Things that make you go "hmmm" II (another catch-all thread)

Pulp fiction title generator:

http://thrilling-tales.webomator.com/derange-o-lab/title-o-tron.shtml

For those who read internationally or enjoy Arabic literature:

The Best 100 Arabic Books according to the Arab Writer's Union.

The rest of the site looks interesting as well. The "Recent Posts" sidebar was fascinating - controversies and debates I just wasn't aware of.

2:
Thanks for that. Reminds me of this list of Spanish books, which I don't think I've seen posted around here. There's so much interesting stuff going on in contemporary Spanish-language lit.

http://splalit.blogspot.com/2007/03/100-best-novels-written-in-spanish-in.html

Beardo: Great resource. apart from the list, which is great, I agree that the whole site looks wonderful.

It is frustrating that so many authors remain untranslated. Even after many years of studying and speaking Arabic, I find literary Arabic to be so beyond me that I just give up and try to read stuff in English.

I do love Arabic poetry in the original.

"I do love Arabic poetry in the original."

Anna, you is da queen of snobs, as far as I'm concerned. I doff my hat to you, sister...

I never heard about this at the time. JR, anybody?

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/02/25/magazine/25STOCK-TRADER.html?pagewanted=all&am...

Here's Cracked Magazine on stockbrokers:

http://www.cracked.com/article_18380_the-6-most-statistically-full-shit-professi...

#3:

That's a great list. Thanks.

Abandoned books and marginalia:

http://www.edrants.com/abandoned-books-and-marginalia/

9: Now I know why I never write in books.

Makes my eyes hurt:

http://quarterlyconversation.com/constant/the-ugliest-non-glenn-beck-cover-ive-s...

Yes, there really was a "doomsday device":

http://www.wired.com/print/politics/security/magazine/17-10/mf_deadhand

(Thanks, Gord)

A few interesting articles on literary matters in Egypt.

This article discusses attempts to ban Arabian Nights.

While this one focuses on a publisher that has become "one of the most critically successful publishers in the Middle East – and reshaped Egypt's cultural landscape in the process."

13: the 1001 Nights, the unexpurgated edition, was banned already when I was there. We had to buy it under the table in a brown paper wrapper. This was around 1999 or 2000.

14: Reminiscent of how Solzenitsyn and Pasternak wrote works that could only be acquired via samizdat. The condescension of government and/or religious authoritarians is utterly insufferable. Somehow these unqualified wannabe aesthetes know what is best for the people? At least until they caught in some hilariously ironic gay sex scandal like this guy:

http://www.queerty.com/the-gay-rentboy-scandal-that-should-sink-bigot-baptist-mi...

Here's hoping that the plague of religious hypocrisy will give birth to some scathing literary works a la Jonathan Swift

The robots are taking over:

http://weburbanist.com/2010/05/05/how-skynet-really-starts-pics/

(My wife found this one.)

16: That's a little too much time in the Uncanny Valley for me.

**Shudders**

This one definitely qualifies:

http://www.truthdig.com/report/print/after_religion_fizzles_were_stuck_with_niet...

All together now: "Hmmmmmm..."

(From Gord)

For info on the BP/Gulf of Mexico disaster. Patty's sister is the director for research for the Miss. Min. Res. Institute & i knew Carol spent a lot of time out in the Gulf on their research vessel...

http://www.olemiss.edu/depts/mmri/programs/oil_spill.html

gives a somewhat more technical, but not excessively so, set of updates on what's been happening there.

Thanks, now I have a better idea of the extent of the area potentially affected.

Les yikes!

18: Nice. After seeing Children of Men and reading Gilead, I understand the appeal of wanting to return to a "moral culture" (whatever that is and whoever the watchmen who determine what "morality" is?). I've since had my preconceptions blasted about damn near everything -- representative democracy, every economic system, corporations, organize religion, organized politics, etc. -- yet I'm no "Big Lebowski"-style Nihilist. We can't go back, we can only move forward.

On that note, Jesus of Nazareth by Paul Verhoeven is a wonderful book. A great exploration of Jesus's earthly ministry and an noble attempt to humanize him. Verhoeven knows his stuff and his textual analysis is superb.

This:

http://causticcovercritic.blogspot.com/2010/05/melting-my-brain.html

If you've not seen the Bronte sisters action figures:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-NKXNThJ610

Although I find Ed Champion overly self-congratulatory and sensitive, I have to hand it to him this time. He's compiled a wonderful list of literary podcasts.

Here's a list of quotes about the creative process by famous writers:

http://campaign.constantcontact.com/render?v=001rUMZSB4OvtE9o12884Q2B1_cglCKbm54...

Sorry about the monster link, hope it works for folks.

Some fantastic quotes there--thanks.

http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2010/05/12/this-is-why-i-hate-wall-street-...

The Motley Fool (let me know if the link does not work) referencing a very obnoxious letter from a "wall street banker" to us denizens of the middle/working class

(original obnoxious letter here:
http://ftalphaville.ft.com/blog/2010/04/30/217381/we-are-wall-street-we-are-smar... )

The original will make most of you very nauseated. Read it at your peril.

A really terrible book:

http://stevyncolgan.blogspot.com/2008/07/you-really-must-take-vista-be-vigil.htm...

How does one date a review on LT from 1969?

http://www.librarything.com/profile_reviews.php?view=barranco

Clever, but very weird.

Um....

Buy a corsage and go in and meet the parents.

Yukio Mishima recorded an album:

http://www.timeless-shop.com/description.php?lang=2&path=20&id=854

This might be of interest to some of this group's members

http://conversationalreading.com/new-book-the-secret-history-of-science-fiction#...

Interesting. Science fiction fans have always had a suspicious view toward "literary" science fiction. They prefer to keep to their smelly, rat-infested ghetto, rather than test their mettle with some of the brilliant mainstream scribes who have incorporated speculative aspects into their works.

And look what happens when someone like Ian Sales opines on his site that Asimov and some of the other "Golden Agers" were sub-par writers and third rate hacks. The SF freaks go ballistic. Thin-skinned, parochial, petulant, atavistic. SF fans display those qualities to an alarming extent...

34: I hate SF fandom. I think Sir Ian Sales breaks it down the best in one of his blog entries. It's like if a person asked what spy novel to read and the fan keeps promoting Ian Fleming, even though his stuff is outdated and racist. Sure, Thunderball is great, but a lot has happened in the genre, not to mention a lot happening globally and politically.

Thin-skinned, parochial, petulant, atavistic.

Spot-on. SF/fantasy writing groups are even worse, since they want to drill those attributes straight into your skull. They didn't take too kindly when I kept promoting Pynchon and Beckett as sci fi writers. Not to mention William S. Burroughs, Aldous Huxley, and Nabokov

Despite the abject awfulness of the sci fi ghetto's inhabitants, I love reading and writing the stuff. I also think the split "literary vs. sci fi" is a misnomer, just as misleading as "science vs. religion." Each can be the subset of the other, which makes the alleged rivalry utterly nonsensical. "Cheese vs. cheddar."

Another problem is the relentless middlebrow beigeness of commercial sci fi prose. Forgettable trash. Substance without style can be just as bad as style without substance.

Yep.

There's some great scifi out there, just as much of so-called "literary" fiction uses scifi tropes and ideas to great effect. I have never understood why there is this scism. Still, I'd rather have a beer with Michiko Kakutani than anyone from the LT scifi group.

I'm with you, kid...

37:
Me too. So I could poison her beer.

...But seriously, I can't stand Kakutani.

37: It's not the genre, it's the fandom. Talking with them, apart from inoffensive gushing and whatnot, is like baiting a fundamentalist Christian (or any other religious extremist for that matter.)

Remember this conversation from Time Bandits?

Evil: What sort of Supreme Being created such riffraff? Is this not the workings of a complete incompetent?
Baxi Brazilia III: But He created you, Evil One.
Evil: What did you say?
Baxi Brazilia III: Well He created you, so He can't be entirely...
Evil: (Blows Baxi to bits) Never talk to me like that again! No one created me! I am Evil. Evil existed long before good. I made myself. I cannot be unmade. *I* am all powerful!

Bringing up even the mildest criticism unleashes the most infantile snot-storm. Let them have their little inconsequential squabbles and their Golden Age "hack" gods. I'd rather take a more promiscuous and ecumenical view, embracing the highbrow and lowbrow. Enjoy them on their own terms. My only real retort is from the Joker: "Why so serious?" The self-seriousness of that entire crowd is disgusting. They put JRR Tolkien on such a high pedestal you expect him for defecated marble. To parody Arthur C. Clarke's much-quoted dictum: "A sufficiently advanced case of sci fi fandom is indistinguishable from being a Scientology fanatic."

#39 Me either, that was the point.

41:
*grasps over his head for the point*

Well, if he dislikes Kakutani but would rather spend time with her than most LT SF members, then I would say littlegeek's opinion of them is even lower than Kakutani--right?

"Hi, this is Buddy Joe Dweeb calling form Nacogdoches, Texas, and I'd like to say it's high time schools reflected just how derned ignorant we are in this part of Amurrica":

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/us_and_canada/10141121.stm

Irony:

http://www.cracked.com/funny-1085-irony/

#43 You are correct, sir! (And I'm female, if it matters to anyone.)

My apologies re: the gender mixup: I thought you were the fella in the beard at the ballgame.

I'm a Red Sox fan, by the way. According to your cap, we're mortal enemies (but I'm willing to overlook that, if you are)...

Fellow in beard is the hubby. And besides, I haven't lived in NY for 12 years and, sadly, have become a Giants fan. Know where can we buy a bat?

However, my heart will always belong to Derek Jeter and Bernie Williams.

An article about the last surviving member of Orson Welles' "War of the Worlds" broadcast. A regular at Sardi's, with great stories to tell. Listen to the audio stuff found in the sidebar on the left:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/25/nyregion/25sardis.html?hpw=&pagewanted=all

So today is Geek/Nerd Pride Day.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nerd_Pride_Day
Happy Pride Day to all who self-identify as such.

If you are not sure, go here:

http://www.nerdtests.com/ft_nq.php

I think of "geeks" and "nerds" as two very different animals. Geeks like computers and all things techie; nerds are bookish, sweet and utterly removed from any sense of what's popular or stylish. Put together in the same room, geeks and nerds would have very little in common.

It's also Towel Day.

There's a "Pub at the end of the universe" down the street from my apartment. I wonder if they are doing anything to commemmorate this.

http://www.oregonlive.com/music/index.ssf/2010/05/ok_go_goes_it_alone_damian_kul...

So I thought of posting this on the thread about publishing, but it's music not books, but it is still very interesting to me and seems to follow along on the article about the publishers' convention. I think OK Go is a pretty neat band. Maybe I'll go see them while they are here.

Thanks for that, Anna! Those guys are brilliant. I forwarded the piece to my wife, who's also a big admirer.

