isn't. Being accessible does not make something hack work anymore than making something so obscure no one but the author knows what it means make it great. Literature has to be read to have any meaning.
Nathan Bransford says
gordon-
If you don't want to sell your novel you don't need agent.
Ink says
Well, that Shaq and Big Z lineup matched against KG and Rasheed was, uh, interesting.
But those come from behind blocks sure were nice!
Man, my Cavs look huge and… not so fast. They're going to pound some teams… but they still can't match up with teams like Boston, Orland and LA who have skilled, mobile bigs. And any chance at a title will be through those teams. Mid-season trade?
Mira says
Gordon – Nathan's preference is literary. Anyone who hangs around his blog can see that. But he also needs to be practical.
Laying out the reality of the market isn't killing literature, it's just being practical. Alot of great literature, btw, never made a dime when it was written.
Now, on a different topic, I am very interested in the underlying theme of this post: food. Sausages, pizza, sushi, corndogs.
I now have an inexplicable craving for cake.
I would like everyone who is reading this blog to stop bemoaning the end of literature as we know it, and see the greatness unfolding before your eyes.
This post, this very post, has deep themes and contexts hidden from the naked eye
What does the sub-text of food on this post really mean?
Why this post? Why not yesterday's post? Or last week?
And why was this post almost written not once, but twice? How does the first post differ from the second (hint: check the food references)?
And finally, what is food? why do we eat it? And most important of all, what type of cake is the best and how quickly can I get some?
Please submit a 10 page analysis of this post by Friday. Extra credit if you submit it with a slice of cake.
Preferably birthday cake! For Ink! 🙂
Ink says
A pumpkin pie wouldn't hurt, either. Just sayin'.
Mira says
Okay. Double points for pumkin
pie.
Triple if you spell pumbkin correctly.
Ink says
And I have a feeling that Bron is going to put a hurting on my Raptors tomorrow. He likes Toronto… career high 56, for example. And I was in row 10 once as LeBron put up a 28-14-14 triple double on 'em. That guy is monstrous fast in person.
Mira says
Okay, I have one last thing to say, and then I'm going away for the evening.
If I ever write a book, I have no intention of having a subtle theme. I want the type of theme that hits the reader over the head with a sledgehammer.
That's right. Just try to get away from my theme. You may dodge it in Chapter One, but it will be there waiting for you, ready to leap at your jugular in Chapters Two through Twenty Nine. The same darn theme over and over until you give up and surrender – surrender to my THEME.
College students won't parsec the subtle intricacies of my work. They'll tell war stories of how the THEME managed to get them in the end. "It hid on the last page of Chapter 5, and then it GOT ME." "That's nothing. The THEME entered my dreams and wedged itself into my brain stem." "You guys are wimps. I first met the THEME in the womb, and it's been with me ever since, waking and sleeping, and will following me to my dying day and beyond."
Yep, that's the type of theme I want. A theme with bite. Literally.
Anonymous says
I'm a baker, writer, candlestick maker. The favorite cookie I make for festive occasions is a crisp shortbread sandwich cookie with lemon, lime, and orange zests. Little confetti-like flavor bits in the cookies and the fillings, yum. See, they taste like lemon drops but they're sugar cookies. Simple but zesty, thematically complex, tedious to make, but ever so popular. Not universally loved though, so I usually make dark cocoa shortbread sandwich cookies too, with just a smidgeon of peppermint in the fudge filling for zest.
Deeply satisfying flavors, textures, and aromas with aftertastes that pleasantly linger. That's the kind of story I like to read. If I could just get those flavors to come out in words.
Giles says
Will someone please explain to me the overwhelming desire to suffer for art? Why does literature have be obscure for it to be considered "Great"?
In my personal opinion, Harry Potter was "Great" by some of my literature class's standards: It broke common rules of writing, like how to describe a scene and what sentence structure should look like; it contained many interwoven plots and subplots with engaging characters, uncommon dialogue, and even made up words that are now in the Oxford Dictionary. But because it's a commercial success, does that mean it's no longer "great"?
I just don't get it. I want to be a full time writer, but I REFUSE to let my family starve to death for my work. Does that make me less of an artist? Does that invalidate what I want to do?
