(no subject)

[shadowkat]

1. Lynn Shepard's article on Huffington Post on how JK Rowling shouldn't write any longer so that writers like herself can get half-a-chance - is just weird. I can't quite decide if she is being satirical or serious?

It's hard to do satire well on the internet, mainly because a lot of people write the same thing and ahem, mean it.

So unless you know the writer, you've no idea if they are being sarcastic. I've noticed my dry wit or sardonic wit flies over folks head on the internet. I sort of need a sarcasm icon.

Here's an excerpt:

When I told a friend the title of this piece she looked at me in horror and said, "You can't say that, everyone will just put it down to sour grapes!" And she does, of course, have a point. No struggling but relatively ambitious writer can possibly be anything other than envious. You'd be scarcely human otherwise. But this particular piece isn't about that.

I didn't much mind Rowling when she was Pottering about. I've never read a word (or seen a minute) so I can't comment on whether the books were good, bad or indifferent. I did think it a shame that adults were reading them (rather than just reading them to their children, which is another thing altogether), mainly because there's so many other books out there that are surely more stimulating for grown-up minds. But, then again, any reading is better than no reading, right? But The Casual Vacancy changed all that.

It wasn't just that the hype was drearily excessive, or that (by all accounts) the novel was no masterpiece and yet sold by the hundredweight, it was the way it crowded out everything else, however good, however worthwhile. That book sucked the oxygen from the entire publishing and reading atmosphere. And I chose that analogy quite deliberately, because I think that sort of monopoly can make it next to impossible for anything else to survive, let alone thrive. Publishing a book is hard enough at the best of times, especially in an industry already far too fixated with Big Names and Sure Things, but what can an ordinary author do, up against such a Golgomath?

I hope she's being satirical or sarcastic here, because if she's being serious? She should hang up the towel and not be a writer. I was told long ago by my creative writing Professor, James Yaffe that if I wanted to be the next Stephen King, or make a lot of money or be famous? To not be a writer. But if I had something to say, and the drive to say it - and the need to write - to write.

Also, this does not appear to be the smartest way of obtaining readers. If anything I think she may have alienated many potential readers. She alienated me.

You have to be careful as an artist - you are promoting your work constantly. If you put negative vibes out there - you risk alienating people who may have loved your work, but won't try it - because you put your foot in your mouth and pissed them off royally.

2. Yet another 100 Best Novel List - this round by someone that I've never heard of, named Robert McCrum.

He discusses it here:

I don't know, these lists tell me more about the one creating them then anything else. I don't really believe in best lists for novels, music, art, or film - mainly because it's subjective. And if people are honest with themselves, it most likely will change based on their mood and where they are in their lives. There's no way to objectively critique art - outside of technique, even that can be subjective. Some folks love slang, some hate it. Some love minimalist, some prefer adorned text. Some prefer plots, some character driven. Some people like really dark stories with anti-hero characters.
From the list below? I'm thinking this guy likes adorned text, formal, and male leads. Also adorned, or verbose. He's not into minimalism.

I certainly can't create my own best list - I've tried. I can't rank them. I've no idea what my favorite books are or which ones are the best. There's some I adored in my 20s that I'd hate now, and vice versa.

I've read a smattering of the books on the list. Some, I've never heard of. The list also slants towards 19th and 18th Century literature - which I'm not overly fond of, basically the books you are forced to read as an English Lit major because people have decided they are amazing and the best things ever published. And you wade through the thing, analyze it, and convince yourself that yes, this is the best thing ever. And feel so proud for reading it. Now, over 20 years later? I find it all rather silly. My favorite courses in English Lit - were the contemporary literary courses, including one in which we read science fiction. My least favorite were the 18th Century novel.

At any rate - he picks Emma over Pride and Prejudice and Persuasion. I'd have picked P&P, there's more going on. Emma is rather limited in characterization. Also the hero is boring.

Comments

[nathskywalker.livejournal.com]

Oh she's totally serious. That appeal at the end of the piece that seems to follow the logic of "hey, JK, if you stop publishing, me and all other small authors will gain more exposure" makes that pretty clear to me. Sadly, to me that ignores the fact that (and you point this out) if it's now Rowling's new book that gains huge mainstream attention, then it'll be the next Stephen King or Harper Lee or... something. It's always something. She's singling out Rowling because (according to Google, at least), Lynn Shepherd seems to be a British crime novelist, so I think Shepherd feels that Rowling is infringing on her territory with her recent novels whereas Harry Potter was more "harmless" as it was geared towards a different market. Although not completely harmless as she feels the need to voice contempt at adults who are dumb enough to read Harry Potter for their own enjoyment. Don't those idiots know those books are for children?

