# "Self-Published Authors are Destroying Literature"



## Jude Hardin (Feb 5, 2011)

According to Michael Kozlowski.

http://goodereader.com/blog/commentary/self-published-authors-are-destroying-literature/


----------



## B. Justin Shier (Apr 1, 2011)

Step 1: http://www.thepassivevoice.com/06/2013/self-published-authors-are-destroying-literature/

Step 2: http://lauraresnickauthor.wordpress.com/2013/06/18/self-publishing-is-destroying-the-world-oh-nooooooo/

Step 3: get back to WIP

B.


----------



## jnfr (Mar 26, 2011)

We are all-powerful! /flex


----------



## Steve W. (Feb 23, 2011)

B. Justin Shier said:


> B.


You know, I don't even mind when people make these kinds of arguments. I kind of like discussing that kind of thing. But this example is exactly as B. Justin Shier so brilliantly illustrated... it's a troll. Not worth the time. It's so ridiculous that I wouldn't even justify it with a comment. Trolls are best ignored, imo.


----------



## Nick Endi Webb (Mar 25, 2012)

Where's Ryk?
http://www.kboards.com/index.php/topic,154369.0.html


----------



## gljones (Nov 6, 2012)

Sometimes the air gets thin up there when you put yourself that high on a pedestal.


----------



## Quiss (Aug 21, 2012)

jnfr said:


> We are all-powerful! /flex


Mwhahahahahaha (Don't forget the hunched-shoulders-rubbing-hands thing)


----------



## Darren Wearmouth (Jan 28, 2013)

An interesting piece for a couple of reasons.

Firstly, I don't see any self-published book destroying anything. It's the general readers choice, not Mr. Kozlowski's.

Secondly, who exactly are Lion publications who he has published under? It seems to me like a paid service. Is Mr. Kozlowski in a sulk because of poor sales or a bad vanity press experience?

_Using the combined publishing model pioneered by Lion Publications, Defense Lion can make publishing your own book quick and easy. Once we have your copy, we can copy-edit and format your book, provide a cover design and promote it on the international market. Defense Lion Publications can also convert your book into an eBook and distribute your eBook in EPUB and Kindle formats making it compatible with the Apple iPad, Sony Reader, Nook, Stanza and more._

Here is the book.
http://www.amazon.com/The-Long-Patrol-Charleston-ebook/dp/B00CF04DT2/ref=sr_1_1?s=digital-text&ie=UTF8&qid=1371654649&sr=1-1

Just asking...


----------



## Joshua Dalzelle (Jun 12, 2013)

I too enjoy a civil discussion on the pros and cons of each path, but incendiary posts like that are useless in the discourse. After reading that one could make the legitimate argument that bloggers are destroying journalism. After all, why should his unsubstantiated claims and unqualified opinions be posted next to expert analysis from people in the field?


----------



## B. Justin Shier (Apr 1, 2011)

On the bright side, I just came across this YouTube channel called neros77

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vInIaF1oJtA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f3ywzKKHRRM

B.


----------



## Incognita (Apr 3, 2011)

Thanks, Scully. That pretty much sums up my feelings.


----------



## zandermarks (May 20, 2013)

Jude Hardin said:


> According to Michael Kozlowski.
> 
> http://goodereader.com/blog/commentary/self-published-authors-are-destroying-literature/


Oh my gosh!

And if you scroll down the page, _my banner_ is in the right column!

But the real gem is this:

_"The vast majority of self-published authors definitely incur my everlasting ire, but hybrid authors gain my respect. Often, these folk cut their teeth with major publishers and now self-publish for a little bit more control."_

He wants it both ways.

So...it's okay to self-publish (it even earns his _respect_) as long as he thinks you're good.


----------



## August Wainwright (Apr 25, 2013)

Yea, I thought about writing an article on how atrocious his piece was, but then I decided to have breakfast instead.

Seriously, sometimes there are good discussions to be had. And, sometimes, when it's civilized, and pros and cons to both sides are well presented, it actually seems to help bring indies into a greater light, and show our professionalism.

*This is not that. *

This is a ridiculous opinion piece, backed by little to no facts, by an "editor" of a site looking for attention. Engaging in conversation with someone like that is completely unnecessary and is exactly what he wants. There are only losers when people debate a jackass like that...


----------



## Janet Michelson (Jun 20, 2012)

Let me know if anyone says anything new on this topic. Until then, I'm not even going to click on the link or make a comment. It's like reading the same newspaper article 25 times. Who cares?


----------



## Soothesayer (Oct 19, 2012)

It is just a matter of time before BigGov gets involved in this and screws it up. Whether they break up Amazon is another matter, but I wouldn't put anything past them.

And really, *he* should talk of spam, when his whole page is saturated with it? Pot, meet kettle.


----------



## swolf (Jun 21, 2010)

WoooHooo!  Another milestone reached!

At our next meeting of S.P.E.W. (Self Published Evil Writers), we'll have to check off the 'Destroy Literature' item on our agenda, and move onto 'End Civilization'.


----------



## brendajcarlton (Sep 29, 2012)

I beg to differ. Self-publishing is saving literature from a narrow-minded Manhatten-centric view of the world.


----------



## Rykymus (Dec 3, 2011)

I'm with Scully.


----------



## Rick Gualtieri (Oct 31, 2011)

"Melville, Dickinson, Steinbeck...I'm coming for you next! Prepare to be obliterated. Oh yeah!" (said in my best wrestler voice)


----------



## Tim_A (May 25, 2013)

If "literature" can't survive my little booky then, frankly it deserves what it gets.

*Dickens must die* Bwahahahahaha! "Bite me."


----------



## fallswriter (Sep 11, 2012)

It's really not the article that's worth reading. Same old same old with some really poor "research" used as facts. It's the comments that are more readable. In there, he does some amazing insulting. But here's the thing - he's getting exactly what he wants, which is lots of views on the "article". 

If you do check it out, skip the commentary and go to the comments.


----------



## heavycat (Feb 14, 2011)

Ahh skip it


----------



## David &#039;Half-Orc&#039; Dalglish (Feb 1, 2010)




----------



## Guest (Jun 19, 2013)

Don't feed the trolls. Don't even give them the SEO benefit of a link on KB. Don't click on their links. Don't write blog posts about their links. 

of course, not feeding trolls might well eliminate a third of the threads here on KB, but somehow I think we'd manage.


----------



## Laura Kingsley (Jun 11, 2013)

I wonder how many people read the comments and then bolt to look up some of the authors?

While I'm an editor not a writer, I would think if I put something out like this, I'd be smart enough not to engage in debates after.  Just let the article stand as your final word on the subject.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

fallswriter said:


> It's really not the article that's worth reading. Same old same old with some really poor "research" used as facts. It's the comments that are more readable. In there, he does some amazing insulting. But here's the thing - he's getting exactly what he wants, which is lots of views on the "article".
> 
> If you do check it out, skip the commentary and go to the comments.


He wants lots of clicks, and I'm happy to help him get them. When the opposition does something stupid, I want as many people as possible to watch.

His article is very weak, and the opposing comments are very strong. Give him what he wants. Give him an audience.


----------



## Christa Wick (Nov 1, 2012)

From the article's "author" in the comments section



> Likely, most indie authors have not even graduated college.


I have a post-doctoral degree. He went to the Art Institute of Vancouver with a 2-year BA in Game Design. (Not that there's anything wrong with that - I'd love SOME art education on top of my advanced degree.)


----------



## brendajcarlton (Sep 29, 2012)

> From the article's "author" in the comments section
> 
> Quote
> 
> ...


I did in fact graduate *FROM* college. A college is not something you can graduate. It is something you can graduate from. I also got very close to a perfect score in the verbal section of my SAT's before I went to college. So bring it on.


----------



## ElisaBlaisdell (Jun 3, 2012)

brendajcarlton said:


> I did in fact graduate *FROM* college. A college is not something you can graduate. It is something you can graduate from. I also got very close to a perfect score in the verbal section of my SAT's before I went to college. So bring it on.


Well, although I thought that his writing sounded like an elementary-school report, I wouldn't want to criticize him for that. Isn't 'graduate college' just something that people on the other side of the Atlantic say?


----------



## JumpingShip (Jun 3, 2010)

DAWearmouth said:


> An interesting piece for a couple of reasons.
> 
> Firstly, I don't see any self-published book destroying anything. It's the general readers choice, not Mr. Kozlowski's.
> 
> ...


Is that the same guy though? I was looking at that book the other day and thought it was, but the Mike Kozlowski from the self-publishing sucks post hasn't mentioned anything about writing a book himself that I could see.


----------



## swolf (Jun 21, 2010)

MaryMcDonald said:


> Is that the same guy though? I was looking at that book the other day and thought it was, but the Mike Kozlowski from the self-publishing sucks post hasn't mentioned anything about writing a book himself that I could see.


He even claims he isn't:



> I am hardly a self-published author, and i don't claim to be.


----------



## Guest (Jun 19, 2013)

MaryMcDonald said:


> Is that the same guy though? I was looking at that book the other day and thought it was, but the Mike Kozlowski from the self-publishing sucks post hasn't mentioned anything about writing a book himself that I could see.


It appears he is part of a subsidy press, which is that seedy underbelly that calls itself a "full service publisher" while charging the authors. Lion Publication is a subsidy publisher/vanity press. These guys NEVER call what they do self-publishing. namely because self publishers can do for themselves what these creeps charge an arm and a leg for.


----------



## brendajcarlton (Sep 29, 2012)

> Well, although I thought that his writing sounded like an elementary-school report, I wouldn't want to criticize him for that. Isn't 'graduate college' just something that people on the other side of the Atlantic say?


Sorry, he flushed me out by making me mad. Getting back in my "everyone is the same" camouflage now.


----------



## Hugh Howey (Feb 11, 2012)

I'm a college drop-out.  

This is awful! Does this mean people will stop reading my books?!


----------



## Christa Wick (Nov 1, 2012)

Hugh Howey said:


> I'm a college drop-out.
> 
> This is awful! Does this mean people will stop reading my books?!


I've only read the first installment of Wool so far but I loved it. Amazing twist at the end. College doesn't make a writer. It certainly doesn't make a storyteller. You are definitely both.


----------



## zandermarks (May 20, 2013)

Hugh Howey said:


> I'm a college drop-out.
> 
> This is awful! Does this mean people will stop reading my books?!


This.
And Chris Rock was a _high school_ dropout...does this mean people will stop watching his comedy?


----------



## donSatalic (Jan 25, 2013)

Readers are having a more difficult time finding good books. Like those bins of DVDs at Walmart and Target, somewhere in there is a good movie. You just have to find it. Somewhere out there a young Hemingway has self-published his book. Will anyone be able to find him? We'll see.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

Hugh Howey said:


> I'm a college drop-out.
> 
> This is awful! Does this mean people will stop reading my books?!


The awful truth is out. Yep, now everyone returns your books. Sorry about that.


----------



## Cherise (May 13, 2012)

Janet Michelson said:


> Let me know if anyone says anything new on this topic. Until then, I'm not even going to click on the link or make a comment. It's like reading the same newspaper article 25 times. Who cares?


What Janet said.


----------



## Lisa Grace (Jul 3, 2011)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> Don't feed the trolls. Don't even give them the SEO benefit of a link on KB. Don't click on their links. Don't write blog posts about their links.
> 
> of course, not feeding trolls might well eliminate a third of the threads here on KB, but somehow I think we'd manage.


I refuse to click on the link. I wish everyone here would boycott them as these trolls are ridiculous.  The only good they do is pull The Ginger (half orc) back into KBoards.


----------



## Lissie (May 26, 2011)

I do however agree with his comment about the spamming of social media by authors with their "BUY ME" links. No a day goes past without me removing another one from my self-publishing google plus community.  Many indies seem to have no clue.


----------



## Diane Patterson (Jun 17, 2012)

"Yeah? You think you're so tough? Who are you?"

"I'm part of a self-identified cabal that DESTROYED LITERATURE. Who are YOU?"

"..."

"And it's only Wednesday. Wanna join up, see what we can get done by Friday?"


----------



## 31842 (Jan 11, 2011)




----------



## Darren Wearmouth (Jan 28, 2013)

MaryMcDonald said:


> Is that the same guy though? I was looking at that book the other day and thought it was, but the Mike Kozlowski from the self-publishing sucks post hasn't mentioned anything about writing a book himself that I could see.


Yes. I can't wait for his next exciting post, crowing about the greatness of vanity publishing.


----------



## H. S. St. Ours (Mar 24, 2012)

August Wainwright said:


> Yea, I thought about writing an article on how atrocious his piece was, but then I decided to have breakfast instead.


This!


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

donSatalic said:


> Readers are having a more difficult time finding good books. Like those bins of DVDs at Walmart and Target, somewhere in there is a good movie. You just have to find it. Somewhere out there a young Hemingway has self-published his book. Will anyone be able to find him? We'll see.


Wonder how many young Hemingways have settled to the bottom of the traditional slush pile? Life is tough for those guys. Without the kind of nurturing Snooki got, their voices may be lost forever. Sad...


----------



## Ann Herrick (Sep 24, 2010)

Storytelling is an ancient art form. It's just that now people have an easily accessible option to publish their stories.


----------



## Desmond X. Torres (Mar 16, 2013)

I read the first two pages of comments. It was great watching them take him to school. 

He's tired of the twitter feeds and the FB crapola that's out there. Whoop dee doo. So am I! Which is why I hardly use those venues- there's just too much stuff to sift through. But what the hey, I can't remember the last time I blogged either.

Too busy writing. Just finished a 4K word day. My avg is about 2K, so it was a fun way to wrap it up.


----------



## Victorine (Apr 23, 2010)

KateDanley said:


>


Hahahahahahahaha!!


----------



## John Daulton (Feb 28, 2012)

Hugh Howey said:


> I'm a college drop-out.
> 
> This is awful! Does this mean people will stop reading my books?!


OMG, you are? I freaking loved Wool ... but clearly now I have to go get myself lobotomized to get that drivel out of my head.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

David 'Half-Orc' Dalglish said:


>


"Self-published authors" should have gone right after "dogs and cats living together". I am sure that it didn't was an oversight on the part of the script writers.


----------



## Patty Jansen (Apr 5, 2011)

There will always be people who have their heads so far up their backsides that they can see out their mouths.

They'll find some sort of "I'm better than you" argument and spew forth their nonsense.

Ignore them.


----------



## Rykymus (Dec 3, 2011)

Whenever some idiot carries on about how not graduating from college means you can't be any good at anything, I just whip out my list of successful college drop-outs.

1. Bill Gates

Should I go on?


----------



## John Daulton (Feb 28, 2012)

JRTomlin said:


> "Self-published authors" should have gone right after "dogs and cats living together". I am sure that it didn't was an oversight on the part of the script writers.


One of my favorite movie quotes of all time. Delivered so perfectly.


----------



## gregm (Feb 14, 2013)

Hugh Howey said:


> I'm a college drop-out.
> 
> This is awful! Does this mean people will stop reading my books?!


So now the truth comes out, eh?

Amber and Bella write his books, he's just a front man.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

John Daulton said:


> One of my favorite movie quotes of all time. Delivered so perfectly.


That was his best part ever. Absolutely perfect delivery.


----------



## N. Gemini Sasson (Jul 5, 2010)

KateDanley said:


>


Can we make this a banner and pin it to the top of the Writers' Cafe?


----------



## D.L. Shutter (Jul 9, 2011)

> Whenever some idiot carries on about how not graduating from college means you can't be any good at anything, I just whip out my list of successful college drop-outs.
> 
> 1. Bill Gates
> 
> Should I go on?


2. Stephen Spielberg


----------



## Lisa Grace (Jul 3, 2011)

D.L. Shutter said:


> 2. Stephen Spielberg


3. Mark Zuckerberg


----------



## John Daulton (Feb 28, 2012)

LisaGraceBooks said:


> 3. Mark Zuckerberg


4. William Faulkner (seems like he should be higher on this list we're making lol)


----------



## Cherise (May 13, 2012)

Rykymus said:


> Whenever some idiot carries on about how not graduating from college means you can't be any good at anything, I just whip out my list of successful college drop-outs.
> 
> 1. Bill Gates
> 
> Should I go on?


5. Steve Jobs


----------



## ElHawk (Aug 13, 2012)

swolf said:


> WoooHooo! Another milestone reached!
> 
> At our next meeting of S.P.E.W. (Self Published Evil Writers), we'll have to check off the 'Destroy Literature' item on our agenda, and move onto 'End Civilization'.


Is "Induce Ragnarok" a part of the "End Civilization" bit? I hope so.

As for the article: DERP.


----------



## ChrisWard (Mar 10, 2012)

It sucks being poor. I knew I should have dropped out of college ...


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

Cherise Kelley said:


> 5. Steve Jobs


Dylan Thomas didn't drop out of university. He never even started. Better make sure he's dropped from all "great writer" lists.


