 | ||
Originally posted October 29, 2009
First of all, the title of this post is admittedly hyperbolic, which was necessitated by my desire to echo speechwriter Michael Gerson’s famous line about “the soft bigotry of low expectations,” delivered in a speech by our 43rd president.
And such a hyperbolic title necessitates the caveats up front. If people are setting out to write pulp and pure entertainment: more power to them. I think that’s great. Not trying to criticize pulp. There are people who call their books “trashy” with pride, and I think that’s awesome. Fun/unpretentious books = cool by me.
Transition.
A funny thing happened with my post on Tuesday about themes: people agreed with me. And the more people agreed the more I started having this weird feeling like, “Wait. Stop. Don’t agree! Stop agreeing!!!” And then I found myself nodding along with some of the dissents.
What happened in the comments thread is that people took my caution against writing queries like English class-y term papers and my opinion that the marketplace is moving toward accessible literary fiction, and then some used that as ammo against what they perceive as a culture of snobbish literature that is difficult to understand.
As I mentioned in the comments section, I think we’re in a cultural period that celebrates mass appeal and democracy and devalues experts. I’d bet that more people read Amazon reviews than the New York Times Book Review. More people check Yelp for restaurant recommendations than a city’s local restaurant critic. People don’t particularly listen to the judges when they vote for their favorites on American Idol and they certainly don’t listen to movie critics when they decide which movies to see. The Internet has opened up all kinds of ways for the crowd to be king.
And I think this has resulted in a cultural moment that celebrates mass appeal rather than the elite. Which definitely has its benefits: I happen to really like literary fiction that is both meaningful and accessible, such as Kavalier and Clay, and I don’t know that bringing literary fiction down from a lofty perch is necessarily a bad thing.
At the same time, there is definitely something that is lost in the over-celebration of mass appeal and the lowest common denominator and the dismissal of experts, and I really think it can be taken too far. What about aspiring to create something that is great, rather than merely popular? What about pushing the envelope even when it’s not what’s currently in fashion? What is wrong with being elite and appreciated by experts if not by the masses?
And when writers start thumbing their nose at dense and challenging literature solely because it’s hard to read it really starts verging on reverse snobbery.
I understand that everyone has different tastes, but there is no pride in ignorance of literary fiction. Genre writers can learn from literary fiction, just as literary writers can learn from genre fiction. There’s a middle ground.
Now. Does someone who wants to crank out genre novels need to spend all of their time reading Proust? Probably not. But to thumb one’s nose at literary writing because it’s hard to understand is to stop learning about what is possible with words.
Writers ignore good writing at their peril. In order to have a book published it doesn’t have to be literary literary literary, but the writer has to do something very well. While there is an insanely common sentiment in the comments section that so many books published are trash and oh well anyone can do it: that’s really not the case. You may not like it, but quite a few people along the way did in order for it to find its way to the bookshelf.
Not every talented writer is a published author, but (nearly) every published author is talented. Even if you think they suck.
For now, in order to have your book published you’re going to have to impress the experts, i.e. the literary agents and editors who demand a certain level of quality in the writing. And the current culture that treats everyone as an expert shouldn’t be taken too far: Not everyone is an expert.
Interesting topic and re-post. I do think literary fiction is getting a hard rap right now. I think it may be partly because it doesn't tend to make money, and it's slowly dawning on everyone that there is MONEY in books sales. It may also be some backlash as commercial fiction tries to defend its right to exist and not be labled trash – it may fight back and label literary fiction as irrelevant and unnecessary.
But I also think there is backlash against the "elite" because membership into the elite is not open. You really need to start out with a certain background and some money to even approach it, and it certainly helps if you are white, and if you are male, doors will fling open that still get firmly shut if you are female. Unfortunately there is classism and other 'isms' involved. Not everyone has the opportunity to be trained to appreciate great literature. And asking those without opportunities to acknowledge and admire those who did have those opportunities may be a bit much.
I do agree – very much – that it is important not to lose the aspiration to create something great. I would argue, however, that commercial fiction can be as great as literary fiction. Many of the classics were commercial writers – Dickens, Austen come to mind. And the greatest commercial writer of them all was Shakespeare, of course.