The indie music scene was definitely a model for the indie writing/publishing movement. Authors could learn a lot from bands like OK Go, Ani DiFranco, Trent Reznor and numerous others. The old system is obsolete. Love live the new technologies!

The main reason those bands/artists were so successful on their own is that they built large followings while signed to labels (well, and because they make music that is compelling to a lot of people).

If I was guy in India, this is NOT something I want getting around:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/6161691.stm

57: The opposite is true for David Bowie He got rich and famous by making a few fatuous pop albums in the 80s, then used the capital earned to create his own label and turn out a slew of inventive iconoclastic records.

And Prince's clashes with record labels is legendary.

The vast majority of creative people don't have the time, temperament or inclination to market their own work. And if they do it anyway, they always complain that they don't have enough time for what they really want to do: create. While I respect and admire people like Ani DeFranco and OK Go, they are very much the exception.

But Cliff, you seem to have marketed your own books for a while. Do you mind if I ask if you make any money doing it?

That's the balance: creation vs. marketing/promotion. Both are time-consuming endeavors. Another balance is between "The Creative Dude no one has heard of," and "The Brand(TM) that produces no content" (aka James Patterson). The great thing about the Internet, blogging, Youtube, POD, etc. is the democratization of content. Like going through a used bookstore, beneath all the James Michener and Jane Auel people have jettisoned, there's gems to be found. One needs to capitalize on people's innate curiosity. And all the marketing and publicists won't guarantee that a book will be a success. If you're a "Name," there's an improved chance, but still, it's not assured.

Democratization of content sounds great, but you still need some way to get your great thing in front of people ahead of someone else's great (or crappy) thing, if your goal is to make money. OK Go happens to make great vids, but I, for one, am not buying their record. The songs are only so-so, and I can see the vid any time I want on YouTube.

Somewhere in my crazy mind, I'd love for artists to get paid, even if it means that the hangers-on like marketing/publishing/editors, etc. have to take a cut, too. I haven't heard of anyone yet to make a good, clean living using the interwebs as their only source of marketing. Perhaps I'm missing something?

Do I make money? Occasionally.

My first indie published book back in 1990 sold out all 500 copies in 4 months. This after being turned down by all the regional & national publishers I approached (every story in the collection had appeared in a magazine or anthology). I had a very rudimentary distribution system but all the copies were snapped up and judging by the prices charged when a copy of SEX & OTHER ACTS OF THE IMAGINATION comes up for auction (very, very rarely), it's become something of a collector's item. Other small edition chapbooks (usually 200 copies) have done the same. PS Publishing in Britain sold out both the hardcover and softcover editions of RIGHTEOUS BLOOD and the two novellas in that book were optioned for adaptation into movies (made some pretty good coin there, enough to pay for my wife's Master's degree).

This new book, SO DARK THE NIGHT--too early to tell. I'm hopeful because as well as being my best book, it's also probably my most commercial (a combination of hard-boiled crime and the supernatural).

Is that helpful?

Really, it has never come down to money. I'd live in a dumpster if it meant retaining creative control. Offering my readers work that is innovative, aesthetically sound; writing that defeats their preconceptions and introduces them to characters and storylines they've never encountered before...

As for writers making money off e-books, Kindles and self-marketing, there's this fella:

http://www.mediabistro.com/galleycat/authors/writers_making_a_living_off_of_kind...

#64 The message I get from that is he rode in on an established advertising vehicle (amazon), using a catchy "hook" (titles/character named after booze) and a bit of luck. Considering the dreck he's comparing himself too (Patterson), I doubt his books are that good, although obviously I haven't read them.

I really should read some editor-free fiction to see if the publishing world's claims that writers are silly little lambs that must need a shepard are really true. Perhaps I will start with you, Cliff!

I'm an obsessive editor--it takes me longer to polish a short story that it takes some of these arseholes (Patterson et all) to complete a whole novel. I think I'm probably an exception--I have conceded here and in other venues that most self-published work is utter crap. I'm a perfectionist who often drives himself to distraction, losing sleep over whether to use a semi-colon or a comma or ...

In the last two or three years I've tried to ease up--I felt I was over-thinking/analyzing my work and it was starting to seem TOO tight and polished. Sometimes you have to leave room for "happy accidents". That probably doesn't make sense but I can't put it any other way.

Jaysus Murphy, don't go reading "editor-free" fiction. Not unless you want to bleed from the eyeballs.

Good writers are effective self-editors, in my view. But most writers are not good writers. Very few people can put out a decent piece of work without an editor.

I think there is a lot to be said for pricing ebooks low. I resent the idea of paying the same price for an ebook than for a hardback or even a QPB. Licensed content is not a physical book. I don't mind waiting until the price comes down. Do people really have that much discretionary income that they can just pay whatever? Or that little self control?

Cliffie, I'm downloading your book.

Cliff, how much of my $3.99 do you get?

Probably around $2.50 or so. But the money doesn't matter, just having eyes on the page (like bums in the seat, as the theater folk say). As long as you get a good shot of the cover art. When I found Ado Ceric's piece on his site, I almost swooned. I'd looked at literally hundreds of images, trying to find one rendering that summed up the mood and feel of SO DARK THE NIGHT. The moment I saw Ado's I KNEW it was the right one. Dunno what I would've done had it been unavailable or if he'd refused to let me use it.

What kind of a device will you be using to read it? I'm always curious about the new gear and gadgets--I still use my old Sony Walkman, fer Chrissakes...

A.J. I'm with you on "editor free fiction".

I often wonder if most of the people publishing their own work have even READ a book. Their syntax, the juvenile nature of their "style" really will make your eyes bleed.

65:

William Maxwell, the legendary fiction editor at the New Yorker (a masterful novelist himself), not only edited many of the greatest post-war writers, but was almost revered by them for his contributions.

If the greatest writers value and use editors, the notion that less-talented hopefuls would forgo the services of an editor, trying instead to skate by on a stubborn and unproven confidence that each is the exception to the rule, is puzzling.

Something for you Jane Austen fans.

An online source for her fiction manuscripts.

73: Just add zombies.

A good editor helps a writer find his own voice. Such an editor has no agenda to pursue and adapts him/herself to the author, rather than vice versa.

Not all writers view their editors with approval--I think Nabokov had a churlish word or two for editors who tried to "correct" his manuscripts.

From an interview with a journalist from the PARIS REVIEW:

INTERVIEWER: And the function of an editor? Has one ever had literary advice to offer?

NABOKOV: By "editor" I suppose you mean "proofreader". Among these I have known limpid creatures of limitless tact and tenderness who would discuss with me a semicolon as if it were a point of honor--which, indeed, a point of art often is. But I have also come across a few pompous, avuncular brutes who would attempt to "make suggestions" which I countered with a thunderous "Stet!".

Michael Korda edited a number of high profile writers and in his autobiography lamented that editors shouldn't be so hands on and, basically, leave good writers alone.

75: Capitalism adds a complicating factor to all this, since the book industry -- like any creative "industry" -- is compelled to move units, not make art.

If you need major help from an editor to begin with, then you shouldn't be published. I think William Vollmann shares the same attitude. I dealt with my share of pompous, avuncular brutes when I was in my Minnesota sci fi writing group. Ugh. I rather trust the feedback of a few beta readers and my own editorial insight. If it doesn't sound good as I read it aloud, then I fix it.

It's unfortunate that traditional publishing house editors seek to make artists middlebrow at all costs. Shaving and sanding off any feature they deem might harm potential sales. Hence the plethora of beige style-less works. They move units, just not people ... at least on any emotional level. Editors and agents have their use, like the human tailbone and the appendix.

Forwarded this to my wife, an arts education consultant, but some of you folks might appreciate this as well:

http://chronicle.com/article/The-Pleasures-of-Imagination/65678

Speaking as someone with an over-active fantasy life...

Cliff, I have a Kindle.

Sorry, I haven't been following the thread and am just replying to the Topic
of what makes me go Hmmm. and WOW.

The LHC

http://cdsweb.cern.ch/journal/CERNBulletin/2010/18/News%20Articles/1261777?ln=en

Guido.

Ah, the Kindle.

My wife and I worked hard formatting for that one, devoted an entire weekend to getting it right...unfortunately, SO DARK THE NIGHT uses footnotes (references to other cases my detective duo have worked on) but with the Kindle formatting, the footnotes were converted into end notes, which appear after the acknowledgments at the conclusion of the book. Which diminishes their effect and impact to a great extent. Much to my dismay.

Guido, you swine: physics makes my head spin and that bit on CERN had me playing with my lower lip, going "bibble, bibble, bibble".

I'd get you for that.

75:

That Nabokov didn't like being edited is hardly surprising. He was not known for his humility and offered churlish opinions of many people. It doesn't follow, however, that editors are unnecessary .

76:

Last week I read my first Vollmann - The Royal Family. As I worked my way through I wrote down in my notebook: "My God, where was his editor".

Perhaps I'm alone in my reaction, or maybe his other novels are better, but I was struck by how slap-dash and unfocused the novel was. Even though he wasn't fond of editors, I think Vollmann unintentionally demonstrated the difference between those who don't need editing (Nabokov, and a few other exceptions) and those who do.

#80 Cliff, the Kindle's formatting flexibility (where old folks like me can increase the point size) demands that the footnotes be endnotes, but it doesn't detract. The footnotes are like internet hyperlinks, no problem clicking through to read them. The dictionary works the same way. At this point, when reading a paper book I really miss clicking through to the dictionary when I come across an unfamiliar word.

If you pay close attention, that paragraph contains at least 3 ways the Kindle trumps paper. ;-)

I'm glad the formatting doesn't trouble you and I really hope the effect of the footnotes won't be diluted. I'm not used to these new-fangled gadgets and while I'll employ them to get my work to readers, I think I'll always be a paper guy.

I don't play video games or go see 3-D movies either.

I really am starting to sound like the oldest 46 year old around.

Beardo: Lad, Nabokov may not have been known for his humility but I think he is acknowledged as one of the literary masters of the 20th century. Not all writers need editors.

Some editors are like the dude who recently asked me to submit a tale to an anthology he was putting together. He "loved" the story but asked for a couple of silly, inconsequential changes, just to reinforce his role as editor. A power trip. He had few professional credentials but wanted to impose himself on the work in some way. I said "no thanks" and he was genuinely aggrieved. Instead I published the story on my site--I've got tens of thousands of hits on my blog, more folks than would read the anthology. Fuck it. And my readers enjoyed the story--that's all that's important to me. That $100 anthology fee I could have collected was dust in the wind...

I've read Terry Pratchett and Christopher Moore on my Kindle and didn't miss a single footnote. It's no different from clicking on links in this thread.

Celebrating the lowbrow (and internet phenomena):
http://www.powells.com/blog/?p=19017

82> I haven't read it yet (and may never read it), but I imagine Vollmann's Imperial would have been much better after a good deal of editorial cutting.