----------



## DCBourone (Sep 10, 2012)

Yes, lots of dismal books.

And some truly stunning jewels.

And millions of delighted readers who somehow manage to sort through
the debris and find what they want.

And thousands, dare we say thousands? Of mid-list authors making a 
tidy if not extravagant living doing what they love to do.

A Voice from the Future:

A publisher asking what's on the dollar menu...


----------



## Shane Murray (Aug 1, 2012)

ChristinePope said:


> Thanks, Scully. That pretty much sums up my feelings.


Yeah, Scully has it down.

Yawn.

The obvious answer to this is "bad authors are destroying literature" or "typos and grammar mistakes are destroying literature". There are so many threads about this kind of thing on here that I really don't care who says it anymore. If there is a God, and he, she, it, or whatever came down and said "Self-Published Authors are Destroying Literature", I would still yawn.


----------



## Andrea Harding (Feb 27, 2013)

I love that he criticises the editing of ebooks yet he makes grammatical errors himself.

People in glass houses and all that...


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

We just visited this topic last week with some other loud-mouth sounding off about the same thing.

Again: so what?

/returns to, y'know, writing...


----------



## ElisaBlaisdell (Jun 3, 2012)

John Daulton said:


> 4. William Faulkner (seems like he should be higher on this list we're making lol)


Did Dickens or Mark Twain even make it to high school?


----------



## Jude Hardin (Feb 5, 2011)

Hugh Howey said:


> I'm a college drop-out.
> 
> This is awful! Does this mean people will stop reading my books?!


There's quite a bit of learning involved in being able to put something as complex as a novel together, but of course college has nothing to do with it. I've met people with MFAs who were pretty terrible writers. This Kozlowski guy just doesn't have a clue about much of anything.


----------



## ElHawk (Aug 13, 2012)

Ha ha!!  Did this guy really say that self-publishers are all college dropouts, and that Real Published Authors went to college?

Lol, lol, lol.


----------



## sstober (Jun 18, 2013)

Welcome to the democratic world of the Internet. I believe that Amazon and others have quickly opened up the e-book world to indie authors to establish themselves as a viable alternative to the traditional press. 

There is a problem as you note in that there is too much schlock out there; anyone can put up an e-book without ensuring that it is well written and properly edited. I think that we're in a development phase of this new publishing world. There will probably be a pendulum swing whereby Amazon, KOBO, etc., will start to implement standards and reviews. That of course, will involve delays and possible costs to the indie author. 

If that happens, then we'll probably see the pendulum swing again and another label will pop up that may just host indie book with no reviews. Who knows what's going to happen. But one thing is for certain, Amazon has successfully given a platform to people like me to put out a novel for the world to read and enjoy. We no longer have to wait for book agents to make up their minds whether they will represent our work and then have to wait an eternity for a publisher to make a move.


----------



## Error404 (Sep 6, 2012)

Jude Hardin said:


> According to Michael Kozlowski.
> 
> http://goodereader.com/blog/commentary/self-published-authors-are-destroying-literature/


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

A troll! Quick everyone: pay attention to him as hard as you can. Everyone knows trolls _hate_ attention!


----------



## Beatriz (Feb 22, 2011)

Jude Hardin said:


> According to Michael Kozlowski.
> 
> http://goodereader.com/blog/commentary/self-published-authors-are-destroying-literature/


I hate to admit it but some of the things he says are true. That said, there's nothing he can do about it. And a lot of the traditionally published books have been trashy too, so indies haven't invented the trend here as he seems to suggest. I do agree that there's a lack of respect for writers today though, because anyone can publish a book. The readers have the last word as always and maybe a lot of them do like trashy books. I read some self published books (free) that were simply awful, yet they seem to be doing very well according to their rankings. The last one I read (and I won't mention the name) was simply a blog with lots of comments and it was simply terrible, boring, repetitious, with inane conversations back and forth with her readers, and yet she's doing very well thank you very much. So go figure. Art seems to be in the eye of the beholder.


----------



## Joshua Dalzelle (Jun 12, 2013)

I think he accomplished his goals... he got a lot of clicks and probably generated a whole $5.75 for his effort.

The college argument is absurd as are nearly all of his points. The fact he tried to dive into the comments and argue those points turned it from an eye-roller to actual laugh-out-loud entertaining. 

I think literature was being destroyed long before we came along... when publishers concentrated on $$ over art the wheels started to come off the cart. (Not a knock on the Big 6, they're a business and businesses are supposed to make money.) When a Twilight, 50 Shades, or Harry Potter comes along and takes off you can guarantee that the only thing the mainstream publishers will pump out will be pretty vampires, BSDM, and boy wizards ad nauseum. Whatever trend they can capitalize on. 

I still go to brick and mortar bookstores because I enjoy browsing. What do I see in the science fiction section? The prerequisite classics (maybe) and rows and rows of Star Wars and Star Trek licensed fiction. I never see anything new or exciting and certainly nothing like WOOL or Old Man's War or the Frontiers Saga. 

Literature can't be "destroyed" by a handful of indie authors putting their work on a handful of platforms and in the end the readers will decide what is good and what isn't.


----------



## ElHawk (Aug 13, 2012)

Beatriz said:


> Art seems to be in the eye of the beholder.


And it always has been. Taste is totally subjective. "Good" is totally subjective. "Great" and "important" are subjective. I don't see the problem with this.

Troll or not, the points he raised in his article are raised all the time by non-trolls, so they're worth discussing. There have been horrible books around for as long as there have been books. Books have become popular for reasons some people cannot fathom. Self-publishing hasn't changed anything about that, except that now a greater quantity of books are available. That means there are more terrible books, more terrible books becoming inexplicably popular, and more excellent books -- all depending on your perspective.

Greatness in literature is not threatened by an increased quantity of badness, and anyway, who's to judge what's great and what's bad? The books that have always been thought of as "great" by whatever population you care to sample will still be written. They'll still be accessible. In fact, more of them will be accessible than ever before. If you aren't the type who thinks teenage vampire blog books or books about sexytime adventures are "great," then you're not going to bother with reading those anyway, so why do you give a tin poop whether there are more of them? The people who buy and read and laud those books don't give a tin poop about my Super Deep Literary Fiction, either, so I'm not losing any potential audience members; increased access to sexytime adventures with blogging vampires don't threaten my ability to find _my _ audience.

And that's all that really need to be said to the people who shriek about the sky falling, whether they're trolls or not.


----------



## jabeard (Apr 22, 2011)

“Times are bad. Children no longer obey their parents, and everyone is writing a book.” 
― Marcus Tullius Cicero (106 BC-43 BC)


----------



## Kathy Clark Author (Dec 18, 2012)

It's unclear who this person is or where and how he earned his credentials but Michael Kozlowski's blurb was not well written and clearly not balanced.  This is another case where a really good article could have been brought forward but for whatever reason they elected not to do the heavy lifting and write the real story.

In the Indie / self published author pool are many many recognized best selling authors, long time traditionally published and highly successful authors who have sold millions of books but who have elected to reduce the price of their books for their readers and simultaneously raise their income by cutting the non-essential steps and costs out of the business.

I get tired reading people's thoughts who are trying to raise their cache by slashing others down.

Sad.  Very sad.


----------



## John Daulton (Feb 28, 2012)

ElisaBlaisdell said:


> Did Dickens or Mark Twain even make it to high school?


I think I read somewhere that Dickens eventually went to school, but I'd have to look it up (and have to look up Mark Twain), but it's too early in the morning for me. I'm too lazy even for Wikipedia right now.


----------



## Cherise (May 13, 2012)

According to Wikipedia, Charles Dickens was forced by poverty to drop out of school at the age of 11.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Dickens

"Charles John Huffam Dickens was born on 7 February 1812, at Landport in Portsea, the second of eight children to John Dickens (1785-1851) and Elizabeth Dickens (née Barrow 1789-1863). His father was a clerk in the Navy Pay Office and was temporarily on duty in the district. Very soon after his birth the family moved to Norfolk Street, Bloomsbury, and then, when he was four, to Chatham, Kent, where he spent his formative years until the age of 11. His early years seem to have been idyllic, though he thought himself a "very small and not-over-particularly-taken-care-of boy".[13]

"...This period came to an abrupt end when, because of financial difficulties, the Dickens family moved from Kent to Camden Town in London in 1822..."


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

ElisaBlaisdell said:


> Did Dickens or Mark Twain even make it to high school?


No, but that wasn't terribly unusual in that age. At an early age, Twain was apprenticed.


----------



## Caddy (Sep 13, 2011)

> Art seems to be in the eye of the beholder.


Well, yeah. That's the purpose of art. Art is a barometer of society in many ways. It should make people think, but too many people refuse to (or can't). At the very least, it should cause a reaction. If it cause a reaction (positive or negative) it has succeeded. The only bad art is art that is ignored.

But, we really don't want another art rant from me, do we? 

Now back to work. I will have the first draft of the first book in my new series completed today. I wasn't going to even read this thread because all of these blogs are the same, but I needed a break and - oh my God - I saw the word "art"...and couldn't control myself.


----------



## pauldude000 (May 22, 2013)

brendajcarlton said:


> I beg to differ. Self-publishing is saving literature from a narrow-minded Manhatten-centric view of the world.


Raises a glass of bubbly in toast to this statement.

Okay, well, it is really a cup of coffee and who cares whether it fizzes or not.


----------



## Andre Jute (Dec 18, 2010)

jabeard said:


> "Times are bad. Children no longer obey their parents, and everyone is writing a book."
> ― Marcus Tullius Cicero (106 BC-43 BC)


Koslowski commits the newbie error of equating literature with contemporary publishing. Publishing, whether by the accountants who now run the Big Six, or by indies, has nothing to do with literature. Literature is what in any age has survived the worst publishing could do to books. The key word is "survive". The literature of our time will be what has survived crass accountants and the tsunami of indie pornography. It's an unpredictable business. Maybe pornography will in a century or two be seen as classics defining our time.


----------



## Andrew Ashling (Nov 15, 2010)

Jude Hardin said:


> According to Michael Kozlowski.
> 
> http://goodereader.com/blog/commentary/self-published-authors-are-destroying-literature/












If John Kennedy Toole could have self-published, maybe he wouldn't have hung himself and written more books.

Who knows how many great works we lost through the self-serving practices of traditional publishers? Self-publishing is saving literature from them.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

If he had independently published, who would we blame if his book wasn't noticed until after his death? Wonder how many great books are independently published, but are never noticed? I also wonder how many great books are traditionally published, but never noticed. In both cases, they are lost.


----------



## Andrew Ashling (Nov 15, 2010)

Terrence OBrien said:


> If he had independently published, who would we blame if his book wasn't noticed until after his death? Wonder how many great books are independently published, but are never noticed? I also wonder how many great books are traditionally published, but never noticed. In both cases, they are lost.


Neither of those are "lost." They can be found. They could at any moment be discovered.

John Kennedy Toole's book was saved by his mother who kept submitting it and got lucky one day.

I wonder how many writers stopped submitting after several rejection letters and whose books weren't saved by someone but were thrown out with the trash after their death or died together with their HD.

I wonder how many writers got discouraged and stopped writing although they still had several books in them.

Those are the books that are truly and irretrievably lost.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

Andrew Ashling said:


> Neither of those are "lost." They can be found. They could at any moment be discovered.
> 
> John Kennedy Toole's book was saved by his mother who kept submitting it and got lucky one day.
> 
> ...


I'm sure all kinds of great stuff hasn't made it to the public. And I don't expect that to change. But I also think there are lots of reasons. I don't pin it on publishers's self-interest. I'm not sure what other interest they should embrace. In fact I applaud self-interest. Look at all the self-interested folks hitting the KDP upload button.


----------



## psychotick (Jan 26, 2012)

Hi,

When I set out on my journey of self publishing one of my top five goals was in fact to destroy literature! Now I see this is going well and will turn my attention to destroying grammar! (She brought me bad cookies when I was young!)

But seriously who is this turkey? If he had a brain cell he'd realise that what is and what isn't literature hasn't yet been decided for what's in the market. Far from destroying it a lot of self published work is destined to become literature in time.

Cheers, Greg.


----------



## Shane Murray (Aug 1, 2012)

Vaalingrade said:


> A troll! Quick everyone: pay attention to him as hard as you can. Everyone knows trolls _hate_ attention!


I am SO using this in a fantasy novel.


----------



## Andrew Ashling (Nov 15, 2010)

Terrence OBrien said:


> I'm sure all kinds of great stuff hasn't made it to the public. And I don't expect that to change.


It has changed already. Stuff that didn't make it to the public because publishers didn't see any value in it, now does.



Terrence OBrien said:


> I don't pin it on publishers's self-interest.


I do. I'm not saying they shouldn't be self-interested, but they shouldn't present themselves at the same time as the saviors of literature and self-publishers as the destroyers. They're not interested in literature or quality. Like you yourself so aptly stated: they're interested in themselves. Presenting themselves as some defenders of civilization is a scam to serve&#8230; their self-interest.

Only a few years ago writers couldn't be self-interested to the same degree as publishers have been for five hundred years. Now we can.



Terrence OBrien said:


> Look at all the self-interested folks hitting the KDP upload button.


As a result literature will benefit, far more so than when it had to depend on self-interested publishers.


----------



## Thomas Watson (Mar 8, 2012)

Couldn't help myself. When I saw the title to this one I thought, "What? Again?"


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

Andrew Ashling said:


> It has changed already. Stuff that didn't make it to the public because publishers didn't see any value in it, now does.


Sure it has changed. The way books get published has changed. The exposure and visibility books gets will always flow with the changes in the market and technology. But the changes also introduce new impediments to recognition. That's the nature of the market. I look more to probability than ability in these things. What's the probability a great work will gain the visibility to stake out it's spot in the culture? I don't know if probability is greater in the KDP pool or in the slush pile.



> I do. I'm not saying they shouldn't be self-interested, but they shouldn't present themselves at the same time as the saviors of literature and self-publishers as the destroyers. They're not interested in literature or quality. Like you yourself so aptly stated: they're interested in themselves. Presenting themselves as some defenders of civilization is a scam to serve&#8230; their self-interest.


I don't care how they present themselves. But I don't think we can pronounce on the level of their interest in literature or quality. That would depend on their self-interest. It's in their self-interest to deal in literature and quality to the extent that buying public wants to pay for it.



> Only a few years ago writers couldn't be self-interested to the same degree as publishers have been for five hundred years. Now we can.


Writers were always self-interested. Just like publishers. The difference today is they have more avenues to market their goods. And I doubt we can say independent authors care any more about literature and quality than publishers. But both groups put up a pretty good face.



> As a result literature will benefit, far more so than when it had to depend on self-interested publishers.


Not sure about that. Writers can't do it alone. There is a limit to the amount of literature and quality the market can absorb. At the most basic level, it is the demand of consumers that determines how much literature and quality we have. Compounding that is all the competition from self-interested authors like me who are producing entertainment rather than literature and quality. (I do hope it's quality entertainment, but doubt high school English teachers will be assigning it.)[/quote]

Bottom line: I don't expect much of a change in the cultural impact of what we're calling literature and quality. Consumers decide that. If they want it, they get it. If we're the only ones who want it, nobody cares.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

Someone frightened me at an early age with a copy of _Finnegans Wake_, and in revenge I set out to destroy literature. It isn't an easy job but a few dozen more novels I'm sure will get me there.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

JRTomlin said:


> Someone frightened me at an early age with a copy of _Finnegans Wake_, and in revenge I set out to destroy literature. It isn't an easy job but a few dozen more novels I'm sure will get me there.


The fact that people think independents can do it attests to how much market power independents have taken. Market power is a funny thing. Nobody gives it to you. You take it. And that's what this whole controversy is about. Power. Ain't this a great country?


----------



## Lady Vine (Nov 11, 2012)

Terrence OBrien said:


> The fact that people think independents can do it attests to how much market power independents have taken. Market power is a funny thing. Nobody gives it to you. You take it. And that's what this whole controversy is about. Power. Ain't this a great country?


God, I know! I didn't realise how much power I had. This is certainly a game-changer. And I'm sure there are a million English Literature students who will thank me for forcing Shakespeare, Chaucer, Poe, Fitzgerald et al off the syllabus. MWAHAHAHAHA!


----------



## Andrew Ashling (Nov 15, 2010)

Terrence OBrien said:


> Sure it has changed. The way books get published has changed. The exposure and visibility books gets will always flow with the changes in the market and technology. But the changes also introduce new impediments to recognition. That's the nature of the market. I look more to probability than ability in these things. What's the probability a great work will gain the visibility to stake out it's spot in the culture? I don't know if probability is greater in the KDP pool or in the slush pile.


