Amazon to publish | HTMLGIANT

May 23rd, 2011 / 7:28 am Janey' Smith—

Ken? In this case, deforestation may not be a bad thing.

May 23rd, 2011 / 12:59 pm Terrybear—

GREAT! Now ALL the ”Indie” presses can go the way of the ”Indie” bookstore. Keep on supporting Amazon, fuckers.

May 23rd, 2011 / 2:55 pm STaugustine—

“Indie” bookstores are like “Indie” video stores. Indie, Mainstream, whatever: 99.78% of all new product is mediocre horseshit aimed at the LCD, anyway. Amazon isn’t killing Lit, it’s the lack of Talent. The terrible new writing has scared off the talented new readers. The shitty writers and the shitty readers are now stuck with each other and Amazon is merely the context.

May 23rd, 2011 / 3:21 pm MFBomb—

This is not a good comparison at all. Indie bookstores sell the same basic product as Amazon–books. Unless the Indie is super-niche or in a highly educated, cosmopolitan area, their bread and butter is the popular stuff, not the literary stuff, so most end up going head-to-head with Amazon (and B&N).

Amazon isn’t going to publish every writer in the country. There are tons of writers publishing today and yet a single publisher is only going to publish but so many writers. Do you really think the Amazon is going to send secret emails to a bunch of small press writers to convince them to switch to Amazon?

May 23rd, 2011 / 3:49 pm Lincoln Michel—

Zzz. Don’t think you have a “point” really. You are just rehashing a tired old argument that people say about EVERY artform EVERY decade.

May 23rd, 2011 / 3:55 pm deadgod—

Painting is DEAD. That guy with the hands, and the bison, and the arrows? – what else is there for anyone to say??

May 23rd, 2011 / 6:29 pm Don—

What decline in readership? More books bought in the last 5 years than any other 5 year period. More library card holders, more library circulations, more books published…

May 23rd, 2011 / 6:44 pm STaugustine—

fuck. yes.

May 23rd, 2011 / 6:56 pm MFBomb—

*Chuck D

May 23rd, 2011 / 7:18 pm Lincoln Michel—

So a second ago the problem was not a business model or societal change one, it was the completely lack of “TALENT” across the board from indie to mainstream.
Now suddenly it isn’t that at all, it is a lack of risk taking editors in the mainstream? You are more on the mark here. The business model in the writing world need some dramatic fixing. I see no reason to believe that there is a dearth of talent when likely more people are writing in the world than ever before.

May 23rd, 2011 / 7:38 pm MFBomb—

Hey, I basically riffed off his comments anyway, so no problem there. I watch the clip every day now to remind myself why I write.

May 23rd, 2011 / 8:15 pm MFBomb—

SA’s essential point is pretty clear to me–none of the stuff discussed
on the thread really matters unless there are writers out there who
don’t care what others think and take chances and risk obscurity and
non-publication.

This site spends too much time worrying about indie this, indie that,
this store that, that press this,
more-kids-are-checking-books-out-from-the-library-this, more people are
reading e-books that, this website that publishes literary flash gets
this number of hits per month, etc. Like I’m supposed to give a damn
about this or that–there will always be markets for art; their mere existence means nothing to me because they will always exist because art can make money, which is both good and bad. It’s sad that many of you stop thinking at the last point.

And, despite the warm and fuzzy feeling some of you have for indie stories, their top priority is to make money, not convert some 8 year old kid into a lover of poetry.

Even small/indie presses that don’t make money benefit from the existence of larger presses–relevance is important for small presses, and they can’t be relevant at all–even within their niche/circle–without the presence of Big Brother.

May 23rd, 2011 / 8:22 pm Lincoln Michel—

Originality/individuality have been punished and conformity/mediocrity rewarded since…. the dawn of time! In basically all fields. It wasn’t something that started a few decades ago and is bearing fruit now.

May 23rd, 2011 / 8:36 pm Mike Young—

“Even small/indie presses that don’t make money benefit from the
existence of larger presses–relevance is important for small presses,
and they can’t be relevant at all–even within their
niche/circle–without the presence of Big Brother.”

can you explain what you mean by this a little more?

May 23rd, 2011 / 8:47 pm Joseph Young—

how come after 50000 years human intelligence and creativity has degenerated in 1 generation? seems weird.

May 23rd, 2011 / 8:49 pm Terrybear—

“And, despite the warm and fuzzy feeling some of you have for indie
stories, their top priority is to make money, not convert some 8 year
old kid into a lover of poetry.”

This was an ignorant statement.

May 23rd, 2011 / 8:56 pm Joseph Young—

maybe in both cases it’s world war one.