84> An editor asking for small changes is not "a power trip"; suggesting changes is their job.

84:Cliff,

That was my exact point. As one of the literary masters of the 20th century, Nabokov may not have valued or needed an editor . Pointing, however, to Nabokov as a precedent justifying scorn for editors presupposes a similar skill level - a questionable proposition. Those who self-publish are nowhere near Nabokov. They (if not Nabokov) definitely need editors.

Adopting the practices of a master with none of the master's skill or accomplishment only sets oneself up for disappointment.

Finally could you clarify a point. You point to this editor's lack of professional credentials as a weakness in the same thread you trumpet self-publishing. Are they only important for others?

The thing of it is, that after he publishes his anthology he'll have one more credential to refer to. You'll have a blog post. How does that help you?

Sincerely,

84> "An editor asking for small changes is not "a power trip"; suggesting changes is their job."

Identifying talent and presenting that talent in the best possible light is an editor's job. There's a clear distinction between that and needlessly interfering with a work, imposing silly notions and ideas that serve no purpose or actually damage the piece in question. Some writers genuinely want input, some don't. Some desperately need editing, others loathe it.

Yours, it should be emphasized, are the opinions of a NON-writer. A well-read reader is NOT the same thing as a working author. Not even close. I'm frequently astonished by how many "experts" there are on the subject of writing and the writing life who have never seriously put pen to paper.

I HAVE read Vollmann and have always been impressed by his virtuosity and skill as a wordsmith. The guy's intellect, ambition and sheer talent are absolutely frightening.

Beardo: Sorry, I think I was posting the same time you were.

I don't believe I have necessarily "trumpeted" self-publishing. I've stated that it has been beneficial to ME over the course of my career and has given me the freedom and control I find essential to the creative process.

The vast majority of self-published books are TERRIBLE. That's why I work so hard to separate myself from the amateurs and wannabes. I believe you could put my work beside some very good, established writers and the quality of my prose would stand up well.

If someone is going to edit an anthology, I would hope they have some credibility, especially if they are offering "suggestions" to writers whose professional credentials eclipse their own.

And as for choosing between an antho that might sell 1,000 copies and adding it to my "Stories" page, which has been accessed by many thousands more...well, that's hardly a choice at all, is it? Plus, I'm publishing the story I intended, without silly additions or deletions (however minor).

Hope that clarifies things.

90:

Sorry Cliff, more questions.

Those thousand readers who might buy a copy of an anthology are obviously willing to spend money. Shouldn't making your name better known to them be more important than the many more drive-buy readers (with little intent of spending money) who might encounter that story on your blog? Especially for an author trying to make a living at writing?

And Cliff, those suggestions (however minor to you) that got your back up were the difference between your story being published and not being published. They were obviously a deal breaker for the editor. Why not consider an outside opinion? If his lack of "professional credentials" justify your saying "Fuck it", then it sounds like it was only pride that prevented your story being published.

Finally, I'm astonished that you would attempt to dismiss a valid point by breezily dismissing the person making it as a "NON-writer". The point inaudible made has been made by the greatest authors of our time. On what basis would you dismiss it if Updike, Welty or Roth had made it?

One doesn't need to be a carpenter to understand the need for supervision and square angles on a construction site. One doesn't need to skate like Paul Coffey to understand who is and isn't a good defense-man. And one doesn't need to be a "working" author to see what leads to good writing.

Sincerely,

Um, well, actually, I'd take the word of another professional defenceman re: the skills of Paul Coffey over the opinions of a lifelong hockey "fan" any day, wouldn't you? I've watched literally hundreds of games over my lifetime but when I sit with my brother-in-law who was captain of a Centennial Cup winning team in the late 70's, he can spot a "pick" or a "slew foot" that I can't see until I watch a slow motion replay. You dig?

This author is NOT trying to make a living at writing. I believe I've emphasized that on numerous occasions, here and elsewhere. I've said so consistently for years and years. I write to create original, ground-breaking prose. I write to express myself creatively. If I took $100 to make unnecessary changes to a story at the behest of an editor with zero credibility just to get into an anthology, to my mind that makes me a WHORE.

As for the point made in #87, SOME great writers might feel that way. A good number of other great writers would think it's utter crap. I can think of writers I know personally who think their editors are idiots they have to endure, rather than geniuses who make their work "cry and sing". Depends who you're asking.

Cliff, have you any tips on telling whether a self-published author might not suck, short of buying their stuff? I like the idea of supporting new ways of getting good writing out there, but I don't want to support trash, either. The only self-published stuff I've actually paid money for is yours and one other that was an LT group read, which turned out to be a complete waste.

And it's nice to see someone in this godforsaken culture who isn't just in it for the money. Then again, it probably helps to be Canadian.

Your comment about Canadians made me chuckle. Regardless of my country of origin, I think I'm just a stubborn, contrary cuss who possesses a low threshold for idjits (which describes about 97% of agents and editors I've encountered).

In terms of indie types I like, I really admire Alex Pruteanu's stuff--he's on my blogroll and specializes in short shorts and "flash" fiction.

http://swine.wordpress.com/

Very nice fellow too.

Terry Fallis is another writer who comes to mind. His book BEST LAID PLANS was turned down by every publisher in Canada so he published it through iUniverse and surprised everyone by scooping up the prestigious Stephen Leacock Medal. Within days of the win he was nabbed by a major publisher and repped by a big time agent.

If you're into stuff with a harder edge, try Scott Sigler and David Wellington, who parlayed the new technologies (mainly podcasting) into really decent publishing deals. Wellington's work has been praised by places like BoingBoing and Scott Sigler made the N.Y. TIMES bestseller list.

The first two (Fallis & Alex) are writer's writers whereas the other two are entertainers a la Doug Preston, Lincoln Child, et all. Depends what you're looking for. I could probably come up with a few more, but I gotta get outta here and run some errands before my kids get home...

Let's raise the level of this enlightened discourse a couple notches. The genius editors at a traditional publishing house have set the release date for Tyra Banks's novel trilogy -- yes, trilogy:

http://www.newsoxy.com/tyra-banks/novel-13065.html

If it's all the same to you, I'd rather read Vollmann's massive Imperial Yes, Vollmann is an idiosyncratic maximalist -- like Steven King, he's ridiculously prolific, has a cult following, and has "short works" that usually top off at 400 pages. Yes, Vollmann churns out bloated monstrosities, but the bloat is on an entirely different level than, say, Peter Hamilton, Terry Brooks, and Robert Jordan

It's a delicate position: giving an author free rein or trimming the necessary fat. Once an author jumps from being an unknown to a cash cow, then the publisher usually retires the editor, since all the author's excesses and sloppiness are moving the necessary units.

The current economic situation and the slow death of traditional publishing is warping the author-editor relationship. It used to be one of creative partnership. Now the editor acts like the publicist's adjunct. Along with once-respectable authors selling their creative integrity to write movie tie-in "novels."

"Once an author jumps from being an unknown to a cash cow, then the publisher usually retires the editor, since all the author's excesses and sloppiness are moving the necessary units."

Are you listening Steve King and J.K. Rowling? Two authors who I would agree definitely require the services of a good editor (though these days that might be an oxymoron)...

I'll have to catch up on this discussion in a minute, but I wanted to share this:

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/03/20/books/review/20sutton.html

That's good. But perhaps too close to the truth to be real satire.

92:

The thing is Cliff, lifelong hockey fans don't need permission from a professional to point out that Paul Coffey was a great defenseman and Bill Mikkelson wasn't. So too with readers. You dig?

I'm not talking about permission, lad, I'm asking whose opinion has more validity on the subject: someone who's actually played the game at a high level or some git with spilled beer soaking his crotch and a voice hoarse from screaming?

"It is not the critic who counts...the credit belongs to the man in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly...who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at worst, if he fails, fails while daring greatly."

Teddy Roosevelt

"The shame I win for singing is all mine,
The gold I miss for dreaming is all yours."

Edwin Arlington Robinson

I'd suggest that an editor suggesting small changes is not necessarily doing his job. It is not an editor's job to suggest changes. It is an editor's job to improve the manuscript.

Good editors get inside what the writer is trying to do and tailor their editing to the writer. A good editor finds the weak points of each particular manuscript and helps the writer fix them. For one manuscript, that may mean tweaking sentences. For another, that may mean cutting scenes. A good editor touches only what he needs to.

A good editor is one of the most important things a publisher can offer. A bad editor is a bad deal.

Too true. Bang on, in fact.

100:

Certainly Cliff,

Roosevelt was right to honour effort, and authors who can't write do indeed still deserve credit for perseverance and effort. But it requires no special insight to differentiate between the skilled effort and the merely hopeful.

Sometimes effort and wishing-it-so just isn't enough. Thus the popularity of beer leagues and vanity publishing.

89> You have no idea whether or not I am a writer (or an editor, for that matter!), but, in any case, your post is just ad hominem misdirection.

Ted Mooney has something interesting things to say about editors over at "Author Chat":

http://www.librarything.com/topic/92086&newpost=1#lastmsg

"Most editors are lousy and lazy these days; they simply can't provide any help for me."

This from a guy who's been around a lot longer and with far more credentials than most of us.

105:

Thanks for the link, Cliff. You're right - it was a very interesting post.

I did notice, however, that after the sentence you quoted he spent the remainder of the rather large paragraph explaining how invaluable he found his editor to be - even though Mr. Mooney has "been around a lot longer and with far more credentials than most of us." As he stated, it's important to "stay receptive".

Good advice for us all, I suppose.

Lad, the man clearly indicates his present editor is very much the exception:

"MOST editors are lousy and lazy..." (emphasis mine)

I wasn't warping or distorting Mr. Mooney's essential message. Good editors are rare; lousy editors are the norm. Which, I think, pretty much parallels my own experience and the sentiments I expressed previously on this thread (and elsewhere).

You're either a fan of Albert Payson Terhune's collie novel or you imagine calling people "lad" is cutting. Collie enthusiast or affectation?

Furthermore, he said : "...they simply can't provide any help for me." As a talented and published writer (with some experience as an editor himself), this is not surprising. But to then somehow infer that editors are unnecessary or optional because most can't help him is to misread his dissatisfaction with the state of the profession as suggesting the profession itself is unnecessary.

You may not have distorted his words, but you certainly omitted the majority of his post that undermined your own position. Proofreading, grammar, and suggestions are all things he thinks editors should do. You dismiss these as a "power trip".

Most, if not all, writers need editors. Nabokov had them, so does Mr. Mooney. They may not always like what editors say, but they have the sense to at least listen.

I'm off to bake a birthday cake, so until tomorrow...

"Lad" was not meant to be offensive or derogatory in any sense. I also refer to people in this group as "chum" and call my mother and sisters "kiddo".

I've also called Ian Sales a "Limey git". Okay, I meant that one.