At least the writer gets a chance now. He can just publish his work and present it to the public. Just a few years ago he was dependent on the questionable taste and the self-interest of the publishers. Now he can steer by the star of his own interest, whether that be financial gain or less material benefits.



Terrence OBrien said:


> Writers were always self-interested. Just like publishers. The difference today is they have more avenues to market their goods. And *I doubt we can say independent authors care any more about literature and quality than publishers*. But both groups put up a pretty good face.


You can doubt that, but you can't know it. Some writers may not care about sales figures per se, but choose to produce for niche groups. As independent authors they can do that and there is a good chance they can reach their micro-public. Something which isn't feasible, economically, for traditional publishers. Later it could transpire that this micro-public was just a group of early adopters of a new mainstream genre.
Other writers may choose to produce nothing but short stories. They can sell them one by one. Again impossible to do for traditional publishers.



Terrence OBrien said:


> Not sure about that. Writers can't do it alone. There is a limit to the amount of literature and quality the market can absorb. At the most basic level, it is the demand of consumers that determines how much literature and quality we have. Compounding that is all the competition from self-interested authors like me who are producing entertainment rather than literature and quality. (I do hope it's quality entertainment, but doubt high school English teachers will be assigning it.)


Agreed. Homer and Shakespeare had a high entertainment value (at least in their day). Literature and solid entertainment are not mutually exclusive.
What independent publishing does is enlarge the kinds of available literature and entertainment. With writers willing to write for a limited readership (that isn't served by traditional publishing) this means that variety increases. Which gives the consumer more choice as to what to read and why. Which, in my book, is A Good Thing.



Terrence OBrien said:


> Bottom line: I don't expect much of a change in the cultural impact of what we're calling literature and quality. Consumers decide that. If they want it, they get it. If we're the only ones who want it, nobody cares.


I expect at least as big an impact as when Mr. Gutenberg started printing books and made texts widely and cheaply (relatively speaking) available. People started to write in their native language (a practice despised by the Big 1 publisher of the day) and other people started to learn to read as a result.

We'll know for certain in a mere few decades.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

> author=Andrew Ashling link=topic=154672.msg2233963#msg2233963 date=1371777397]
> At least the writer gets a chance now. He can just publish his work and present it to the public. Just a few years ago he was dependent on the questionable taste and the self-interest of the publishers. Now he can steer by the star of his own interest, whether that be financial gain or less material benefits.


Agree. That is a benefit to the author. We will have to wait to see if it has an aggregate effect on literature and quality.



> You can doubt that, but you can't know it. Some writers may not care about sales figures per se, but choose to produce for niche groups. As independent authors they can do that and there is a good chance they can reach their micro-public. Something which isn't feasible, economically, for traditional publishers. Later it could transpire that this micro-public was just a group of early adopters of a new mainstream genre.
> Other writers may choose to produce nothing but short stories. They can sell them one by one. Again impossible to do for traditional publishers.


I agree my doubt does not rise to the level of certainty. I think we can find both publishers and authors who have all kinds of attitudes and motivations. Self-interest is a powerful thing, and often enhanced by misdirection from all sides.



> Agreed. Homer and Shakespeare had a high entertainment value (at least in their day). Literature and solid entertainment are not mutually exclusive.
> What independent publishing does is enlarge the kinds of available literature and entertainment. With writers willing to write for a limited readership (that isn't served by traditional publishing) this means that variety increases. Which gives the consumer more choice as to what to read and why. Which, in my book, is A Good Thing.


I agree choice is enlarged, and I would never contend literature and entertainment are mutually exclusive. Markets facilitate trade. I agree variety enhances consumer welfare.



> I expect at least as big an impact as when Mr. Gutenberg started printing books and made texts widely and cheaply (relatively speaking) available. People started to write in their native language (a practice despised by the Big 1 publisher of the day) and other people started to learn to read as a result.


I doubt it it. I don't know how the introduction of eBooks can ever match the incremental percentage increase in volumes and titles that came with Gutenberg.



> We'll know for certain in a mere few decades.


On that we agree. But we will still have folks trying to jump the gun with authors like Toole.


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

JRTomlin said:


> Someone frightened me at an early age with a copy of _Finnegans Wake_, and in revenge I set out to destroy literature. It isn't an easy job but a few dozen more novels I'm sure will get me there.


It was _My Antonia_. By the fifteen millionth time I read about 'red grass', I was super-sane, like the Joker.


----------



## 28612 (Dec 7, 2010)

Thanks Justin for posting:

Step 2: http://lauraresnickauthor.wordpress.com/2013/06/18/self-publishing-is-destroying-the-world-oh-nooooooo

I skipped Step 1, read Laura Resnick's fact-filled response (facts! can you imagine?)


----------



## ElHawk (Aug 13, 2012)

Andrew Ashling said:


> Neither of those are "lost." They can be found. They could at any moment be discovered.
> 
> John Kennedy Toole's book was saved by his mother who kept submitting it and got lucky one day.
> 
> ...


Vlad Nabokov's wife Vera intercepted him on the way to the back-yard incinerator with the only copy of _Lolita _in his hands. I get chills every time I think about what the world would be like if Vera hadn't stopped him. And I get worse chills when I think of all the equivalents of _Lolita _by other authors that did end up in the incinerator.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

ElHawk said:


> Vlad Nabokov's wife Vera intercepted him on the way to the back-yard incinerator with the only copy of _Lolita _in his hands. I get chills every time I think about what the world would be like if Vera hadn't stopped him. And I get worse chills when I think of all the equivalents of _Lolita _by other authors that did end up in the incinerator.


Have you considered the ones languishing unnoticed in the depths of KDP? No need for an incinerator.


----------



## John Daulton (Feb 28, 2012)

ElHawk said:


> Vlad Nabokov's wife Vera intercepted him on the way to the back-yard incinerator with the only copy of _Lolita _in his hands. I get chills every time I think about what the world would be like if Vera hadn't stopped him. And I get worse chills when I think of all the equivalents of _Lolita _by other authors that did end up in the incinerator.


Man, you ain't lying, and, uh, yeah, you ain't lying.


----------



## FMH (May 18, 2013)

Just like digital killed photography and "the talkies" killed silent films.

People who want to fight the changing times always claim "Ruined!  It's all ruined!  You're ruining everything with your change and forward thinking. grrrrrr"

Great way to get thousands of people to argue with you, though... and promote your article.  

Diabolical genius in the making.  heheh


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

ElHawk said:


> Vlad Nabokov's wife Vera intercepted him on the way to the back-yard incinerator with the only copy of _Lolita _in his hands. I get chills every time I think about what the world would be like if Vera hadn't stopped him. And I get worse chills when I think of all the equivalents of _Lolita _by other authors that did end up in the incinerator.


I'll go you one better.

God bless Tabitha King, who RESCUED Stephen's manuscript for CARRIE from the trash bin and insisted he submit it, after she read it and loved it.

Nabokov may have written about 20 novels, but he gave the world arguably only one notable work: LOLITA

King, by contrast, has penned 60+ works and counting, and at least a dozen of them are all-time classics.

Come to think of it... God bless the spouses, partners, and significant others of writers in general.  If it weren't for my wife, I might still be trying (and failing) to be effective in sales jobs where I was miserable, rather than dedicating myself to my writing.


----------



## Andre Jute (Dec 18, 2010)

ElHawk said:


> Vlad Nabokov's wife Vera intercepted him on the way to the back-yard incinerator with the only copy of _Lolita _in his hands. I get chills every time I think about what the world would be like if Vera hadn't stopped him. And I get worse chills when I think of all the equivalents of _Lolita _by other authors that did end up in the incinerator.


If _Lolita_ were published today on KDP, it would most likely sink without a trace in the tide of pornography.


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

Andre Jute said:


> If _Lolita_ were published today on KDP, it would most likely sink without a trace in the tide of pornography.


Oh, PLEASE, Andre. Wake up. Pornography is hardly a modern invention of the eBook age. It was widely available (usually in separate back rooms of normal book stores) when LOLITA was first published.

I sincerely doubt the presence of "naughty books" would drown LOLITA. The audiences for each don't really cross over. LOLITA's not "dirty enough" for porn audiences, and porn is "too dirty" for those who would read LOLITA.

Talk about REACHING for a windmill to tilt at...


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

I've gone several days without destroying any literature, so I'd better get on the ball.


----------



## swolf (Jun 21, 2010)

If Lolita really was pornography, it wouldn't be allowed on KDP because the girl is only twelve.


----------



## Lisa Grace (Jul 3, 2011)

JRTomlin said:


> I've gone several days without destroying any literature, so I'd better get on the ball.


Aww, come on! We're counting on you!

I'm upping my production with that goal in mind...

Lisa Grace "Where good meets evil", but I'll mis-spell it to say, "Where God meets devil".


----------



## Li Chaka (Apr 19, 2013)

I only read like 3 sentences of the first article posted. Wow, such ANGER  

Fact is I just finished reading 2 self published books cover to cover. Both were fantastic!
I am now reading "The Clockwork Angel" which is good, and long...but honestly, not any better than the self published books.

In fact I think I prefer Self Published now. Why? Because Self published books get to the point. The action comes hard and fast, there's just enough scene setting, no over doing it. We have to catch peoples attention quick! I love it! I find self published paranormal/action don't give you a chance to get bored. 

Do I find mistakes in the books? Yes. But who cares, really? As long as it isn't a ridiculous amount of errors, if a book is good It won't stop me from reading. FFS, give us self pubers a break! I had three editors and a beta reader read my book. Still I find little errors here and there when I reread my work. It is nearly impossible to have a book free from errors, OR say things the way everyone wants you to say it. And I find errors in trad. publishing books all the time. And they have thousands of dollars to throw at multiple editors so come on!

Bottom line, Haters gonna hate!


----------



## Li Chaka (Apr 19, 2013)

David 'Half-Orc' Dalglish said:


>


Did you know Eddie Murphey was suppose to play the part of Winston Zedmore?
Ghostbusters is one of the most awesome movies of all time...EVER! But can you imagine all that awesomeness with Eddie Murphey 
He was shooting Beverly Hills Cop or some movie I never seen at the time.

Ok, that's all. I absolutely hate wikipedia for telling me that. I always though Ghostbusters was perfect...till i found out Eddie Murphey was supposed to be Winston Zedmore!! 

/fangirl


----------



## Li Chaka (Apr 19, 2013)

> One thing indie authors have done is devalue the work of legitimate published authors. You know the type that write for a living, who have an editor and are considered accomplished, or at least well-read. The average indie title is $0.99 to $2.99, and the average publisher price is $7.99 - $12.99. Book buyers have been so conditioned to paying as little as possible that often they will not even consider a more expensive book.


Damn right I ain't considering it. lol. Why pay 12.99 for your book that might bore me to death when I can pay 3-4 dollars for an ebook. Even if it sucks it's only 3-4 dollars and It won't sit on my desk collecting dust.

Whoever wrote this maybe should wise up, find an editor his/herself and self publish their own work instead of throwing shade on self published authors. What is even the point of this article?

_"The point is to convince Self publish authors to either QUIT making their self published books, or raise the prices of their self published books so that way my industry book will be able to compete with theirs and I can make more money!"_

And then you woke up...so what happened after that? LOL


----------



## Hudson Owen (May 18, 2012)

It's late, but I want to say this.  There is some indication, from what others have written of me, that someday, possibly in my lifetime, several of my poems will pass from the so-called "community of poets" into the common language.  That would not be possible if I had not self-published The Endless Evolving Trilogy: A Poem Cycle, and a few years later, Selected Poems - 1967-2007.  I reluctantly published the former title after the mss. had been rejected by more than 60 publishers, large and small.  It is those people, in my opinion, who are destroying literature.


----------



## Rykymus (Dec 3, 2011)

"It is those people, in my opinion, who are destroying literature." - Hudson Owen

Well said, Hudson. Well said.


----------



## Christopher Bunn (Oct 26, 2010)

It takes a great deal of hubris, I think, to say that certain people are destroying literature. However, it takes an equal amount of hubris to say that certain other people, particularly ourselves, are creating literature. Neither role can be assigned or grasped.

Earlier in this thread, someone reiterated the old problem of taste being subjective. I'm not sure if it is or isn't; but, if it is, then I think self-published authors are simultaneously destroying and saving literature at the same time. If taste is purely subjective, then the books we write are equally dreadful and wonderful at the same time. So, er...carry on.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

Now what I want to be sure of is when I hit publish on my new novel tomorrow is _Moby Dick_ going to disappear? I never did like that novel so I'd like it to go first.


----------



## AmsterdamAssassin (Oct 21, 2011)

I commented on the article with this:

_

I hesitate responding this article, for a variety of reasons. Not only is the author trolling for attention, which is apparent from his obtuse responses in this comment section, but the title of the article is misleading. Literature is not a fragile flower wilting under the onslaught of self-published crap. All the arguments made in this article are nonsensical - just because the author of the article shows an inability to find good self-published e-books isn't a sign that 'good literature' is drowning in a (self-published) sea of crap, but rather that the author is not good at reading blurbs and/or downloading free samples to select books.

If it is true that self-published books comprise only 12-20% of the total publishing market, the statement in the title wouldn't make sense at all. The market share of self-published books would simply be too small to 'destroy' anything.

As to the 'rant' of Andrew Franklin: if 'the majority of self-published books are rubbish' and meet with 'deathly silence', where is the problem? Doesn't that mean that discerning readers know how to circumvent the crap, so it sinks unread to the bottom? I should think that is good news, showing that the need for 'gatekeepers' is unwarranted and readers are able to make their own decisions on what they consider quality.

The lower pricing of self-published e-books is not devaluing literature, that statement has been put to bed ages ago. It forces trade publishers to set lower prices for e-books, which is normal because only a moron would price a digital e-book the same as a hardcover book with much higher production values.

Meanwhile, trade publishing isn't 'saving literature'. If you doubt that, just check what happened to John Kennedy Toole, the author of 'A Confederacy of Dunces'. For my money, I wonder if Toole would've committed suicide over the rejection of his novel (which won the Pulitzer Prize in 1981), if the possibility of self-publishing would've been an option for him.

My main thing for hesitating about responding to this article is that arguing with idiots is never a good idea, because they'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience._

No doubt he'll try to shoot me down, but that's expected.


----------



## Andre Jute (Dec 18, 2010)

> Andre Jute wrote:
> 
> 
> > If _Lolita_ were published today on KDP, it would most likely sink without a trace in the tide of pornography.
> ...


Are you shouting across a polluted river to yourself, Twin Cities?


----------



## Eric C (Aug 3, 2009)

CraigInTwinCities said:


> Nabokov may have written about 20 novels, but he gave the world arguably only one notable work: LOLITA


For the record, assuming you're not being facetious in comparing him unfavorably to Stephen King, Nabokov wrote one novel most people have heard of, but I would say Pale Fire has earned nearly as much critical esteem, and is surely "notable" too, to mention only one other work of his. And his influence has been huge among many of the best novelists who've come after him.


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

Eric C said:


> For the record, assuming you're not being facetious in comparing him unfavorably to Stephen King...


Popularity equals being read, at least to some degree. One must be read to be influential. Yes, I sincerely believe Stephen King has made a much larger impact on literature, several generations of writers, and, indeed, popular culture, than history will ever credit Nabokov with having accomplished. King's body of work speaks for itself, and his best stories are some of the finest of King's generation of literature. King has inspired more writers to be writers than Nabokov has or ever will.


----------



## Eric C (Aug 3, 2009)

So does this mean you think McDonald's makes the best food because they sell more of it than anyone else? Which is I think an apropos analogy considering that Stephen King once described his own work as "the literary equivalent of a Big Mac and fries."

Me, I think there's something to be said for critical as well as commercial acclaim. (And I say this as a genre writer who admires Stephen King a good deal.)


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

What is critical acclaim? Why should we care?


----------



## Eric C (Aug 3, 2009)

Critical acclaim is affirmation from an elite group of one kind or another. In the case of novelists it might come from reviewers or fellow authors, usually both, as well as academics, people who've essentially dedicated their professional lives to the novel. This type of acclaim is typically devoted to works that are not often as popular as the best-selling genre works, but are more sophisticated or ambitious than genre works, often in regard to theme, characterization, prose. (I don't mean to say one can't blend genre elements and literary fiction.)

Why should we care about critical acclaim? Well, it's a service. To extend the food analogy, think of the Michelin guide. It's written by foodies for foodies. Now if your palate isn't particularly developed then you're not going to care how many stars a particular restaurant receives in the Michelin guide, you're probably not even going to that restaurant, you're just going to go to McDonald's or Outback Steakhouse or what have you.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

Well, some people may think that genre fiction and the genre greats such as King can't possibly be any good since they're popular, but not all of even the _literati_ feel that way. I recall a 2000 _New York Times Magazine_ article by Stephen J. Dubner highly praising King's writing for example. The National Book Foundation medal for distinguished contribution to American letters, recognition received in the past by authors such as John Updike, Philip Roth, and Toni Morrison, which King received in 2003 probably also qualified as literary acclaim. Some people think that having multiple stories published in _New Yorker_, as King has had, is an indication of acclaim. _The New York Times Book Review_ called King's _11/22/63_ one of the best novels of the year I seem to recall. So... that it is a bad comparison might be a matter of personal opinion and debatable.


