The Apocalypse Reader just got its 8th review on Amazon the other day. One Michael J. Mason of Orlando, Florida, wrote a review entitled “The only book I have ever disliked so much that I destroyed it!” Wow. Okay, well, I can take my lumps. Democracy is great, blah blah. In fact to be totally honest, there was something about the sheer vehemence of this headline that got me really, really excited. As Jesus puts it in the Good King James: “So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.” (Rev. 3:16.) This guy seemed like he was fixing to boil. Oh boy!
But as I read MJM’s complaint, my heart sank. Turns out he was just another lukewarm asshole, who talked big in his headline but couldn’t sustain his concentration long enough–over the course of his one-paragraph review–to (A) actually describe for us the manner in which he destroyed the book, which would have been interesting, or (B) realize that that sound of one hand clapping was actually me hitting myself in the fucking head, because despite all his bluster and bullshit, he actually liked some estimable (albeit unspecified) percentage of what he read. I’m the last person to bristle at negative reviews, but it drives me insane when people take to a public forum and attack something they didn’t like, not because there was anything wrong with the thing itself, but because the thing itself wasn’t what they wanted. Imagine giving a 1-star review to a portable hard drive because it’s not a dishwasher. Now one of the things I’m proudest of about The Apocalypse Reader is that it happily blurs/ignores/defies the boundaries between genre-lit and mainstream-lit, in the name of Good Lit, period. But the price the book has paid is that it has been consistently plagued by incensed genre-monkeys, for whom I don’t doubt experimental literature (or literature, period) begins (and ends) with Terry Pratchett. (And at the risk of re-starting the Genre Wars that raged recently on this site, I’d like to point out the total number of “literary elitists” who have written in complaining about the book’s genre quotient is ZERO.)
The actual best case in point of the genre-monkey phenomenon is this genius named “E.S.” who, after reading seven–seven–of the stories in the Apoc Reader, posted a 2-star review which read in part “had I ever used acid in my youth, I would think I was having flashbacks.” At first it seems to make no sense to compare the experience of reading a book to what it would be like to involuntarily re-live the sensation of ingesting a particular chemical some years earlier. But then you remember that he never actually tried acid, so he’s just theorizing about that, and he’s read less than a quarter of the book he’s talking about, so he’s really just theorizing about that too. So this “review” is really about his own studies in Comparative Non-experience, and has nothing to do with Dennis Cooper, Michael Moorcock, Jared Hohl, Neil Gaiman, &c. (And btw, E.S., as someone who did do rather a bit of acid in his youth, let me just say–no, you wouldn’t.)
But E.S. is obviously just some sort of addle-brain, whereas Michael J. Mason actually pissed me off. After the jump, we give his review a close reading [his words in bold; my comments in brackets] and learn what happens when people from the festering rotten asshole of the country (say hi to Mickey Mouse for me, Mike) stop being polite, and start making their narrow lives into my problem.
[1 out of 5 stars] The only book I have ever disliked so much that I destroyed it!, August 26, 2009
[Okay, so far so good.]
| By | Michael J. Mason (Orlando, FL United States) |
[Orlando, yeesh. That’s tough, man. I’m really feeling for you. Me and my buddy Pete got kicked out of a Tenacious D show at the Orlando House of Blues once, for sneaking our own booze in, though at those prices, how could you blame us? The cops were seriously dicks–though, luckily, they didn’t run a check on the fake ID I gave them, so me and Pete didn’t end up spending the night in jail, which arguably (though not necessarily) would have been worse than what we did instead, which was wait around in Downtown Disney, knowing every cop there was watching us, because we were ticketless and drunk in Downtown Disney, until our other three friends got out of the show.]
The Apocalypse Reader was such a colossal disappoint that it has become the only book that I destroyed because I disliked it so much.
[Yes, you’ve said this once already. I’m still waiting to learn about the manner in which you dispatched it. In a pyre, one assumes/hopes.]
The book’s thirty four stories of doomsday and the end of the world could be shortened to thirty be removing the one/two page “flash” stories that are so short they don’t really contribute anything.
[I actually count eight short-shorts, so we could have saved maybe as many as twelve pages, and gotten the story-count down to 26. I should mention though, that that figure does not count Lucy Corin’s “Sixteen Small Apocalypses,” which is about four thousand words long, but only because it is composed of sixteen pieces (since you destroyed your copy of my book, if you want to refresh yourself on Corin, check out PEN America #10, where several of the Small Apocalypses were recently reprinted), or Joyce Carol Oates’s diptych, because the two parts together add up to more than short-short length. So I guess actually we could delete as many as 10 stories, or 25, if you count each of Lucy’s 16 as an individual story, though if we’re doing that then we should really be subtracting from an original count of 50, not 34, but we actually do better the other way, since 50-25=25 and 34-10=24. I assume we’re scoring according to golf rules here. Remind me why we’re doing this again? Oh yeah, because you don’t understand what flash fiction is or how it functions, which is why you judge these works not on their merits but on their lengths (“so short they don’t really contribute anything.”)]
The author even boasts in his introduction that at least one these aforementioned stories was originally published as a poem.
[That’s true. He’s talking about Tao Lin’s piece, “I Am ‘I Don’t Know What I Am’ and You Are Afraid of Me and So Am I,” which I reprinted from his first poetry collection you are a little bit happier than i am. Tao had sent me the first story in Bed, but I liked this better.]
That in and of itself would not disqualify a story but gives the reader of this review a better idea how short some of these stories were.
[So wait. The “originally published as a poem” thing is or is not a problem for you? Because if it is, fuck you. And if it’s not, why are you still talking about it? Also, we’re back to the length thing again. What is it with you about this, Mike? What exactly do you think would have been printed with those 500 words’ worth of ink, on those two facing pages of paper, if Tao’s story/poem hadn’t been in there? Do you think it would have been a sweet picture of some sweet tits? Because it wouldn’t have been. And it wouldn’t have been an Orson Scott Card poem either.]
Don’t get me wrong, there were a few rays of hope from this collection, namely “These Zombies Are Not A Metaphor”, but the good stories are so few and far between as to not redeem the book in any way.