May 23rd, 2011 / 9:13 pm MFBomb—

“i guess i see what you mean in a larger cultural sense”

This is my issue with a lot of fiction writers today (I’m focusing on fiction because it’s the genre I know best)–the lack of a “larger cultural [awareness]” (I’m not accusing you of lacking such awareness, more than I am riffing off your clause).

I graduated from an MFA program and am rather balanced in my critiques of creative writing in the academy; MFA programs possess good and bad qualities. In fiction, one of the bad qualities is that degree has clearly favored an anti-cultural or social stance; the “workshop” is all about the “piece” and its “craft” and it’s no coincidence that the rise of MFA programs coincided with a dominant, bourgeois short-story aesthetic that favors the “minimal,” nostalgia, linear plots, smoothly-drawn character insights, revelations, and epiphanies, all in an aesthetic that is uber-aware of its supposed humbleness and “no-frills” style and language (“the last thing we need are writers not knowing their place!”) Writers of non-traditional backgrounds (however you want to define that term) often suffer greatly in MFA programs because they are more likely to see the coded language about “aesthetics” for what it really is.

“but if Penguin/FSG/etc. all disappeared or shrunk to “micropublisher”
level, if the whole thing became a boutique industry (pretending it
isn’t already)what would happen? wouldn’t it still be pretty much the way it is now? ”

Well, it’s clearly nothing close to a “boutique industry” because no publisher supports literary fiction simply to support literary fiction, no matter what they might say in interviews. It’s still a viable product to them, otherwise they wouldn’t even waste their time with it all.

“i guess i’m confused by what you mean by “relevance.” do you mean
relevance in the sense that “if there were no big publishers nobody
would write about literary fiction in the NYT”? something like that?”

No, I simply mean that the brand has already been created. And, since the brand is still very relevant in New York, it stands to reason that this relevance trickles down to the small presses.

May 23rd, 2011 / 9:36 pm Mike Young—

hmm, don’t small publishers who aren’t beholden to homogeneously “relevant” definitions of “literary fiction” serve as havens for “irrelevant” writing? and by so doing, serve writing that is legitimately relevant in the sense that it talks about what doesn’t otherwise get talked about? i feel like it’s pretty demonstrably true already that small presses do a lot to find audiences for writing that bucks what you’re defining as a “dominant, bourgeois” aesthetic. writing that by so bucking includes what’s excluded from what you’re calling a dominant “anti-cultural” stance, which i think we both understand in the same way: culture is always more than what the guy at the top of the heap says it is. i think “small press” literary communities don’t derive their relevance at all from the existence of larger presses. they derive it from the fact they aren’t “large [and in charge.]” they fill back in the whitewashed voices.

i’m still confused, i have to admit, by what you mean by relevance, and i don’t see how a “New York relevant brand” “trickles down” to the small presses. i’m not being sniffy tone-wise: i literally don’t understand what you mean by “trickle down.” my argument is that if the NYT for some reason decided to stop writing reviews of literary fiction (which is a weird/limited symbol to begin with for what we’re talking about, but okay), small presses wouldn’t evaporate. they wouldn’t lose their roles/identity. the people who felt frustrated/ignored/deceived by the “stories” propagated by the machinery of hegemonic culture would still head for the fringes and sniff around there. maybe we have two different ideas re: the role of small presses in a larger idea of capitol-C Culture?

May 23rd, 2011 / 9:43 pm STaugustine—

twitter-zinger. meaning = 0

May 23rd, 2011 / 9:47 pm Mike Young—

guessing you won’t go this route, but just to clarify: i do know what “trickle down” means, just can’t figure out how you’re contextualizing it

May 23rd, 2011 / 9:54 pm Terrybear—

Fair enough. But isn’t the top priority of any ”job” to make money?

May 23rd, 2011 / 9:57 pm Guestagain—

Like

May 23rd, 2011 / 10:17 pm MFBomb—

“hmm, don’t small publishers who aren’t beholden to
homogeneously “relevant” definitions of “literary fiction”
serve as havens for “irrelevant” writing?”

This is where it gets tricky, because I see a ton of “small
press” fiction that is a) rather middle-brow, safe, and forgettable and b)
simply happy to be accepted somewhere.

It’s not always a ringing endorsement for small presses to
say that they are “safe havens” for fiction that might be deemed irrelevant by
New York (even though, I should add, many great and fearless innovative works
of fiction find their way to the top by completely bypassing the small presses).
There also seems to be an ideology that has emanated out of the small press
world wherein “being different” from the mainstream is some sort of
virtue. Frankly, I don’t give a shit how
“different” something is unless it sticks in my chest; if it doesn’t move me or
stick in my chest, I don’t care. Fuck
you for wasting my time.