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

Eric C said:


> So does this mean you think McDonald's makes the best food because they sell more of it than anyone else? Which is I think an apropos analogy considering that Stephen King once described his own work as "the literary equivalent of a Big Mac and fries."


He was being modest.

Some of his stories are that, sure.

Some of his works quite transcend that.

You insult us both by pretending you don't know that.


----------



## Eric C (Aug 3, 2009)

JRTomlin said:


> Well, some people may think that genre fiction and the genre greats such as King can't possibly be any good since they're popular, but not all of even the _literati_ feel that way. I recall a 2000 _New York Times Magazine_ article by Stephen J. Dubner highly praising King's writing for example. The National Book Foundation medal for distinguished contribution to American letters, recognition received in the past by authors such as John Updike, Philip Roth, and Toni Morrison, which King received in 2003 probably also qualified as literary acclaim. Some people think that having multiple stories published in _New Yorker_, as King has had, is an indication of acclaim. _The New York Times Book Review_ called King's _11/22/63_ one of the best novels of the year I seem to recall. So... that it is a bad comparison might be a matter of personal opinion and debatable.


I think anything having to do with literature is debatable. But I think if you took a survey of the literary intelligentsia, the top rung reviewers, the academics, and the top rung novelists, it would be a landslide in favor of Nabokov over King (not that there wouldn't be some nice things said about King by some). Hence, I really did wonder whether Craig was in earnest when I jumped into this thread. I see now that he was in earnest. By the way, Updike was a huge Nabokov fan to the extent that he wrote about him.


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

Eric C said:


> ...But I think if you took a survey of the literary intelligentsia, the top rung reviewers, the academics, and the top rung novelists, it would be a landslide in favor of Nabokov over King...


Blah blah blah ... gatekeepers gatekeepers gatekeepers ...

Form your own opinion, my friend, and stick to it. Stop letting gatekeepers determine what you think is "acceptable" to like and enjoy.

If you favor Nabokov over King because YOU like him better, great! More power to you. Enjoy away.

But all this stuff about literary intelligentsia and reviewers and academics is just so much "join the snobby crowd" nonsense. Either YOU like Nobokov better or you don't. If you do, that's legit.

But if you only like Nobokov because a bunch of gatekeepers tell you you should, that's bunk.

Bottom line: the author whose novels you curl up reading at night, or on the beach, in wherever you do the bulk of your PLEASURE reading (not what some lit prof assigned you to read and write a paper on) is the novelist that wins.

And believe me, some "literary" authors CAN win that fight.

I prefer Sherwood Anderson and Charles Dickens over James Patterson and Stuart Woods on more than one occasion.

But not because some literary snob at the New York Times Review of Books tells me I should.

Own your own tastes. Determine your own preferences.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

Gentleman, 

the sparring matches over whether Nabakov or King did more for literature are scheduled for alternate Wednesdays in months with an "R" in them....let's move on, it's getting kind of snarky in here.

Betsy
KB Moderator


----------



## Andrew Ashling (Nov 15, 2010)

Betsy the Quilter said:


> Gentleman,
> 
> the sparring matches over whether Nabakov or King did more for literature are scheduled for alternate Wednesdays in months with an "R" in them....let's move on, it's getting kind of snarky in here.
> 
> ...


It's not a sparring match. It's a debate about the relative merits of one literary approach against another. It's a discussion whether popularity and literary excellence are mutually exclusive or, on the contrary, could reinforce each other.

I think it's quite interesting.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

Andrew Ashling said:


> It's not a sparring match. It's a debate about the relative merits of one literary approach against another. It's a discussion whether popularity and literary excellence are mutually exclusive or, on the contrary, could reinforce each other.
> 
> I think it's quite interesting.


We can agree to disagree about whether it was a sparring match. I agree that it was quite fascinating until the snark arrived. Apparently, after a certain number of back-and-forths, some members can't stay civil. At that point, it's time to step away from the discussion.



> It's a discussion whether popularity and literary excellence are mutually exclusive or, on the contrary, could reinforce each other.


Andrew, if you want to have that discussion, with more examples, you're certainly welcome to start a thread...it's peripheral to discussion of the article that the OP posted about.

While I'm back in-thread, a reminder that "troll" is a four letter word here on KBoards.

Betsy


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

Eric C said:


> Critical acclaim is affirmation from an elite group of one kind or another. In the case of novelists it might come from reviewers or fellow authors, usually both, as well as academics, people who've essentially dedicated their professional lives to the novel. This type of acclaim is typically devoted to works that are not often as popular as the best-selling genre works, but are more sophisticated or ambitious than genre works, often in regard to theme, characterization, prose. (I don't mean to say one can't blend genre elements and literary fiction.)
> 
> Why should we care about critical acclaim? Well, it's a service. To extend the food analogy, think of the Michelin guide. It's written by foodies for foodies. Now if your palate isn't particularly developed then you're not going to care how many stars a particular restaurant receives in the Michelin guide, you're probably not even going to that restaurant, you're just going to go to McDonald's or Outback Steakhouse or what have you.


Ok. Some folks provide a service by applying a given standard embraced by a self-selected group that considers itself elite. That service is valuable to those with the same standards. But I'd agree there isn't much reason for anyone else to care. If people don't value a standard, they are not going to care how well a product meets it.

Independent authors may be contributing to the destruction of the elite because they are not submitting to the established vetting process approved of by the elite. That process certainly didn't limit publication to books that met the elite's standards, but it did pretend there are elites specially qualified to judge books. Elites support each other. Weakness in one can endanger another.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

Eric C said:


> I think anything having to do with literature is debatable. But I think if you took a survey of the literary intelligentsia, the top rung reviewers, the academics, and the top rung novelists, it would be a landslide in favor of Nabokov over King (not that there wouldn't be some nice things said about King by some). Hence, I really did wonder whether Craig was in earnest when I jumped into this thread. I see now that he was in earnest. By the way, Updike was a huge Nabokov fan to the extent that he wrote about him.


But in this post you disparaged all of King's work and all popular literature:



Eric C said:


> *So does this mean you think McDonald's makes the best food because they sell more of it than anyone else? **Which is I think an apropos analogy considering that Stephen King once described his own work as "the literary equivalent of a Big Mac and fries."*
> 
> Me, I think there's something to be said for critical as well as commercial acclaim. (And I say this as a genre writer who admires Stephen King a good deal.)


That is what I was responding to.

There is no "rule" that because someone sells a lot their work doesn't have literary value and I don't know many of the literari who say that receiving the National Book Foundation medal for distinguished contribution to American letters isn't literary acclaim so for one, King has both. Some may not personally like King's writing; in fact I could name several. Some don't love Nabokov for that matter.


----------



## Adam Pepper (May 28, 2011)

Terrence OBrien said:


> Some folks provide a service by applying a given standard embraced by a self-selected group that considers itself elite. That service is valuable to those with the same standards. But I'd agree there isn't much reason for anyone else to care. If people don't value a standard, they are not going to care how well a product meets it.


The group isnt self selected. Some people have earned literary credibility and established credentials. You can't just open up shop one day and declare yourself as significant as the Pulitzer Prize or The New Yorker Magazine. You dont have to personally respect or care about such credentials, but they do enhance perceived value of the work they acknowledge.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

Adam Pepper said:


> The group isnt self selected. Some people have earned literary credibility and established credentials. You can't just open up shop one day and declare yourself as significant as the Pulitzer Prize or The New Yorker Magazine.


Good point. Self-selected implies open entry. Self-perpetuating is a better term. They select each other, then tell us they are all top-rung. What does literary credibility mean?



> "You dont have to personally respect or care about such credentials, but they do enhance perceived value of the work they acknowledge."


Whose perceived value? We don't have to value the credentials or the book they acknowledge.


----------



## Adam Pepper (May 28, 2011)

Terrence OBrien said:


> Whose perceived value? We don't have to value the credentials or the book they acknowledge.


If a book wins the Pulitzer Prize or gets a shout out from the New Yorker, that translates not only into "literary credibility" which you dont seem to respect or care about, but also sales, which clearly you do.


----------



## Adam Pepper (May 28, 2011)

Some people prefer fine wine, others cheap beer.  Still others drink both depending on their mood.  But very few would claim there is no difference in value or quality.

To bring it back to the original topic, self publishers can't destroy fine literature any more than ripple can destroy fine wine.  But we can strive to elevate the medium, if that's something we value.  If we just value making a buck, that's ok too.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

Adam Pepper said:


> Some people prefer fine wine, others cheap beer. Still others drink both depending on their mood. But very few would claim there is no difference in value or quality.
> 
> To bring it back to the original topic, self publishers can't destroy fine literature any more than ripple can destroy fine wine. But we can strive to elevate the medium, if that's something we value. If we just value making a buck, that's ok too.


Well put although I hope my books aren't "Ripple", but not a bad analogy. 

ETA: Ok, I think my fantasies are kind of "Ripple"-like. I don't have any literary pretensions for them; they're strictly for fun and there is nothing wrong with that.


----------



## B. Justin Shier (Apr 1, 2011)

Agreed. Wine tasting is an excellent example.

" In 2001 Frédérick Brochet of the University of Bordeaux asked 54 wine experts to test two glasses of wine - one red, one white. Using the typical language of tasters, the panel described the red as "jammy' and commented on its crushed red fruit...The critics failed to spot that both wines were from the same bottle. The only difference was that one had been coloured red with a flavourless dye."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2013/jun/23/wine-tasting-junk-science-analysis

B.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

Adam Pepper said:


> If a book wins the Pulitzer Prize or gets a shout out from the New Yorker, that translates not only into "literary credibility" which you dont seem to respect or care about, but also sales, which clearly you do.


Literary credibility means a writer for the New Yorker mentioned it? Incredible. I hear they drink Two Buck Chuck from Waterford stemware.


----------



## Adam Pepper (May 28, 2011)

B. Justin Shier said:


> Agreed. Wine tasting is an excellent example.
> 
> " In 2001 Frédérick Brochet of the University of Bordeaux asked 54 wine experts to test two glasses of wine - one red, one white. Using the typical language of tasters, the panel described the red as "jammy' and commented on its crushed red fruit...The critics failed to spot that both wines were from the same bottle. The only difference was that one had been coloured red with a flavourless dye."
> 
> ...


That's funny, but kind of reaching. Do you think if you read a lit novel and a pop novel without any artwork or markings that you wouldnt be able to pick out which is which?


----------



## Andre Jute (Dec 18, 2010)

Adam Pepper said:


> The group isnt self selected. Some people have earned literary credibility and established credentials.


Shush, Adam, it is an article of faith in indieland that everyone who wants to scribble a page or two deserves publication. An inevitable corollary is that everyone who has scribbled a couple of pages, no matter how poorly spelt and void of interest, is the equal of Stephen King or Vladimir Nabokov.

_Snark removal implemented. --Betsy_


----------



## B. Justin Shier (Apr 1, 2011)

Adam Pepper said:


> That's funny, but kind of reaching. Do you think if you read a lit novel and a pop novel without any artwork or markings that you wouldnt be able to pick out which is which?


I still don't know what a lit novel is.

B.


----------



## Adam Pepper (May 28, 2011)

Terrence OBrien said:


> Literary credibility means a writer for the New Yorker mentioned it? Incredible. I hear they drink Two Buck Chuck from Waterford stemware.


It's one measure. But the point is it doesnt only boost lit cred, it boosts sales too. It has a value that isnt just prestige.


----------



## Mike Dennis (Apr 26, 2010)

I am self published.

Must...destroy...mankind...


----------



## Cherise (May 13, 2012)

Adam Pepper said:


> That's funny, but kind of reaching. Do you think if you read a lit novel and a pop novel without any artwork or markings that you wouldnt be able to pick out which is which?


_The Catcher in the Rye_ has 344 one-star reviews from such people.

http://www.amazon.com/The-Catcher-Rye-J-D-Salinger/product-reviews/0316769487/ref=cm_cr_dp_qt_hist_one?ie=UTF8&filterBy=addOneStar&showViewpoints=0


----------



## Adam Pepper (May 28, 2011)

B. Justin Shier said:


> I still don't know what a lit novel is.
> 
> B.


It's whatever the New Yorker tells you it is....


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

Adam Pepper said:


> It's one measure. But the point is it doesnt only boost lit cred, it boosts sales too. It has a value that isnt just prestige.


Back to sales. If a mention in the New Yorker generates sales, then God Bless the New Yorker. That's commercial credibility. Cause and effect.


----------



## Adam Pepper (May 28, 2011)

Cherise Kelley said:


> _The Catcher in the Rye_ has 344 one-star reviews from such people.


I dont know...we are definitely teetering in ethereal-ness here, but I think we all know there is a difference between a dime-store novel and a book written with loftier ambitions, even if it isnt always easy to put your finger on it.


----------



## Andre Jute (Dec 18, 2010)

JRTomlin said:


> Well, some people may think that genre fiction and the genre greats such as King can't possibly be any good since they're popular, but not all of even the _literati_ feel that way. I recall a 2000 _New York Times Magazine_ article by Stephen J. Dubner highly praising King's writing for example. The National Book Foundation medal for distinguished contribution to American letters, recognition received in the past by authors such as John Updike, Philip Roth, and Toni Morrison, which King received in 2003 probably also qualified as literary acclaim. Some people think that having multiple stories published in _New Yorker_, as King has had, is an indication of acclaim. _The New York Times Book Review_ called King's _11/22/63_ one of the best novels of the year I seem to recall. So... that it is a bad comparison might be a matter of personal opinion and debatable.


These attitudes are not new. Three hundred years ago the establishment whined that novels were the work of the Devil because they kept the lower classes from studying the Bible. Bram Stoker was deprecated as a writer of artificial excitements, etc, hundreds of examples that everyone can look up. It's an outdated form of snobbery to decry work just because it belongs to one of the genre. They are, after all, now the main form of fictional literature. Thrillers, for instance, has long been the not-so-secret vice of the intelligentsia. (I'm not implying that worthless fan fiction is thereby raised to the status of literature, merely saying that genre alone should not be, and for the most part no longer is, a barrier to inclusion in the literary canon.)

Considering your examples of Nabokov (implied in the context), Updike, Roth and Morrison, I wish we had a class of "celebrated writers" rather than good writers, or conversely a class of "storytellers" to distinguish Stephen King from such hacks of the campus circuit. I'm not a fan of Stephen King (he's too slow -- too self-indulgent -- for my limited patience with description) but he deserves better than to be shackled to that bunch of also-rans. He'll be read long after they're forgotten.


----------



## B. Justin Shier (Apr 1, 2011)

Adam Pepper said:


> It's whatever the New Yorker tells you it is....


And here you are brushing against the problem. IMHO, whatever their intentions, the critics at the New Yorker are far too close to the foundry to be making declarations.

True "literature," to me, are words penned in another age that still manage to speak to me despite all the changes in social and political conventions. For instance, Rostand's Cyrano de Bergerac is a man that I should not understand. He is a nobleman, an officer, and is pining away after his cousin. But I do care for him, and I am amused by him, and I get teary-eyed each time I read the end. And there are more concrete measures of Rostand's work that we can evaluate. He is the reason we English speakers know what the word panache means and why we have movies like _Roxanne (1987)_ and _the Truth About Cats & Dogs (1997)_. IOW, you can know nothing about the play and still experience the play's impacts on our culture. This, to me, defines "literature," so I continue to struggle with the "literary fiction" label. I find it the height of hubris that some would decide which of their contemporaries deserve such a label. Other folks are free to do whatever they want, but that is what draws the right of my lip perilously close to my eye.

tl;dr: Writing should not be declared "literature" until it's spent some time in the barrel.

_[edited due to the astonishing number of typos  ]_


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

Andre Jute said:


> These attitudes are not new. Three hundred years ago the establishment whined that novels were the work of the Devil because they kept the lower classes from studying the Bible. Bram Stoker was deprecated as a writer of artificial excitements, etc, hundreds of examples that everyone can look up. It's an outdated form of snobbery to decry work just because it belongs to one of the genre. They are, after all, now the main form of fictional literature. Thrillers, for instance, has long been the not-so-secret vice of the intelligentsia. (I'm not implying that worthless fan fiction is thereby raised to the status of literature, merely saying that genre alone should not be, and for the most part no longer is, a barrier to inclusion in the literary canon.)
> 
> Considering your examples of Nabokov (implied in the context), Updike, Roth and Morrison, I wish we had a class of "celebrated writers" rather than good writers, or conversely a class of "storytellers" to distinguish Stephen King from such hacks of the campus circuit. I'm not a fan of Stephen King (he's too slow -- too self-indulgent -- for my limited patience with description) but he deserves better than to be shackled to that bunch of also-rans. He'll be read long after they're forgotten.