Cat_d_Fifth says
OK, so comments from the vast majority show that they enjoy writing (and reading) novels for the sake of the pleasure they derive from these activities. Then there's the infinitesimally small minority who are willing to 'suffer' anonymity and poverty (not to mention verbosity and obscurity in their reading) for their art 🙂
Which reminds me of this quote:
"What distinguishes the artist from the dilettante? Only the pain that the artist feels. The dilettante looks only for pleasure in art." -Redon, Odilon
Hi. I'm Cat, and I'm a dilettante… anyone else out there care to join Dilettantes Anonymous?
Not that there isn't quite a bit of pain that comes with the pleasure of writing, even for 'happy' writers. There's pain of rejection, for one…
But as Nathan eloquently put it: "If you don't want to sell your novel you don't need agent". True enough… self-publishers don't need agents. So best of luck to Gordon and Kindle…
Meanwhile, I gotta finish this query letter…
Josin L. McQuein says
If you can't sell a single agent or publisher on your book, good luck selling a mass audience on it. It's not like there's some conspiracy out there trying to make sure good books don't get published. People buy what they like, agents and publishers know this, so they buy what people like.
D. G. Hudson says
I'm not much for elitism, but I also don't want to read every book that's proclaimed to be a bestseller.
Literary books lift us out of our ordinary life, and sometimes teach us something. Genre books are pure entertainment, and many are well-written.
I think that's the important part – that we enjoy what we are reading. That can vary for different people based on education, region, background, etc.
Didn't see this post the first time, so thanks for reposting.
wendy says
Nathan, what you've written is so interesting. I've noticed over the years that mostly it's the most simplest writing but with an endearing, fascinating and fun story that grabs people's interest – not so much the prize-winners. Many children's novels have become great classics. Some examples: Watership Down, The Wind in The Willows, Peter Pan and, er, Wendy and The Wizard of Oz as they had what it took to tell a compelling story, simply. Today we've got Twilight and Harry Potter which also fit this structure. When I was growing up, like many children around the world, I adored Enid Blyton's stories as she focused on simple story telling – with emphasis on fun and excitment but which prob. had no literary merit what-so-ever.
However, maybe I get a bit preachy-teachy in my stories. But I want to share ideas and speculation as much as plot and characters.
Anonymous says
Giles,
Yes, it certainly does.
~Anonypussy
Anonymous says
"The publishing industry will never again produce a Stephen King, not in its current form."
Disagree. The form isn't that different than it was 10 years ago, when the first e-books came out and everyone said OOOOOOOOH traditional publishing is dead! But here we are…And it's not even that different from 100 years ago when it was still hard to get published. No matter the time period, it's a tough business.
~Anonyconda
Tristan Bancks says
Thanks for this post and for the interesting comments. I think, as the discussion attests, we all crave books in the lit/plot pocket. It is sweet justice when you find that novel at the 'intersection of quality and accessibility'. I've been reading Jasper Jones by Australian novelist, Craig Silvey, and it was such creatively rich and honest Lit Fiction and yet it had a plot that never let you go. I think Markus Zusak and John Boyne's stuff sits at this intersection also.
Richard Lewis says
Here's a pretty simple technique to add story: give your main character's friend or sidekick or mentor, somebody your MC knows inside and out, a secret that he or she isn't telling the MC.
This isn't the main story, of course, just another story element.
Readers have a psychological need to find out what this secret is. That's why this works, and it will work for pretty much any story anybody is working on without a whole lot of revision. (Just don't resolve it too quickly).
It's a trick, really, but it's interesting how a narrative trick leads to story
Giles says
Gordon, I'm not writing for fame and fortune, but rather to educate young people, much in the same way Lemony Snicket tried to with his Series of Unfortunate Events. I also wish to entertain people, which is the point of art (look at the renaissance in Venice). On the other hand, if fame and fortune come my way, then I'll accept it graciously.
Anonymous says
We are all dancing at the crossroads! Right at that 'intersection of quality and accessibility.'
The trouble is, the traffic(i.e. market forces) makes it a very difficult place to be – but we dance on, bravely, and perhaps with grace.
J says
This was a depressing and sort of surprising post.