[So wait, you actually liked some of the stories? Gee, that’s news. Talk about burying the lede. Too bad you’ll never get to read Jeff Goldberg’s “These Zombies…” ever again, since you fucking destroyed the book, which, by the way, is a hell of a thing to say before telling people to not “get [you] wrong.” What were those other “rays of hope,” btw? No reason why you’d want to share that kind of information in a review of the book. Totally irrelevant, am I right?]
The book lacks any order or introduction to the individual stories leading to a confused reading of a random order thought appropriate only by the author of the collection.
[No, individual stories are not introduced, because it’s not a book designed for use in public high schools (though they’re certainly welcome to it). I’m sorry to hear you had “a confused reading,” but after spending a paragraph of my life in your prose, I feel assured that this was bound to happen no matter what, and has little if anything to do with me. Also, given that I was the editor (which is a little different than being the “author,” Mike; but I’ll explain this to you some other day) of the book in question, how could it possibly be arranged in any way other than an order that I found appropriate? Finding an appropriate-seeming order was one of the things that they paid me for. (They didn’t pay me very much for it, but I tried to do a good job anyway.) In fact, the book does not “lack any order.” It has an order whose logic is explained in the general introduction to the book, which you seem to have actually read, and so I can only assume are ignoring, or else have forgotten about, but of course you can’t re-consult the original source because you drowned it in your outhouse, or laid it on the tracks of the Magic Kingdom Monorail, or whatever. Anyway, what you’re really saying is that you don’t like the order I chose, and/or my method for choosing it. Well, everybody knows there’s no accounting for taste, so I guess all I can do is refer you back to something I said earlier, in a different context: fuck you.]
Save your money and watch an old zombie movie instead, you’ll be happier.
[Touche. Indeed, I wish that you had. But since your review is now over, and I’m still pissed off, let’s see what else you’ve reviewed on Amazon… Ahh, Captain America Volume 1: The New Deal HC and How to be a Villain: Evil Laughs, Secret Lairs, Master Plans, and More!!! Of the latter volume, MJM writes “Wondering where you should base your evil operations? How to defeat that darned do-gooder? well wonder no more!” Of the former–which I should point out is not classic Captain America, but rather a collection of the Captain’s post-9/11 superheroing–he writes “This was just fantastic, it had great art, though with a story like this you won’t be caught up gazing at the pictures. The artwork is just amazing (though I thought they made the chainmail in Caps shirt too overstated,) the story keeps you turning the pages.” Fascinating, Mike, though really, aren’t you obliged to disclose your relationship to the title character? That’s just good form. I mean, you must be on pretty familiar terms with this fictional character, since you refer to him by his nickname. Also, there’s this in the world called an apostrophe (“Caps shirt”), but maybe that’s something else we can talk about another day. Our intrepid critic gave both of these books FIVE STARS.]
Tags: amazon reviewers, genre fiction, The Apocalypse Reader
Writers (and editors) responding to reviewers are engaged in mug’s game.
Writers (and editors) responding to Amazon reviewers need to grow up, you little vontz.
This kind of thing will earn you a one-way ticket to Palookaville.
Writers (and editors) responding to reviewers are engaged in mug’s game.
Writers (and editors) responding to Amazon reviewers need to grow up, you little vontz.
This kind of thing will earn you a one-way ticket to Palookaville.
“(And at the risk of re-starting the Genre Wars that raged recently on this site, I’d like to point out the total number of “literary elitists” who have written in complaining about the book’s genre quotient is ZERO.)”
At the risk of joining you in said retarded wars:
Well I guess that proves that “literary” people are better and more open-minded!
(Or I could also point out that the same mindset that leads people to cast themselves in opposition to genre literature is the mindset that will lead them to blindly accept as good anything published in a reputable-looking venue. But why would we want to start that fight again? No clue, no clue.)
“(And at the risk of re-starting the Genre Wars that raged recently on this site, I’d like to point out the total number of “literary elitists” who have written in complaining about the book’s genre quotient is ZERO.)”
At the risk of joining you in said retarded wars:
Well I guess that proves that “literary” people are better and more open-minded!
(Or I could also point out that the same mindset that leads people to cast themselves in opposition to genre literature is the mindset that will lead them to blindly accept as good anything published in a reputable-looking venue. But why would we want to start that fight again? No clue, no clue.)
Well, aside from pissing me off, I thought this review made a particularly interesting case study. That’s why I decided to talk about it. There are several other reviews on there–good and bad–that are simply what they are, and therefore don’t yield themselves to a larger discussion. But this does.
Well, aside from pissing me off, I thought this review made a particularly interesting case study. That’s why I decided to talk about it. There are several other reviews on there–good and bad–that are simply what they are, and therefore don’t yield themselves to a larger discussion. But this does.
A day or two ago, a guy emailed me a 14-page document the thesis of which was that we–all of us–had gotten the genre discussion totally wrong on this site. He had indexed about two dozen comments from the thread (which he seems to have read in its entirety, several times over) and through a point by point refutation of each of these comments, endeavored to prove once and for all that… Well, I don’t know what he wanted to prove, since I didn’t actually read the thing. I got as far as seeing he called me Jason not Justin in every instance he mentioned me (which was often) then I quit. Give you one guess which “side” he was on. The answer, of course, is contained in the fact that he sees the situation as one in which “sides” exist in the first place.
A day or two ago, a guy emailed me a 14-page document the thesis of which was that we–all of us–had gotten the genre discussion totally wrong on this site. He had indexed about two dozen comments from the thread (which he seems to have read in its entirety, several times over) and through a point by point refutation of each of these comments, endeavored to prove once and for all that… Well, I don’t know what he wanted to prove, since I didn’t actually read the thing. I got as far as seeing he called me Jason not Justin in every instance he mentioned me (which was often) then I quit. Give you one guess which “side” he was on. The answer, of course, is contained in the fact that he sees the situation as one in which “sides” exist in the first place.
I don’t see what you’re trying to prove here. If you don’t think there are sides, why are you still trying so hard to score points? You’re your own counter-example.
I don’t see what you’re trying to prove here. If you don’t think there are sides, why are you still trying so hard to score points? You’re your own counter-example.