Let me try to understand exactly what "these attitudes" in my post are that you are decrying.

The attitude I expressed is that King (and by implication many other genre writers) are as good as any supposedly literary writers. I take it you find that attitude reprehensible?


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

B. Justin Shier said:


> And here you are brushing against the problem. IMHO, whatever their intentions, the critics at the New Yorker are far too close to the foundry to be making declarations.
> 
> True "literature," to me, are words penned in another age that still manage to speak to me despite all the changes in social and political conventions. For instance, Rostand's Cyrano de Bergerac is a man that I should not understand. He is a nobleman, an officer, and is pining away after his cousin. But I do care for him, and I am amused by him, and I get teary-eyed each time I read the end. And there are more concrete measures of Rostand's work that we can evaluate. He is the reason we English speakers know what the word panache means and why we have movies like _Roxanne (1987)_ and _the Truth About Cats & Dogs (1997)_. IOW, you can know nothing about the play and still experience the play's impacts on our culture. This, to me, defines "literature," so I continue to struggle with the "literary fiction" label. I find it the height of hubris that some would decide which of their contemporaries deserve such a label. Other folks are free to do whatever they want, but that is what draws the right of my lip perilously close to my eye.
> 
> ...


You make a very good point, Justin. That people identify with Austin and Dickens so long after their own age makes them literary. Dickens certainly did write as a "literary author" for the academics of his age. A question might be how long in the barrel literature needs to spend before we know that it is in fact literature.


----------



## Adam Pepper (May 28, 2011)

B. Justin Shier said:


> I find it the height of hubris that some would decide which of their contemporaries deserve such a label.
> 
> tl;dr: Writing should not be declared "literature" until it's spent some time in the barrel.


I tend to agree with your first statement but is standing the test of time the only measurement of literary value? Surely, there are other measures.


----------



## Adam Pepper (May 28, 2011)

Andre Jute said:


> Shush, Adam, it is an article of faith in indieland that everyone who wants to scribble a page or two deserves publication.


It doesnt matter who "deserves publication." The question is are all writers created equal? And if not, what are the measurements of "good" "great" and "exceptional?" And is money earned the only measure of greatness? If there is a true danger to literature, it lies there, and it's certainly not new or exclusive to indieland.


----------



## Cherise (May 13, 2012)

Adam Pepper said:


> The question is... what are the measurements of "good" "great" and "exceptional?"


It's an exceptionally great question.

Its answer is subject to all sorts of filters such as one's: age, gender, socio-economic status, education, language, nationality, time period, politics...


----------



## Cherise (May 13, 2012)

Let's add to that list "mood".


----------



## Cherise (May 13, 2012)

Oh, also "taste".


----------



## B. Justin Shier (Apr 1, 2011)

Adam Pepper said:


> I tend to agree with your first statement but is standing the test of time the only measurement of literary value?


Not at all. In the sentence, "Writing should not be declared 'literature' until it's spent some time in the barrel," I established the passage of time as a prerequisite for any declaration of literary value.

The "test of time" can actually prove quite faulty. _The Nostoi_ has failed the test of time. It was lost to all of mankind, but even from the grave this epic poem probably still manages to impact our culture. We simply cannot identify the ripples without the source text in our hands. But if in a sealed barrel underneath Heracleion, the luckiest archeologist ever discovered an intact copy, there is a strong chance I would declare it literature. 

_For gifts beguile men's minds and their deeds as well..._
--_The Nostoi_, Fragment 5

I still can't believe the Fates decided to torture us with a line like that. *shakes head*

B.


----------



## B. Justin Shier (Apr 1, 2011)

Adam Pepper said:


> ...what are the measurements of "good" "great" and "exceptional?


I can only answer for the exceptional, Adam.

Give me 100 random people, a darkened room, and 35mm print of Studio Ghibli's _Grave of the Fireflies_. It doesn't even have to be an English language print. It doesn't even have to be in focus. I can predict how 95/100 of them will respond.

B.


----------



## Guest (Jun 25, 2013)

Adam Pepper said:


> It doesnt matter who "deserves publication." The question is are all writers created equal? And if not, what are the measurements of "good" "great" and "exceptional?" And is money earned the only measure of greatness? If there is a true danger to literature, it lies there, and it's certainly not new or exclusive to indieland.


It is unfortunate that so often these conversations do devolve into money, as so many of the greatest authors of the ages made very little money in their lifetimes.

Good: a book that is mechanically sound and enjoyable to read. This is the majority of "popular" books. In fact, it's probably true that a "good" book is more likely to be a bestseller simply by virtue of the fact that it will be embraced by more people. It's an easy read and has a relatively clear, single message. Good books are fun and/or entertaining but tend not to require a whole lot of effort from the reader. Sure, you may read a mystery and try to figure out who the killer is, but that is a relatively simple (but enjoyable) mental exercise.

Great: a book that you would read over and over, and get a different interpretation or see something new each time you read it. A great book is a book that 'grows" with you. You will read it differently when you are 40 than you did when you were 20. A great book has multiple levels of meaning. It requires input from the reader. Probably the true mark of a "literary" work is that it forces you to think about what you are reading and read beyond the words on the page. But because great books require work, they often won't be read by the masses. It is why so many award-winning books aren't also bestsellers.

Exceptional: a book that fundamentally changes your worldview and the way you interact with the world. These are those rare books that you read and suddenly the light goes on and you see things in ways you never saw them before. It opens your eyes to things you were blind to.


----------



## Andrew Ashling (Nov 15, 2010)

Adam Pepper said:


> It doesnt matter who "deserves publication." The question is are all writers created equal? And if not, what are the measurements of "good" "great" and "exceptional?" And is money earned the only measure of greatness? If there is a true danger to literature, it lies there, and it's certainly not new or exclusive to indieland.


The true danger to literature was the incompetence, mixed with snobbery and greed, of the gatekeepers to recognize it.

Of course, not all writers are created equal, and of course they all deserve publication. The last is made possible, for the first time in history, through electronic publishing.
Whoever thinks he has written something of any value at all can toss it in the barrel and let time do its job.


----------



## jabeard (Apr 22, 2011)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> It is unfortunate that so often these conversations do devolve into money, as so many of the greatest authors of the ages made very little money in their lifetimes.
> 
> Exceptional: a book that fundamentally changes your worldview and the way you interact with the world. These are those rare books that you read and suddenly the light goes on and you see things in ways you never saw them before. It opens your eyes to things you were blind to.


That's interesting in that it suggests that a book can only be exception for a particular person's experiences and even perhaps for a particular time and place. Some people might be very blind to certain realities that others take for granted, after all.

For that matter, this can be even be a function of just age-based experience. There were some "great" books that rocked my world when I was a kid that were just a revelation because I was a kid, though I'm less convinced that a reasonably well-educated adult approaching those books would find them nearly as transformative.

It also somewhat implies that it's perhaps impossible to truly have a "universal" "exceptional" book.

This also suggests that a book might become less "exceptional" when society, for instance, takes up its insights and they become thing that a lot of people take for granted.

Not necessarily saying I disagree though, personally, I think of things similar to the way you do, but this sort of rubric might also suggest why certain books have a tremendous amount of influence at a particular time and then fade into general irrelevance whereas others sorts of books that aren't as a paradigm changing but good, go on to form the canon of "great classics" centuries from now.


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> Exceptional: a book that fundamentally changes your worldview and the way you interact with the world. These are those rare books that you read and suddenly the light goes on and you see things in ways you never saw them before. It opens your eyes to things you were blind to.


Julie,

You sort of lost me a little with this definition.

There are many novels I've enjoyed, a select few of which I would call or categorize as "exceptional" in my eyes.

But "fundamentally change my world view"?

Sorry, even the best novels I've ever read don't rise to that level, at least not for me.

I'd suggest the definition is perhaps a bit too subjective.

For example: the most meaningful and personally-affecting fiction book I've ever read is "The Body" by Stephen King. It is a story that changed my mind about my life direction at the time in my life when I first read it.

Specifically, it helped me decide to leave behind the first group of real friends I'd ever made to that point in my life, and push on toward college where I could learn to sharpen my gift for writing. The specific passage was Chris Chalmers' "don't waste your talent" speech to narrator Gordie LaChance.

I read it long before the movie Stand By Me was made.

That, for me, elevates "The Body" to a level that I'd call exceptional; mostly because of my very subjective personal experience with that story being read by me at exactly the right moment in my life.

But did it "change my world view"? No. It altered the direction of my life, perhaps; helped me firm up my decision to go on to college, rather than cling to a group of friends by not doing so.

When I think of "change your world view," to me that means something far more significant. I can't even think of an appropos example of what a book would need to influence me to do, without sounding "snarky," so I won't even attempt it. But it would have to rise to the level of a shift in personal political preference, religious affiliation, or something like that. Because those are the things that, to me, form a "world view."

But I've certainly read books others would classify like that, as "life-changing," and have not really had the same experience with those stories as them.

And I'm sure others read "The Body" and, for them, at least on the subjective-emotional level, it's "a well-told story" without being a life-shifting one.

It seems to me that makes "exceptional" an incredibly subjective definition, as you've defined it. Are there no objective elements to what separates the great from the exceptional?

Because, while "The Body" was as close as I could come to calling a novel exceptional by your definition (and even that story falls short by a strict interpretation of your definition) I'm relatively confident that most people could read "The Body" and not come anywhere close to being as affected by it as I was. My reasons for elevating it to exceptional are too personal and specific not only to my life, but the time in my life when I read it. Had I read it in middle school before the decision to move on to college or stay local and work was right in front of me, or had I read it later in life after such decisions were behind me, the story would have had far less impact.

I mean, for me, and for many reasons, "The Body" will always be at or very near the top of my list.

But not for objective reasons.


----------



## Guest (Jun 25, 2013)

CraigInTwinCities said:


> But did it "change my world view"? No. It altered the direction of my life, perhaps; helped me firm up my decision to go on to college, rather than cling to a group of friends by not doing so.


I think you are actually agreeing with me but quibbling over word choice. I would think that a book that makes you alter the direction of your life did in fact change your world-view. You went from someone who was content to not continue your education and cling to your small group of friends to a person who went out into the world to learn more and expand your horizons. Methinks many would consider that a change of world view.


----------



## Andre Jute (Dec 18, 2010)

JRTomlin said:


> Let me try to understand exactly what "these attitudes" in my post are that you are decrying.
> 
> The attitude I expressed is that King (and by implication many other genre writers) are as good as any supposedly literary writers. I take it you find that attitude reprehensible?


Oh dear. I was agreeing with you, Ms Tomlin. _Read_ what I wrote. This is the second time in a row that through the haze of _your_ prejudices you've read in my post what you expect me to write rather than what I actually wrote. Cf http://www.kboards.com/index.php/topic,153853.0.html

To save you looking it up, this is what I wrote on this occasion:


> These attitudes are not new. Three hundred years ago the establishment whined that novels were the work of the Devil because they kept the lower classes from studying the Bible. Bram Stoker was deprecated as a writer of artificial excitements, etc, hundreds of examples that everyone can look up. It's an outdated form of snobbery to decry work just because it belongs to one of the genre. They are, after all, now the main form of fictional literature. Thrillers, for instance, has long been the not-so-secret vice of the intelligentsia. (I'm not implying that worthless fan fiction is thereby raised to the status of literature, merely saying that genre alone should not be, and for the most part no longer is, a barrier to inclusion in the literary canon.)
> 
> Considering your examples of Nabokov (implied in the context), Updike, Roth and Morrison, I wish we had a class of "celebrated writers" rather than good writers, or conversely a class of "storytellers" to distinguish Stephen King from such hacks of the campus circuit. I'm not a fan of Stephen King (he's too slow -- too self-indulgent -- for my limited patience with description) but he deserves better than to be shackled to that bunch of also-rans. He'll be read long after they're forgotten.


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> I think you are actually agreeing with me but quibbling over word choice. I would think that a book that makes you alter the direction of your life did in fact change your world-view. You went from someone who was content to not continue your education and cling to your small group of friends to a person who went out into the world to learn more and expand your horizons. Methinks many would consider that a change of world view.


I understand and acknowledge your point there.

I guess for me, when I hear "world view," I tend to think of political or religious changes... and no fiction novel has ever shifted my politics or religion... which has more to do with my definition of "world view," LOL


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

Andre Jute said:


> Oh dear. I was agreeing with you, Ms Tomlin. _Read_ what I wrote. This is the second time in a row that through the haze of _your_ prejudices you've read in my post what you expect me to write rather than what I actually wrote. Cf http://www.kboards.com/index.php/topic,153853.0.html
> 
> To save you looking it up, this is what I wrote on this occasion:


I read what you wrote and even quoted it. I have no prejudices about what I expect you to write. I haven't thought about it enough to form a prejudice.

I was responding in particular to the comment: 'Considering your examples of Nabokov (implied in the context), Updike, Roth and Morrison, I wish we had a class of "celebrated writers" rather than good writers, or conversely a class of "storytellers" to distinguish Stephen King from such hacks of the campus circuit.' You seemed remarkably offended that I mentioned authors you consider hacks. To me that sounded very much the opposite of agreeing with me, but if you say you were agreeing, I'm more than willing to take your word for it.


----------



## Andre Jute (Dec 18, 2010)

Andrew Ashling said:


> The true danger to literature was the incompetence, mixed with snobbery and greed, of the gatekeepers to recognize it.
> 
> Of course, not all writers are created equal, and of course they all deserve publication. The last is made possible, for the first time in history, through electronic publishing.


"Incompetence"? Those guys aren't in the business of literature. Those guys are in the business of publishing books that earn a return for the shareholders.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

Andre Jute said:


> "Incompetence"? Those guys aren't in the business of literature. Those guys are in the business of publishing books that earn a return for the shareholders.


See here I do agree with you, although there is a problem with the statement. In defending themselves against the incursions of indie authors, publishers and their defenders tend to say, as the author of the post we started out discussing did, that publishers somehow protect and defend literature. So they bring this on themselves by setting themselves up as something they aren't and couldn't be.

There is nothing wrong with being in the business of publishing books that earn a return if you aren't 'accusing' others of doing exactly the same thing to the harm of literature.


----------



## Andrew Ashling (Nov 15, 2010)

Andre Jute said:


> "Incompetence"? Those guys aren't in the business of literature. Those guys are in the business of publishing books that earn a return for the shareholders.


And even at that they're incompetent. How many of them refused JK Rowling, a shareholder's wet dream if ever there was one?


----------



## John Daulton (Feb 28, 2012)

We all know it when we read it. We just don't agree on which books count because people are all different. All platitudes on my part, yes, I get it. But y'all can debate till you're blue in the face and you're never going to come up with a nice succinct definition of what it is. They've been arguing about the canon for centuries. About gate keepers, not just in publishing, but gate keepers of culture itself who shape what publishing puts out, who voted with money what got bought and preserved. So many other things are in play. Degrees of artistry and craft versus degrees of wit, insight and vision. All of which are appreciated or recognized more or less in one form than another in various times. There's no point in arguing about it other than for the joy of arguing, I suppose. Which is fine, though best while drinking with friends. But there is certainly no right answer here. We might as well be arguing about whether someone's baby is cute.


----------



## Andre Jute (Dec 18, 2010)

Andrew Ashling said:


> And even at that they're incompetent. How many of them refused JK Rowling, a shareholder's wet dream if ever there was one?


I don't understand, Andrew. If you think they're incompetent, why do you want so much to be published by them? And, if not you in particular, so many other indies who pour their bitterness over us daily at their "rejection"?

As for J K Rowling, what are you talking about? Those multiple rejections are just part of the training of a writer. Those publishers had learned by experience that writers who got their backs up at rejection weren't worth having on the list. So Rowling served her time, her book was better each time, she wrote new ones (incredibly important to show a publisher you have three books rather than just one), and eventually a publisher said yes, and made a bomb. It's a familiar story; it's how it works. It only seems odd to outsiders since they don't grasp the advantages of the system. There are many industries with less efficient systems for cream to rise to the top.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

Andre Jute said:


> I don't understand, Andrew. If you think they're incompetent, why do you want so much to be published by them? And, if not you in particular, so many other indies who pour their bitterness over us daily at their "rejection"?
> 
> As for J K Rowling, what are you talking about? Those multiple rejections are just part of the training of a writer. Those publishers had learned by experience that writers who got their backs up at rejection weren't worth having on the list. So Rowling served her time, her book was better each time, she wrote new ones (incredibly important to show a publisher you have three books rather than just one), and eventually a publisher said yes, and made a bomb. It's a familiar story; it's how it works. It only seems odd to outsiders since they don't grasp the advantages of the system. There are many industries with less efficient systems for cream to rise to the top.