Not to say that gorgeous, lyrical, innovative, supremely crafted literary fiction isn't great, but so is the best of commercial fiction – imho.
"the dismissal of experts"
If someone is advertising their own being as an expert, that won't make the person to one. Unfortunately many on both sides are just advertising that they're experts, but they're far from being one. Someone asked me recently; do I consider myself as a professional, an expert or do I want to be one… and my answer was; if this is professionalism what I see day by day from both sides, nope, I don't want to be a professional, nor an expert anymore. Both "title: is a joke in most cases (75%) and cannot be taken seriously. When industry experts can't recognize basic writing elements, such as imagery, when writers are copying each other instead of figuring out something new, there is no professionalism, no expertism, just endless snobish behavior without any true background.
"Not every talented writer is a published author, but (nearly) every published author is talented."
… or a friend or a friend of a friend, or serving some agendas, etc, etc… In a corrupt system, being published doesn't mean you have any sort of talent at all (Especially as "being talent" is very subjective and talent is also missing from the "jury" side too.). In my country we have a nice proverb which describes the present system: Among the blind the one-eyed is the king.
Watch "All watched over by machines of loving grace"
The crowd makes a sh@ÂŁ king.
Problem is, there are an awful lot of stones everyone can grind their axes on.
I love reading pulp fiction, hard case crime, Dashill, Mickey, Donald Westlake, are some of the best at it, and there are scores that are not as good, but I still love reading them.
But my respect and love for books and writing comes from and will probably remain in literary greats,or maybe what I consider literary greats, Hemingway, London, Updike, and more recently Cormac McCarthy, who I think is a probably the best writer, composer really, of literary fiction in this generation. It could be debated that Cormac, is a horror writer, and any number of other genures, but he's literary to me.
Literary fiction for me does not nessessarily mean dificult to read, (although McCarthy can send you back a page or two once in while.) Literary can be dificult to interpret.doesn't have to be dificult to read.
I think as writers we can learn more from the lesser talented group, simply because the brilliant writers don't show you anything but brilliance and story and you can't really latch on to anything and say, 'hmm, I would have written that sentance like this, or he/she didn't need to tell me that again.' when a writter is that good, you don't notice the writing, and as a writer you have very to learn and you can't mimic what you can't see.
There is always some deep seated passion when I write. I have something to say, of the world,of culture, of art,of human struggles, that's just me, born in, it's the way I think, the way I anyilize, can't help it.
I don't come to the blank page lightly,( I doubt if pulp writers do eithier.) Every book I write, I want to be the best damn book ever written, It's more important to me, to be read a hundred, two hundred years from now than it's currently success or failier, (probably not what agents want to hear)but that's me. There are writers I don't like much and I writers I love. but I have no snobbery for anyone who writes books…period.
Amen! Half the beauty (and fun) of reading and writing is the high art of it.
I couldn't agree more.
Writing for "mass appeal" is a fine way to make a living. Some have made a great living that way.
I don't think I want to, though. And my success, or lack thereof, supports that theory.
However, I'm afraid that popularity, based on sales, based on publicity, is somewhat the current basis for "literary" success, in the U.S. at least. So, whose "aspirations" are actually being lowered? And if they are, why?
By the same token that not everyone is an expert, it should be noted that some experts in "literature" are basing their expertise on books they know became popular, if not for instance in the author's lifetime, perhaps after. There remains a fear, more and more in current economic hard times, of taking a risk. If more agents, and more publishers, were willing to take a risk, no doubt a generation of literary greats of our own is out there right now, hoping to be noticed.
Because someone is either market-savvy, or marketable, doesn't necessarily make them "literary" either.
Would that the publishing business were filled with true supporters of the experimental, the artistic, the painter of worlds with language and creator of beings as real as anyone you might encounter, able to boil to its essence the seed of meaning in a carefully crafted paragraph.
A great man once described the literary writer as someone, if he is truly trying to be an artist, who must each day go far out beyond all the others, to where no one can help him.
There are writers out there. There are literary writers as well. Many have been daunted by the "elevator pitches" and "platforms" and other marketing hoops required to convince an agent, and a publisher, that not only are you good, and talented, and committed to what you're doing, but that you're "marketable."
