Carolyn's Blog

Monday, December 31, 2007

Rant Alert! (Carolyn Finds a Practical Use for Grad School)

Save yourself while you can.

Oops. Too late.

I got off from work early and decided to finish reading my Fall 2007 Author's Guild Bulletin in which volume is contained a lengthy essay entitled Goodbye To All That ¹ penned by Steve Wasserman, former editor of the Los Angeles Times Book Review. The essay was originally published in the Columbia Journalism Review September/October 2007. You can read the essay here.

Here's my entire thesis:

It's not all or none, people!

Here's a sub-plot (that's writer's humor for This is totally off the cuff, otherwise it's not a rant.)

Maybe there's another reason no one reads the book review section...

I'm going to riff of Valleywag and give the 100 word version of Mr. Wasserman's essay²:

Nobody reads important books anymore, we're all going to hell in a hand-basket and it's all the fault of those low-culture morons plus popular fiction. The only way to save democracy is to revive the Book Review section (but for dog's sake, don't do it any differently.) Keep it exactly the same so we'll all still find it mostly irrelevant.

Pretty much, that's what he's saying. Maybe I inserted a bit of Carolyn Rhetoric^TM in there. Can you find it? Because that's an advanced technique and I only know about it because I had to take Rhetorical Theory in grad school. If you try that at home, just be careful, okay?

Right. So, western culture can only be saved by reviewing IMPORTANT books in newspaper Book Review sections. That's IMPORTANT in big red letters because he doesn't mean anything else. Marxism Alert! He means ONLY stuff the cultural elite find important. Substitute "Rich White Men" for cultural elite to round out the typical Marxist view. He doesn't get off the hook for mentioning a Spanish nun. And now let's go to my favorite bit because it's soooo Post-Modern and Post-Modern, folks, is grad-school-ese for ist-isms³: sexist, elitist and freaking annoying.

I often tried to imagine what I might do if I had been, say, the literary editor of The Times of London in 1900 when a then obscure Viennese doctor named Sigmund Freud published his first book, The Interpretation of Dreams⁴ Suppose I'd had on my desk only two books -- Freud's and, say, the next surefire best-selling novel by Mrs. Humphrey Ward, the Danielle Steele of her day.

I'm sure you can guess where he was going with this. Because we all know that if only we eliminated the Mrs. Wards of the world from the literary landscape, we would all leap to read whoever is the equivalent of Freud today. (I have no idea who that is because I'm pretty sure all the theorists I read in Grad school were dead. Except Kristeva, she made my head hurt, so it's probably her. I think she's still alive.) Because no one would ever in all the world read both Freud and Ward. I mean, what kind of freak would do that?

Ohmygod. Wait! I have. I've read Freud. And years ago I did read some Ward. Because I was one of the massive readers he talks about. 20 books at a crack from the library when I was a kid. And now, I still read a couple books a week. Unless I'm on deadline and working at the collapse of civilization. bwahahaha!

And since when has Nora Roberts or J.R.Ward ever been reviewed in any Book Review section of the sort Wasserman eulogizes? I think the answer's never. There's a really fine rhetorical device. Set up a hypothetical dilemma that didn't happen in 1900 and hasn't ever happened today, either. And now, we can all conclude that Mrs. Ward (J.R, are you listening??) is single-handedly responsible for the decline of Western Civilization.

And that's my point. It's not Freud vs. Mrs. Ward. (But, if it came to a throw down between the two, Freud would die because Mrs. Ward would shoot him dead before he had a chance to explain the significance of her weapon. Either that or Vishous⁵ would perform a laying on of hands and zzzttt goodbye Sigmund.)

I think more people probably know who Sigmund Freud is than can identify Mrs. Humphrey Ward. And it's not because of The London Times Book Review. Sorry.

Intellectual importance isn't determined in The Los Angeles Times Book Review (especially not now, I guess!) mean little snicker (ohh, prosody!) It's determined in Universities by professors and students who rigorously study difficult issues and who figure out stuff like the parts of Freud that are complete and utter crap. (There's no penis envy, trust me. Admiration and maybe longing, sure, if I'm in the mood) and which parts have something useful to add. Like possibly dream interpretation. What Mr. Wasserman is actually suggesting is an intellectual trickle down theory. Please, editor, let me inform the Proletariat!

Wasserman: You there! Put down that Ward!
Reader: Hey! I didn't get to read what happens to Phury!
Wasserman Here. Take this edition of The Lais of Marie de France.
Reader: But I already read that.

See, the thing is the really massive readers do both.

Is there some reason you can't have a short review of J.R. Ward's latest and a longer review of Ransom Seaborn? That's my question. I don't doubt for a minute that Ransome Seaborn deserves a long, intelligent and thought provoking analysis. Ward maybe not so much. But not none, either. And if they're both there in the same section... But that way lies heresy.

. . . . .
1. Yeah, I get that the title comes from Robert Grave's WWI novel Goodbye To All That. Isn't that ironic? I mean that someone like moi would get the reference?