But the price the book has paid is that it has been consistently plagued by incensed genre-monkeys, for whom I don’t doubt experimental literature (or literature, period) begins (and ends) with Terry Pratchett. (And at the risk of re-starting the Genre Wars that raged recently on this site, I’d like to point out the total number of “literary elitists” who have written in complaining about the book’s genre quotient is ZERO.)
I think it is frequently the case that “anti-snobs” are almost always more snobbish than the people they are mad at.
But the price the book has paid is that it has been consistently plagued by incensed genre-monkeys, for whom I don’t doubt experimental literature (or literature, period) begins (and ends) with Terry Pratchett. (And at the risk of re-starting the Genre Wars that raged recently on this site, I’d like to point out the total number of “literary elitists” who have written in complaining about the book’s genre quotient is ZERO.)
I think it is frequently the case that “anti-snobs” are almost always more snobbish than the people they are mad at.
Yeah, but you WOULD say that. That crazy person’s document is mostly about the two of us, plus PHMadore…
Fair point, Mike. I’m done now.
Yeah, but you WOULD say that. That crazy person’s document is mostly about the two of us, plus PHMadore…
Fair point, Mike. I’m done now.
Hugs, hearts. <3
Hugs, hearts. <3
I used to think you were cool. Enough of this petty shit. Now I want to bash your face in.
I used to think you were cool. Enough of this petty shit. Now I want to bash your face in.
Why precisely is a writer or an editor not allowed to call bullshit on a bullshit review? Why does Justin’s involvement with his book end the moment the book is published? Can’t a negative review be petty? Why is it only the response to the negative review petty?
Why precisely is a writer or an editor not allowed to call bullshit on a bullshit review? Why does Justin’s involvement with his book end the moment the book is published? Can’t a negative review be petty? Why is it only the response to the negative review petty?
Ha, well good to know we have fans. I thought the main point I was trying to make was that “literary” and “genre” are terms used in a bunch of different contradictory ways, which i’d think most people would agree. C’est la internet
Ha, well good to know we have fans. I thought the main point I was trying to make was that “literary” and “genre” are terms used in a bunch of different contradictory ways, which i’d think most people would agree. C’est la internet
Who said the review wasn’t petty? But I bet the reviewer has already forgotten it. Just as Justin should forget about it. Or construct an infinite daisy chain of pettiness, but in that case I’ll have to stick to you.
Who said the review wasn’t petty? But I bet the reviewer has already forgotten it. Just as Justin should forget about it. Or construct an infinite daisy chain of pettiness, but in that case I’ll have to stick to you.
Well, sure the reviewer may have forgotten the review, but the review lives on. I think the writer or editor can rejoin.
It may be a daisy chain of pettiness. But it may also be a conversation about the book.
Well, sure the reviewer may have forgotten the review, but the review lives on. I think the writer or editor can rejoin.
It may be a daisy chain of pettiness. But it may also be a conversation about the book.
I was trying to prove very simple things:
1) that literary vs genre is a false opposition: there’s mainstream (main stream) and genres – distributaries that emerge from currents inside the stream when the social need for a particular type of narration reaches critical point. Genres may dry up, flow freely, intersect, be reabsorbed.
2) that “literary value” may be something you consciously aim at, but is in any case an emergent propriety, and that every genre reproduces in its microcosm the tensions that exists, say, between Roots and Jody Picoult and Pynchon, Ondaatje, McCarthy
3) that in every genre there are examples of people who try to craft a personal artistic discourse- and I gave you a list of 30 or so in the field of speculative fiction only considering depth/beauty of language and attention to character, following your definition -none of which is able to live from their writing alone.
4) That Harold Bloom considers John Crowley one of the 5-6 greatest stylists alive, and every critic who comes close to him or Gene Wolfe praises their style to high heaven, comments on the incredible complexity of their narration, the multiple allusions, shifting viewpoints, unreliable narrators etc.etc. and draws parallel to Borges and Nabokov, or to Calvino, A.S. Byatt and Anthony Powell, but you’ll never know because they’re stuck in the genre ghetto (and yet they are certainly not read by the shitty sci-fi fans you attack)
I’ve quoted an article by Brian Evenson who says similar things about Steve Erickson – that is, the fact that he employs genre elements without distancing himself from them ( through accepted literary modes like satirical deformation, surrealism, postmodern deconstruction) is one of the reasons why, notwithstanding the critical appraisal, he’s never been seriously considered among the best postmodernist writers of the new generation.
5) That all the comments I’ve quoted displayed either abundance of strawmen or a lack of correct framing and interpretative categories.
For the record, speaking of strawmen, I read extremely widely, across genres and what you call literary, in seven languages. I’m quite certainly not one who “takes a side” for anything. I read different books for different reasons, but I don’t necessarily search only mindless entertainment in genre, and I’m perfectly able to understand the various levels in which a text engages me.
I was trying to prove very simple things:
1) that literary vs genre is a false opposition: there’s mainstream (main stream) and genres – distributaries that emerge from currents inside the stream when the social need for a particular type of narration reaches critical point. Genres may dry up, flow freely, intersect, be reabsorbed.
2) that “literary value” may be something you consciously aim at, but is in any case an emergent propriety, and that every genre reproduces in its microcosm the tensions that exists, say, between Roots and Jody Picoult and Pynchon, Ondaatje, McCarthy
3) that in every genre there are examples of people who try to craft a personal artistic discourse- and I gave you a list of 30 or so in the field of speculative fiction only considering depth/beauty of language and attention to character, following your definition -none of which is able to live from their writing alone.
4) That Harold Bloom considers John Crowley one of the 5-6 greatest stylists alive, and every critic who comes close to him or Gene Wolfe praises their style to high heaven, comments on the incredible complexity of their narration, the multiple allusions, shifting viewpoints, unreliable narrators etc.etc. and draws parallel to Borges and Nabokov, or to Calvino, A.S. Byatt and Anthony Powell, but you’ll never know because they’re stuck in the genre ghetto (and yet they are certainly not read by the shitty sci-fi fans you attack)
I’ve quoted an article by Brian Evenson who says similar things about Steve Erickson – that is, the fact that he employs genre elements without distancing himself from them ( through accepted literary modes like satirical deformation, surrealism, postmodern deconstruction) is one of the reasons why, notwithstanding the critical appraisal, he’s never been seriously considered among the best postmodernist writers of the new generation.
