Booklyfe 2
Literary Multiplier / Critical Mass
And here’s Norman Lock on small presses & print vs. digital, via Eugene Lim’s wonderful blog.
A select bit from Norman, and my thoughts:
…To acknowledge such a limitation is to accept a reduced role for the writer. I do not believe that what I write can change the world or the people in it. I don’t believe that anything written by a contemporary literary artist has that power over a mass audience. There are some who believe they can restructure consciousness using language and narratives that defy convention. But their visionary writing will scarcely be read by the people most in need of a transformed consciousness. The only work that has power to engage a mass audience is sentimental (which is a lie) or pornographic (which is also a lie, though perhaps a more entertaining one). We can rue this. We can set down the causes to mainstream publishing or to a degeneration in popular taste and appreciation that have little to do with literacy. But we can and should seek out our own margin and make our literature there.
Really provocative stuff, here. I’ll disagree with Norman. I do believe that literature can change the cultural world and change people, and that a book can reach a mass audience. I think the nature of things is emergent, and although the powerful pieces of literature haven’t really been showing up lately, that they are indeed somewhere, and that writers shouldn’t have to thrive within constraint in their ambition. Also, to say that the only writing able to reach a mass audience can only be sentimental/pornographic rubs me the wrong way… the notion is just too damned cynical.
Go read the rest, and let’s talk.
Tags: booklyfe, norman lock, Publishing
And that sentimentality is a ‘lie’… c’mon. How presumptuous.
And that sentimentality is a ‘lie’… c’mon. How presumptuous.
“Also, to say that the only writing able to reach a mass audience can only be sentimental/pornographic rubs me the wrong way… the notion is just too damned cynical.”
Nice, Ken. That said, I am retarded. But I feel baffled about reaching audiences. Or not. My Roth post will address that, sort of, when I do it. I guess I’ve learned to live with who I am and what I do. And um, that’s it. The rest is beyond me.
“The only work that has power to engage a mass audience is sentimental (which is a lie) or pornographic (which is also a lie, though perhaps a more entertaining one)”
That strikes a cord. A discordant one, sure, but like planned dissonance, it gets to the bone
“The only work that has power to engage a mass audience is sentimental (which is a lie) or pornographic (which is also a lie, though perhaps a more entertaining one)”
That strikes a cord. A discordant one, sure, but like planned dissonance, it gets to the bone
Lies are fabulous.
Lies are fabulous.
They are all we have, really
They are all we have, really
Lock is an origin and, as usual, is right on the mark.
Lock is an origin and, as usual, is right on the mark.
“We can set down the causes to mainstream publishing or to a degeneration in popular taste and appreciation that have little to do with literacy. But we can and should seek out our own margin and make our literature there.”
This is how literature changes the world.
“We can set down the causes to mainstream publishing or to a degeneration in popular taste and appreciation that have little to do with literacy. But we can and should seek out our own margin and make our literature there.”
This is how literature changes the world.