My point is, all that matters is that the writer be
fearless, original, and stay true to his or her vision, regardless of what
presses, small or large, think.

“and by so doing, serve writing that is legitimately
relevant in the sense that it talks about what doesn’t otherwise get talked
about?”

Again, I see this sort of thing bandied around by small press
defenders all the time, as if the small/indie presses should somehow get a free
pass because they supposedly “talk about what doesn’t get talked about.” Again,
while I do see some innovative work in the small presses, I see a lot more
posturing and non-innovative work than the real thing—same for large presses.

All of which goes to say that regardless of the press size,
most “art” out there doesn’t stick to the chest and lacks soul, heart, courage,
and larger awareness of the world. You
could even argue that the accessibility of small presses and online journals
has made some writers less-ambitious, when they know that their work will find
a nice, “safe haven.” You see a ton of online indie journals where the editors
publish all of their Facebook and HTML Giant friends, too. Don’t come talking to me about the incestuous
nature of MFA print journals when you’re publishing your friends left and
right.

“ i feel like it’s pretty demonstrably true already that
small presses do a lot to find audiences for writing that bucks what you’re
defining as a “dominant, bourgeois” aesthetic.”

I agree with you to an extent; where we disagree is the
degree to which this point is true. I
feel like it’s true that this point is often overstated, no surprise, on websites
like this that are tied somehow to those presses (directly or indirectly).

“writing that by so bucking includes what’s excluded from
what you’re calling a dominant “anti-cultural” stance, which i think
we both understand in the same way: culture is always more than what the guy at
the top of the heap says it is. i think “small press” literary
communities don’t derive their relevance at all from the existence of larger
presses. they derive it from the fact they aren’t “large [and in
charge.]” they fill back in the whitewashed voices.”

But you’re not reading my points in context with my most
important point, which was about individual writers doing what’s best for them
first, for their own visions—to hell with everyone else. All of your points seem focus on the
product/venue end. Forgive me if I’m
misreading your points, though, because you seem well-intended and I’ve enjoyed
this conversation.

“i’m still confused, i have to admit, by what you mean by relevance, and i
don’t see how a “New York relevant brand” “trickles down”
to the small presses. i’m not being sniffy tone-wise: i literally don’t
understand what you mean by “trickle down.” my argument is that if
the NYT for some reason decided to stop writing reviews of literary fiction
(which is a weird/limited symbol to begin with for what we’re talking about,
but okay), small presses wouldn’t evaporate. they wouldn’t lose their
roles/identity. the people who felt frustrated/ignored/deceived by the
“stories” propagated by the machinery of hegemonic culture would
still head for the fringes and sniff around there. maybe we have two different
ideas re: the role of small presses in a larger idea of capitol-C Culture?”

I don’t see the dichotomy between “small” and “large”
presses as divergent as you do, apparently—at least in terms of
aesthetics.

1)
It’s sill important, unfortunately, for many
small press writers to feel “accepted”’

2)
Many small presses and indie journals still have
aesthetics that are “homogenous” in their own right and aren’t very open-minded
or innovative—at least as much as they think; there’s a lot of posturing in the
world of innovative and experimental fiction.

3)
Many small press writers are still unambitious

You seem to be happy with the idea that, “well, at least
small presses present some form of alternative to the big presses.”

That’s not enough for me—sorry.

May 23rd, 2011 / 10:22 pm MFBomb—

“hmm, don’t small publishers who aren’t beholden to homogeneously “relevant” definitions of “literary fiction” serve as havens for “irrelevant” writing?”

This is where it gets tricky, because I see a ton of “small press” fiction that is a) rather middle-brow, safe, and forgettable and b) simply happy to be accepted somewhere.

It’s not always a ringing endorsement for small presses to say that they are “safe havens” for fiction that might be deemed irrelevant by New York (even though, I should add, many great and fearless innovative works of fiction find their way to the top by completely bypassing the small presses). There also seems to be an ideology that has emanated out of the small press world wherein “being different” from the mainstream is some sort of virtue. Frankly, I don’t give a shit how “different” something is unless it sticks in my chest; if it doesn’t move me or stick in my chest, I don’t care. Fuck you for wasting my time.

My point is, all that matters is that the writer be fearless, original, and stay true to his or her vision, regardless of what presses, small or large, think.

“and by so doing, serve writing that is legitimately relevant in the sense that it talks about what doesn’t otherwise get talked about?”