I know some people–a lot of people–read just for entertainment. But let's not denigrate the value of a truly great work of art. When you've read a great book, you weren't just entertained–you might even have been changed. Maybe your worldview is bigger, maybe you've questioned your own assumptions about something, maybe you are less likely to assume the worst about people of a different race, religion, nationality, etc.
A good story won't preach that stuff to you–it will show it to you in a convincing and beautiful narrative. You won't necessarily know what's happening until you finish, and think.
Why is there so much resistance to actually having to think?
Sometimes you want to watch You, Me and Dupree or even Caddyshack, right, but sometimes don't you want to watch Schindler's List or Driving Miss Daisy or The English Patient?
So sometimes you want to read Twilight, but I hope you also want to read The Namesake or A Free Life or The Unbearable Lightness of Being or The Poisonwood Bible or The God of Small Things.
Literary writing is not about picking the most obscure way of saying something–that's just pretentious writing. Literary writing is writing about things that matter, in a way that matters and with a reverence for the art of writing.
And we should not celebrate its demise so readily and casually, as if it doesn't matter, as if somehow the masses have won and beaten those "snobby literary jerks" who had the nerve to pen something that you actually had to approach with purpose and thought.
Shannon says
Thanks for this very helpful post.
P.A.Brown says
I agree there's nothing wrong with aspiring to great writing. My issue is in who defines what is good and how it's done. Judging a book to be crass or commercial and therefore not of literary value just because it sells a lot of copies is wrong. In the same vein, not being able to find a publisher for your masterpiece does not mean it's a literary gem. A lot of garbage gets published by New York publishers. I dare say a lot gets self published too.
Ash. Elizabeth says
I write what makes me happy. I can't control the voices in my head (ha, I sound crazy). I love good literature, but it's not something I'd ever pretend to write. I'm 19, which means I hardly know enough about like to write that kind of book.
Anyway, I can't write too much cause I'm about to pass out again. I had all four wisdom teeth pulled yesterday and man it hurts. have a great day, nathan!
bigwords88 says
Glad to know that showing, rather than telling, is back in vogue. Just so happens I'm starting a WIP with killer robots, explosions aplenty and a down-at-heel detective. There are too many 'serious' books out there already, and pretending to be writing about Big Themes is stupid when all I want to do is tell my story.
I love this blog.
Scott says
Thank you, J. Brilliant post.
And thanks Nathan for your reply. If you don't mind, I thought I might do a little editing to a piece of it:
and a cultural pendulum swing toward democratization and accessibility away from elitism (not meant derogatorily) and the esoteric.
– elitism
+ intellectualism
Let's hear it for the culture of declining education!
:^(
Anonymous says
That's why the U.S. is getting its poopah stomped by many other coutnries when it comes to art. We want instant gratification. Something that we can latch onto when we read on the toilet. A plot we don't have to think too much about. That's why James Patterson is so popular now. I'm not saying you're wrong Nathan, I'm saying your right, and we have only ourselves to blame. What's terrifying is that this lazy attitude bleeds into all other aspects of our country, including politics.
/idiocracy, here we come.
Ink says
J,
I don't think Nathan's suggesting the death of literary fiction. I think he's suggesting the market for obscure, difficult and inaccessible literary fiction is currently very small (not that it was ever large). And the big houses aren't really interested. So, if that's what you write you should take that into consideration… and small presses willing to take a risk might be the way to go.
But literary fiction is much larger and more encompassing than that. Jhumpa Lahiri, for example, is not inaccessible. She's very clear and precise and literal and tells accessible and easily followed stories. That, likely, is part of the reason she sells. She's writing Dubliner's more than Finnegan's Wake.
Great artistic achievements can be reached through many different literary styles and modes… but certain of those styles and modes currently have a very small audience. And I think it's valuable to know that. It doesn't mean you can't or shouldn't write in such a form… but it might help with writerly expectations and with how a writer approaches the search for an audience.
My best,
Bryan
Anonymous says
Question for Nathan.
I have a 70-something (sorry, she's 72) MC but I was thinking of submitting the story as YA. Will the characters age be a huge deal?
Beth Terrell says
After reading the posts by Gordan and J, I went back to re-read Nathan's post, thinking I must have misinterpreted what he was saying, but now I don't think I did.