Where do literary artists come from? Readers. Where do literary experts come from?
There was a time when writers wanted to "beat" an already well-known "great." That's been my goal since I was a teenager. But even then I knew you don't go into a boxing ring as a contender without ever having learned how to take a punch. You don't try and take on the literary greats of a previous time by just saying you know you can. You train.
Reading is training. Theoretically, training for experts.
Short stories are workout sessions, sprints. The novels are the fights.
I put mine out there, not because I think they're "good," ("I'm sure your mother would be very proud," we used to tell cub reporters), but because others have thought they should be published, but weren't able to find someone willing to take a risk to publish them.
My current problem, as a self-published writer, is getting people to read them.
Experts. I await your criticism.
🙂
Who was it that said the intelligent writer writes not for the intelligent people but for the masses? I'm completely destroying the quote, I'm sure, but someone (respectable) said something like that. In my personal opinion, every writer has their own story to tell… For Danielle Steele it's… whatever it is she writes. For Henry Miller it was something completely different (thank the gods). Is one "worth" more than the other? Only in the eye of the beholder (aka reader). Is Stephenie Meyer really so much better/worse than, say, Salman Rushdie? No point in even trying to compare, right? My point (yes, there is a point in here somewhere) is that every writer needs to be true to themselves. Just that. Whatever it is you feel you need to say, whatever vision of the world it is you want to share (even if it's only the most commercial / popular means of making a buck) is worth something to someone. Just… Don't sell out. Don't aspire to be James Joyce when your nature is more Stephen King-ish (hey, I love Mr. King, eh?), or vice versa. Whoever each of us is, is worth listening to IF YOU WRITE WELL.
Personally, I've never understood why some people draw a line between "fiction" and "literature," as if writers couldn't be both profound and popular (Dickens, Shakespeare, Twain, etc.).
That said, it also seems ironic that many who are anti-intellectual fully support elitism of a different kind.
Great info! I recently came across your blog and have been reading along. I thought I would leave my first comment. I don’t know what to say except that I have enjoyed reading. Nice blog. I will keep visiting this blog very often.
Thanks for this informative article,
we like it so much…
mlance
The mindset of the majority has permeated all areas of our lives. And in some ways it's been beneficial. But I also agree that the pendulum has swung a little to far – as is often the case when change happens. We need radical thinkers and trailblazers! If you don't agree, consider literature without Virginia Woolf…
Dickens wrote for money, and was quite popular. His books are now among the great classics. Shakespeare wrote for money. His plays are now considered among the greatest plays of all time. But they weren't the highbrow plays of the time. His supposedly highbrow competitors are now forgotten. The great majority of classics became classics because people actually wanted to read them. Jane Austen wrote genre romance. But that's because everything is genre. The snobbery is to say "this is literature, while this is merely genre fiction." It is attempting to seize for yourself the title of classic without being judged by those pesky readers. Many people have thought that they wrote something great, but it has been the readers that have judged. Some looked down at Dickens, but Dickens' book left the competitors behind.
You know, the highest paying periodicals that publish fiction, most of them—have a strong preference for Literary Fiction. The true snobs, at least those under the age of 50, do prefer Literary Fiction, Indie Films, and snob-approved music: like The Smiths, Radiohead, Iggy Pop. Which, just like Shakespeare, Chekov, Tolstoy or Mozart, are recognized as tastefully infallible. So, simply put—there’s no risk. Snobs do not take risks. And they want to be correct—whatever that means. The arts aren’t like a basketball game; it’s all speculative. So, if you tell me Nirvana (the band) was brilliant, and Motley Crue is garbage—this is based on what? The ability to play instruments (hardly), their offstage demeanor (that’s not their art), what—their lyrics, hooks, style, subject matter—ah, so now we’re talking taste. Universal opinions. So, we’re not talking good VS bad. I mean, I can’t imagine Amy Tan doing a better job writing Chandler’s “The Long Goodbye”. So, if Literary writings echo more perceived taste, and “intelligence” (another overrated word that does NOT measure creativity), then it’s considered a higher quality of work. Kaavya Viswanathan graduated Harvard, and went on to Georgetown, but she flopped as a writer—plagiarizing her first attempt at a novel. (one she received a 500,000 dollar advance for)That’s what people are forgetting—the newest incarnation of snobbery (40 and under) measures status by education, not assets. It’s very common to hear “I really don’t care about monetary gain, or commercial success”. But yet THOSE writers are the first ones to mention their MFA, the designer label University they got it from. The person I just described is reading this thinking—“Yes, I do mention it. I earned my doctorate, and I’m very proud”, etc, etc. But here’s the thing –That doesn’t mean you can tell a good story, it doesn’t make you creative. It’s the first words out of their mouths—“it just reminds me sooo much of when (or some other clever pretense to qualify the following) I was in grad school at Stanford”…That’s the new snobbery. The uneducated “trashy” guy who has flashy new stuff, a fat bank roll, and no education isn’t the snob. Snobs are hyper-concerned with what’s appropriate, what’s right, all subject to proof or universal approval. They’re really cowards. They consider themselves rebels who question “authority” (the Republicans over 50 in some red state they never met—how convenient) when they are the authority. The new silver Mercedes is a pre-owned Subaru Outback (with the Question Authority bumper sticker) The true creative artist’s work flows from an independent wellspring, indifferent to popular fashion or fashionable criticism.