Again, I see this sort of thing bandied around by small press defenders all the time, as if the small/indie presses should somehow get a free pass because they supposedly “talk about what doesn’t get talked about.” Again, while I do see some innovative work in the small presses, I see a lot more posturing and non-innovative work than the real thing—same for large presses.

All of which goes to say that regardless of the press size, most “art” out there doesn’t stick to the chest and lacks soul, heart, courage, and larger awareness of the world. You could even argue that the accessibility of small presses and online journals has made some writers less-ambitious, when they know that their work will find a nice, “safe haven.” You see a ton of online indie journals where the editors publish all of their Facebook and HTML Giant friends, too. Don’t come talking to me about the incestuous nature of MFA print journals when you’re publishing your friends left and right.

“ i feel like it’s pretty demonstrably true already that small presses do a lot to find audiences for writing that bucks what you’re defining as a “dominant, bourgeois” aesthetic.”

I agree with you to an extent; where we disagree is the degree to which this point is true. I feel like it’s true that this point is often overstated, no surprise, on websites like this that are tied somehow to those presses (directly or indirectly).

“writing that by so bucking includes what’s excluded from what you’re calling a dominant “anti-cultural” stance, which i think we both understand in the same way: culture is always more than what the guy at the top of the heap says it is. i think “small press” literary communities don’t derive their relevance at all from the existence of larger presses. they derive it from the fact they aren’t “large [and in charge.]” they fill back in the whitewashed voices.”

But you’re not reading my points in context with my most important point, which was about individual writers doing what’s best for them first, for their own visions—to hell with everyone else. All of your points seem focus on the product/venue end. Forgive me if I’m misreading your points, though, because you seem well-intended and I’ve enjoyed this conversation.

“i’m still confused, i have to admit, by what you mean by relevance, and i don’t see how a “New York relevant brand” “trickles down” to the small presses. i’m not being sniffy tone-wise: i literally don’t understand what you mean by “trickle down.” my argument is that if the NYT for some reason decided to stop writing reviews of literary fiction (which is a weird/limited symbol to begin with for what we’re talking about, but okay), small presses wouldn’t evaporate. they wouldn’t lose their roles/identity. the people who felt frustrated/ignored/deceived by the “stories” propagated by the machinery of hegemonic culture would still head for the fringes and sniff around there. maybe we have two different ideas re: the role of small presses in a larger idea of capitol-C Culture?”

I don’t see the dichotomy between “small” and “large” presses as divergent as you do, apparently—at least in terms of aesthetics.

1)    It’s sill important, unfortunately, for many small press writers to feel “accepted”’
2)    Many small presses and indie journals still have aesthetics that are “homogenous” in their own right and aren’t very open-minded or innovative—at least as much as they think; there’s a lot of posturing in the world of innovative and experimental fiction.
3)    Many small press writers are still unambitious

You seem to be happy with the idea that, “well, at least small presses present some form of alternative to the big presses.”

That’s not enough for me—sorry.

May 23rd, 2011 / 10:23 pm MFBomb—

^Sorry for the formatting of this post; please delete, admins.

May 23rd, 2011 / 10:28 pm STaugustine—

“You can accept that originality and individuality is “punished” but I’m not interested in this. ”

Also fine with me.

May 23rd, 2011 / 11:29 pm deadgod—

“Business model”??

I was responding to the unwisely portentous apocalypticism. Yes, the democratization of literacy has led to a swell of (both honestly and dishonestly) bad writing (a higher percentage than most of the rest of word-art history?); yes, ‘official’ art authority (in visual as well as literary art) is corrupt, thanks to money and vanity unhinged to accomplishment and so on; and yes, writers with the skin to ignore the shepherding of gatekeepers will sometimes write the most effective, most lastingly exciting literature.

But no, neither commercial nor cultural-authoritative marketplaces are always and only promotional of degraded herd-values; and no, the ever-present current of kids-these-days dismissals of ‘almost everything = shit’ and ‘I’m so bored’ are not more rational or even successful predictors of a Dark Age than they’ve ever been.

Laziness and a reading backlog of about 10,000 titles keeps me from reading more than a cube on the tip of the internet iceberg, but, among the obnoxiously calculated and the incompetent, I see interesting things often enough to belie any sense of hell-in-a-handbasket – a sense that would make me feel like a million dollars to be able to belabor others about the head and arms with. That sense in the case of Literature Today is, to me, not empirically compelled.

I think you’re paying exaggerated and exaggerating attention to garbage because a denunciation-swollen tone gratifies your vanity. Vanity in art is an indispensable catalyst; for critical attention, it’s almost never too soon to lift the plunger in the tank.