Rowling's book didn't improve from rejection. It continued on submission (unchanged as far as I have ever heard) until it was sold by her agent. When she sold that first one, the others weren't yet written. It was a grant from the Scottish Arts Council that allowed her to continue writing after the sale of the first novel (which received a very, very small advance) and allowed her to continue the series.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> It is unfortunate that so often these conversations do devolve into money, as so many of the greatest authors of the ages made very little money in their lifetimes.
> 
> Good: a book that is mechanically sound and enjoyable to read. This is the majority of "popular" books. In fact, it's probably true that a "good" book is more likely to be a bestseller simply by virtue of the fact that it will be embraced by more people. It's an easy read and has a relatively clear, single message. Good books are fun and/or entertaining but tend not to require a whole lot of effort from the reader. Sure, you may read a mystery and try to figure out who the killer is, but that is a relatively simple (but enjoyable) mental exercise.
> 
> ...


Interesting standard.

Thought experiment. Suppose we managed a huge survey of all living readers.

Would the best books be the top sellers?

Would the greatest books be those with the highest ratio of reads to readers?

Would the most exceptional be the ones that changed the most world views?

Since we have a huge data base, would we pay attention only to the responses of literary intelligentsia, the top rung reviewers, the academics, and the top rung novelists?


----------



## Andre Jute (Dec 18, 2010)

JRTomlin said:


> Rowling's book didn't improve from rejection. It continued on submission (unchanged as far as I have ever heard) until it was sold by her agent. When she sold that first one, the others weren't yet written. It was a grant from the Scottish Arts Council that allowed her to continue writing after the sale of the first novel (which received a very, very small advance) and allowed her to continue the series.


The details and nuances don't matter too much; they'll differ in each case. The point is that Rowling was eventually published.

The American equivalent of the Arts Council safety net is a foundation grant.


----------



## Andrew Ashling (Nov 15, 2010)

Andre Jute said:


> I don't understand, Andrew. If you think they're incompetent, why do you want so much to be published by them? And, if not you in particular, so many other indies who pour their bitterness over us daily at their "rejection"?
> 
> As for J K Rowling, what are you talking about? Those multiple rejections are just part of the training of a writer. Those publishers had learned by experience that writers who got their backs up at rejection weren't worth having on the list. So Rowling served her time, her book was better each time, she wrote new ones (incredibly important to show a publisher you have three books rather than just one), and eventually a publisher said yes, and made a bomb. It's a familiar story; it's how it works. It only seems odd to outsiders since they don't grasp the advantages of the system. There are many industries with less efficient systems for cream to rise to the top.


Who says I want to be published by them? Some people want their books to reach more people, and, granted, for the moment those who want that will need _them_. That doesn't make them competent. They may own the piano but that doesn't make them a pianist. Certainly not a good one.

As for Rowling, you're wrong in almost every detail of your highly fictional little story.

Rowling submitted Harry Potter to twelve publishing houses, all of which rejected the manuscript. The same manuscript. Nothing was learned by Rowling by being rejected by twelve incompetents. Neither did she write a second or a third book because incompetents had refused her first one.
The thirteenth, slightly less incompetent editor, Barry Cunningham from Bloomsbury, gave the first chapters of Rowling's book to the then eight year old daughter of Bloomsbury's CEO. She immediately demanded the next chapters.
Rowling got a stingy £1,500 advance and the unsolicited advice by the incompetents to get a day job. They "knew" there was no money in children's books.
To make matters even more ironic, it weren't the incompetents who saved Rowling's writing career. She received an £8,000 grant from the Scottish Arts Council (much to JT's delight, I presume) which enabled her to continue writing. Let me repeat: that Rowling could continue to write a second book wasn't thanks to the incompetent gatekeepers.

_"It's a familiar story; it's how it works."_

Of course, it isn't. Your story is fiction and the incompetents want everybody to believe that this is the only way it _can_ work. You're wrong. They're wrong.

It's a hoax.


----------



## Jude Hardin (Feb 5, 2011)

There's simply no way to objectively categorize books as good, great, or exceptional. Once a certain level of competence is achieved, art is entirely subjective. A book that is _great_ to me might only be _good_ to someone else. Or they might even say it sucks. Nobody's wrong or right. It's just a matter of opinion.


----------



## Andre Jute (Dec 18, 2010)

Andrew Ashling said:


> Who says I want to be published by them? Some people want their books to reach more people, and, granted, for the moment those who want that will need _them_. That doesn't make them competent. They may own the piano but that doesn't make them a pianist. Certainly not a good one.
> 
> As for Rowling, you're wrong in almost every detail of your highly fictional little story.
> 
> ...


All right. I apologize. I got the details wrong for Rowling. Don't do as a I do, do as I say: check your facts. The point you seem intent on missing is that Rowling persevered and triumphed.

Here's a similar tale, guaranteed not fiction because it happened to me. REVERSE NEGATIVE was submitted 44 times, and accepted the 44th time by a publisher who had already rejected it three times. It was the top literary publisher in London, Secker & Warburg, whose Editorial Director, John Blackwell, had meanwhile opened a dialogue with me. I had of course improved REVERSE NEGATIVE meanwhile, and written several more books, all of which Secker, or one of the other houses to which they gave me introductions, proceeded to publish. REVERSE NEGATIVE made my name, and some of the pseudonymous books made my fortune, and Secker gave me a rolling three book contract.

The reason there are so many of these stories is that it wasn't the exception, it was a commonplace sequence (1), precisely as I said. Nor was it a "hoax", or an inequity imposed on writers. It was instead a valuable tool for publishers to determine which writers would stay the course. Bernard Shir-Cliff of Warner Books in New York came to see me in Cambridge (England) and questioned me closely about my sports and seemed relieved that I wasn't fat. He wanted to know that I would last what he called a "gruelling course".

_"It's a familiar story; it's how it works."_

_"Of course, it isn't."_

Really? I was there.

_"It's a hoax."_

If you say so. But, if you believe it is a "hoax", you should refuse to play. You may believe you have a right to be published (with or without the hoops), but we don't live in a centrally planned economy, we live in a market economy, and the fellows who run publishing don't agree with you. By your own account you don't want to be part of that industry, so where do you get the cheek from to tell them how they should run their business?

(1) "a commonplace sequence" -- someone's bound to quibble that most writers, even after they jumped the hurdles, or were accepted on their first submission (ha!), fail in the marketplace or give up after only one or two books. Yes, that is correct. It is another reason publishers aren't keen to publish newcomers.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

> "It is another reason publishers aren't keen to publish newcomers."


Perhaps that's why lots of newcomers aren't keen on publishers.


----------



## Andrew Ashling (Nov 15, 2010)

Andre Jute said:


> If you say so. But, if you believe it is a "hoax", you should refuse to play. You may believe you have a right to be published (with or without the hoops), but we don't live in a centrally planned economy, we live in a market economy, and the fellows who run publishing don't agree with you. By your own account you don't want to be part of that industry, so where do you get the cheek from to tell them how they should run their business?


_If you say so. But, if you believe it is a "hoax", you should refuse to play._

Well, as a matter of fact, I refuse to play. I couldn't care less. Mind you, that's not to say I won't consider any reasonable offer.

_You may believe you have a right to be published (with or without the hoops), but we don't live in a centrally planned economy, we live in a market economy, and the fellows who run publishing don't agree with you._

The people (there aren't that many, granted) who like to read my books deserve that I get published, even if I have to do it myself. After all, we're not living in a centrally planned economy by publishers who then decide what readers are allowed to read and not. Or what literary quality is. Or (what interests me the most) what stories should be told.
Self publishing has made it easy, viable and profitable to bypass the apparatchiks of the centrally planned literary economy.

_By your own account you don't want to be part of that industry, so where do you get the cheek from to tell them how they should run their business?_

I don't tell them how to run their business. I don't care how they run their business. I'll even admit that up until now they have made a success of turning writers - the only people who create value out of nothing - into indentured servants for their own and their shareholder's profit.

What I do care about is that they call their incompetence literary taste, which it isn't. Where do they get the cheek to tell _me_ whether I can present my writing to the readers or not? Not that it makes a difference anymore.


----------



## Hudson Owen (May 18, 2012)

When you think about it, we live in the golden age of books. For example, take a $200 Rand McNally atlas of the world. Gorgeous 4-color illustrations including shots from outer space, photos from Hubble, printed on acid-free paper stock. Such a book could not have been printed in 1890. And we have Kindle.

We also live in the golden age of photography. Digital camera today can mimic any type of film, any grade of b&w, and do all this in-camera. Then, there is Photoshop, Lightroom and all the rest. Place that beside the b&w life studies by Josef Sudek of Prague. I love those haunting photos. But...

We live in the golden age of choice. Never have writers had so many choices if the preparation and marketing of books, You cannot necessarily choose trad publishing anymore than you can choose to win a Pulitzer Prize. You can choose different courses of action.

We do not live, however, in the golden age of literature. Not because there are no longer talented authors who write literary fiction, fully aware of the history of literature, but because we have lost the _literateur_. I do not mean merely one who affects a certain style of dress and living. I mean one who lived in that style when it was fresh and young: Kipling, Nobokov, Proust, Ford Maddox Ford, Edith Wharton, D.H. Lawrence, to name a few. F. Scott Fitzgerald was the end of the line. He carried literature into the film age and a different sensibility. For awhile, Hollywood was respectful of writers like Aldous Huxley before exploiting the full potential of the image.

It's sort of like the development of the violin. Violin makers create excellent instruments with the aid of technology, still in the Italian cities, such as Cremona, that are expensive and produce wonderful sounds. Still, they are not the million dollar instruments from the golden age of the violin that top violinists cherish today.

What we have today is the genre of literature, which in my opinion, is fighting for an audience among self-published authors in other genres. Maybe, a larger and better informed audience. Culture moves in cycles, and it is not quite clear to me where the literary genre will go from here. We are again living in historical times. Current events sometimes bruise the writer, the poet, into the finest of expressions. As W.B. Yeats wrote in revolutionary Ireland: "...And a terrible beauty is born."


----------



## John Daulton (Feb 28, 2012)

Hudson Owen said:


> When you think about it, we live in the golden age of books. For example, take a $200 Rand McNally atlas of the world. Gorgeous 4-color illustrations including shots from outer space, photos from Hubble, printed on acid-free paper stock. Such a book could not have been printed in 1890. And we have Kindle.
> 
> We also live in the golden age of photography. Digital camera today can mimic any type of film, any grade of b&w, and do all this in-camera. Then, there is Photoshop, Lightroom and all the rest. Place that beside the b&w life studies by Josef Sudek of Prague. I love those haunting photos. But...
> 
> ...


I think that there is something about a book that can't be replaced yet. The super epic video game experiences, like Word of Warcraft was, start to push that merger between experience and visuals and sound ... but still, the game is outside of the mind of the narrative. A book puts you IN someone's head. Slowly. Thought by thought. It's prejudiced to the view of the narrator in a sublimely human way. None of that other stuff you mention can do that. Video games, virtual reality etc., are the attempt to somehow do with technology what books do.

I think that the pleasure-center, dopamine response stuff of all the new technology will certainly reduce the number of deep readers out there. It obviously is and has been since TV, maybe even radio came out. But I don't think it goes away.


----------



## Rykymus (Dec 3, 2011)

Pretty sad. Link bait = 8 pages of debate about nothing.


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

Andre Jute said:


> ...no matter how poorly *spelt* and void of interest, is the equal of Stephen King or Vladimir Nabokov...


I'm puzzled as to what hulled wheat has to do with good writing.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

Now, now... 

*Spelt - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
*
www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/spelt
Definition of SPELT. chiefly British past and past participle of spell. 1spelt. noun \ ˈspelt\. Definition of SPELT. : an ancient wheat (Triticum spelta syn. T. aestivum ...



Betsy


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

Betsy the Quilter said:


> Now, now...
> 
> *Spelt - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
> *
> ...


Oh, like the Brits know anything about English!  LOL


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

That's a different thread...

Betsy


----------



## Andre Jute (Dec 18, 2010)

CraigInTwinCities said:


> Oh, like the Brits know anything about English!  LOL


The British take offense at being called "Brits". For your information, it's pejorative.

I take offense at being called British. I'm Irish. For your information, I live in an entirely different, separate, sovereign country and nation.

Try again, sport. Even a broken clock is right twice a day.


----------



## Maya Cross (May 28, 2012)

Andre Jute said:


> The British take offense at being called "Brits". For your information, it's pejorative.
> 
> I take offense at being called British. I'm Irish. For your information, I live in an entirely different, separate, sovereign country and nation.
> 
> Try again, sport. Even a broken clock is right twice a day.


It's interesting you say that. We use the term 'Brit' in Australia all the time, and the other day I was curious about whether I could get away with writing it, or if some might take offense. Five minutes of Googling later, and I couldn't find a response that actually indicated that anyone thought it was derogatory. It's basically on par with 'Aussie' according to the internet.


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

Andre Jute said:


> The British take offense at being called "Brits". For your information, it's pejorative.
> 
> I take offense at being called British. I'm Irish. For your information, I live in an entirely different, separate, sovereign country and nation.
> 
> Try again, sport. Even a broken clock is right twice a day.


Never said this about you, sir.






For your information, you also completely missed the irony, which, for your information, was in response to something Betsy said.



BetsytheQuilter said:


> Definition of SPELT. chiefly *British* past and past participle of spell.


 (Emphasis added and she was quoting Merriam-Webster.)

And here I thought you were a careful reader.

But I would have taken you for French, if anything, by the etymology of your name.

I'm the second- or third-generation offspring of Irish immigrants.  We're practically family, buddy.

(Ignore my last name... I was adopted. My family name would have been Merritt under other circumstances.)


----------



## Ann in Arlington (Oct 27, 2008)

CraigInTwinCities said:


> For your information, you also completely missed the irony, which, for your information, was in response to something Betty said.


Feel the need to point out that her name is *Betsy*.


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

Ann in Arlington said:


> Feel the need to point out that her name is *Betsy*.


Oops. Corrected. 

It was obviously the trick of either a gremlin fed after midnight, a puppy-hater, or both!


----------



## Andrew Ashling (Nov 15, 2010)

CraigInTwinCities said:


> But I would have taken you for French, if anything, by the entomology of your name.


Not only are you calling him French, but you're implying he's an insect too.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

Yo, folks....

Let's stop the personal comments lest this thread be locked.

Betsy


----------



## Adam Pepper (May 28, 2011)

Rykymus said:


> Pretty sad. Link bait = 8 pages of debate about nothing.


Maybe you feel this way because you see books as mere chattel. Others carry romantic notions and emotional attachments and thus, find value in this debate. I dont think it's sad that writers are concerned about the future of literature. If anything, I find it sad that this notion offends so many working writers.


----------



## Adam Pepper (May 28, 2011)

Jude Hardin said:


> There's simply no way to objectively categorize books as good, great, or exceptional. Once a certain level of competence is achieved, art is entirely subjective. A book that is _great_ to me might only be _good_ to someone else. Or they might even say it sucks. Nobody's wrong or right. It's just a matter of opinion.


Do you really believe that, Jude? Once baseline competence is achieved there are simply no other measures of quality? Be it level of prose, depth of ideas, unique creativity? I agree that there is a huge subjectivity to it, but it's not 100% opinion. There are ways to measure greatness.


----------



## Andrew Ashling (Nov 15, 2010)

Betsy the Quilter said:


> Yo, folks....
> 
> Let's stop the personal comments lest this thread be locked.
> 
> Betsy


Was this provoked by me alluding that there is a difference between entomology and etymology?










Really?


----------



## swolf (Jun 21, 2010)

I self-published a couple of books last night, and the prone, gasping body of Literature jerked twice, as if two bullets had been pumped into it.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

Andrew Ashling said:


> Was this provoked by me alluding that there is a difference between entomology and etymology?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


No.

Nice kitty. 

There's a common misperception here that, when a moderator posts, the moderator must responding to the post immediately prior to his or her post. Not necessarily so. If, in this case, you weren't making a personal comment, my post wasn't directed at you. On the other hand, as my boss from North Carolina used to say, "The hit dog hollers." 

Posting on a forum is kind of like playing musical chairs. (Does anyone still play that?) When the music stops, someone is left standing. Someone is always going to be the last post prior to a moderator's comment; but that has some randomness built in, since none of the moderators here are standing by reading every post in real time...

Betsy


----------



## swolf (Jun 21, 2010)

So, Betty, was that directed at me?


----------



## Guest (Jun 26, 2013)

Adam Pepper said:


> Do you really believe that, Jude? Once baseline competence is achieved there are simply no other measures of quality? Be it level of prose, depth of ideas, unique creativity? I agree that there is a huge subjectivity to it, but it's not 100% opinion. There are ways to measure greatness.