5) That all the comments I’ve quoted displayed either abundance of strawmen or a lack of correct framing and interpretative categories.
For the record, speaking of strawmen, I read extremely widely, across genres and what you call literary, in seven languages. I’m quite certainly not one who “takes a side” for anything. I read different books for different reasons, but I don’t necessarily search only mindless entertainment in genre, and I’m perfectly able to understand the various levels in which a text engages me.
Many people would also agree that definitions should be attempts at accurate description, not random opinions. And of course the fact that genre and literary may have different and contradictory meanings, maybe even all acceptable in different contexts, is all the more reason to be rigorous about their use when the discussion – or an analysis – aims to have a minimum of depth.
Many people would also agree that definitions should be attempts at accurate description, not random opinions. And of course the fact that genre and literary may have different and contradictory meanings, maybe even all acceptable in different contexts, is all the more reason to be rigorous about their use when the discussion – or an analysis – aims to have a minimum of depth.
Word up.
Over at amazon UK I got the following “review”:
“1 of 4 people found the following review helpful:
1.0 out of 5 stars Terrible, terrible, terrible…., 14 Aug 2007
By P. Thomas (Wiltshire, UK) – See all my reviews
(REAL NAME)
Worst purchase you’ll ever make.
Terrible attempt at prose/text/book (unsure how to describe it as there are less than 80 pages of the entire thing). Do not consider, ever! I’m struggling to keep language and ideas within the constraints imposed which has led to this being such a brief review. The plot is ridiculous, the ‘twist cliched, the characters flat. Everything about it is appalling.
You’ll regret wasting your economic success on this trash.
People who’ve read the book will wonder what these other reviewers were reading. This truly is a terrible, terrible creation.”
What pissed me off about this review was: “I’m struggling to keep language and ideas within the constraints imposed which has led to this being such a brief review.”. As if this person could actually offer genuine ideas, critiques, etc if it were not for the thought police not allowing him. Bullshit. I wanted to respond, but did not.
Word up.
Over at amazon UK I got the following “review”:
“1 of 4 people found the following review helpful:
1.0 out of 5 stars Terrible, terrible, terrible…., 14 Aug 2007
By P. Thomas (Wiltshire, UK) – See all my reviews
(REAL NAME)
Worst purchase you’ll ever make.
Terrible attempt at prose/text/book (unsure how to describe it as there are less than 80 pages of the entire thing). Do not consider, ever! I’m struggling to keep language and ideas within the constraints imposed which has led to this being such a brief review. The plot is ridiculous, the ‘twist cliched, the characters flat. Everything about it is appalling.
You’ll regret wasting your economic success on this trash.
People who’ve read the book will wonder what these other reviewers were reading. This truly is a terrible, terrible creation.”
What pissed me off about this review was: “I’m struggling to keep language and ideas within the constraints imposed which has led to this being such a brief review.”. As if this person could actually offer genuine ideas, critiques, etc if it were not for the thought police not allowing him. Bullshit. I wanted to respond, but did not.
And by the way, the fact you have completely misunderstood the point of something you haven’t read is very telling, in light of the discussion at large. Deliciously fractal.
And by the way, the fact you have completely misunderstood the point of something you haven’t read is very telling, in light of the discussion at large. Deliciously fractal.
I agree. I thought both “sides” were being either unrigorous or dishonest/nonsensical in their definitions.
That said, its a public online messageboard, so hard to have a rigorous debate.
Nice. Are you the one who sent Justin the 14-page document. Please send it to me.
I’ll read it.
I agree. I thought both “sides” were being either unrigorous or dishonest/nonsensical in their definitions.
That said, its a public online messageboard, so hard to have a rigorous debate.
Nice. Are you the one who sent Justin the 14-page document. Please send it to me.
I’ll read it.
One thing I’d be seriously interested in in an examination of the ways “genre” is used in different artforms. I really think it means something quite different in music, film and literature.
One thing I’d be seriously interested in in an examination of the ways “genre” is used in different artforms. I really think it means something quite different in music, film and literature.
How are mainstream and genre a dichotomy?
How are mainstream and genre a dichotomy?
i couldn’t read the whole thing
u know, maybe u shdn’t use HTML Giant for ur own personal probs
get a life, justin
i guess this is b/c ur book didnt get any REAL reviews (newspapers, mags) u obsess abt some nut in his pjs in mom’s basement
i couldn’t read the whole thing
u know, maybe u shdn’t use HTML Giant for ur own personal probs
get a life, justin
i guess this is b/c ur book didnt get any REAL reviews (newspapers, mags) u obsess abt some nut in his pjs in mom’s basement
u need to get a life too, despondent one
get a life, freak
u need to get a life too, despondent one
get a life, freak
anybody read all ths?
give me sparknotes version
anybody read all ths?
give me sparknotes version
possibly even a useful conversation
possibly even a useful conversation
Calling all the readers’ postings on Amazon “reviews” is a misnomer. For a writer, editor, publisher to take any of them seriously seems odd to me. I’d argue that, in most cases, even potential readers should not take them seriously at all. And I wonder how many of them actually do.
It would be interesting to read an in-depth critique of informal forums like the buyer’s comments on megasites, the language employed there, how they affect sales, whether a reader’s leaving “reviews” ensnares them into buying more books of their own from said site, etc.
The reader’s comments are ill-informed and petty. Why then give them any more spotlight?
I can understand having an opinion on these so-called reviews, but to use a forum like this to rant about it seems silly to me.
What opens this thread isn’t a conversation, it’s an attack. And an uninteresting one at that.
Calling all the readers’ postings on Amazon “reviews” is a misnomer. For a writer, editor, publisher to take any of them seriously seems odd to me. I’d argue that, in most cases, even potential readers should not take them seriously at all. And I wonder how many of them actually do.
It would be interesting to read an in-depth critique of informal forums like the buyer’s comments on megasites, the language employed there, how they affect sales, whether a reader’s leaving “reviews” ensnares them into buying more books of their own from said site, etc.
The reader’s comments are ill-informed and petty. Why then give them any more spotlight?