We clearly have two different interpretations as to Mr. Mooney's views and two strongly divergent takes on the role and value of editors.

I'll leave it up to the rest of the people in this group (those following this thread) re: who they agree with (or otherwise).

Meanwhile, don't burn that cake.

Good editors are worth their weight in gold; bad editors are ten a penny.

Another working writer speaketh.

bad editors are ten a penny. Or work at Random House.

#111 I've even done a bit of editing in the past... In the early 1990s, I was the fiction editor for a small press magazine. We only managed two issues before folding, but we published stories by Eric Brown, Stephen Baxter, Gwyneth Jones, Keith Brooke and Peter F Hamilton. I told Keith we'd accept his story if he chopped off the final section which, in my opinion, weakened it. He replied that his first reaction was no, the story stays as is... but then he thought about and decided that I was right, the final section worked against the story.

But that was the "most" editing I ever did on a story. The rest was line-editing - correcting spelling and grammar mistakes. Of my own stories that have made it into print, I've not noticed any changes. I suspect my prose is pretty clean - has less spelling & grammatical errors - than quite a few sf authors. I've seen manuscripts by some published sf writers and they can't spell for shit...

I have no objection to proof-readers--"Jesus, thanks for pointing out I used 'inexplicable' in two paragraphs in a row"-- and sometimes I vacillate between Canadian and American spellings ("honour" and "honor", etc.). And I think you, Ian, pointed out that some of my quotation marks and "--" were in different fonts when I sent you something awhile back. That's helpful.

But after 25 years of pro writing, I don't need help with structure, characterization, etc. On those fronts, I make concessions and changes for no one.

114> Thankfully T.S. Eliot and James Joyce (etcetera etcetera) didn't have the same attitude.

Interesting interview about editing: http://andyrossagency.wordpress.com/2009/09/20/copy-editing-at-the-new-yorker-wi...

Yes, but T.S. Eliot was edited by Ezra Pound (not bad literary chops) and Joyce was "assisted" at various points by Samuel Beckett. As for someone actually editing his work, offering fundamental changes, scribbling corrections in the margins, I'm not sure there was any such person. I've read the Ellmann bio and other works on Joyce and I can't recall anyone cited who served in an editorial advisory role. Could be wrong on that and I hope any Joyce-ans out there will pipe up with their dissenting thoughts. When his eye sight was failing Joyce dictated passages and folks served as his secretary and stenographer but actually line-editing Jimmy? Somehow I can't picture it.

I've seen William Vollmann's name mentioned several times. I'm curious about his works the Ice-Shirt and The Rifles. Anyone read these or can recommend a good starting place for Vollmann? Thanks.

I loved EUROPE CENTRAL. That one scored high on my "WOW" meter. Very accessible too. THE RIFLES is part of his "seven dreams" series (Volume 6). The first two books in that series are THE ICE SHIRT and FATHERS AND CROWS. THE RAINBOW STORIES is a good book of short fiction but not the easiest read.

Karl's undoubtedly read more Vollmann than me so maybe he can make some suggestions...

I found Europe Central to be very important among the books I have read and recommend it highly, but I didn't find it accessible. I had to work at it.

Vollman's early book You Bright and Risen Angels seemed to me as I read it a statement to the effect of, "Look, Pynchon, what I can do!" It had some pleasurable parts, but was really not worth the time or attention.

Robert

It (EUROPE CENTRAL) had a coherent storyline and not a surfeit of stylistic stick-handling and sleight of hand (compared to other Vollmann books, at least). That was my experience with it but perhaps it was different for you, Robert. It's a far easier read than something like INFINITE JEST or most stuff by the Pynch, I'll tell ya that...

120: I've probably read more Vollmann than most, but that's just because Rising Up and Rising Down has such a huge page-count.

The Royal Family is awesome. First Vollmann I read, so it has some sentimental value there. You Bright and Risen Angels is just ... odd. Very Pynchonesque, but first novels are usually that way, especially in the competitive realm of "literary fiction." The Pynchon comparisons are inevitable -- see David Foster Wallace But I blame that on the limited verbal palate of the reviewers. Hence every new director is the "next Scorsese," etc. It doesn't detract from the actual work so much as unfairly circumscribe it. And every writer, provided they have some sort of talent, eventually outgrow their influences. (Not sure how this works against the opposite accusation of writers creating "self-parody" works -- a charge labeled against dear ole Pynch for Against the Day)

Vollmann isn't just talented, he's scary-talented, despite some lapses into repetitive writing and going back to the same subject matter (violence, poverty, whores). Then again, nobody told Dashiell Hammett, "Hey Dash, why don't you write about something else besides hard-boiled detectives and dames with killer gams?" If he had a modern agent, he'd probably be co-authoring some Young Adult Vampire Mystery series with Stephanie Meyer You have to feed the Capitalist Suck-Monster somehow. Moichendising! To be fair, I'd totally buy Maltese Falcon: the Flamethrower. The kids would love it.

***

David Mamet on the 1930s Supreme Court:

http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/3027b4bcf2/david-mamet-s-lost-masterpieces-of-p...

Thanks for the suggestions, all. It has helped me much.

Is this the same Vollman who used to write for the LA Reader way back in the day? As I recall, he needed an editor back then.

I'm sure you've all seen this before, but hope you'll indulge me due to its relevance for our little discussion. Both sides of the debate should appreciate Laurie and Atkinson's take.

Have a good weekend.

I love that piece. VER-Y funny. Reminds me of the old Python piece where the Pope and Michelangelo are arguing about the last supper ("THREE Christs?!!"). I'd like to get a compilation of Laurie and Fry's stuff. Hard to find over here.

There is a facebook page devoted to plugging the BP oil leak in the Gulf with the works of Ayn Rand:

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Plugging-the-Gulf-oil-leak-with-the-works-of-Ayn-R...

I'm not sure that further polluting the Gulf is a good idea.

A.J. you are a nasty piece of work.

Christian comic books:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/booksblog/2010/jun/01/jack-chick-christian-comic...

Another juicy find from Gord.

Martin Rees lecture:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/console/p007wh51

"Science is organized skepticism..."

Amen.

Dear Cliff, you did get me.
I tried to access the Martin Rees lecture BUT it seems that
a) you need to subscribe to the BBC
b) people here in Aussi seem to have all sorts of problems getting it
even with paid subscriptions.

Guido.

The "Shakespeare Mangle" at the Museum of RetroTechnology:

http://www.dself.dsl.pipex.com/MUSEUM/COMMS/shakespeare/shakespeare.htm

I had no trouble accessing the Rees speech and Q & A afterward and I live in western Canada. I listen to it through the BBC iPlayer, which is free to download. I think the podcast is archived for a week.

Believe me, if a techno idjit like me can figure out how to listen in, anybody can.

I just finished with the program five minutes ago and I found myself getting cranky during the discussion afterward. There was much whining and complaining about scientifically illiterate citizens and politicians but NO ONE was talking about the conflict of interest that exists within scientific circles, a situation made starkly evident during the so-called H1N1 pandemic. Scientists with ties to drug companies were among those in the WHO (World Health Organization) who were beating the drums loudest about the alleged threat. How can we trust science when a good number of eggheads have a monetary interest in the topics up for debate/discussion? They're hardly being objective when they're lining their pockets with filthy lucre from the likes of Burroughs/Wellcome. Pfizer, etc.

I wrote to Professor Martin Rees this morning and here's what I said:

***************************************************************************

Professor Rees:

I tuned in to your first Reith Lecture last night. It's always a pleasure to listen to you--you insist that science have a conscience and behave responsibly, particularly in an era when we are playing with the very building blocks of life.

I was particularly concerned by the "Question and Answer" period after your lecture. While various individuals opined about the lack of scientific knowledge in the general public and among policy-makers, no one mentioned the corrupting influence of industry on the sciences. The recent controversy involving the so-called H1N1 pandemic is a case in point. There is now ample evidence that suggests key individuals at the World Health Organization might have been compromised by their attachment to the pharmaceutical industry.

While scientists should play a vital role in our society as we race toward the future, how can we ensure that the advice we are receiving hasn't been tainted by financial or career interests? That is a point I hope you will be addressing in subsequent lectures. This is a relatively new phenomenon: I'm quite sure Isaac Newton and Einstein weren't in the thrall of anything except their magnificent imaginations and super-endowed powers of perception. Can many of today's scientists make that same claim?

I trust you won't find this note impertinent. It's just that I thought important points relating to this matter were left unsaid and I felt compelled to write.

Sincerely,

Cliff Burns

***************************************************************************

Any thoughts?

Wow, just got a short reply from Professor Rees:

many thanks for your comment. I fully agree with your point (and will
return to related matters in 4th lecture) - but all recorded already so too
late, sadly, to improve and adjust.
Martin Rees

Well put. I believe this is THE problem of our time...corporate influence in everything. Once we eliminate this we can actually get down to business, to use an unfortunate phrase. I desperately hope that people just won't accept it as inevitable.

A-men, chum.

Err, Sorry Cliff #134,

Newton was quite status/money aware and did actively persue them.

Of course it is quite difficult to compare him (a "proto scientist"?) with today but together with his "Alchemy" and rather abrasive personality, I am sure he would be reviled today by "the chattering class".

But perhaps that is the beauty of science. It doesn't matter what sort of person Newton was. His 3 Laws (and a few more bits :-) ) live on.

I am rather fond of E. Pound/Picasso/Alekheine etc. and don't really care what sort of arseholes they were.
Oops, I seem to have begun a private rant.

Your faithful servant,

Guido.

PS. Yes the potential conflict of interest is very important.
But how did you find out about it (that is just a rhetorical question)
and short of actual conspiracy to defraud, does it matter?

Or Cliff, if I may rephrase it, are you an idealist?

Guido:

Idealist? Mebbe when it comes to the possibilities of literature but as for the real world, nope, afraid you'll have to count me a cynic and skeptic.

I think conflict of interest (in scientific circles or any institution supposedly devoted to the needs of citizens) is a critical issue, especially when public policy is being shaped and public monies being devoted to possibly fraudulent causes. Industry has corrupted scientific process and that's starkly evident in the field of medicine. The H1N1 debacle...right down to the local physician who pooh-poohs the notion of the medical use of marijuana, while being wined and dined by a drug company rep bearing free samples and encouraging prescriptions of the latest "wonder" drug.

Now you've got ME going on a private rant. You rotter.

The question is one of trust. Since none of us are pharmacobiologists we need to know who to trust with the straight scoop. Obviously anyone with a monetary interest in something will be inherently untrustworthy. That can cause us to make serious mistakes. Maybe like 1918-1919 H1N1 after planting itself last year in billions of people may be ready to explode forth this year and only those who go shots last year will survive. Or not. I don't know anyone sufficiently informed in the issue that can tell me, so I have to decide whether or not to trust big medicine on this one. If my trust isn't necessary and we all live, that will make me trust big medicine even less. They sound more and more like the boy who cried wolf. That could end badly for all of us someday, as a sad result of being lied to so often.