I think her mentality is along the lines of Rowling having made enough money and not needing to write anymore whereas she, Lynn Shepherd (and she uses "us" to create complicity), needs it. You're right that her logic is severely warped, that she's writing for the wrong reasons. This whole piece is just weird and singling out Rowling along with that title is such an attention-grabbing move.


And that's a very white, very European and very male list. Very traditional without many surprises when it comes to authors and then, as you point out, these small things like Emma instead of Pride and Prejudice to mix things up. Or Haroun and the Seven Seas instead of Midnight's Children or Satanic Verses.

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

It's a weird piece - because she starts out by saying that her friend warned her not to write this. That she'd be perceived as a jealous and envious fool, alienating potential readers. But she completely ignores this advice and writes it anyhow - and publishes it on Huffington Post, which gets distributed to people who didn't know she existed until now.

She comes across as entitled whiny jerk. Who'd want to read her novels?

And singling out JK Rowlings is rather absurd. Ruth Rendell, PD James, Anne Perry, and various other best selling British Crime novelists, including Minnette Walters - would give her a run for her money. Also she's competing with American crime novelists and a million others. She needs to ignore all that. People can and do read a lot of books in one year. Mystery readers often read one a week.

I think she was attacked, they had to seal off the comments.

I get the temptation - as a writer, you think, damn, why is that idiot getting all the sales and I'm not? I can write circles around them! But it's subjective. And you can't control who your novel will attract or speak to. I mean - a lot of writers have blogged about the novel "Grey" by EL James selling over a million copies - and how horrible that is. (And yes, it is grating, because James basically edited her previous novels and inserted the male perspective into them. But hey, people wanted that. There was something James tapped into - and they wanted it. Raging about it - isn't going to change their desire for that book. All it will do is alienate people from reading your book.)

She's basically bashing jello against a wall. It was stupid. Her friend advised her not to do it. And it made her look unprofessional, whiny and silly. I'm willing to bet she lost more than one potential reader posting that. Because, as I've read in multiple places, as a professional writer - you have to set a tone or brand that attracts a readership. And be very careful in regards to that brand.

And that's a very white, very European and very male list. Very traditional without many surprises when it comes to authors and then, as you point out, these small things like Emma instead of Pride and Prejudice to mix things up. Or Haroun and the Seven Seas instead of Midnight's Children or Satanic Verses.

Agreed. I see very novels by Asian writers, if any. It suggests the reviewer isn't as broadly read as he thinks?

I disagreed with a lot of his selections. It reminds me of why these sorts of lists really don't work all that well. If anything they show how limited in range the list-makers are.

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

Ah, found a rather good article - regarding the response to Shepard's post.

http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-26331650

Apparently, my assessment was on target - she did alienate millions of potential readers.

I particularly liked these responses from these professional writers, who are also genre writers, and B list:

"What Ms. Shepherd appears to be suggesting is that Rowling should be happy with the success she's earned, and should stop, because apparently, there is no more reason for Rowling to continue writing in the adult market," writes author Nathan Scalia for Lit Reactor.

It's a "ridiculous" argument, he says. "If my book doesn't succeed, it's because it didn't resonate with fans the same way that Harry Potter did. There's room enough on the bookshelf for both."

Shepherd misunderstands literary economics, says author Larry Correia.

" I can't think of a faster way to totally tank your career than to piss off a WORLD of readers by looking like a jealous, petty, wannabe hack," Tymber Dalton, Romance author

"JK Rowling making a dollar does not take a dollar out of your pocket," he writes. "That is loser talk. Quite the contrary, she has grown our market, and brought more readers into genre fiction, so she's actually put dollars IN your pocket. "

Steven Salvatore Shaw writes for the blog beautifulCHAOS that Shepherd is belittling young adult (YA) novels.

"There is so much more room for creativity with text in the YA genre than in adult fiction (not that I'm knocking adult fiction by any stretch), but it's obvious that Shepherd hasn't bothered to understand the genre that she's trying - and failing miserably - to critique," he writes.

But why stop at criticising Shepherd? Amanda Green on the blog According to Hoyt contends that the author reflects the entitled attitude of an entire generation.