I can understand having an opinion on these so-called reviews, but to use a forum like this to rant about it seems silly to me.
What opens this thread isn’t a conversation, it’s an attack. And an uninteresting one at that.
Lincoln
I have not said that there’s a dychotomy between mainstream and genre. However, genres like crime or sci-fi are outside the mainstream, because they are understood to be of interest only to a selected group. They “flow separately” from the main body, to use a metaphor. There are genres hidden in the mainstream (like currents) – for example historical novels or memoirs/autobiography – and while you can be certain
a) that the best-sellers will be trashy, derivative and “emotional”
b) that , just like a lot of people are interested/aren’t interested in reading science-fiction a priori, a lot of people are interested/aren’t interested in reading historical novels.
The fact that they haven’t developed into a self-sustaining commercial genre means that they enjoy much wider exposure and critical attention – no one believes a historical novel can’t be “literary” or “of general interest”.
John M
Thanks. Be warned it’s long and rambling. I’ve sent it to you in Open Office, let me know if you need Microsoft Word.
Ciao
Lincoln
I have not said that there’s a dychotomy between mainstream and genre. However, genres like crime or sci-fi are outside the mainstream, because they are understood to be of interest only to a selected group. They “flow separately” from the main body, to use a metaphor. There are genres hidden in the mainstream (like currents) – for example historical novels or memoirs/autobiography – and while you can be certain
a) that the best-sellers will be trashy, derivative and “emotional”
b) that , just like a lot of people are interested/aren’t interested in reading science-fiction a priori, a lot of people are interested/aren’t interested in reading historical novels.
The fact that they haven’t developed into a self-sustaining commercial genre means that they enjoy much wider exposure and critical attention – no one believes a historical novel can’t be “literary” or “of general interest”.
John M
Thanks. Be warned it’s long and rambling. I’ve sent it to you in Open Office, let me know if you need Microsoft Word.
Ciao
actually, Fritz, it was well-reviewed in the LA Times, Paste, and any number of other newspapers, magazines and blogs. I was interviewed by the Huffington Post and NPR, which also dramatized selections from the book. It also came out over two years ago, which is why you haven’t heard much about it lately. The company that published it doesn’t exist anymore. I’m not worried that this will “hurt” the book, which is long into its afterlife at this point. This review appeared eight or nine days ago, and it seemed worthy of discussion for the reasons explored within the post itself.
actually, Fritz, it was well-reviewed in the LA Times, Paste, and any number of other newspapers, magazines and blogs. I was interviewed by the Huffington Post and NPR, which also dramatized selections from the book. It also came out over two years ago, which is why you haven’t heard much about it lately. The company that published it doesn’t exist anymore. I’m not worried that this will “hurt” the book, which is long into its afterlife at this point. This review appeared eight or nine days ago, and it seemed worthy of discussion for the reasons explored within the post itself.
Madera is right. It isn’t a conversation. If it was, it wouldn’t be so petty and mindless…
Madera is right. It isn’t a conversation. If it was, it wouldn’t be so petty and mindless…
marco- i was mean to you because you sent me a rant that was mostly about me being wrong about various things, along with detailed instructions to me for how to publish your rant on a site (this one) that I write for and you don’t. And you got my name wrong. I, on the other hand, because you wrote me a personal letter and therefore I didn’t see a reason to call you out by name in public. Anyway, we’re not publishing that thing, but maybe Madera will want to do something with it, though I can’t imagine what, since your entire piece is derivative of comments in a weeks-old message board thread, appended to the bottom of a post I didn’t write, which itself was actually about an essay published by someone on a whole other site than ours. Which is why I didn’t read it. Not because I doubt your intelligence (which seems ample) but because the thing you sent me is too many times derivative to possibly be useful or interesting, at least to me. And you got my name wrong. Show me the same ideas in a format that makes even a lick of sense, and we’ll see about getting you on here. I guess you could also try pestering Blake, and see if he wants to back you, but just fyi, I’m going to recommend that he doesn’t.
marco- i was mean to you because you sent me a rant that was mostly about me being wrong about various things, along with detailed instructions to me for how to publish your rant on a site (this one) that I write for and you don’t. And you got my name wrong. I, on the other hand, because you wrote me a personal letter and therefore I didn’t see a reason to call you out by name in public. Anyway, we’re not publishing that thing, but maybe Madera will want to do something with it, though I can’t imagine what, since your entire piece is derivative of comments in a weeks-old message board thread, appended to the bottom of a post I didn’t write, which itself was actually about an essay published by someone on a whole other site than ours. Which is why I didn’t read it. Not because I doubt your intelligence (which seems ample) but because the thing you sent me is too many times derivative to possibly be useful or interesting, at least to me. And you got my name wrong. Show me the same ideas in a format that makes even a lick of sense, and we’ll see about getting you on here. I guess you could also try pestering Blake, and see if he wants to back you, but just fyi, I’m going to recommend that he doesn’t.
Whatever, Margaret Atwood.
Whatever, Margaret Atwood.
Whatever, Joey Comeau. You shouldn’t be here! You should be selling t-shirts.
Whatever, Joey Comeau. You shouldn’t be here! You should be selling t-shirts.
Marco:
I’m honestly confused at what you are trying to get at. Genres like crime are outside of the mainstream? Huh? I thought the mainstream was almost entirely populated by crime, fantasy, horror (and similar genre) authors like King, Grisham, Rowling and so forth.
What is the main body in your view? Literary fiction?
Or are you merely saying that all styles and genres flow separately from the “main body” across time and flow back into the “main body” now and then?
Marco:
I’m honestly confused at what you are trying to get at. Genres like crime are outside of the mainstream? Huh? I thought the mainstream was almost entirely populated by crime, fantasy, horror (and similar genre) authors like King, Grisham, Rowling and so forth.
What is the main body in your view? Literary fiction?
Or are you merely saying that all styles and genres flow separately from the “main body” across time and flow back into the “main body” now and then?
Actually I guess that is what you are saying, although it seems a tad tautological.
Actually I guess that is what you are saying, although it seems a tad tautological.
I’m not interested in being published, and I know I have not written it in the form of an essay.