Comparing the Gulf oil disaster to White Noise:

http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/naming-the-gulf-oil-spill-060110

***

Books and their psychotic fan bases:

http://www.cracked.com/article_18568_the-5-greatest-books-with-psychotic-fan-bas...

Stalking Dave Eggers: http://www.bookslut.com/features/2010_06_016206.php

Unsurprisingly nauseating article about ghostwriting.

Yes, there are instances where it can be worthy, but by and large, it's a product of our celebrity obsessed, lazy and moronic tendencies.

Nauseating indeed. I put these people right down there, in the lower pits of hell, with people who write franchise books--"Star Trek, "Star Wars", etc. Some of these hacks actually try to rationalize themselves: "I thought it would be an interesting exercise", etc. etc. Rather than admitting the draw of easy money, filthy lucre.

Another interesting essay on The Savage Detectives from last week.

That is a good one. Thanks.

Here's a cool idea...

Jeff VanderMeer has thought up a World Cup of Fiction...listing the brackets of the tournament. Pick a country, blog about any memorable works from said country.

I chose Brasil...here's my review of The Taker and Other Stories by Rubem Fonseca.

Here's one for Cliff. ;)

VERY interesting piece. I left a lengthy reply; we'll see if the folks at THE WALRUS print it.

I was amused that Andre Alexis, arguing against John Metcalf's evaluative criticism, chose to criticize Metcalf's own sentences as "finicky." Surely that's (a) evaluative criticism, and (b) irrelevant to the validity of Metcalf's views.

Defending Atwood's Survival: A Thematic Guide to Canadian Literature as an exercise in building a communal literature? It's an exercise in defining Canadian literature in terms of the themes that possessed Atwood at the time. (Survival: A Thematic Guide to Early Margaret Atwood, by Margaret Atwood.) She herself has said she wouldn't write that book today.

Canlit has become very diverse, and an attempt to define it in thematic terms (as some academics insist on doing) essentially becomes a game of deciding which books are "Canadian enough."

Alexis is making a bit of a straw man argument. It isn't academic criticism that Metcalf objects to, per se; it's the way in which academic critics of Canadian literature tend to define the importance of a book in terms of themes and of (often tenuous) relationships they can draw to other books, regardless of the qualities of the text. Metcalf says we should look at the quality of the text; this does not imply no subjectivity.

(Disclaimer: Metcalf is my editor. So if I'm gonna take sides....)

One other thing I didn't point out in my response: Alexis's piece, at least the latter half, is a not so veiled criticism of Metcalf (or Big John, as I like to call him) and his aesthetic, yet he (Alexis) admits that if the two of them sat down together and discussed what constitutes a "good" or "bad" book, eight out of ten times they would probably be in agreement.

I found that...odd.

Speaking of straw men, continually returning to Ryan Bigge's public spat with Leah McLaren as an example of the evil that evaluative criticism hath wrought is silly.

Bigge eviscerated Mclaren's novel ("even the German word SaumassigeSchreibmaschiene, which roughly translates into “putrid garbage typewriter prose,” fails to convey the stench...") in the Star, in apparent revenge for her nasty attack on his book in her column, years before. Pretending that this personal spat between two Toronto writers is somehow representative of the state of criticism in Canada (and that it began with Bigge) is simply dishonest.

Leah McLaren should stick to writing about which toenail polish she uses and how to get rid of cellulite. Anything a critic says about her prose "style", no matter how low the blow, is fine with yours truly.

One anecdote for you, re: John Metcalf.

A decade or so ago, the guy in charge of the Sask. Writer's Guild was upbraiding me for my low opinion of CanLit, my undisguised loathing for what publishers in this country were excreting. "You're the only one I know who says that kind of crap," he snarled. "Everybody else thinks this country is producing some of the finest writers in the world."

"How about John Metcalf?" I piped up.

He then went on a long tirade, filled with expletives, about what he thought of Metcalf. Truly vicious and vitriolic.

"So I guess I'm not the only one," I quipped, once he'd finished. And went to get another beer.

A rare admission from someone in the Canadian cultural sector: our TV programming (and movies) suck:

http://www.cbc.ca/arts/story/2010/06/16/calgary-blackett-banff-television-commen...

And please note that the comments following the article show about an 80% approval rating for what this minister said.

Have you folks seen this priceless bit of satire? Take THAT, British Petroleum:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2AAa0gd7ClM

I was going to try to tackle Ulysses this summer, but now that I've seen this, I figure I'm done.

http://www.vanityfair.com/online/daily/2010/06/happy-bloomsday-ulysses-in-18-twe...

In one of the comments, the respondent asks if Joyce would be turning over in his grave.

Caroming around in his pine box would be more like it.

Ulysses has always been on my "better read this before you die" list, and I don't think that will change (until I read it, obviously, which is soon). I like twitter, but not as it is used here. Maybe the tweets will have interesting critical value for those who have read/studied the book, but not for the uninitiated.

The book tasks you but, ultimately, rewards careful, discerning readers with its intelligence and originality.

"This is a solid-gold, diamond-accented, 1/18th-scale Bugatti Veyron built by Robert Gulpen and Stuart Hughes. It costs $2.93 million. An actual Veyron costs around $1.7 million. This is the dumbest product in the history of consumerism."

http://jalopnik.com/5563226/this-bugatti-veyron-model-costs-more-than-the-real-c...

My new favorite website, which was referenced somewhere on LT but I can't find where. Thanks to someone for offering it up.
http://youarenotsosmart.com/

That is consistent with 'Don't believe everything you think' one of my many credos. I felt compelled to post it to my Facebook page.

Robert

Along that same line, Robert, not believing what you think, is this, Anosognosic. A discussion to the effect that what we don't know we don't know can definitely hurt us. Is it possible to be so stupid we don't know we are stupid? Reminded me of our last administration and gave me a different outlook on them. They weren't necessarily evil and cynical, they just weren't smart enough to know they were stupid. I prefer that explanation to the one I had been operating with before. After all, you have to be mighty stupid to be George Bush, but I guess it's possible.

Anyway, the article is non-political, but describes quite nicely one aspect of decision making, essentially asking one to think first if one is smart enough to make a particular decision.

Now I'm going to have to dig out the rest of the articles in the series to see what else I don't know.

Robert

Some beautiful arguments by Lee Siegel about the irrelevance of contemporary fiction. Beautifully stupid, I mean.

http://www.observer.com/2010/culture/where-have-all-mailers-gone

I think the article, despite its posturing, is rather facile and narrow-focussed. A personal essay with opinions...but not much meat.

Are we living in a cultural golden age?

http://www.avclub.com/articles/are-we-really-in-a-cultural-golden-age,42451/

In any case, things were better in the past, now get off of my lawn, ya damn kids!

***

Obama's increasingly avant garde press conferences:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/06/23/the-onion-obamas-video-ad_n_622694.html

Who is James Woods, and should I be afraid of him? I've never read much modern literary criticism, although I have a bunch of it around. I haven't read enough post 1950 fiction to make a comment one way or another about its quality. Maybe that fact alone speaks to what I think of modern fiction.

James Woods is the eminent literary critic from the New Yorker. The yang to Harold Bloom's yin.

Sorry,

I haven't read all the previous posts. But I do like the Hmm posts. And then I thought...

Just an interrupt. A question for you Canadians. Maybe "Cliff Burns"?

I have just watched an interview with "John Ralston Saul".
I will try and post the link eventually, though with a source like "Slow TV" it might be a w.h.i.l.e.

Is this chap known? Any good? Significant. Solid?
Initially his thoughts attracted me, but there was sloppiness to some of his ideas...
Hey, I loved him but I want more than Wiki tells me about him.

Yours, Guido.

Saul has his supporters and detractors. I think I have one of his books around here somewhere. Dunno why, but there's something off-putting about him. Like Mark Kingwell. People say good things about these guys and yet I shy away for some reason. Saul is married to a former Governor-General and I think is a sought after speaker. Probably none of that is very helpful, but there ya go...

Things that make you go Hmm.

Is Guido sane?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=soKc8vM6PNY

And yes Cliff, that non-threatining grin on "serious" topics.
A bit too much "cumbai Yaa" feel as sung in a high protestant church. (spl?)

BUT I still like the guy.

Sorry, I forgot brackets meant touchstones.

Completely mad tune!

well i don't know where else this bit goes. "Most disconcerting blurb on the jacket of a book that I think I'll like a lot" category.

On the cover of the windup girl by Paolo Bacigalupi, Lev Grossman's blurb "Bacigalupi's vision is almost as rich and shocking as William Gibson's vision was in 1984.." On third thought i realized Grossman was referring to the year Neuromancer was published (?) but first i thought.."Gibson didn't write 1984" and then "Orwell/Gibson..huh?" and then, OK i get it (i think).

Dear Group,
As I alluded to earlier, I have discovered "Slow Tv" a program broadcast from the local (Melbourne channel 31 - which was initially just a "student Learning exercise TV station" for RMIT (Royal Melbourne Instsiute of Technology - now just another Uni) )

The interviews are long (not just sound bites) but unfortunatley I don't know many of the non Aussi interviewee's. And there isn't enough science.
This interview with "Christopher Hitchens" was thought provoking and amusing
.
Again, who is he etc.

http://www.themonthly.com.au/evening-christopher-hitchens-hosted-julian-morrow-2...

Yours, Guido.

Hitchens is a political commentator and writer--used to be more rightwing but during the Gulf War, started to swing to the left. Atheist, smart man, though I don't always agree with him. Pals around with Martin Amis and some of the brainier English literary set. Writes for Vanity Fair, Esquire and similar mags.

He always looks like he's coming off a three week bender.

177: You have it reversed. He is one of those left-wing people who was pro-war. He's an atheist, true but mainly he's a provocateur. (I actually had some knowledge of him as a person when I lived in DC in the 90s.)

178: Yes, he's a fairly famous drunk.

Anna, you're right, I'm wrong. Leftie turned rightie. Sometimes I post too early in the day for my own good.

Re: Hitchens. This just in:

http://www.cbc.ca/arts/books/story/2010/07/01/hitchens-chemo.html

What the hell is a "Potemkin translation"?

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/viewarticle.cfm/the-pevearsion-of-russian-lite...

Hmmm, frustrating I can only read the abstract and not the article without being a subscriber.

Not being a Russian speaker these types of controversies are sort of "he said she said" from my point of view. I read and enjoyed the P&V version of Anna Karenina last year, but would not be able to tell whether it was better than any other...

Anyone here a Russian speaker/reader who has any thoughts on this?

Counterpoint to the article in post 148:
http://arts.nationalpost.com/2010/07/03/john-metcalf-is-not-the-enemy/

A good, agile defense of Metcalf. Thanks for sending the link.

