A Reader's Manifesto.

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

A READER'S MANIFESTO, B.R. Myers

The thesis of this book is that contemporary American literature is pretentious, deliberately obscure, dull, insular, and just badly written overall.

Florence King makes the same assertion.

To be short and sweet, New York publishers & reviewers champion writing that violates virtually every canon of the art. This book is a food-fight about what is and isnt good writing.

The book began life as a self-published polemic that the author tried to sell on-line at Amazon. He sold zero copies. Then he mailed 20 copies to editors, and one responded. The book became an article in a national magazine, and the fat was in the fire.

The present book is a synthesis of the original, the magazine article, and the firestorm the article created.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

This happens every so often. Stephen King just got through doing this with the National Book Award, making a fool of himself by insisting that the NBA should go to best-sellers and not just books that critics like the best.

The fact the Joyce's Ulysses -- a book that no one can actually read -- was voted the Most Significant Book of the 20th Century, doesn't help things, but the fact of the matter is, the publishing industry is controlled by frightfully intelligent people and they seem to like frightfully intelligent books. So while Christine and Carrie will continue to sell like Big Macs, they'll continue to publish books like The Unconsoled.

Hey: no one will publish my book either. I'm pissed too.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

DOC

"Artistes" and reviewers refuse to accept the reality that theyre entertainers and books are entertainment. They believe theyre educators.And educating is okay so long as they keep in mind that theyre also teaching people how to write.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

DOC

"Artistes" and reviewers refuse to accept the reality that theyre entertainers and books are entertainment. They believe theyre educators.And educating is okay so long as they keep in mind that theyre also teaching people how to write.

Teaching people how to write? Authors are teaching people how to write?

Popular authors are entertainers. Literary authors are teaching people how to see and think. That's what King didn't understand. There's a difference between entertainment and art.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

DOC

Sure! Writers teach readers how to write. Readers absorb whats on the page the same as novices absorb lessons watching hunters catch prey. Its how most of the animals learn.

Rachmaninov is every bit the entertainer that Gershwin was. Both played piano, both performed on stage. Each was a master of his craft though Rachmaninov likely had NO rhythm and Gershwin's hands were maybe half the size of R's.

 

[gauchecritic]

Rachmaninov is every bit the entertainer that Gershwin was. Both played piano, both performed on stage. Each was a master of his craft though Rachmaninov likely had NO rhythm and Gershwin's hands were maybe half the size of R's.

Your word choice leads me to suspect that you likely wouldn't know bullocks from bollocks.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

GAUCHE

Maybe.

 

[Liar]

There's a difference between entertainment and art.

As concepts, sure.
As products? Not much.

 

[elsol]

*yawn*

Is this like the opera versus Britney spears..

One puts most of us to sleep and the other sells gajillion albums...

So NO MORE OPERA! NO MORE OPERA! NO MORE OPERA!

NO MORE SMART TV -- ONLY REALITY TV!

 

[manyeyedhydra]

There's a difference between entertainment and art.

One passes the hours in a pleasurable manner, the other makes you sit up and view either yourself or the world in a different light?

I'm never too certain. I know what has entertained me and I know what has made me think, but that's me. I have no idea for anyone else.

I think there's more honesty about entertainment. You can clearly see something is good entertainment because it is enjoyed by a lot of people. Number of sales at least feels like a measurable value, whereas the other seems to rely on the opinions of a small clique of nodding dogs.

There's too much art designated as art because the creator proclaims themselves an artist in my humble opinion.

As with a lot of things I guess it's in the eye of the beholder. I'll form my own opinions and respect other people for doing the same.

 

[Katyusha]

DOC

"Artistes" and reviewers refuse to accept the reality that theyre entertainers and books are entertainment. They believe theyre educators.And educating is okay so long as they keep in mind that theyre also teaching people how to write.

I knew a guy awhile back who'd managed to get a book published. He'd had an agent at the time and his agent kept trying to tell him that readers want to be entertained with a work of fiction, not educated (and the same holds true for non-fiction depending on the subject). This guy couldn't get that through his head and never had another story published; he spent too much time trying to educate the masses with fiction.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

KATYUSHA

Our local newspaper just discovered that the secret to selling papers is entertaining stories. The concept never occurred to them until it happened. Now theyre forcing their boring colimnists to go out and find some interesting stories to report.

Masters, of course, write stories that are entertaining and relevant to the human condition. But all writing needs to be entertaining.

 

[jomar]

I'm just over halfway through The Road by Cormac McCarthy. Entertainment Weekly (whoever they used) ranked it as the number one book of the past 25 years. So far it's...okay...and wouldn't be that hard to put down. Mostly though I noticed he doesn't use quotation marks. I hope the movie is better.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

JOMAR

Its okay to like what you like. Its okay to dislike what everyone loves. But its not okay for snooty NYC reviewers to decide whats okay for everyone and what isnt, then impose their likes on America. They politicize art.