J's examples of Schindler's LIst, Driving Miss Daisy, and The Poisonwood Bible (not to mention such classics as A Separate Peace and To Kill a Mockingbird) are exactly the kind of books Nathan was praising–books that tell wonderful, rich stories. The language is beautiful, yes, and the themes are strong, but none of them would have worked had they not been great STORIES as well.
It seemed to me that Nathan was not saying, "Hey, y'all, write me some crap," but that he was saying, "Don't sacrifice the story in an attempt to write great art."
As David pointed out, if you write a great story, the theme will take care of itself.
MedleyMisty says
I currently write a Sims story that I share for free. But hey, if one day I write a straight text story and get paid for it that's cool. I don't think that money is really the issue here.
My story, based in the Sims game though it may be, has themes. It has ideas. It has metaphors and symbolism. True, I had no idea of any of that when I started it and I've found most of it by looking back and thinking about it after the fact, but it's there.
While writing the last update I spent a good few hours looking for one word, one word with the right sound and length and meaning to fit in with the rest of the update.
I am aiming to write quality literature. I see writing as art. I admit, I identify as a writer and as an artist. Honestly yesterday at work I was thinking about writing the end (which is quickly coming upon me) and started shaking.
The majority of the audience for Sims stories are teenagers.
My feedback tends to be along the lines of "I just sat at my computer for three hours and read the whole thing. I couldn't stop." and "How many updates are left? I don't want this to end!" and "This is my favorite Sims story." and "Generally I'm not into metaphor and stuff but I love this."
I was quietly proud the day I looked through the post history of a high school boy who said "Sweet Jesus this is good." and found him whining about having to read Jane Eyre for school in another thread. Jane Eyre is my favorite book. 😉
Why does it have to be either/or?
I don't think that you guys are really arguing against literature and art. I think that you're arguing against pretentious crap. And there is a difference between good writing with ideas behind it and being pretentious and snobby.
And the classist assumptions in the comments are amusing.
My parents were factory workers. I went to a working class rural high school that only had four AP classes. I have a two year degree in information systems. I took creative writing twice in high school but I'm certainly no MFA.
How does that make me stupid and unable to understand or enjoy great literature? I don't recall a gate on the classics aisle that would only let you in if your parents made x amount of money.
I would argue that literature that doesn't have mass appeal cannot be called great. I'm not sure it could even be called literature.
Sorry – I just had to stick up for those of us who see writing as an art. Art is not elitist. Art is not pretentious. Art is universal. That's what makes it art.
Nathan Bransford says
bryan-
Happy Birthday, and yes, that is what I was saying. (also agree with Beth that some of the books J cites are at that intersection of quality/accessibility).
Although I have to say, I mostly agree with J. I agree that challenging works of literature should be celebrated rather than denigrated by the masses. I cringe every time someone says an author like Faulkner sucks because the language is difficult to understand. To each their own, but just because it's challenging doesn't mean it's bad.
My tastes have a definite literary lean, so I didn't intend to give ammunition to the "mass appeal is all that matters" crowd. I'll be posting more about this on Thursday.
Mira says
So, on topic, this is partly the economy. People want more escapism when times are rough.
When things ease up, people will want more thoughtful literature again.
So, Bryan, good morning!
I looked all over for a cake that said "Die, City of Windsor, Die" because I thought that was a lovely birthday sentiment, but oddly enough I couldn't find one.
I'm sure that's what he's saying though:
Happy Birthday, Bryan!
Have a great day!
Anonymous says
Gordon has a point.
If you accept Nathan's own argument then he's pounding the nails into the coffin of his own profession. If we no longer need agents to screen for quality and simply judge works based on "sell-ability" then we only need publish those works that pass a "democratization" standard.
And we don't need agents to do that. With instant feedback via the web, one can find works of popularity instantly. Take Urbis as one of many examples where works can be posted and read for free and "rated."
Agents have relinquished their own value in that they have become nothing more than gatekeepers of their own tastes, which has increasingly become monolithic in its triteness.
Linnea says
Glad you said that. I hadn't given theme a second thought – until my novel was published. The book is read primarily by students who have to write book reports. They asked me what my theme was. After lengthy consideration I discovered a theme and a motif – whew!