Unfortunately I think you have been arguing a point few people want to hear. I personally believe that those who most vehemently oppose any attempt at defining greatness are often the same people who fear they won't qualify for it. We live in a society that celebrates mediocrity and participation over actual achievement. Where a blue ribbon is given to everyone who shows up lest we offend someone or make someone feel bad. We aren't allowed to talk about people being gifted because it makes the non-gifted feel really bad about themselves.

I suffer no delusions of my literary importance. I write fantasy and horror and publish RPGs. But the fact that I personally am not writing great literature doesn't make me resentful or spiteful toward those that do. I don't feel this inherent need to reject, demean, or insult those writers who do strive to produce great literature or those individuals that try to quantify what it is or those publishers that try to find those needles in haystacks. I can respect those efforts and not have my own sense of self-worth threatened. Unfortunately, not everyone can do that.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

swolf said:


> So, Betty, was that directed at me?


*looks for cattle prod*

Banned, immediately! All of you...


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

> "Unfortunately I think you have been arguing a point few people want to hear. I personally believe that those who most vehemently oppose any attempt at defining greatness are often the same people who fear they won't qualify for it. "


Could be. How do we gain insight into the fears of those who comment on an issue?


----------



## ElisaBlaisdell (Jun 3, 2012)

Terrence OBrien said:


> Could be. How do we gain insight into the fears of those who comment on an issue?


Well, it's just a trace easier than gaining insight into the fears of those who _don't_ comment on an issue.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

Adam Pepper said:


> Do you really believe that, Jude? Once baseline competence is achieved there are simply no other measures of quality? Be it level of prose, depth of ideas, unique creativity? I agree that there is a huge subjectivity to it, but it's not 100% opinion. There are ways to measure greatness.


Measuring greatness implies a standard. It also demands a measurer. If we have both standard and measurer, the measurer can apply the standard to any book.

The difficulty arises when one standard attempts to get exclusive rights to the use of the term "greatness." Another difficulty is the attempt to confer exclusive measuring rights on some subset of consumers.

So what we get is a situation where _Great American Novel_ is great by the XYZ standard as measured by ABC. Then the book is pronounced average by the LMN standard as measured by QRP.

I'm content with multiple standards and measurers because that reflects reality. But I can't think of any reason to insist on exclusivity for any single standard or measurer.



> "Well, it's just a trace easier than gaining insight into the fears of those who don't comment on an issue."


I fear you're right.


----------



## John Daulton (Feb 28, 2012)

swolf said:


> I self-published a couple of books last night, and the prone, gasping body of Literature jerked twice, as if two bullets had been pumped into it.


That made me laugh.


----------



## Andre Jute (Dec 18, 2010)

Maya Cross said:


> It's interesting you say that. We use the term 'Brit' in Australia all the time, and the other day I was curious about whether I could get away with writing it, or if some might take offense. Five minutes of Googling later, and I couldn't find a response that actually indicated that anyone thought it was derogatory. It's basically on par with 'Aussie' according to the internet.


You do? When I lived in Australia "Brit" was just the Toorak/Vaucluse variation on "Pommie wrecker". I used to give parties in St Vincent Place for just my closest 400 friends, and the chuckers-out from my Hell's Angels ride would talk of "Pommie wreckers" while the guests, who were awfully trendy, would talk of "those gordawful Brits taking over the Great Country". I suggested a dictionary of Australian slang to Anne Godden, my Australian publisher (Hyland House), and I believe they made a buck out of it; my friends Buzz Buzolich and the cartoonist Bruce Cavalier, who were fascinated by Cockney slang, made some input. Had a copy of the book but can't find it now, or I would look up "Brit"; references off the internet are worth what you paid for them, nothing.

Bring a representative cross-sections of Britishers who are not offended by being called a "Brit", and I'll believe you.

Where I live now, falsely accusing someone of being "a Brit" could until quite recently get your kneecaps shot out.

In any event, it is pretty offensive to call someone by a perjorative because of his race or nationality, and it is doubly offensive to call him by the wrong pejorative, and class him with the ur-enemies of his race.

_Post edited to remove personal attack. Note, Andre, that no one called you (or anyone else on this forum) a Brit, if that's the point you're trying to make. Please point out to me the post where they did if I'm mistaken. --Betsy_


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

swolf said:


> I self-published a couple of books last night, and the prone, gasping body of Literature jerked twice, as if two bullets had been pumped into it.


I checked after self-publishing a novel on Sunday and guess what? _Moby Dick_ is still for sale. I feel SO cheated.

ETA: Please don't hit me, Betsy.


----------



## Jude Hardin (Feb 5, 2011)

Adam Pepper said:


> Do you really believe that, Jude? Once baseline competence is achieved there are simply no other measures of quality? Be it level of prose, depth of ideas, unique creativity? I agree that there is a huge subjectivity to it, but it's not 100% opinion. There are ways to measure greatness.


What does _level of prose_ mean? _Depth of ideas_? _Unique creativity_? Who gets to define those things and decide which books possess them?

Of course it's all subjective. Even the so-called experts frequently disagree over what qualifies as good or great or exceptional, and attitudes regarding such abstract descriptors shift with time.

So yes, a book's greatness is 100% opinion. It's not something you can measure with a mathematical formula like the area of a circle. And why would anyone want it to be? That's one of the loveliest things about art, the subjectivity of it all.


----------



## Jude Hardin (Feb 5, 2011)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> Unfortunately I think you have been arguing a point few people want to hear. I personally believe that those who most vehemently oppose any attempt at defining greatness are often the same people who fear they won't qualify for it. We live in a society that celebrates mediocrity and participation over actual achievement. Where a blue ribbon is given to everyone who shows up lest we offend someone or make someone feel bad. We aren't allowed to talk about people being gifted because it makes the non-gifted feel really bad about themselves.
> 
> I suffer no delusions of my literary importance. I write fantasy and horror and publish RPGs. But the fact that I personally am not writing great literature doesn't make me resentful or spiteful toward those that do. I don't feel this inherent need to reject, demean, or insult those writers who do strive to produce great literature or those individuals that try to quantify what it is or those publishers that try to find those needles in haystacks. I can respect those efforts and not have my own sense of self-worth threatened. Unfortunately, not everyone can do that.


James Joyce's _Ulysses_.

Great literature, or inaccessible tripe?

Who gets to make the definitive call?

Get your yardstick out for that one, and then get back to me when you reach a conclusion.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> Unfortunately I think you have been arguing a point few people want to hear. I personally believe that those who most vehemently oppose any attempt at defining greatness are often the same people who fear they won't qualify for it. We live in a society that celebrates mediocrity and participation over actual achievement. Where a blue ribbon is given to everyone who shows up lest we offend someone or make someone feel bad. We aren't allowed to talk about people being gifted because it makes the non-gifted feel really bad about themselves.
> 
> I suffer no delusions of my literary importance. I write fantasy and horror and publish RPGs. But the fact that I personally am not writing great literature doesn't make me resentful or spiteful toward those that do. I don't feel this inherent need to reject, demean, or insult those writers who do strive to produce great literature or those individuals that try to quantify what it is or those publishers that try to find those needles in haystacks. I can respect those efforts and not have my own sense of self-worth threatened. Unfortunately, not everyone can do that.


The thing is, Julie, that many people who strive to produce great literature fail miserably and saying so has nothing to do with resentment. It's just a fact. Many people who label one book or another as great literature may well be wrong (when that book fades from such lists). Like it or not, there is no universally agreed upon yardstick for great literature, and saying so isn't demeaning anyone or anything. In fact, if a novel IS great literature, nothing I say or do can or will demean it, which has been the point of a number of posts in this thread.

If it is great, then my novels sure as heck aren't going to hurt it.


----------



## Guest (Jun 26, 2013)

Jude Hardin said:


> Who gets to make the definitive call?


I would say those with both the desire and mental acumen to discuss the merits of a book beyond it's cosmetic aspects should be the ones involved in making the call.

People who don't know the difference between a hypothesis and a scientific theory should not be involved in setting science curriculm. People who have trouble balancing a checkbook should probably avoid discussions about macroeconomics. People who don't know the difference between a cutter and a splitter probably shouldn't offer advice on pitching. And people who only want to read popcorn books than can be consumed in a day or two and are easy to follow and require no significant mental output probably shouldn't be involved in determining what is great literature.

I don't personally like _Moby Dick_. In fact, I'm generally not a fan of Mellville. But my personal dislike doesn't mean I am incapable of recognizing the literary value of his work and the influence he has had. People who actually study literature can do that. This is why I get annoyed when people get dismissive about defining "literary" work. We arn't arguing favorite baseball teams or whether or not chocolate or vanilla ice cream is better. We are talking about something that people DEDICATE THEIR LIVES to studying, and some people spit on that dedication and pretend it is no different from a one line review on Amazon.


----------



## Adam Pepper (May 28, 2011)

Jude Hardin said:


> Of course it's all subjective.


Is James Lee Burke a better writer than Dan Brown?

I would argue that he is. And that it's not even close, and I dont think it's opinion. I think Burke's superiority is clear to anyone who has ever even made a peripheral attempt to construct a sentence. And yet, Brown certainly meets the minimum level of competence in storytelling.

Is this 100% opinion? And if so, why would 99% of serious writers and readers agree with me?


----------



## Adam Pepper (May 28, 2011)

Jude Hardin said:


> James Joyce's _Ulysses_.
> 
> Great literature, or inaccessible tripe?
> 
> ...


There is a fine line between creative brilliance and pretentious nonsense. Personally, I salute those with the courage to attempt walking that line!


----------



## Jude Hardin (Feb 5, 2011)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> I would say those with both the desire and mental acumen to discuss the merits of a book beyond it's cosmetic aspects should be the ones involved in making the call.


That's what I'm saying. Those with the desire and mental acumen disagree. All the time.

And sorry, but you just can't analyze literature the same way as you can balance a checkbook. All the examples you gave are quantifiable. Art is not.


----------



## Andre Jute (Dec 18, 2010)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> Unfortunately I think you have been arguing a point few people want to hear. I personally believe that those who most vehemently oppose any attempt at defining greatness are often the same people who fear they won't qualify for it. We live in a society that celebrates mediocrity and participation over actual achievement. Where a blue ribbon is given to everyone who shows up lest we offend someone or make someone feel bad. We aren't allowed to talk about people being gifted because it makes the non-gifted feel really bad about themselves.
> 
> I suffer no delusions of my literary importance. I write fantasy and horror and publish RPGs. But the fact that I personally am not writing great literature doesn't make me resentful or spiteful toward those that do. I don't feel this inherent need to reject, demean, or insult those writers who do strive to produce great literature or those individuals that try to quantify what it is or those publishers that try to find those needles in haystacks. I can respect those efforts and not have my own sense of self-worth threatened. Unfortunately, not everyone can do that.


I don't know, Julie. I've never found a profession where being important is enough by itself. It just sets you up as a target for mickey mouse wannabes who think they'll inflate their self-image by scoring off you. The only small advantage is that you can get away with shit for which the professional bodies will punish lesser luminaries, but that of course presumes that there is something you want to do outside the norm of the profession, and the urge to revolution declines with importance or age or something.

But what lasts is the pleasure you take in doing the job right, even greater if you managed by a helpful book or books, or by setting up a class, to help others, especially young aspirants, and of course, if you're an entertainer, the pleasure you gave millions of readers. What I regret most of all the facets of my experiment among the indies, now in its third year, is that so many of them are so grimly determined. During the time of the gentlemen publishers, until the conglomerate accountants took over c1990, all of the professional writers I knew in trad publishing, and the editors and agents, had a huge fun doing their thing; we laughed all the time. Well, a few feminists and their associated editors were grimly disapproving of the risk-takers and expense-account big-spenders, but most of the real writers had come from that sort of background anyway, and didn't understand what the prissy-mouths were whining about, or care. When my paperback publisher and I faked up a feminist novel, and flogged it to the premier house for that sort of thing, when we took the publisher to lunch to fess up she tried to scratch our eyes out in public. Selflessly, I crawled under under the table to give my editor room to deal with her. The publisher eating at the next table raised the tablecloth to say to me, "You two chancers can call me this afternoon, as soon as you clear the rights." The book became a nice little earner -- still swings the long tail.

It's a special privilege enjoyed only by novelists to be able to live with your characters for extended periods of time. I don't see why that is a cause for grim faces; those who don't enjoy writing should stop doing it. And all this bitterness tingeing the very air around some of the indies isn't a creative impetus, it is bound to be destructive.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> I would say those with both the desire and mental acumen to discuss the merits of a book beyond it's cosmetic aspects should be the ones involved in making the call.
> 
> People who don't know the difference between a hypothesis and a scientific theory should not be involved in setting science curriculm. People who have trouble balancing a checkbook should probably avoid discussions about macroeconomics. People who don't know the difference between a cutter and a splitter probably shouldn't offer advice on pitching. And people who only want to read popcorn books than can be consumed in a day or two and are easy to follow and require no significant mental output probably shouldn't be involved in determining what is great literature.
> 
> I don't personally like _Moby Dick_. In fact, I'm generally not a fan of Mellville. But my personal dislike doesn't mean I am incapable of recognizing the literary value of his work and the influence he has had. People who actually study literature can do that. This is why I get annoyed when people get dismissive about defining "literary" work. We arn't arguing favorite baseball teams or whether or not chocolate or vanilla ice cream is better. We are talking about something that people DEDICATE THEIR LIVES to studying, and some people spit on that dedication and pretend it is no different from a one line review on Amazon.


Did my book being published make Melville's work disappear? No. It didn't. It hasn't because I happen to dislike the work, by and large, either by the way. Neither will _Ulysses_ because a lot of people dislike it.

And no we aren't arguing a favorite baseball teams. We are arguing something far more difficult and complex. The fact that some people dedicate their lives to studying literature doesn't mean that others can't disagree and even spit on that dedication. I SERIOUSLY question whether academics who spend their lives studying great literature and writing publish-or-perish books and articles about it (for pay) are the ones to decide. I doubt they would have put Dickens' or Austin's work on such lists during their lifetimes and they would have been wrong.

I happen to agree largely with the argument that what makes great literature great is its survivability (because people love reading them) which is what makes the the_ Iliad_ and _Pride and_ _Prejudice_ and _Bleak House_ great. And yes,_ Moby Dick_ even though I don't like the book. (Maybe if you realized I was being sarcastic it would help) I am pretty sure Joyce's _Ulysses_ is going to survive as a great book although I'm not so sure about some of his other work. I don't think that the reason Shakespeare and Chaucer and Joyce survive has much to do with those professionals and their publish-or-perish articles. It has to do with people who simply love books reading and loving them. Even people who can read it in a day or two.

But we'll have to wait a bit longer to see, I think.


----------



## Andrew Ashling (Nov 15, 2010)

Adam Pepper said:


> There is a fine line between creative brilliance and pretentious nonsense.


Only those who can see the emperor's new clothes can see the difference, I think.


----------



## Jude Hardin (Feb 5, 2011)

Adam Pepper said:


> Is James Lee Burke a better writer than Dan Brown?
> 
> I would argue that he is. And that it's not even close, and I dont think it's opinion. I think Burke's superiority is clear to anyone who has ever even made a peripheral attempt to construct a sentence. And yet, Brown certainly meets the minimum level of competence in storytelling.
> 
> Is this 100% opinion? And if so, why would 99% of serious writers and readers agree with me?


I happen to like JLB a lot, but I've heard some "serious" writers and readers say that he slips into purple prose at times. Their opinion is just as valid as yours, or mine.


----------



## B. Justin Shier (Apr 1, 2011)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> We are talking about something that people DEDICATE THEIR LIVES to studying...


Some folks dedicated their lives to studying phrenology.

Scientists are questioned all the time.
Economists are questioned all the time.
Pitching coaches are fired all the time.

It's partly how each discipline is improved.



Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> And people who only want to read popcorn books than can be consumed in a day or two and are easy to follow and require no significant mental output probably shouldn't be involved in determining what is great literature.


And this attitude right here is what upsets people, not that striving to define what is literature.

Fortunately, thanks to the interwebs, we can now walk around the ivory towers if we choose to, and I can finally obtain a decent translation of Solaris. (Seriously, people, the new Kindle translation is awesome sauce.)

B.


----------



## Adam Pepper (May 28, 2011)

Jude Hardin said:


> I happen to like JLB a lot, but I've heard some "serious" writers and readers say that he slips into purple prose at times. Their opinion is just as valid as yours, or mine.


That's fine and fair. But let's try another hypothetical exercise. If we asked 100 people who are reasonably well read who is the better author, Dan Brown or James Lee Burke, what would you expect would be the breakdown? 90-10 for Burke? 75-25? I'd expect that it would heavily lean towards Burke. But if, as you say, it's 100% subjective, then the responses should be pretty close to 50/50.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

Jude Hardin said:


> I happen to like JLB a lot, but I've heard some "serious" writers and readers say that he slips into purple prose at times. Their opinion is just as valid as yours, or mine.


