JR: I think most literary websites today are created out of frustration, by people who have been rejected by the establishment, and felt the need to set up their own shop where they could at least express themselves, but then they turn around an exclude a good percentage of the people who approach them as a creative outlet, thus they turn into what they were running from (Rumpus, Second Pass, The Millions–great new design by the way). They’ve got published authors, and most importantly aspiring writers, to provide content for their sites, as there are millions of writers out there with something to say, and no place to say it. This of course attracts advertisers (just like the bigger sites who pander to the lowest common denominator, they are whores, they don’t care where they advertise…maybe not Glenn Beck’s show…) but is it too much? Are there so many voices out there that people just tune out? How many bad reviews can Inherent Vice or That Old Cape Magic get before the limited number of people who will go out and buy that book just shut down and tune it all out? The Newsweek (dead magazine walking) review of the Russo calling the book misogynistic got more people riled up than anything, and Ed Champion wrote a stinging response to that review (the readers of Newsweek would never read Ed Champion, even on a dare)…and I don’t think there are enough people reading literary novels as it is…at least enough to warrant as much introspection as I’ve given here…how many people are really going to slog through the new John Irving…which I just started…it’s 500 and change page count and dense hard as oak writing is enough to make your eyes bleed and long for the back of the shampoo bottle. Are these big authors worthy of review and inclusion on any site that’s not mainstream? What’s the point? People who know of these big authors are going to buy the book, good reviews or not. Why not review great newcomers like Emily St. John Mandel, and not John Irving…at least the reviewer would have to say something that hasn’t already been said. And I’ve said all this without trashing Dave Eggers…or mentioning James Frey.
JE: Oh, quit whining, JR. The way I see it, the onus is on the writers, not the publications, to distinguish themselves from the droves. Toiling in obscurity is an occupational hazard (ask Melville, Kafka, etc, etc). Besides, all this toiling in obscurity serves an important function: it sorts out the quitters, and eventually, it sorts out a lot of the crappy writers. That said, I do wish we could speed up the process. It’s a different ballgame in century 21. As our brilliant friend Richard Nash has pointed out, we’re moving away from the gatekeeper model. It’s up to the writer to sort out his own demand. If you don’t like what’s out there in terms of venues, start your own. Was it Whitman, Thoreau– who was it that printed their own books and stood on street corners giving them away? Try that. Honestly, I think there’s a disproportionate number of new writers, and it’s the publishers who have created this glut. It’s the mid-career writers who are disappearing, the ones who didn’t give up, finally got in the door, then didn’t generate the sales numbers to meet publisher expectations. If you don’t sell 4k copies of a debut, you’re toast. Careers end before they’ve barely begun. And let’s face it, 4k is kind of a sad number to begin with, but still stands as a benchmark in many cases. 10K is a success story. This, to me, is way sadder than the millions of upstarts getting rejected by online zines every day. We’re talking about the people who put in their time, overcame the obstacles, and finally “made it” to publication! But for the grace of God, this could be my own story. But you know what? I’d STILL feel lucky just to be doing the work. If I only found three people to connect with it, I’d still feel fortunate to have (hopefully) impacted their lives in some way.
I say, it’s good for the upstarts, all this rejection, and lack of exposure and over-abundance of competition! I say, if the idea of publication looms so large in a writer’s consciousness that it makes him bitter or covetous, they’re writing for the wrong reasons to begin with. The good one’s will keep on writing no matter the state of publishing, because they have to. And with a little hustle, they will find a worthy audience.
JC: I know who that was on the street corner, JE. That was the precursor to every blogger. Us, even. The internet’s the modern day street corner, where you can buy everything from religion to sex, even a decent book, from time to time. You can tell your story. Every child is a winner, and everyone has something important to say – and there is now a platform for everyone. Amidst all this clutter is the good stuff. It’s hard to find, but readers are looking for it, just like the writer is looking for them. So either write it better, or sell it better. Or both, if you can.
Really, almost everyone toils in obscurity, writer or not. Why should the writer be any different? Most people never even have a glimmer of hope of not living and working in obscurity. Now, if it’s fame you want, make a youtube video of you setting your eyebrows on fire, or something like that. If you want to write, write. Of course its a bonus if you can sell it. So find your platform, find your audience. If you can’t sell it, maybe you should give it away, until someone notices.
Look, the industry is changing. There are a lot of people out there trying to figure out what is next. Some will blast their way forward, some will be nimble enough to follow the trends, and some will look like a brontosaurus stuck in the tar pit. Writers are going to have to be the same. Try something new, make connections, and make people want to read you. No matter how the book industry changes, people want entertainment, or edification, or something. Does it matter whether people read the hardcover, or the POD version, or on whatever computer accessory is the newest thing? Probably not. It’s the content that counts.
DH: No one is toiling in obscurity nowadays if the
y can go online. Or at least they are toiling in obscurity in a new way which is to be obscure with the whole world watching.
Our society is conceited. Our petty performances! You think you know who our important writers are? Believe me you don’t. Not anymore than the cosmopolitan citizens of Paris in 1870 knew who was their great painter. Manet who?
JE mentioned Whitman. Whitman and Dickinson are the greatest 19th century American poets. Only I don’t think the 19th century thought so.
I don’t believe that Emily Dickinson came truly into her own until the 1920′s. She wasn’t around by then. But while she was around she just stayed home and wrote poetry; crafting the poems into little homemade sewn-up booklets. That was her version of “the Internet”.
I remember loving to death the situation in Robert Musil’s wildly prolix, The Man Without Qualities. His characters are in Vienna having these pretentious discussions about how to celebrate a milestone anniversary of the Austro-Hungarian Empire.
This is funny because, to paraphrase JR, this is a dead empire walking. WWI, about to come up, will spray it with insecticide and like a roach it will die.
I saw this great Renaissance tapestry depicting Noah’s Flood once. It was a vast woven canvas an acre long. In the background you saw Noah’s people getting away in their cool boat.
In the foreground you saw all the poor suckers who didn’t make it to the dock on time. I especially remember one rich medieval lookin dude who was clutching a case full of jewels as he was sucked down under the riptide. His New York Times bestseller status didn’t help him at all.
A few artists will get away in the ark. The rest will sink in the waves. The Internet will continue to evolve in ways we can’t imagine right now but it will probably always be a spur to writing. The way books are published now may well find a new life. But my guess is it’s done for. I think JC is on the money. There’s a wonderful turbulence in our forms of communication these days! Maybe it’s time to head for the dock before the ark leaves.
But I agree with JR in part. I’d rather read a writer who’s fresh and new and not established or something ancient and proud that no one cares about anymore but which I can admire because, somehow, it has managed to survive.
Recent Comments