The only reason I’ve written it at all was because another blog posted a link – with an excerpt of some of the most extreme rantings of PHM – and reading the debate, frankly many of the comments looked to me exercises in missing the point. I began to answer just for my own satisfaction, even before realizing the conversation was over by a week.
What I meant with “published” could have also been only , say, resurrecting the original post in the main page with my “rant” at the end. Though I realize 14 pages would have probably broken the post limit and wouldn’t have invited casual readers. What can I say? I’m long-winded. But I really didn’t want more than that the people I’ve singled could read my answers.
It was a sudden bad case of “Somebody Is Wrong On The Internet”
http://xkcd.com/386/
And while I may have been sarcastic in places, I don’t think the tone was much different in the original post.
As for getting your name wrong, I’m sorry. I consistently misread it, which is strange. I could have sworn on the Bible that your name was Jason. Maybe I didn’t want to confuse you with Justin Taylor of Queer as Folk. It wasn’t a conscious slight.
I’m not interested in being published, and I know I have not written it in the form of an essay.
The only reason I’ve written it at all was because another blog posted a link – with an excerpt of some of the most extreme rantings of PHM – and reading the debate, frankly many of the comments looked to me exercises in missing the point. I began to answer just for my own satisfaction, even before realizing the conversation was over by a week.
What I meant with “published” could have also been only , say, resurrecting the original post in the main page with my “rant” at the end. Though I realize 14 pages would have probably broken the post limit and wouldn’t have invited casual readers. What can I say? I’m long-winded. But I really didn’t want more than that the people I’ve singled could read my answers.
It was a sudden bad case of “Somebody Is Wrong On The Internet”
http://xkcd.com/386/
And while I may have been sarcastic in places, I don’t think the tone was much different in the original post.
As for getting your name wrong, I’m sorry. I consistently misread it, which is strange. I could have sworn on the Bible that your name was Jason. Maybe I didn’t want to confuse you with Justin Taylor of Queer as Folk. It wasn’t a conscious slight.
No harm no foul, brother. let’s put this behind us and be friends. But my previous offer stands, since you *did* originally query me about posting your piece. Show me something in a format we can handle, and we’ll talk.
No harm no foul, brother. let’s put this behind us and be friends. But my previous offer stands, since you *did* originally query me about posting your piece. Show me something in a format we can handle, and we’ll talk.
Mainstream
deals with feelings and situations everyone could conceivably relate to, even when they are far removed from their personal experience. It approaches them in a way that can be universally understood and enjoyed, and therefore mostly in a mimetic/realistic mode, with few unmarked deviations from the norm ( supernatural elements as counterpoint of psychological states or with allegorical or metaphorical value, magical realism as symbol of a worldview in which rational thinking and myth/fable/folk tale walk hand in hand, etc.) Mainstream is shaped by the way we understand the world and the way we think it should be represented – in the Middle Ages allegorical fiction was the normal expression of a system of belief in which the supernatural was only one step away from everyday life.
Literary
still deals with the universals of human experience, but strives to present them in a way that shakes off the dust and cobwebs which have accumulated over time and “makes them new” (to quote Ezra Pound) – which may involve formal and stylistic innovation and nonlinear narration, moving away from immediacy of fruition but acquiring depth through the dialectic relation with tradition and canon.
Literary is a subset of mainstream- it works with the materials of mainstream, with what can be considered of universal significance.
Genres are considered particular narrations which can only be enjoyed by a niche – not universals in scope. Therefore literary works that arise from the materials of genre in the same way tend to be invisible.
Now “mainstream” literary works may have elements of genre, but they generally distance themselves from them, dealing with them with accepted, traditional modes (or genres) like allegory, surrealism, metafictionality, etc. In a way, it’s like these elements are neutralized: the say “we are talking about the real world after all”.
So, for example Vonnegut is considered literary and not sci-fi not so much because of language and character, but because he can be inscribed in the tradition of satire, and sci-fi elements can be seen as parody and distorted mirror. Near-future dystopic science-fiction tends to be more accepted because “really” talks of our world, but even that is far from the rule, unless you’re a big name.
There’s a strong resistance against the idea that a work can have literary value if it has genre elements that are not in some way justified. Borges “Tlon…” and Nabokov “Pale Fire” tell us that they talk about our world after all.
Wolfe’s Book of The New Sun is set in a cooling Earth around a dying sun, and while these elements and others help him explore his “literary” high themes in interesting ways, they’re also “solid”, they are a real part of the worldbuilding of the novels.
And that’s a stumbling block for readers and critics alike – notwithstanding the unanimous praise.
It is a bit more complex than that, but it’s part of the reason I ended up writing 14 pages.
Mainstream
deals with feelings and situations everyone could conceivably relate to, even when they are far removed from their personal experience. It approaches them in a way that can be universally understood and enjoyed, and therefore mostly in a mimetic/realistic mode, with few unmarked deviations from the norm ( supernatural elements as counterpoint of psychological states or with allegorical or metaphorical value, magical realism as symbol of a worldview in which rational thinking and myth/fable/folk tale walk hand in hand, etc.) Mainstream is shaped by the way we understand the world and the way we think it should be represented – in the Middle Ages allegorical fiction was the normal expression of a system of belief in which the supernatural was only one step away from everyday life.
Literary
still deals with the universals of human experience, but strives to present them in a way that shakes off the dust and cobwebs which have accumulated over time and “makes them new” (to quote Ezra Pound) – which may involve formal and stylistic innovation and nonlinear narration, moving away from immediacy of fruition but acquiring depth through the dialectic relation with tradition and canon.
Literary is a subset of mainstream- it works with the materials of mainstream, with what can be considered of universal significance.
Genres are considered particular narrations which can only be enjoyed by a niche – not universals in scope. Therefore literary works that arise from the materials of genre in the same way tend to be invisible.
Now “mainstream” literary works may have elements of genre, but they generally distance themselves from them, dealing with them with accepted, traditional modes (or genres) like allegory, surrealism, metafictionality, etc. In a way, it’s like these elements are neutralized: the say “we are talking about the real world after all”.
So, for example Vonnegut is considered literary and not sci-fi not so much because of language and character, but because he can be inscribed in the tradition of satire, and sci-fi elements can be seen as parody and distorted mirror. Near-future dystopic science-fiction tends to be more accepted because “really” talks of our world, but even that is far from the rule, unless you’re a big name.