 

[gauchecritic]

JOMAR

Its okay to like what you like. Its okay to dislike what everyone loves. But its not okay for snooty NYC reviewers to decide whats okay for everyone and what isnt, then impose their likes on America. They politicize art.

but it is ok for you to decide what snooty NYC reviewers want?

 

[jomar]

JOMAR

Its okay to like what you like. Its okay to dislike what everyone loves. But its not okay for snooty NYC reviewers to decide whats okay for everyone and what isnt, then impose their likes on America. They politicize art.

Always worked for me. I've never paid attention to them anyway. I'll stick to the best seller lists, word of mouth and book covers I like in the library.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

One passes the hours in a pleasurable manner, the other makes you sit up and view either yourself or the world in a different light?

I'm never too certain. I know what has entertained me and I know what has made me think, but that's me. I have no idea for anyone else.

I think there's more honesty about entertainment. You can clearly see something is good entertainment because it is enjoyed by a lot of people. Number of sales at least feels like a measurable value, whereas the other seems to rely on the opinions of a small clique of nodding dogs.

There's too much art designated as art because the creator proclaims themselves an artist in my humble opinion.

As with a lot of things I guess it's in the eye of the beholder. I'll form my own opinions and respect other people for doing the same.

Yeah. The test of art is what it does for you. All the nodding dogs can do is give their opinions. Their opinions are supposed to be pretty good though. Whether they are or not is something we all have to decide for ourselves.

When it comes time to pick a book to read, I go two ways. Maybe I'll (1) see what everyone else is reading, or (2) maybe I'll ask those people whose opinions I value most what they've liked lately. That's the same thing the culture does with the nodding dogs. Sometimes they're right, sometimes they're wrong as far as I'm concerned. They all become obsolete eventually.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

JOMAR

Its okay to like what you like. Its okay to dislike what everyone loves. But its not okay for snooty NYC reviewers to decide whats okay for everyone and what isnt, then impose their likes on America. They politicize art.

I suppose that's why half the fiction sold in the US is romance. That New York Cabal!

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

DOC

Genre writing isnt the topic, is it? It's LITERATURE.

 

[Safe_Bet]

There's a difference between entertainment and art.

I've got to disagree. Being entertained means you enjoyed something, right? I enjoy things that expand my perception. A Picasso painting, a story by Hemmingway, a Mozart Symphony all make me 'reach.' They also are ripping good entertainment. I enjoy them.

Do certain elitists try to champion the things they think are important? Of course! Do I have to buy ‘it’? Nope.

So now, I’m off to play a wonderful, entertaining, and educational game of Shoots and Ladders with the twins.

 

[Corylea]

Teaching people how to write? Authors are teaching people how to write?

Of course they are! Most people learn through imitation, after all. My husband is a Computer Science professor, and when he first started publishing papers, he realized that scientists don't usually get much training in how to write. He wanted to learn to write better, so he went to the library and got a book on writing. The first advice it gave him was to read people who wrote well so as to internalize the feel of good writing.

In looking down the list of recommended authors, he came upon the name of Dorothy Sayers and was thrilled that he could learn to write better by reading so popular a work as a mystery novel. He read Sayers and loved her, which only increased his desire to learn how to make his papers better written than most scientific articles. Many years later, he now teaches his grad students how to make their papers clear and readable.

Popular authors are entertainers. Literary authors are teaching people how to see and think. That's what King didn't understand. There's a difference between entertainment and art.

While I agree that there's a difference between entertainment and art, I think the line is a fuzzy one that depends greatly on the background and mentality of the reader. If entertainment is just for fun, and art is something that changes the reader, then almost anything can be art to somebody.

I'm a therapist, and ten years ago, I worked at a couple of college counseling centers. I was always surprised at how many students were struck by the wisdom of some TV show that I perceived as a stupid waste of time or who felt that their lives had been changed by the latest summer blockbuster. Well, maybe the show or the movie was a waste of time for 40-year-old me, but for 18-year-old them, it may have been the first place they ever heard some interesting idea. And the fact that it was presented in a fairly simple form may have been part of why they were able to assimilate it.

There are a couple of fantasy novels that are set in a very pagan world, where the characters talk about the three-part Goddess just as part of their ordinary conversation. When i first read these books, I was just starting to become interested in paganism, and I thought these were the Best Books Ever, shining with meaning, luminous in their wisdom. I've read a lot more about paganism since then, and when I go back to those books, I still like them quite a lot, but they're no longer The Books That Spoke To Me.

