(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.