There’s a strong resistance against the idea that a work can have literary value if it has genre elements that are not in some way justified. Borges “Tlon…” and Nabokov “Pale Fire” tell us that they talk about our world after all.
Wolfe’s Book of The New Sun is set in a cooling Earth around a dying sun, and while these elements and others help him explore his “literary” high themes in interesting ways, they’re also “solid”, they are a real part of the worldbuilding of the novels.
And that’s a stumbling block for readers and critics alike – notwithstanding the unanimous praise.
It is a bit more complex than that, but it’s part of the reason I ended up writing 14 pages.
Thanks. I suppose it shouldn’t be difficult to rewrite it after all but come Monday work restarts and I’m also involved in Local Council politics, plus I’ve kind of consumed my original motivation. I’m an internet lurker with sudden inexplicable moments of verbosity.
Ciao
Thanks. I suppose it shouldn’t be difficult to rewrite it after all but come Monday work restarts and I’m also involved in Local Council politics, plus I’ve kind of consumed my original motivation. I’m an internet lurker with sudden inexplicable moments of verbosity.
Ciao
I like where you are going with this, although I suspect there would be plenty of genre and literary people alike who would totally disagree with your definitions, especially of genre.
It still seems odd to me to define genre against the mainstream in the way you seem to, when Harry Potter, Stephen King and what not are the kings of the mainstream in terms of sales and readership (what mainstream normally means).
If I may, however, how do non-“speculative” genres fit into this? I feel like the genre debate seems to always turn out to really be a debate about sci-fi and fantasy (maybe horror gets lumped in with that)… but genre is used much more broadly. How does a John Le Carre or John Grisham fit into this? They’d certainly be called genre authors by most people, yet it certainly has nothing to do with them dealing with “solid” invented worlds or anything.
I like where you are going with this, although I suspect there would be plenty of genre and literary people alike who would totally disagree with your definitions, especially of genre.
It still seems odd to me to define genre against the mainstream in the way you seem to, when Harry Potter, Stephen King and what not are the kings of the mainstream in terms of sales and readership (what mainstream normally means).
If I may, however, how do non-“speculative” genres fit into this? I feel like the genre debate seems to always turn out to really be a debate about sci-fi and fantasy (maybe horror gets lumped in with that)… but genre is used much more broadly. How does a John Le Carre or John Grisham fit into this? They’d certainly be called genre authors by most people, yet it certainly has nothing to do with them dealing with “solid” invented worlds or anything.
To Lincoln above-
I think Marco’s argument does apply to other “genres” (in a way). While Jim Thompson was writing hard knuckled “crime fiction” he was also using well worn tropes to illuminate something about human nature in the real world (you don’t have to live in a west texas town governed by a sociopathic sheriff to get the points that power corrupts and people can be easily manipulated or that sometimes the smart guy plays dumb for a reason). I may be off target here, but
To Lincoln above-
I think Marco’s argument does apply to other “genres” (in a way). While Jim Thompson was writing hard knuckled “crime fiction” he was also using well worn tropes to illuminate something about human nature in the real world (you don’t have to live in a west texas town governed by a sociopathic sheriff to get the points that power corrupts and people can be easily manipulated or that sometimes the smart guy plays dumb for a reason). I may be off target here, but
Nathan,
But wouldn’t that apply to anything? Magical realism, surrealism, whatever? Truly not trying to reduce marco’s argument, just trying to understand it.
Nathan,
But wouldn’t that apply to anything? Magical realism, surrealism, whatever? Truly not trying to reduce marco’s argument, just trying to understand it.
Everyone can disagree on what definitions mean; however if you look at them historically things become clearer.
Genre in its widest sense means simply “a mode of expression determined by a set of thematic and/or formal criteria, however chosen”. Nothing more than that. That’s how the term has always been used, from the genres of drama/poetry/prose to the genres of comedy/tragedy or epic/novel/romance to the genres of satire/fable or the genres of novel/novella/short story to the genres of memoir/crime fiction/horror/erotic literature. That is, a genre is defined by a set of restrictions -on at least one of the possible levels of content, style/form / preferred subject.
Mainstream means the ways of expression, of uniting content and style/form, that are considered of universal value. It doesn’t mean that everyone is interested in each one of them.
If my father says “I’m not interested in science fiction, crime novels or historical novels” what he says is that he is not interested with the premises of each of this genres, but also that, if he reads an article who praises a historical novel he may give it a try, or in any case he does consider his preference a personal bias not a negative judgement. Genres outside the mainstream, however, are strictly understood to be of interest only for a selected target group. Therefore many people simply don’t think at all they can be worthwhile – and similarly behave “mainstream” literary critics. The point is not that Stephen King or Judith Krantz sell millions – the point is that just as many people say “oh, it’s horror/romance, I’m not interested”. And they don’t think it possible that maybe there are authors who choose to write in these genres not primarily for commercial reasons, but because there are aspects of the genre which resonate strongly with them, with their personal aesthetic, and that they can craft something that can speak to everyone. Often these authors may end up having neither commercial success neither broad critical recognition.
“Literaryness” doesn’t necessarily mean that a given author/ follows/innovates/breaks up with conventions, or writes in modes/genres/styles considered highbrow at his time . It only means that s/he is particularly successful in uniting the various elements s/he chooses to utilize in order to convey his/her voice or vision.
There’s a passage in Jane Austen’s Northanger Abbey in which her character defends the novel genre. The novel was a “popular” genre, looked down upon as a pastime for idle women, a third rate form of literature when compared with essays or poetry, ridiculed with the example of bestselling Gothic doorstoppers like those of Ann Radcliffe.
The novels of Jane Austen were “genre” not mainstream, yet now they are considered both mainstream and literary.
Now,as for genres like crime or sci-fi… the cliches,tropes,motifs are not what defines them, just like tragedy is not defined by the number of acts or poetry by the rhyme. These are simply successful evolutionary traits. The hardboiled detective was invented by Chandler and Hammett, and has been replicated ad infinitum both because of their influence (and the fascination that readers who became authors had with the figure) and because it gives a “survival advantage” (is commercially successful).