A.J.: I wrote to the author of the NATIONAL POST piece, Jeet Heer. His blog:

http://sanseverything.wordpress.com/2010/07/03/canadians-too-mean

On books and "memory theater":

http://www.openlettersmonthly.com/in-defense-of-the-memory-theater/

(Thanks, Gord)

Re. #182,
So NO 4 legs good, 2 legs bad, huh?

The novel is dead, again.

Isn't it strange that the novel now resembles Elvis, but not spotted in public so often.

A melancholy little account:

http://www.printmag.com/Article/Shadow_Boxer

From Gord, natch.

Dear Group,

I am currently watching a Lecture by Peter Singer.
On "Slow TV". It will probably be a while before it comes on-line
thus I won't send you a link.

Am I getting "OLD", or rather, when does a Didact sound reasonable?

I have always respected the man, but have not always agreed with him.
Is he mellowing or am I?

Now I find myself nodding in agreement with what he is saying!

The topic was "Global Warming and..."

Guido.

I had to read Peter Singer when I took ethics in college. His argument for vegetarianism had me feeling very conflicted for a time.

He is very good at making a logical argument. When I disagree with him (which is often, he's kind of extreme) it's bothersome to me because I can't find the hole in his logic. Which means that I'm just wrong. :)

I still eat meat though.

What does he want us to do about global warming? Something extreme no doubt....

If logic was all there is to knowledge or wisdom, we wouldn't need a right brain. When you disagree with someone, don't be afraid to examine your emotional issues with the argument as well as your logical issues. Then apply a little illogic to the argument and see if you can discern why you disagree. Lots of good stuff is irrational and counter-intuitive.

Let's see. I've seen some on these threads say that farming was the beginning of the end, others that cooking was. Without farming and cooking vegetarianism wouldn't get very far. Which is it? Do you want to eat, or do you want to follow your ideology to starvation?

I'm a card carrying and proud of it omnivore. If I had the knowledge I'd raise and butcher my own meat and chickens, as well as grow my own fruits and veggies.

193> I have been vegan for 6+ years, but I actually don't find Singer very compelling. Gary L. Francione's approach makes more sense: http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/faqs/

Actually Anna...

He praises New York, a city in America I believe - a largish city.
as an example of "better" ecological living and indirectly accusses himself of abusing the environment thru the place he lives in.
As I said, this was not the Peter Singer I knew!

Yes I am also a "card carrying" omnivore, though I do like the "ethical" forms of
Animal slaughter advocated by that "Autistic" author - An Anthropoligist from Mars

Sorry, I can't remember her name as I type.

Your animal lover, and carnivore,

Guido.

Spelling.

Temple Grandin?

Robert

Thanks Mr.Durick (Robert?)
That photo looks like her.
I guess "The Anthropologist from Mars" must have been a TV title.
Guido.

PS. I should buy one of her books!

An Anthropologist On Mars was Oliver Sacks's book in which he mentioned Temple Grandin if I recall correctly.

Robert

Temple Grandin's website Scroll down to the bottom for a list of her published titles.

Cultivating slow reading:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2010/jul/15/slow-reading

Dear Cliff and Group,

THANKS for that link!

I thought I might share some of my own experiences re. reading.

When I was a young Boy, oh a few years ago, I DID a "speed" reading course.
Thus most of the SF books I have listed on LT I "blip" read.

Yes, I can remember the plots but ask me the names of any of the characters
and I am blank. What was the colour of that sun?, what was the smell of the vegetation? in any particular story. SORRY blank.

OK. SF might not be the most significant literature there is, BUT I do wonder what else I have missed. And I am rather fond of Kipling.
Re-reading does though help.

An aside, just a story about one of my late mates who had 3 or so Degrees
in various fields. And whom I do miss.

We were programmers together in the early 70's.

One day we were talking about philosophy (and that together with Physics and History) was one of his degrees. Oh Yes and computing.

He (BOB) mentioned that he had once "learnt" "Old Modern German" just to be able to read Emanual Kant in the original.
He did say it was HARD (Kants ideas, not the language) and it took him about 30 days to read 3 pages.

Now THAT is S.L..O...W reading.

Guido.

Reading Atlas Shrugged is taking forever. A slow read, not by choice. For all its blather about technological innovation and fast trains, reading it is like doing the breaststroke through frozen molasses.

Living With the Enemy: http://www.guernicamag.com/features/1853/linfield_7_1_10/

You know, with all its blather about fast trains I am surprised the Republicans aren't pushing bullet trains everywhere. Maybe they haven't found their Dagney. Of course, if they are looking for her in their own ranks they won't.

205: It's because the GOP is an owned subsidiary of Big Oil. But, like Daniel Plainview, the GOP is all about family ... and competition ... and preachers ... and bowling pins.

Great Novels that were hated in their own time:

http://www.cracked.com/article_18645_6-great-novels-that-were-hated-in-their-tim...

Funny bit.

Some random critic has a tantrum about Amis, Barnes, et al.

I know what he means, in a way, but the tone of the article reeks of projection.

I'm thinking Anne Rice did all those Christian books for the money.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/07/29/anne-rice-i-quit-being-a_n_663915.html

Goodies from Gord:

http://awfullibrarybooks.wordpress.com/

http://blogs.pitch.com/plog/studies_in_crap/

Fab stuff...

RIP Levinson Axelrod Really Sucks

tragically, the site itself has gone away now that the lawyers involved have settled the settlement.

http://amlawdaily.typepad.com/amlawdaily/2010/07/levinsonaxelrod.html

Bierce I love his approach, defining words according to their common use. I wrote a whole notebook-full of my own over a couple of years, decades ago, and finally threw it out since almost nobody could follow what clear-thinking had revealed through such clarifications.
An Occurrence at Owl Creek Bridge aroused my study when an instructor called it a work of pure fantasy. Once I shared my take on it, he told me to publish my results, which I attempted to do but did not succeed.
Basically, this story slams the Southern slaveholder. The cannon is the voice of G-d, answering in disapproval when Farquhar makes some judgement-call. So much of the imagery is straight out of the Bible: the stars of promise. Farquhar persistently ignores these lessons in pursuit of the joys and comforts that he considers are his and yet will not share with the slaves.
Other imagery is about Farquhar's beliefs: The black bodies of the trees in the woods (representing dead slaves), yet nothing human is here (Slaves were considered to be less than human.)
The study took up 10 pages double-spaced and I cut it down to about 6 pages.

For the science fiction faction here:

A review essay on foreign-language sci-fi.

Terrific article on SF from far-flung places--thanks!

Loneliness can kill.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/editorials/avoid-death-by-friendles...

I'm reading Dead Weight by John Francome. When I checked the copyright page, it had the name of two people. What gives?

Did anyone else catch this little cat fight?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/anis-shivani/the-15-most-overrated-con_b_672974.ht...

I think this was mentioned in another thread. Reminds me of the middlebrow crusader BR Meyers's controversial Reader's Manifesto I think the author of the article has a point, but it suffers from Zeitgeist-y-ness. Generalizations and hysteria and the whole "Who will save rock and roll?" shtick. As Dadaists say, "Art is dead, long live art."

Hmmm....

http://www.fastcompany.com/1683302/iris-scanners-create-the-most-secure-city-in-...

220: Yikes. I really don't like the tone of that article.

Buy sunglasses while you still can.

I love these guys who invent the technology, crow about its virtues...and affect incredulity when some of us point out possible mis-applications of said gadget.

"Robots that think? What could go wrong?"

"Armed robots that think? Sounds good..."

"Wait, how can they identify us, sort us for extermination? How about...scanning our eyes? Great!"

Etc.

223: What was weird was how the interviewee does not understand why people would be paranoid about this, and then in the next breath says rather threateningly that "opting out" would draw attention you don't want from law enforcement. So on the one hand, nothing to worry about! And on the other hand, if you're worried, cooperate or else! Weird. Cognitive dissonance?

Probably everyone has seen this by now...
http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/international/outrage-over-plans-to-build-lib...

Boy, it's good for British comics that some Americans can be so ignorant...

Uh oh, 226 deleted their post. Must have failed the iris scan. Call the authorities. Report all suspicious behavior to your Cylon representative.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2x14ZhEc9k

KSWOLFF.

We know who you are (in terms of literary criticism...)

and I am EYEing you (in terms of followings your thoughts...)

Er. Umm. Does this mean that I fail my spy exam?

#226 had absolutely nothing clever to say, other than #226 really enjoyed that article Anna provided!

What else could we build next to Palin's House? Who else should move next door? My little mind is spinning with possibilities...

This just in:

"James Patterson and the world's best paid authors":

http://www.cbc.ca/arts/books/story/2010/08/20/books-top-earners.html

(Vomit bag optional)

229: A porn store, an Islamic community center, an abortion clinic, or perhaps a liberal university with a reading list of gay Latino Marxist authors. Although the best thing may be a nuclear power plant with a leaky nuclear reactor.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eRtnvvXbG8g

They knock over SCHOOL LUNCHES in in that movie. The cruelty. Is NOTHING sacred???

A snarky look at D&D fantasy art:

http://www.somethingawful.com/d/news/wtfdnd-erotic-contest.php

Whoa!

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/afp/100830/technology/lifestyle_japan_entertainment_t...

Here's a short story idea for you, Ian...

Cracked.com had a funny look at Japanese subcultures:

http://www.cracked.com/article_18567_6-japanese-subcultures-that-are-insane-even...

I found this an amusing response to the whole Jennifer Weiner/Jodi Picoult vs Jonathan Franzen dustup.

Weiner and Picoult only succeed in making fools of themselves.

But Lionel Shriver manages to make a cogent argument without promoting brainless novels simply because they're written by women ("Though a skilful craftsman, Picoult may also lack the literary standing to make such a charge"), denigrating Franzen by suggesting that he's only successful because he has a penis, or allowing herself to come off as envious.

Worth reading:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2010/sep/02/publishers-ghetto...

More about the Franzen/Picoult thing: http://htmlgiant.com/random/what-matters-whats-remembered-what-we-care-about/

Doesn't Picoult write "cancer porn"?

I'm no big fan of Franzen's, think him over-rated, but he's MILES beyond the Picoults and Weiners of this world. Those two dolts should just keep counting their money and leave LITERATURE to real writers (men or women).

239: Yes, Picoult is much like Nicholas Sparks, writes tear jerkers. I read one of them because lots of people at my office were into them and passing them around. They like the emotional manipulation. I do not. That was my one and only attempt at her.

I think some of us snobs are missing the point. Neither Weiner nor Picoult are claiming to be writing "literature," they're just saying that the NYT might deign to lower itself to review mainstream books that many people like to read. One of them made the point that it's like refusing to review a summer blockbuster just because it's not "cinema."

Personally, I do think that books aimed at men can be just as cheesy (Elmore Leonard? I enjoy him, but please) and that The Corrections really did deserve an Oprah label because it's just plain emo, but because a dude wrote it, we're supposed to take it more seriously.