2. Don't count. I'm sure it's not 100 words.

3. I just now coined that word, so don't say you did. It was me.

4. Just to repeat viz Freud: Professor Kunat, you were right and I was wrong. I was honor bound to take that dratted Introductory Lectures and go confess that yes, Freud was brilliant. Rats.

5. Hey, Mr. Wasserman, there's a cultural reference for you. Get it?

Labels: Rants, reading

(0) comments

Wednesday, December 19, 2007

The Sad Tale of A Failed Novelist

Yesterday I read the Portfolio interview with Andrew Wiley. An absolutely fascinating interview. Alas, he also called commercial writers (ie, genre writers) failed novelists. Huh? Failed, I guess, because such writers are unable to write literary fiction. As if they secretly want to but can't and so must muck about with mystery and SciFi and Romance. Because it's not possible, is it, that there are writers who aren't interested in writing literary fiction. Interesting assumption there, Mr. Wylie. Or is it more an interesting revelation about Andrew Wylie? Some writers in the canon today were considered hacks in their day. I say thank God we're not all trying to write literary fiction. I wonder if Mr. Wylie would argue that a singer who isn't Pavarotti is a failed singer, because, after all, Pavarotti's voice will be heard for years after his death. Surely, it wouldn't be the case that there are commercially failed novelists whose work might actually be read through the ages, if not for a rather pernicious chauvinism? Consider Andrew Wylie Exhibit A.

There are more of us failed novelists than novelists because genius is actually rare. The way Pavarotti's voice is rare. It's not a matter of will. If I just wish hard enough will I write a book like Beloved? And if instead I write a story that entertains, why am I a failure? Just asking. When I was growing up, I read a lot of books by failed novelists, and those stories made me fall in love, and stay in love, with reading. They're why I read Toni Morrison and Michael Chabon and Virginia Wolff. There's not just room for us all, failures or not, but a need for all of us.

Just wanted to point that out.

Labels: Rants, reading, writing

(0) comments

Friday, May 25, 2007

Catching up

Mostly, I've been busy working on Magellan's Witch. Some parts are going well, others need work. I've moved some stuff around and now I've just discovered that a whole section is not in the order I thought I put in in, but I'm busy fixing this other chapter and now I'm irritated that I have to go fix that next when I thought things would be OK after that. me. frowning

Also, just as a side rant, I am really really REALLY sick of people making snotty comments about romance. I was reading an agent's blog the other day and in the comments, someone said, basically, how horrible a particular situation would be if people were gasp! horrors! reading a Harlequin romance instead of something else. Why? Just freaking why would that be so horrible? Oh, I'm just not going to get going on that. Reading is reading. And Francis Bacon himself noted famously that books are to be digested in different ways. If I'm at a point in my life where I want to have a guaranteed happy ending at the end of my book, why the heck is that a disaster that will, apparently, bring down Western Civilization as we know it? I believe the commenter managed to insult Comic books, too. me. rolling eyes and trying hard not to bust a gut.

Oh, just Sigh. I have to go back to fixing crap.

Labels: Magellan's Witch, Rants, ripping to shreds, romance genre

(2) comments

Sunday, February 18, 2007

Rant Alert! Reviews

Boy oh boy. I've been seeing a lot remarks lately about reviews. On loops, in blogs, on websites. Since I'm an author I have a fairly author-centric view of the issue. Here's a few of my views:

Any review that trashes a book because of the heroine's name is not a review that should be taken seriously. Such a review is not about the book, it's about the reviewer showing off her nasty chops. Hey, go for it, show off all you want, but readers and authors, don't confuse that with a review that has something to do with literary merit or the enjoyability of the read.

A review is not feedback for the author to take to heart for the next time around. A review is a response to a completed work of fiction. By the time the book is in the reviewer's hands it's too damn late for feedback. And any reviewer who thinks he's providing the author a free critique is too self-involved for polite words.

Authors do NOT have complete control over who reviews her book. Publishers send out ARCS without consulting the author. Please, don't assume that every reviewer got the book from the author.

Not all books are good. Some books are just plain bad. I have myself read books I thought were bad. The same is true of reviews. Not every review is based on a thorough reading of the book. That, my friends, is glaringly obvious. I have read reviews (of my own books and others) in which the characters names are misspelled, and sometimes not misspelled but just plain wrong. Some reviews are based on such a cursory read of the book that the reviewer has failed to grasp (or just didn't read?) key events in the story. Some reviewers confuse their books and review events that happened in some other book. And, I have also read reviews that have been written by someone lacking any knowledge or awareness of the rules of grammar or punctuation.

Authors are a highly neurotic group. They agonize over everything. And their books go out into a world where some readers are guaranteed not to like their book. And, authors don't get to rebut reviews. Don't be all-surprised and annoyed if authors do a little moaning about reviews.

For myself, I try not to read reviews anymore. Good or bad, they upset me and/or distract me from the work in progress. The absolute worst thing any author can do is write to please reviewers. That way lies a really bad book.

Labels: Authors, Book Reviews, Rants

(0) comments

Twitter Updates

follow me on Twitter