I suspect theme often emerges as the story unfolds but I have no intention of making theme a starting point. Thank you very much for your thoughts on this.
Nathan Bransford says
anon-
You're taking what I said way too far. It's not that everything has become debased and that publishers no longer care about quality. They do – they care immensely, and I think the intense competition to get onto the bookshelf is resulting in superior books overall. Ever read the pulps of another era? They're almost laughable by today's standards.
People always think that everything is getting worse – I don't think they are getting worse. They're just changing.
Wanda B. Ontheshelves says
Everything Just Makes Me Laugh
I remember when I was getting my MFA (in poetry) – I had a job in the art department. One of the people running the art department commented, re: painting, "everything that can be done to a canvas has already been done." And I had a friend who was an MFA student in painting – sitting right there, and I saw the look on his face – hurt? shock? disappointment? – what was that expression on his face when he heard those words?
***
Has everything that can be done to a printed page (or a Kindle screen) already been done?
*** (guess I'm in an asterisk-y mode today)
And then, I think when people criticize "literary" fiction, really, they are talking about "academic" fiction – I mean, just think of the thousands of people employed (that is, getting paid) right now! at this moment! to deconstruct, recontextualize, interpret, obfuscate, and in general analyze "literary" texts – at universities across the country – and in this particular line of employment, obviously, you're going to gravitate towards really complex texts, sans plot almost, because that's how you can best demonstrate your analytical chops, and get more money in your paycheck!! Woo-hoo!!
Well, I don't want to sound completely cynical (sure, why not!) – but definitely in poetry (which NB does not represent, and I assume the major reason is, there's no PAYING audience for it, in sufficient numbers), because it is so embedded in the analycentric (that's analysis + centric, although the word does seem to inadvertently reference an anatomical nether region) – in the analycentric "academy," narrative and plot are way down the list of admirable qualities in a poem, and complexity, even incomprehensibility, are way up! Because that gives you something to write about in your papers for literary journals, AND something to "teach" your students in the classroom.
Nature abhors a vacum!
***
Yes, this is the kind of comment that pours forth, when you have orange-flavored dark chocolate for breakfast.
Well, to boil it all down – there's a small market for obscure literary fiction (and poetry) within the "academy." That's where the (small amount of) money is for that kind of fiction/poetry. Luckily for fiction, there's all other kinds of stuff that people will pay money for. Poetry, not so much (although I loved the Pushkin-flavored Golden Gate poenovel…poemovel? Rhymes too much with hovel…)
Anyway, that is my chocolate-flavored opinion this morning (er, noon).
Wanda B.
Anonymous says
Superior? In what regard?
Perhaps according to YOUR tastes and those of your profession.
Unlike most of your minions here on this board, some people still like a little depth and meaning and !GASP! buy those books.
Why? Because life is more than just about titillation, clever short-lived gratification, though there's nothing wrong with those ends in moderation.
Some of us actually think that in order for life to be full and whole that we need some things that are provocative, inspiring, and involve a little elucidation of life's quandaries and, yes, "themes".
We are 5-10 years away from the death of the publishing industry as we know it. No, not just a changed industry, but actual dodo bird, pony express extinction.
There will come a time very soon where we can all explore our own tastes (rather than peruse bookshelves filled with the tastes of agents) and pick and choose what we want and obtain it instantly.
Robena Grant says
I don't think it matters if you're writing literary or commercial fiction, theme has to come out of character. And should always be subtle.
As a writer, you don't consciously choose a theme. You put well drawn characters into a story idea. The main character has deep issues and beliefs to explore through the story narrative and those explorations will (if written well) be left in the mind of the reader at the end of the story.
Nathan Bransford says
anon (or should I say Gordon)-
If your criteria for the excellence is that more books are published than ever before and readers get to decide what they want to read… guess what. More books are published than ever before every single year.
But hey – I agree, the industry's in for a major reckoning. Information can be delivered a lot easier when it's not bound in paper. The newspapers are figuring this out now, people will soon migrate over for most books too. It's going to be wildly different.
And I wouldn't fixate on agents – it's not our tastes that are on the shelves, it's publishers' tastes. I've said it once, I'll say it again: I can't force a publisher to buy anything.