Go ahead, lay into me. Tell me I deserve a lifetime of Patterson novels.

But aren't they saying (Picoult and Weiner): "take us as seriously as you do Franzen, Richard Ford, Martin Amis et all and treat our books with the same level of respect and deference"?

Picoult and Weiner's books are NOT literary, NOT profound or innovative in any respect: they are manipulative pot-boilers and deserve to be seen in that light. As are the majority of books that fall into the "chick lit" sub-genre.

If this was someone like Jennifer Egan or Andrea Levy or Lydia Davis or Annie Dillard complaining, I would grant that writer some credibility.

But this the equivalent of the guy who pukes out those "Mack Bolan" books demanding to be put in the same boat as dedicated, literate authors. Sorry, pal, you'll have to settle for a rubber dinghy. And no oar.

242: But unlike movies, where reviewers seem to have some sort of way of reviewing a blockbuster with as much seriousness as they do an offering at Sundance, the reviewers who currently are typically used by the NYT or NYRB or other print media will only say that their books are mindless page turners because that is what they are. There isn't much to say, frankly. It would be like reviewing genre fiction.

The NYT would have to hire many more reviewers who are more mainstream, like those who do movies. And for what? To help these people's book sales? Why? They are already best sellers. Their readership don't read them because they are reviewed in the NYT anyhow. Reviews serve a function of helping thoughtful readers who want more than bestsellers wade through the chaff. There's no function for a review of a bestseller.

Personally, I read lots of levels of books, and I don't think it makes me any less "thoughtful." I don't eat steak every day and I don't only read "literature." I do see a reason to have respectful reviews of mainstream books. But then again, that's what LT is for.

Besides, we're talking about a paper that refuses to publish comics, I mean, what do they expect?

I still think men and their subjects (or men writing about women's) get more respect.

245: LT and Amazon. I guess I am not really disagreeing with you, just pointing out that it would be a big change for the NYT / NYRB / Times Literary Supplement / whatever.

I read lots of mainstream books too. I enjoy them. Some of them are even well-written. Some are not.

I think you are probably right about the gender divide. I can only hope that perhaps the situation is changing slowly over time. A while ago I posted (maybe on this thread? or on the publisher one) a link to an article about a study of what the gender/race statistics were of books reviewed and reviewers themselves. It confirmed what you are saying, as I recall.

#246 I agree that we don't disagree. ;-)

Weiner has repeatedly made it clear that she has a chip on her shoulder and believes she would be considered a serious writer if she were a man. It's not something that just came up with Franzen.

Jennifer Weiner, the bibliography:

http://www.jenniferweiner.com/books.htm

And she thinks people should take her seriously as a writer?

Incidentally, the homepage on her own blog sports a number of blurbs, including one that identifies her work as "chick lit".

When I read Weiner's comments, she seemed to be saying she wasn't interested in "writing to the canon," but chose to remain populist. But she still wants that to be OK with her MFA program director and the NYT, I guess.

I read one of her books once. Nothing special, but it was clearly not aiming to be.

I still think someone like Franzen gets way more press than he deserves, and some of it is good ole boys club. Did people go apeshit like this over the recent release by Jennifer Egan (a much better writer IMHO)?

I don't think you can "choose" to be either a populist writer or a literary author.

It comes down to natural born talent. Jenny doesn't have what it takes to be great, she should settle for being rich.

yeah, well, I was paraphrasing her. And I think that's her point, why only help make Franzen rich?

Seriously, it's like he's managed by Scott Boras or something! (Sorry if the sports reference is lost on some of you.)

250: You should read the Lionel Shriver piece.

#253 Thanks, somehow I missed the link before. Yes, everything he said. Sexism is insidious.

Why don't men read psychological or family dramas unless a man writes them?

#254:

Out of curiosity, is there a particular type of psychological or family drama you have in mind? I mean, is there a genre of contemporary fiction I'm unaware of that is perhaps being alluded to?

I ask only, because I'm able to find examples read by men that are written by women: Francine Prose, Marilynne Robinson, Carol Shields, Flannery O'Connor, Eudora Welty, Cynthia Ozick, just to mention some of the "biggies" that come straight to mind who have written these types of drama.

You can see, now, why I suspect I'm misunderstanding your question.

Cheers.

Well, if they were all as well-written as Anne Beattie's CHILLY SCENES OF WINTER, I won't be picky. One of the five or ten best "relationship" books I've ever read. As authentic and heart-breaking a work of fiction as you're gonna find.

254: Why don't men read, for example, Alice Munro?

Let's make sure we ask questions that aren't based on false premises. Men do read psychological dramas written by women, and the assertion that we don't is false and, I might add, sexist.

The questions we should be asking are, why do publishers insist on trying to create "women's fiction" as a genre separate from "literary fiction?" Is it for the same reason that bookstores have "African American" sections? That is, because they think that they have to market to women as a group? Why is that?

And why is it that in the United States, the front row of the class photo is almost exclusively male, while Francine Prose, Carol Shields, etc., are in the second row?

This phenomenon is not universal -- in Canada, most of the prominent writers now seem to be women. Atwood & Munro, for example. I have an explanation for that one, but I can't see why American letters remain so male-dominated.

Good points. A.J.

This has been an excellent discussion, folks--far more interesting to me than what Weiner et all have to say.

Deciding what anyone's taste in any art "should" be based on their gender is sexist! I wasn't being clear, obviously, I was being sarcastic on the internet and I should know that will get me into trouble!!!

I'm feeling grateful for the wonderful men reading and defending women authors (and themselves) here.

Jennifer Wiener's talents sound about as overrated as Ayn Rand's, another author of populist tripe who many idiots in our benighted and decaying American Empire (and the band Rush) mistake for philosophy.

In the same way Picoult writes emotionally manipulative "cancer porn", Rand writers "money porn" (like the movie "Boiler Room" minus the irony) for gullible saps who want a philosophical system to justify their crass, short-sighted, sexually retarded, cash-crazed social habits. Even the haves and the jerkwad stockbrokers who turned your 401Ks into confetti need something they can categorize as "literature" when they are hitting on someone at the bar.

Too harsh?

Nah...

Slate takes a statistical approach and crunches some numbers - here.

259: I knew I was missing something :) Thanks.

But ya know, I'm just as disgusted by the Steig Larsons of the world. A trashy novel with a Gary Stu protagonist and LOTS of misogynistic violence, dressed up in the idea that having a female character going medieval on some scumbag's ass makes it "feminist."

Too harsh?

242> The problem with Picoult et al's "argument" is that Franzen is a best-selling writer. He is not obscure or difficult or whatever. He writes popular literary fiction.

I would argue, though, that on a technical level, his superior skills and instincts as an artist place him far beyond the usual purveyors of popular prose. The fact that he has managed to sell so many books speaks convincingly of a significant readership out there who still like to be challenged and still enjoy a well-composed and carefully constructed novel.

Publishers, please take note...

Franzen's failure to be obscure or difficult doesn't make him a lesser novelist.

In fact, I'd say that being obscure or difficult is often the territory of the lesser novelist: when you can't get it done through story, you throw some flash-bangs into your prose and blind the bastards.

265> Maybe, but he's still a best-selling writer. It would be absurd for him not to get a lot of publicity, considering how popular his last novel was and how it has been since he wrote it.

Here's the gender comparison of who gets reviewed: http://www.slate.com/id/2265910/pagenum/all/

I guess I find the target of Picoult's argument confusing, but there is definitely a lot of truth to what she's saying (re: gender and literature).

"there is definitely a lot of truth to what she's saying (re: gender and literature)".

That may be, but the Picoults and Weiners of the world don't have the artistic and aesthetic credibility to demand to be taken seriously, whereas other female writers most certainly DO.

Very apropos to our Picoult vs. Franzen digressive discussion:

http://www.avclub.com/articles/biggest-gap-between-the-best-and-the-rest,44806/

Franzen is definitely the better writer (at least than Weiner, I've never read Picoult), but his subjects and themes are well within the confines of what usually gets labeled "chick lit." I had no trouble seeing The Corrections as Oprah fodder. He's popular because he doesn't challenge nearly as much as he thinks he does. He's well-reviewed because he happens to be male and cynical. He's found the perfect balance, and for that, he's invited envy.

IMHO.

I think "chick lit" exists because of an alliance of editors, writers and readers who have a pre-ordained notion of what they think women like to read. Nothing too heavy, something involving relationships/family crisis, finding yourself and/or perfect love. I don't think there's a conspiracy against female writers--in my experience, 60-70% of editors are females, the majority of readers these days are females...like everything involving capitalism/corporate publishing, it's the lowest common denominator and bottom line that wins out in the end.

As far as I know, Alice Munro isn't marketed as "chick lit" and Margaret Atwood would garrote you if you tried to lump her in with the Sophie Kinsellas and Elizabeth Gilberts of the world. The term seems to apply to middle/lowbrow scribes who probably don't mind the designation (see: Jennifer Weiner's blog; my message #249) as long as it bumps them up a few notches on the bestseller lists. They're crying all the way to the bank...

I dropped into a Chapters the other day.

Jodi Picoult had her very own shelf section within Fiction & Literature, topped by a sign saying "Jodi Picoult." That is, she's her very own subgenre, with at least 20 feet of shelf space at that store (five 4-foot shelves).

Jonathon Franzen? 18 inches of shelf space, at a generous estimate. Consider that most of that was copies of Freedom. The store had two (2) copies of The Corrections.

It's reasonable to assume, then, that next year Franzen will have about 8 inches of shelf space. Picoult will still have 20 feet.

Now, bookstores stock what they expect to sell. They give space to books that move.

So what is Picoult whining about, again? Not sales, certainly. She wants to be taken seriously.

Alice Munro, by the way: about 12 inches of shelf space.

I still think people are missing Picoult/Weiner's point. They are just pissed off that the NYT ignores them and won't review their books. They don't expect to be "taken seriously" (i.e., treated as though they are writing "literature"), they simply wish the NYT would change their editorial standards and lower themselves to review middlebrow texts like theirs. (And frankly, I can see why it is Franzen who draws their ire, as opposed to other authors also considered highbrow.) But I think they're kind of idiots because the NYT is not doing that any time soon.

You keep saying that, littlegeek, but if you refer to Weiner's remarks on this topic over the past year, it simply isn't true. Weiner has quite explicitly suggested that chick lit should be taken seriously.

There’s nothing wrong with The Literary Group—they know what they like when they read it—until they start insisting that what they like is what everybody should like, and refusing to teach anything but literary fiction in creative writing programs and refusing to review anything but their definition of literary fiction in their publications.

It depends on what you mean by "taken seriously." If that means denying that there's different levels of skill or quality, I'd still insist that's not what she's saying. If it means "review books of people not in the Kewl Kids Club" then yeah, that's what she's saying.