Oh, he frequently slips into purple prose. I wrote SUCH a scathing review of one of his more recent novels that was so purple it made my teeth ache.

ETA: However on his worst day, JLB is the better writer. I don't know if that makes his work "great literature". Personally, I never try to decide if something is great literature or not, a worthless exercise in my opinion.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

Adam Pepper said:


> That's fine and fair. But let's try another hypothetical exercise. If we asked 100 people who are reasonably well read who is the better author, Dan Brown or James Lee Burke, what would you expect would be the breakdown? 90-10 for Burke? 75-25? I'd expect that it would heavily lean towards Burke. But if, as you say, it's 100% subjective, then the responses should be pretty close to 50/50.


It would be more fun to have them read half of each book. Then they get to select one and only one second half. Robicheaux or Langdon?


----------



## JonDavis1 (Apr 11, 2012)

It's been nine pages, haven't we wiped out literature yet? I'm busy working on phase 2, ending civilization as we know it and I need to know when to start up the catalytic converter.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

JonDavis1 said:


> It's been nine pages, haven't we wiped out literature yet? I'm busy working on phase 2, ending civilization as we know it and I need to know when to start up the catalytic converter.


So far, as well as I can tell, literature seems to have survived just fine so maybe hold off on the catalytic converter. We'll have to try harder.


----------



## Andre Jute (Dec 18, 2010)

Adam Pepper said:


> Is James Lee Burke a better writer than Dan Brown?
> 
> And yet, Brown certainly meets the minimum level of competence in storytelling.
> 
> Is this 100% opinion? And if so, why would 99% of serious writers and readers agree with me?


This is an illuminating comparison. I'm a fan of James Lee Burke, and I've read some Dan Brown though I must admit to not finshing any of his books; he writes too badly not to exasperate me with his crudities. I wouldn't even even call Brown competent, regardless of his sales. he can't even get the major elements of structure right. In Da Vinci Code he shows an academic without thought, casually, giving up the greatest discovery in two millennia. It's unmotivated, impossible in real life, impossible to believe. (Since it happens right at the end of the book, and I haven't read that far, how do I know? It happens in the last scene of the movie and ruins the entire movie too.)

Every action in a James Lee Burke novel is credibly motivated. Even when it ruins the book (as in when Billy Bob Holland turns coward at a threat to his child) the motivation is true: it is what you and I would do, not what we would like a comic book hero to do. John Braine, a very thoughtful novelist, critic and teacher of creative writing, thought unimpeachable motivation, a closed circle, to be the most important element in a superior novel.

Burke is also an excellent example of another important facet of exceptional writing: that it is subtle and rich rather than blunt and arid.


----------



## Guest (Jun 26, 2013)

B. Justin Shier said:


> Some folks dedicated their lives to studying phrenology.
> 
> Scientists are questioned all the time.


There is a difference between intelligent scientific disagreement and "Evolution is just a theory. Creationism is the same as science."

This is my point. Some of the posts in this thread have gone beyond casual questioning of what is or is not literary. or even intelligent disagreement on how to define it, to outright contempt and insults towards the _notion_ of defining literary to begin with. In the worlds of some people, _Fifty Shades of Gray _is equal in all ways _The Divine Comedy_ or _Hamlet_. I don't believe all opinions are created equal. Nor do I believe all books are equal. That makes me a bad person in some circles. I accept that.

But to bring the whole thing back to the original post, contempt for the "literati" so to speak is no more justified than the original article's contempt for self published books. I do NOT agree that "indies are destroying literature." But I also do not agree than those people who care about preserving literature (not the original article's author, whom I think we ALL agree is just a blowhard) shouldn't be so casually dismissed as the enemy. I think people are using this ridiculous article as evidence of how real students of literature think, and then jumping from there. The article that started this thread was written not by someone who cares about literature, but someone who cares about his own pocketbook. It isn't fair to condemn and ridicule the entire culture of studying literature and the canon based on some random idiot posting an article online.


----------



## Jude Hardin (Feb 5, 2011)

Adam Pepper said:


> That's fine and fair. But let's try another hypothetical exercise. If we asked 100 people who are reasonably well read who is the better author, Dan Brown or James Lee Burke, what would you expect would be the breakdown? 90-10 for Burke? 75-25? I'd expect that it would heavily lean towards Burke. But if, as you say, it's 100% subjective, then the responses should be pretty close to 50/50.


That exercise isn't hypothetical at all. The public has already voted. Dan Brown won by a landslide. 

But really, there are so many abstract variables to consider in a poll like that, the results would be meaningless. If you asked 100 English professors, for example, most of them would probably say that BOTH authors write insignificant bestselling genre swill.


----------



## Jude Hardin (Feb 5, 2011)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> There is a difference between intelligent scientific disagreement and "Evolution is just a theory. Creationism is the same as science."
> 
> This is my point. Some of the posts in this thread have gone beyond casual questioning of what is or is not literary. or even intelligent disagreement on how to define it, to outright contempt and insults towards the _notion_ of defining literary to begin with. In the worlds of some people, _Fifty Shades of Gray _is equal in all ways _The Divine Comedy_ or _Hamlet_. I don't believe all opinions are created equal. Nor do I believe all books are equal. That makes me a bad person in some circles. I accept that.
> 
> But to bring the whole thing back to the original post, contempt for the "literati" so to speak is no more justified than the original article's contempt for self published books. I do NOT agree that "indies are destroying literature." But I also do not agree than those people who care about preserving literature (not the original article's author, whom I think we ALL agree is just a blowhard) shouldn't be so casually dismissed as the enemy. I think people are using this ridiculous article as evidence of how real students of literature think, and then jumping from there. The article that started this thread was written not by someone who cares about literature, but someone who cares about his own pocketbook. It isn't fair to condemn and ridicule the entire culture of studying literature and the canon based on some random idiot posting an article online.


I don't hold any contempt toward anyone, and I'm pretty sure I haven't insulted anyone. I earned an English degree once upon a time (University of Louisville, 1983), so I have a great deal of respect for those who devote their lives to studying and teaching the written word.

But I'm still waiting on a quantifiable definition of what constitutes "great" literature. I'll never get that definition, though, because it doesn't exist.


----------



## Adam Pepper (May 28, 2011)

Jude Hardin said:


> But I'm still waiting on a quantifiable definition of what constitutes "great" literature. I'll never get that definition, though, because it doesn't exist.


It's nebulous, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.


----------



## Jude Hardin (Feb 5, 2011)

Adam Pepper said:


> It's nebulous, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.


Nebulous = unquantifiable. See? We agree!


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

Jude Hardin said:


> That exercise isn't hypothetical at all. The public has already voted. Dan Brown won by a landslide.
> 
> But really, there are so many abstract variables to consider in a poll like that, the results would be meaningless. If you asked 100 English professors, for example, most of them would probably say that BOTH authors write insignificant bestselling genre swill.


Nope. By that standard, Edward Bulwer-Lytton could be said to have won over Dickens by a landslide. How many people do YOU know who even know who Bulwer-Lytton was a hundred and fifty years later?


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

Jude Hardin said:


> I don't hold any contempt toward anyone, and I'm pretty sure I haven't insulted anyone. I earned an English degree once upon a time (University of Louisville, 1983), so I have a great deal of respect for those who devote their lives to studying and teaching the written word.
> 
> But I'm still waiting on a quantifiable definition of what constitutes "great" literature. I'll never get that definition, though, because it doesn't exist.


The same here at a different university. I even got myself a masters which frankly increases my tendency to dismiss professors as the people to define "great" literature, especially when it comes to current literature. They have too much of a vested interest in the topic and are under too much pressure because of the politics and realities of academic life--which isn't always pretty. Ok, I have some contempt for some professors having known them too well, but as a group they're no worse than anyone else. They also are frequently terrible judges (imo) of what is great in current literature. That isn't contempt; it is just an awareness of how academia works.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

JRTomlin said:


> Nope. By that standard, Edward Bulwer-Lytton could be said to have won over Dickens by a landslide. How many people do YOU know who even know who Bulwer-Lytton was a hundred and fifty years later?


*raises hand*

On a dark and stormy night...

Oh, wait, it's neither dark nor stormy here. But the weather sucks, does that count?

Betsy


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

Betsy the Quilter said:


> *raises hand*
> 
> On a dark and stormy night...
> 
> ...


Sucks here too. WHEN is it going to stop raining? Even Portland should have occasional sunshine. But I am pretty sure the casual person-on-the-street doesn't know who Bulwer-Lytton was but is likely to have at least heard of Dickens.


----------



## Jude Hardin (Feb 5, 2011)

JRTomlin said:


> Nope. By that standard, Edward Bulwer-Lytton could be said to have won over Dickens by a landslide. How many people do YOU know who even know who Bulwer-Lytton was a hundred and fifty years later?


My crystal ball says that people will still be reading Stephen King 150 years from now. Does that make him great? Opinions vary. I think he is, but many "serious" readers would say no.


----------



## Ann in Arlington (Oct 27, 2008)

Jude Hardin said:


> My crystal ball says that people will still be reading Stephen King 150 years from now. Does that make him great? Opinions vary. I think he is, but many "serious" readers would say no.


See, and I've tried reading King several times and never could get into him. . . most recently with _Under the Dome_ -- I just find his prose dull.

I've heard of both Dickens and Bulwer-Lytton.  So has Snoopy.  Which means though many people may not know his name, they probably know his famous first line. . . . . . .


----------



## Andrew Ashling (Nov 15, 2010)

Ann in Arlington said:


> See, and I've tried reading King several times and never could get into him. . . most recently with _Under the Dome_ -- I just find his prose dull.


The man doesn't know what an adverb is, it seems. A pity. It would give his dull prose depth and that extra sheen.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

Andrew Ashling said:


> The man doesn't know what an adverb is, it seems. A pity. It would give his dull prose depth and that extra sheen.


He was an English teacher. He knows what an adverb is. He doesn't use them much. Neither do I. I agree with him that it is verbs, not adverbs, that bring prose to life but that is surely a discussion (argument?) for another thread.

We'll just have to see what history's judgement on King is in 150 years. The judgement is certainly gradually going his way at the moment just as it is for other popular writers such as Dashiell Hammett.


----------



## Andrew Ashling (Nov 15, 2010)

JRTomlin said:


> He was an English teacher. He knows what an adverb is. He doesn't use them much. Neither do I. I agree with him that it is verbs, not adverbs, that bring prose to life but that is surely a discussion (argument?) for another thread.


You fell for that?


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

Andrew Ashling said:


> You fell for that?


Yep. Fell for it hook line and sinker.

Did I mention that King won the National Book Award Medal of Distinguished Contribution to American Letters which is probably recognition of literary merit of his work? What? I did?


----------



## Andrew Ashling (Nov 15, 2010)

JRTomlin said:


> Yep. Fell for it hook line and sinker.
> 
> Did I mention that King won the National Book Award Medal of Distinguished Contribution to American Letters which is probably recognition of literary merit of his work? What? I did?


Ah, yes, but did he win the Awesome Indies Seal of Approval? No? I didn't think so. 

Okay, I'm gone now, while I'm still alive and stuff&#8230;


----------



## NathanWrann (May 5, 2011)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> I don't personally like _Moby Dick_. In fact, I'm generally not a fan of Mellville. But my personal dislike doesn't mean I am incapable of recognizing the literary value of his work and the influence he has had. People who actually study literature can do that. This is why I get annoyed when people get dismissive about defining "literary" work.


This. It's not whether one likes the work, it's whether one can see the value in it.


----------



## Jude Hardin (Feb 5, 2011)

JRTomlin said:


> He was an English teacher. He knows what an adverb is.


He also discusses adverbs at length in _On Writing_. One of the best (and most entertaining) books on the subject, IMO.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

Jude Hardin said:


> He also discusses adverbs at length in _On Writing_. One of the best (and most entertaining) books on the subject, IMO.


I agree.



Andrew Ashling said:


> Ah, yes, but did he win the Awesome Indies Seal of Approval? No? I didn't think so.
> 
> Okay, I'm gone now, while I'm still alive and stuff&#8230;


Well, he probably should have since (in spite of that last novel) he has shown a good amount of support for the changes in publishing. Now we'd better both flee before Betsy finds that cattle prod.


----------



## Eric C (Aug 3, 2009)

Jude Hardin said:


> He also discusses adverbs at length in _On Writing_. One of the best (and most entertaining) books on the subject, IMO.


Granted I read On Writing a decade ago, but King's discussion is actually brief, as I recall. If you really want a thorough discussion on why it's almost always a good idea not to overload sentences with modifiers, see The Art of Fiction by John Gardner.

But you remind me that fiction is both an art and a craft. There are a set of "rules" (for lack of a better word) of craft developed over centuries, in many cases, and still evolving, but slowly, that beginners violate almost always at their peril and that experts by and large follow, though on occasion violate to gain some particular effect. It's by using fiction's rules of craft that one could build a case as to why Burke is at least a technically superior author to Brown, for example. One could in fact produce a quantifiable score for each author if one were so inclined.


----------



## Jude Hardin (Feb 5, 2011)

Eric C said:


> Granted I read On Writing a decade ago, but King's discussion is actually brief, as I recall. If you really want a thorough discussion on why it's almost always a good idea not to overload sentences with modifiers, see The Art of Fiction by John Gardner.
> 
> But you remind me that fiction is both an art and a craft. There are a set of "rules" (for lack of a better word) of craft developed over centuries, in many cases, and still evolving, but slowly, that beginners violate almost always at their peril and that experts by and large follow, though on occasion violate to gain some particular effect. It's by using fiction's rules of craft that one could build a case as to why Burke is at least a technically superior author to Brown, for example. One could in fact produce a quantifiable score for each author if one were so inclined.


Kind of like this?

_To fully understand poetry, we must first be fluent with its meter, rhyme and figures of speech, then ask two questions: 1) How artfully has the objective of the poem been rendered and 2) How important is that objective? Question 1 rates the poem's perfection; question 2 rates its importance. And once these questions have been answered, determining the poem's greatness becomes a relatively simple matter.

If the poem's score for perfection is plotted on the horizontal of a graph and its importance is plotted on the vertical, then calculating the total area of the poem yields the measure of its greatness.

A sonnet by Byron might score high on the vertical but only average on the horizontal. A Shakespearean sonnet, on the other hand, would score high both horizontally and vertically, yielding a massive total area, thereby revealing the poem to be truly great. As you proceed through the poetry in this book, practice this rating method. As your ability to evaluate poems in this matter grows, so will, so will your enjoyment and understanding of poetry._



A free paperback or Kindle copy of KEY DEATH to the first person who knows where that came from.


----------



## Eric C (Aug 3, 2009)

Dead Poets Society? (Smells like high satire, at any rate.)


----------



## Jude Hardin (Feb 5, 2011)

Eric C said:


> Dead Poets Society? (Smells like high satire, at any rate.)


Yes! From an essay in the students' textbook called "Understanding Poetry" by Dr. J. Evans Pritchard, Ph.D. "We're not laying pipe," Mr. Keating (Robin Williams) says. "We're talking about poetry." It's not satire, but from an early scene that beautifully sets up the Keating character and his teaching methods, which I happen to love.

Here's the scene: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tpeLSMKNFO4


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

It was a moving movie. (As was GOOD MORNING, VIETNAM.)

However, the movie's Mr. Keating is about a believable, in terms of what a New England prep school would tolerate of its faculty, as Mr. William's Adrian Cronauer is when compared to the actual, real Adrian Cronauer.






The actual Mr. Kronauer has more in common with Robert Bork than Robin Williams.  And makes more sense than Mr. Williams, as well.


----------



## Andre Jute (Dec 18, 2010)

Wish I had the power to destroy even a small part of self-styled "literature".  I know which part it would be. (No, it wouldn't be the pornographers.) The corollary is the implication that I would then also have the power to save literature, but I don't see any part of literature or even Literature in need of aid. It was always thus. I can't remember a time whom some old fogie didn't whine that Literature was being prostituted -- always in highly emotional language. All that is new is that people with negligible sales are arrogantly claiming to be saving Literature.


----------



## Quiss (Aug 21, 2012)

I must confess that I furthered the ongoing destruction of literature by hitting the publish button on my latest title.
Oops, my bad.


----------



## Andre Jute (Dec 18, 2010)

Quiss said:


> I must confess that I furthered the ongoing destruction of literature by hitting the publish button on my latest title.
> Oops, my bad.


You wicked person, you.


----------



## WritersAdvantage (Jun 2, 2013)

BLAH .... BLAH.... BLAH ....

Those who complain about this are missing out on a lot of fans, audience and money.. 

If your readers love your content then they love your content.. Even some of the most famous author have mistakes.


----------