"They haven't been taught what it means to have to face consequences for their actions or inactions," she writes. "Our schools don't help. How can they when more and more of them are doing away with pesky little things like homework or take a test one time and learn to live with your score?"

Romance author Tymber Dalton writes that Shepherd's piece is a shining example for new authors of what not to say in public.

"I can't think of a faster way to totally tank your career than to piss off a WORLD of readers by looking like a jealous, petty, wannabe hack," she writes.


Also, from Anne Rice (of Interview With a Vampire fame) has also weighed in on the topic. On her Facebook page, she calls Shepherd's piece a "vicious, cynical, resentful and thoroughly ugly article".

She continues:

Never have I seen anything this malicious ever directed towards an actor, a painter, a ballet dancer, an opera singer, a film director. No, this is the kind of petty, spiteful condescending criticism that is for some reason reserved for writers in our world. And that it was written by some one who is a writer herself makes it doubly nasty and shocking...

In my life as a novelist, I've come to believe we are only in competition with ourselves when we strive to do our best; there is plenty of room for a multitude of successful endeavors in the ever changing world of books and readers, and there always will be.

[rahirah]

IIRC Shepard was roundly mocked for that article when it first came out. I've never seen grapes any sourer.

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

I thought it was satire -- it struck me as absurd in so many ways. Then I discovered it was published last year --and she was ripped apart from multiple angles.

A lot of people decided to post one star reviews, which Amazon has since removed, because it is illegal to post a negative review of a book or product that you have no knowledge of. That's libel and slander, and not protected by the First Amendment.

[elisi]

Why pick JK Rowling though? EL James would have been a much better target...

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

No, not for what she was targeting. EL James writes new adult erotica, not mystery. She had no issue with JK Rowling writing children's books - her issue was with her writing mystery novels and taking potential sales away from her.

It's an absurd article that I think comes out of a place of frustration, desperation, jealousy and envy.

I sort of get it -- or at least the temptation. To draw attention to oneself. And to rant.
But ultimately, it has a nasty negative result.

[elisi]

She had no issue with JK Rowling writing children's books - her issue was with her writing mystery novels and taking potential sales away from her.
Ah. Well. As Cordelia would say 'My these grapes are sour'...

I sort of get it -- or at least the temptation. To draw attention to oneself. And to rant. But ultimately, it has a nasty negative result.
Behaving like a 5 year old doesn't win you many friends, no.

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

Ah. Well. As Cordelia would say 'My these grapes are sour'...

Which is why I thought it was a satire...because she starts out saying "sour grapes" but no, this isn't about that.

Did however read an interesting online article in Forbes about it - looking at it from an economic perspective...ie. the rich get richer, the poor never get ahead. Except...for the fact that JK Rowling was on homeless and on welfare when she started writing (ie starving artist), and Lynn Shepard was at Oxford and Yale, and a business executive at Guiness, also got a PH.D. (So clearly came from lots of money or lucked out with heavy duty scholarships...since Oxford ain't cheap, nor is Yale.)

Behaving like a 5 year old doesn't win you many friends, no.

After over 10 years on the internet...I've discovered it has a odd tendency to bring out the five year old in the best of us. So I think this is in part a failing of the internet - there's a tendency to say dumb things on it...that you'd be less likely to print or state in a print publication or face-to-face.

The reactions to Lynn Shepard's post were just as bad. (Various people illegally tried to defame her publications on Amazon. Trying to punish her for the horrific crime of stating an unpopular opinion on Huffington Post.) The internet leads folks to knee-jerk reactions and hyperbole. And it goes viral.

Also satire is lost on the internet. It's hard to carry off satire or sarcasm. People take everything far too seriously or literally.

It's so easy to fall into trollish behavior on the net...particularly if you don't have to use your own name. I see it all the time on Good Reads, Fan Boards, LJ, etc.

Heck - look at the stupidity over the Hugos, you have 30-50 year old men acting like little kids over whether or not their favorite author or favorite story tropes are honored with an trophy that is basically a toy rocket-ship.

[elisi]

Heck - look at the stupidity over the Hugos, you have 30-50 year old men acting like little kids over whether or not their favorite author or favorite story tropes are honored with an trophy that is basically a toy rocket-ship.
*tries to keep straight face* Although to be fair, they're supposed to be a sign of quality. I can understand why they're upset. It's a bit like FanLib.