I don't think you can "choose" to be either a populist writer or a literary author. It comes down to natural born talent. Jenny doesn't have what it takes to be great, she should settle for being rich.

Writing is hard. I can certainly see someone who might choose to write to a lower level of ability than they are capable of, especially if they are successful at selling their first book. Why dig deep and rip your own guts out if you can make a shit-ton of money without trying all that hard? Especially if you view accepting the "great" label as sitting at the Heather table talking crap about all the lowlifes.

Please understand I'm not advocating it, just saying I can certainly see it happening.

"Why dig deep and rip your own guts out if you can make a shit-ton of money without trying all that hard?"

I see what you're saying but it is because of such an approach to their writing that authors of that ilk will NEVER be taken seriously as artists/talents and why their books will fall on the trash heap of history, thwarted by their own vapidity.

I feel nothing but contempt for them.

I hear ya, Cliff. At the same time, I don't think it's a strict dichotomy of brillance vs utter vapidity. What's wrong with perfectly serviceable entertainment? Just telling a good story? Everything can't be genius or it wouldn't be genius! Should we really have contempt for everything else?

I think I discriminate between those who don't try hard and those who don't have the talent and imagination to be truly GREAT but who bust their asses nonetheless.

The former are whores...the latter comprise about 98% of the writers out there. Including yours truly.

I can see your point. And yet, I enjoyed your book, and don't see anything so horrible about the notion of the NYT reviewing it.

My book took me 3+ years to write and I like to think I put more effort into every line, every WORD I write than the likes of Picoult and Weiner. They may sell a gazillion books but neither of them is fit to carry my pencil case (to steal a quip from Harlan Ellison).

It depends on what you mean by "taken seriously." If that means denying that there's different levels of skill or quality, I'd still insist that's not what she's saying.

Insist whatever you like; her statements over the past year -- predating Franzen -- are a matter of record.

My argument: Here is what she actually said within the context we are discussing.
Your argument: What's important are my vague recollections of things she's said in the past, which were loathesome.

My argument is that her true views -- because I think she's being disingenuous -- are revealed by the totality of what she has said on this subject both now and in the past year. Her past statements about review coverage and respect for the genre are very much in context.

You may be right about her true views, or you may have misinterpreted or are misremembering her past statements, I dunno. She may have softened her views. I feel no compunction to go searching around the internet to confirm or deny your take on her. The issue really isn't what Jennifer Weiner said when.

The issue is whether there are "kool kid" rules for who gets reviewed, whether these rules are colored by sexism, and whether middlebrow fiction is worthy of being reviewed.

Well, given that we already agree on points 1 and 2, why are we still talking, then?

As for point 3, the benefit of being the NYT review editor is you get to decide what kind of book the NYT reviews, and everyone else gets to STFU. There are a zillion venues for book reviews, all catering to different audiences, and none of us is actually entitled to be reviewed.

No one is demanding that obscure literary journals start reviewing Picoult. If the NYT should, so should they.

285: Yeah, that's where the argument sort of falls a bit flat for me too.

If they are looking for literary respect reviewing them in the NYT does not guarantee it. In fact the NYT reviewer might eviscerate them (as they do with other books).

I suspect they just want more publicity for their books so that they will get a wider range of people to read them. And, I don't see why they are entitled to more marketing from the NYT or anyone else.

If they really just want to be treated like literature, as you point out, they'd also want academic journals to review them, and ph.d students to write dissertations on them, and all the other stuff that goes along with the "academy."

The issues of gender and race are certainly issues that can be brought up, but I don't see that they necessarily exist here. NYT doesn't review the latest Tom Clancy or Clive Cussler any more than they review the latest Jodi Picoult. It is not just "chick lit" that gets ignored but all sorts of genre fiction that does not fit into whatever the NYT criteria are.

But. Here is where I actually am a bit torn on the issue. What are those criteria and should they apply, is certainly a fair question. Whether or not I personally like a given author, I can still ask the question, is this author being ignored because a) their work is shoddy, b) their work is in a genre that gets ignored, c) their work is considered "outside of the academy" (and b and c may be the same thing). What's the academy and what makes the cut? Is it a question of literary quality or simply a question of elitism or class snobbery? These are fair questions and simply opining that Picoult or whoever is a lousy writer does not get to the heart of that discussion.

Even though the NYT does indeed get to make the decisions, outsiders can certainly discuss these larger issues. The NYT sees itself as the newspaper of record and among a certain very influential class of US citizens it is considered thus. A lot of groups try to influence the NYT by criticizing their coverage (e.g., FAIR). Writers can do the same - the NYT can listen or not.

Very sharp, Anna. Good post.

On Henry James and the concept of decency:

http://www.blographia-literaria.com/2010/09/genteel-tradition-young-girls-and.ht...

What Anna said. (Thank you.)

So we're all agreed, then: this is about who gets to be taken seriously.

...and who shouldn't.

Hey, I'm with ya, A.J.

Yes, but it's also about what "taken seriously" means.
Is it about being reviewed by the NYT or not? And should that depend upon who you know in academia, or your gender or whether you write genre fiction or how hard you tried or what?

And then there's the eternal mystery: why should anyone really give a rat's ass what Michiko Kakutani thinks about anything? I pretty much gauge my interest in a book in inverse proportion to how well she reviews it.

That's Greathouse's 47th Law of Inverse Proportions:

The quality of a book is inversely proportional to the amount of praise, or the amount of dislike, in a Michiko Kakutani review.

Strangely, Franzen agrees with this assessment of Kakutani, which must mean....

#293 Wow, I didn't realize it had been codified.

Just call it Kakutani's Law.

I know there's quite a few people here who enjoy audio books, and thought some of you may find this interesting.

Once saw (maybe in Harper's) a tally of how many times Kakutani had used the verb "limn" in reviews--it was in the many dozens.

Are there any reviewers out there anyone follows religiously? I see many books with a massive amount of blurbs but when I look closely, they're from "Fort Worth Sentinel", "Saskatoon Star Phoenix", "lowbrowreads.com" etc.

I'll look twice if an author I like offers praise for a certain book, that gives it a bit of a cred. But reviewers don't seem all-powerful and unassailable any more. Book reviewing has all the cachet of writing obits. Perhaps it's different on the other side of the pond. Where are the good, intelligent reviewers?

I don't know about author blurbs, cliff, I've heard far too many authors admit they never read the books or only blurb their friends.

I admit, I can't name a single book reviewer other than Kakutani. These days I tend to rely on LTers who have similar tastes.

James Ellroy: "Well, sir, and this is on the record, I’ve blurbed a lot of books I haven’t read. Blurbed a lot of books I haven’t read, and have decided to drop the curtain on that."

Entire interview here

For the fans of William Burroughs:

William Burroughs graphic novel to be published for the first time

There's a neat short film on "Ah Pook" you can find on YouTube. Creeped out my entire family...

Where are the good, intelligent reviewers?

They're writing for Canadian Notes and Queries:
http://notesandqueries.ca/

For a sample, read Steven W. Beattie's essay, "Fuck Books":
http://notesandqueries.ca/fuck-books/

"Fuck Books"? Now there's a catchy title.

A.J., get your mind out of the gutter...

The word is a verb here, not an adjective...

It's a good essay. Seriously, check out CNQ.

I should mention that the next issue of CNQ will include my essay, "Mine Clearance for Dummies," which is actually about pornography. Maybe I should get my mind out of the gutter....

300> James Wood?

I like reviews at the Quarterly Conversation and Popmatters.com. The London and New York Review of Books always have good reviews, and the Times Literary Supplement is great.

303: I remember seeing "Ah Pook" on PBS (of all places) late on night. Burroughs fans should also check out "Dead City Radio," a collection of his recorded writings.

#304 One of the things I love in music is when the theme of the lyrics is dark and the music is light and poppy, or vice versa. In a certain way, I can see describing downtrodden workers in lyrical poetic terms as a parallel, and as such, not as horrible as Mr. Beattie thinks. At the same time, those quotes from Ann Michaels were just dreck. (I admit to liking The English Patient, though, so sue me.)

For hilariously fucked up reviews of books you'll probably never read, I love RALPH, what emerged from the demise of the Fessenden Review. If you have a chance to get ahold of any old Fessenden's, grab it. You won't be sorry.

The Pale King has a cover.

Cliff: I tend to trust James Wood of the New Yorker, though he steered me way wrong on Brick Lane (for which I've just written him a chiding letter). Wood's reviews run about 50-50 positive/negative, and the negative ones can be very brutal. In other words, he's not just shilling. And he never makes reviews out of the fluffy generalities the genre seems to encourage.

When I agree with Wood, he's a genius. When he's wrong, he's absolutely, categorically WRONG. Is that the sign of a good reviewer? Come to think of it, mebbe it is...

On my blog I was doing a series called "The Art of Reviewing." Now on hiatus. But I've been asking myself the same questions, since I'm a fan of Wood and Harold Bloom and Nathan Rabin. I love Wood's use of deep reading and his "evangelical enthusiasm." A good reviewer is only as good as his or her reader. And an informed reader should have a handle on the reviewer's biases -- not a bad thing, since biases make us human. We can't all be unbiased blocks of wood like Ayn Rand.

I don't know if he still does a lot of criticism but I read Cultural Amnesia by Clive James a couple of years ago and was mightily impressed though our politics certainly differ (to say the least). Do you guys think professional critics are the best reviewers, or do you think authors from the same genre (or not) do a better job?

I think both can be valuable as long as they are exceptionally well-read. (Wish I knew how to underline or italicize the last six or seven words).

as long as they are exceptionally well-read
as long as they are exceptionally well-read
as long as they are exceptionally well-read

and literally with respect to underlining:

as long as they are exceptionally well-read

See this thread for directions.

Robert

Although his essays weren't concerned with the latest and trendiest, Guy Davenport (especially as found in The Geography of the Imagination) is required, if you want to see criticism at it's finest.

Joshua Cohen's reviews are cool.

Just watched Norman Doidge talking about Brain Plasticity.
I think this "old dog" now does really want to learn "new tricks".

http://www.themonthly.com.au/brain-how-it-can-change-develop-and-improve-featuri...

Guido.

PS. Unfortunately there is a 30 second add. And the talk comes in 2 parts.

My thoughts on the historical moment of Das Kapital's publication, way back in 1867:

http://driftlessareareview.wordpress.com/2010/09/28/essays-on-capital-first-seri...

I throw in references to Algernon Swinburne and David Mamet for ya snobsters.

Heady stuff, Karl. A lot of ideas percolating there and you cover a huge swathe of territory, socially and historically. I like your chutzpah.

That statue of Sherman is truly hideous--a practical, no-nonsense man, Sherman would've hated it.

I like the statue, but my bias is toward the American Renaissance and Augustus St-Gaudens Plus it generally flips off the South, albeit the US was in full-on worker exploitation by that time.

"See this watch? It costs more than your car."