I think one of the mistakes that literature teachers make, from middle school through college, is to assign books to their students that stretched and challenged and taught *them*. I want to go around reminding them that their middle school students aren't them, and even most of their college students aren't them -- if the book is challenging YOU, it's over the head of 90% of your students, and making them read it will just teach them that literature is incomprehensible drudgery.

Oops, sorry. I seem to have gone into soapbox mode when I wasn't looking.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

Of course they are! Most people learn through imitation, after all. My husband is a Computer Science professor, and when he first started publishing papers, he realized that scientists don't usually get much training in how to write. He wanted to learn to write better, so he went to the library and got a book on writing. The first advice it gave him was to read people who wrote well so as to internalize the feel of good writing.

So he went and got Ulysses out of the Library, hearing it was the greatest book of the 20th century, and started writing scientific papers like James Joyce ("The current hypothesis..oh, thesis, the is, this he is, he thus was, once when it was ever, thus whatever, it could have been; over and over, the ending, ever over..." Something like that?),

Or he started writing like Faulkner? ("The current hypothesis that I knew was old in my gut, was old when the world was old, was old before that morning when I awoke in the gray dawn with my feet splayed on the worn linoleum floor and the sunlight awash like gray suds of another dreary Monday borne in through the tired backroads of Awashtenautenogenon County..."),

or like Hemingway ("The current hypothesis was a good hypothesis. It was a true hypothesis. The taste of the hypothesis was honest upon my lips, like the coppery-salt taste of blood when I cut myself shaving and my finger touched my cut and touched my blood to my tongue and I asked: "What have I done? Cut myself!")

The point is: our best writers are not writing to teach us how to write. They're writing to teach us how to see. They're not making examples of themselves as to how we're all supposed to express ourselves, like giving penmanship examples. Like professional singers, they've developed special, exaggerated voices that allow them to describe things in a way that normal everyday exposition can't. If everyone could say what they do, then they wouldn't be great writers, would they?

As Anais Nin said, the job of the writer is not to say what everyone else can say, but to say what no one else can say. Claiming that the purpose of a writer is to teach us how to write is like saying that the purpose of an Itzhak Perlman is to give us violin lessons.

 

[Guest]

So he went and got Ulysses out of the Library, hearing it was the greatest book of the 20th century, and started writing scientific papers like James Joyce ("The current hypothesis..oh, thesis, the is, this he is, he thus was, once when it was ever, thus whatever, it could have been; over and over, the ending, ever over..." Something like that?),

Or he started writing like Faulkner? ("The current hypothesis that I knew was old in my gut, was old when the world was old, was old before that morning when I awoke in the gray dawn with my feet splayed on the worn linoleum floor and the sunlight awash like gray suds of another dreary Monday borne in through the tired backroads of Awashtenautenogenon County..."),

or like Hemingway ("The current hypothesis was a good hypothesis. It was a true hypothesis. The taste of the hypothesis was honest upon my lips, like the coppery-salt taste of blood when I cut myself shaving and my finger touched my cut and touched my blood to my tongue and I asked: "What have I done? Cut myself!")

The point is: our best writers are not writing to teach us how to write. They're writing to teach us how to see. They're not making examples of themselves as to how we're all supposed to express ourselves, like giving penmanship examples. Like professional singers, they've developed special, exaggerated voices that allow them to describe things in a way that normal everyday exposition can't. If everyone could say what they do, then they wouldn't be great writers, would they?

As Anais Nin said, the job of the writer is not to say what everyone else can say, but to say what no one else can say. Claiming that the purpose of a writer is to teach us how to write is like saying that the purpose of an Itzhak Perlman is to give us violin lessons.

Yes.

Educating and performing are two entirely different things.

Edited to add: I consider a published work to be a performance.

 

[Corylea]

Claiming that the purpose of a writer is to teach us how to write is like saying that the purpose of an Itzhak Perlman is to give us violin lessons.

I didn't say that the *purpose* of writers is to teach us how to write -- that would be stupid -- I said that they *do*. They do other things first and more importantly, but that doesn't preclude their having secondary effects.

 

[Iamcanadian28]

Teaching people how to write? Authors are teaching people how to write?

Popular authors are entertainers. Literary authors are teaching people how to see and think. That's what King didn't understand. There's a difference between entertainment and art.

It sounds to me like that statement is attempting to create a false dichotomy. As has been discussed since, what constitutes "art" or "entertainment" is entirely in the viewpoint of the person viewing it. It's subjective, so what may be considered art for some, would be crap for others and vice versa.

They are also not mutually exclusive. Art can be entertaining (and popular) and entertainment can have artistic elements. I don't believe that a black and white approach is entirely appropriate for this particular discussion.