However when we try to strictly define a genre we must go down to its generative principle, which is different even from its original form. The generative principle of poetry is that it is a form of expression in which language is selected in a way to convey an aesthetic value separate from the literal meaning. It has nothing to do with alliteration of rhyme, even if these two basically monopolized its form.
The generative principles of some genres
Sci-Fi = Elements or ideas in the work require for it to be set in a “scientifically plausible variation”* of our world. Some say that if these elements can be removed without changing the story, it’s not really science-fiction; however, even a completely gratuitous insertion shifts the way we look at the text.
*a story from the point of view of insectlike aliens in an unnamed world is still a plausible variation, because it is based on the idea that in our universe life evolved differently on different planets; a story with unicorns and fairies and magic is not a plausible variation, because the existence of magic cannot be reconciled with physical laws; a story with unicorn and fairies and magic which manages to explain away these elements in some pseudo-scientifical way, even invoking parallel universes in which laws of physics are different, is again a plausible variation.
Crime= focuses on the existence of crime, its impact, consequences and resolution from the point of view of investigators and/or victims/perpetrators/survivors/, the possibility/illusion of the restauration of justice and order.
Horror= aims to scare, unsettle, horrify – the range goes from luna-park pretend-scare to existential dread to the uncanny.
Romance= a romantic relationship must be central to the plot.
Note that these definitions are the only ones wide enough to comprehend all the possible variations inside this genres, even considering works of not exceptional literary value or innovatory intent.
What’s unsettling for general readers may be the known tropes -some of which generate a Pavlovian response, but it’s also something much subtler. What defines crime, for example, is not so much the presence of criminal elements, but the way these elements are treated and the way other elements are rearranged around them. A difference in focus, more even than in importance or presence in the story. Crime may even be absent in a crime story, but still cast a shadow over all the narration.
Everyone can disagree on what definitions mean; however if you look at them historically things become clearer.
Genre in its widest sense means simply “a mode of expression determined by a set of thematic and/or formal criteria, however chosen”. Nothing more than that. That’s how the term has always been used, from the genres of drama/poetry/prose to the genres of comedy/tragedy or epic/novel/romance to the genres of satire/fable or the genres of novel/novella/short story to the genres of memoir/crime fiction/horror/erotic literature. That is, a genre is defined by a set of restrictions -on at least one of the possible levels of content, style/form / preferred subject.
Mainstream means the ways of expression, of uniting content and style/form, that are considered of universal value. It doesn’t mean that everyone is interested in each one of them.
If my father says “I’m not interested in science fiction, crime novels or historical novels” what he says is that he is not interested with the premises of each of this genres, but also that, if he reads an article who praises a historical novel he may give it a try, or in any case he does consider his preference a personal bias not a negative judgement. Genres outside the mainstream, however, are strictly understood to be of interest only for a selected target group. Therefore many people simply don’t think at all they can be worthwhile – and similarly behave “mainstream” literary critics. The point is not that Stephen King or Judith Krantz sell millions – the point is that just as many people say “oh, it’s horror/romance, I’m not interested”. And they don’t think it possible that maybe there are authors who choose to write in these genres not primarily for commercial reasons, but because there are aspects of the genre which resonate strongly with them, with their personal aesthetic, and that they can craft something that can speak to everyone. Often these authors may end up having neither commercial success neither broad critical recognition.
“Literaryness” doesn’t necessarily mean that a given author/ follows/innovates/breaks up with conventions, or writes in modes/genres/styles considered highbrow at his time . It only means that s/he is particularly successful in uniting the various elements s/he chooses to utilize in order to convey his/her voice or vision.
There’s a passage in Jane Austen’s Northanger Abbey in which her character defends the novel genre. The novel was a “popular” genre, looked down upon as a pastime for idle women, a third rate form of literature when compared with essays or poetry, ridiculed with the example of bestselling Gothic doorstoppers like those of Ann Radcliffe.
The novels of Jane Austen were “genre” not mainstream, yet now they are considered both mainstream and literary.
Now,as for genres like crime or sci-fi… the cliches,tropes,motifs are not what defines them, just like tragedy is not defined by the number of acts or poetry by the rhyme. These are simply successful evolutionary traits. The hardboiled detective was invented by Chandler and Hammett, and has been replicated ad infinitum both because of their influence (and the fascination that readers who became authors had with the figure) and because it gives a “survival advantage” (is commercially successful).
However when we try to strictly define a genre we must go down to its generative principle, which is different even from its original form. The generative principle of poetry is that it is a form of expression in which language is selected in a way to convey an aesthetic value separate from the literal meaning. It has nothing to do with alliteration of rhyme, even if these two basically monopolized its form.
The generative principles of some genres
Sci-Fi = Elements or ideas in the work require for it to be set in a “scientifically plausible variation”* of our world. Some say that if these elements can be removed without changing the story, it’s not really science-fiction; however, even a completely gratuitous insertion shifts the way we look at the text.
*a story from the point of view of insectlike aliens in an unnamed world is still a plausible variation, because it is based on the idea that in our universe life evolved differently on different planets; a story with unicorns and fairies and magic is not a plausible variation, because the existence of magic cannot be reconciled with physical laws; a story with unicorn and fairies and magic which manages to explain away these elements in some pseudo-scientifical way, even invoking parallel universes in which laws of physics are different, is again a plausible variation.
Crime= focuses on the existence of crime, its impact, consequences and resolution from the point of view of investigators and/or victims/perpetrators/survivors/, the possibility/illusion of the restauration of justice and order.
Horror= aims to scare, unsettle, horrify – the range goes from luna-park pretend-scare to existential dread to the uncanny.
Romance= a romantic relationship must be central to the plot.
Note that these definitions are the only ones wide enough to comprehend all the possible variations inside this genres, even considering works of not exceptional literary value or innovatory intent.
What’s unsettling for general readers may be the known tropes -some of which generate a Pavlovian response, but it’s also something much subtler. What defines crime, for example, is not so much the presence of criminal elements, but the way these elements are treated and the way other elements are rearranged around them. A difference in focus, more even than in importance or presence in the story. Crime may even be absent in a crime story, but still cast a shadow over all the narration.