May 24th, 2011 / 12:08 am Ginger—

twitter-zinger 2: MFA grad + individual mind = oxymoron

May 24th, 2011 / 12:20 am Ginger—

Cheers:)

May 24th, 2011 / 2:02 am Ginger—

Oh c’mon MFA’er! Learn to laugh at yourself a little. As if what I have to say in here means anything. Why would anyone go to university to learn how to write? It’s like paying someone to teach you how to pick your nose. C’mon! READ! READ!! / Reading list available upon request.

May 24th, 2011 / 9:10 am STaugustine—

“I think you’re paying exaggerated and exaggerating attention to garbage because a denunciation-swollen tone gratifies your vanity.”

I think *you’ve* noticed that being a cheerleader/ master of the uncontroversial makes you “popular”.

And I’m not talking about “kids-these-day” (despite the fact that characterizing me in this way will probably keep you “popular) because a lot of the over-workshopped, super-vetted, LCD-targeting mush I’ve made the mistake of buying, and reading, in the past decade, has been by writers older than 30. Martin Amis’ (or Philip Roth’s ) inability to write anything to get excited about, since the ’90s, is probably down to factors outside the mediocrity-enforcing mechanism I describe, but, my mentioning that *they’ve* sucked, too, should make it clear that my “attack” isn’t generational. And if you’d taken the trouble to read my comments with any care (instead of picking at the bits you think are weaknesses, to exploit, in a fight-for-fighting’s-sake), this “discussion” might have had the chance to move on to the next step: the how’s, why’s and whithers.

To reiterate my opening salvo: “Indie Bookstore” vs “Amazon” is a false dichotomy: they’re both conduits for innocuous ersatzes of Literary Art. You won’t fix the problem by multiplying the number of bookstores with secondhand couches in them.

Is it an irony, or merely a vicious circle, that I’m arguing that reading-and-writing, as a Fine Art, is a vanishing resource… and I’ve spent most of the argument correcting sloppy readings of my argument? If only you put half the care into reading my comments as I put into writing them.

And the “business model” (phrase lifted from the Lincoln Michel comment of 5:04, yesterday, which was the response to my initial comment) is key. It’s precisely why the visual/plastic Arts are surging along in a million different ways: painters/performance artists aren’t forced, en bloc, to aim at the LCD because they’re not trying to sell to thousands of people (each with 20 bucks to spend on either a novel or “Spiderman 10”). If you think Literature-as-Art (in the Anglophone Sphere) is anywhere near as developed as the Visually-Oriented-Fine-Arts, you don’t know either field very well. Plenty of design-whores in Visual Arts, too, obviously… but lots and lots and lots of exciting new voices emerge, all the time. If you’re not into books but *are* into painting/graphics/performance/video/objects/processual, et al, this is a miraculous age. Why the astonishing gap in development? The diverging business models are a serious factor. But I never got a chance to address that point in any detail because I’ve been busy (as ever) correcting the false reading of people who can’t read three-paragraph comments without skimming. Even this comment is “too long”. Again: irony? Or tragic confirmation of my point?

More close-reading and less Oprah-style-applause-whoring would be appreciated, Deaders. I’m arguing that we need to encourage more talented writing-compulsives (of ALL ages) to turn their backs on venal ambition, comfy herdthink and the empty rewards of online “popularity” and make some durably ass-kicking Literary Fucking Art.

And you’re arguing against that?

May 24th, 2011 / 3:13 pm Anonymous—

things are worse! no! things are better!

May 24th, 2011 / 8:27 pm deadgod—

The careful reader will have seen that I’ve plainly signposted the occasion for my quip and subsequent remarks: what I take to be an irrationally apocalyptic tone (concerning some decline in fine writing in the relatively near past, whether ten years or a hundred).

To (over)simplify a complicated and long demonstration: Yes, there’s a 20th c. spate of all kinds of writing (to my knowledge, especially in European languages; we’re all talking here, I think, of writing in English), and much of it mediocre-to-wretched, either meretricious or calculatedly but unsuccessfully ‘high-brow’ or, simply, incompetent. But there’s plenty of fair-to-superb writing – I don’t know about >1% of the total flood, but I’ve been exposed to more good work buoyed by mere publicity – not even counting what’s hard to find – than there’s time to read carefully.

A careful reader will soon spot that I’ve nowhere “argued against” the commerce-and-“popularity”-independent writing that you champion with stirring bravery. I’m “arguing against” the self-aggrandizing theatrics of Chicken Literate – which a careful reader will understand to be a careless waste of breath, ha ha ha.

67 Comments

Archives

Meta