I agree with you 100%. I'm so sick of the stereotype of the redneck who spends his whole day bitching about how anyone who went to college is a dumb snob who thinks they're better than everyone else or the blue collar guy who bitches about someone being a stuffed shirt but cannot define what they mean by the use of that phrase. It seems like the lowest common demoninator have become "lack of education" snobs. Anyone who even so much as sets foot on a college campus is instantly ostracised from society as a snob, by a group of people who are…guess what…they, themselves the biggest snobbs this culture has to offer right now. These people think they know more than their doctor, would make a better movie than anyone in hollywood if given the chance (and they haven't even though youtube exists), and so on and so forth. They're the type who if you said to them that you invented a time machine they'd respond "so what you can't even change the oil in your own car" and laugh at you for being an idiot. They believe that things the experts do, they themselves could do better, if given the chance, but they're not given the chance (in their own opinion) because the experts won't recognize their genius and give them the chance they deserve. I'm sick of high school drops out thinking they know more about climate than the entire group of climate scientists who have PhDs. I'm educated and people label me a snob because I use proper grammar and don't go around saying **** like "yo, yo, yo" and "wuzzzzz uuuuup?" with my tongue hanging out and a beer bong in one hand. If I want to read and write (which I do) literary fiction then that's my choice. To think I'm less of a person because I'm using more of my potential than you are is pretty stupid, in my opinion. Following the logic, then someone who does nothing but watch TV all day would be better than someone who has a job because those job-havers are all snobs who think they're better than everyone else. What about someone who wipes their butt? Those butt wipers are all just hygiene snobs, how dare they tell me I can't smell offensive, uhg! and so on and so forth until we're all living in the jungle picking lice off each other thinking less of non-lice eaters. Maybe we should be going to the projects…
…and asking the poor and disadvantages if they have any secret cures for canger and/or AIDS that the evil experts have refused to let them share with the world. I'm tired of all the people who think they're down to earth being huge snobs about what they think 'down to earth' means and that they are even it to begin with. Take the book Infinite Jest (David Foster Wallace), for example…google the book, you'll find tone of entire websites writen by people who couldn't make it past page 200 feeling justified in creating an entire website devoted to nothing more than explaining everything wrong with the book (based on less than the first 20% of that book). They assume because they don't understand the language in the book or what the book is about (c'mon, you only read 200 pages of a thousand page book) then the author is a snob who's purposly trying to confuse people and thus make himself look smart. Instead of assuming that people are going out of their way to make you feel dumb, how about realizing they maybe you actually are dumb…and that you are dumb because you're anti-education. You cannot be anti-expertise and educated at the same time. These people spend their lives taking pride in using their brain less then bitch when they cannot understand something and make assumptions that the people who created that thing they don't understand are wrong for having created it. Anyway, before I get even more long winded I'll say that no child left behind is probably one of the factors that led us to where we are. Most of these reverse snobs would have been left behind if we had a system that actually rewarded trying and being educated and contributing to society instead of how many Michael Bay films you can fit on your smart phone.