Comments on Nathan Bransford - Literary Agent: The Reverse Snobbery of Low Literary Aspirations

I didn't read all your comments. And I haven't se...

2009-11-20T02:20:19.495-08:00

I didn't read all your comments. And I haven't seen the original post yet, but I wanted to add that the reason the "experts" may have lost control and respect of the masses is the very snobbery you talk of.

They stopped listening to the pulse of the world around them, closed their mental doors, and started paying attention only to the what the other experts have to say.

They bandwagon themselves, and then throw rotten tomatoes at those not on the wagon with them. Instead of sitting on the sidewalk and listening to the tastes and desires and (dare I say) needs of those on the street--the plebeian, the everyman--they attempt to lord over them with some version of, "Don't worry your pretty little head over it. I know better than you."

Their lack of respect for those they are preaching to (and often those they are preaching about) has come back full circle.

Why would I give credence to someone who insults what I enjoy, and, by extension, me?

I certainly recognize the need for experts, and importance of standards. But their expertise does not negate my pleasure.

Reading something "literary" and really well writt...

2009-11-08T21:31:29.422-08:00

Reading something "literary" and really well written is just a totally different aesthetic and emotional experience, than reading most genre. So I definitely keep such books in my mix. Like Nadine Gordimer, who is hard to read, but it's so deeply satisfying/rewarding.

It's so rare to read anything about anything anymo...

2009-11-03T10:48:54.699-08:00

It's so rare to read anything about anything anymore that takes the middle ground. Thank goodness someone has the nuance to write what you've written here. It's rarely an either/or situation, as much as we love things black and white. Sometimes the snobbery of both sides is overwhelming and it's almost always a waste of time.

Last witness- what in the world? Gerson was Bush'...

2009-10-31T18:38:41.862-07:00

Last witness-

what in the world? Gerson was Bush's speechwriter. The phrase wasn't ABOUT Bush, Bush delivered the line. I happen to like the line. My word.

Out of curiosity, why the little dig at President ...

2009-10-31T15:31:16.101-07:00

Out of curiosity, why the little dig at President Bush? It only isolates you from half your audience and reinforces the stereotypical view of elitist liberal publishing.

That's a post on its own, if you think about it; why diss half your audience either way unless your book/story is specifically about politics?

Thank you, thank you, thank you. A truer word ain'...

2009-10-31T07:51:57.824-07:00

Thank you, thank you, thank you.
A truer word ain't yet been spoke. Writers can learn from others. I am a genre writer, and proud of it, and I am always on the lookout for what others can do with words. Exactly as you said it.

The trouble with experts is that most of them aren...

2009-10-30T17:21:14.637-07:00

The trouble with experts is that most of them aren't experts.

The majority of people saying literary stuff is awesome/popular stories are trash aren't people with doctorates in literature. They're writers who set themselves up as an expert because they wrote a book.

Often the false experts are far harsher about popular stuff than the real experts. They're trying to prove their expertise by criticising the things they see as the opposition. Which is why increasingly more universities run courses in science fiction... but your average self-made expert will tell you that all science fiction is trash.

So I don't think all the backlash is against the true experts. It's a reaction to the over-abundance of experts who really aren't. Sometimes it can be hard to notice the real expert amidst all the rest.

(Reviewers are a bit of a different kettle of fish. I can appreciate they know more than me when it comes to literature review, but that doesn't mean we'll like the same books.)

Any kind of knee-jerk reaction is bad, but with wr...

2009-10-30T13:34:33.841-07:00

Any kind of knee-jerk reaction is bad, but with writers like Roth I just can't help it. I've never vowed not to read his writing, but his attitude is a real turnoff for me.

Hear! Hear! I don't write literary fiction, but I ...

2009-10-30T11:31:50.209-07:00

Hear! Hear! I don't write literary fiction, but I love it all the same. My favorite line: Writers ignore good writing at their peril.

Blogger thoughtful1 said... Oh, ye folk who ...

2009-10-30T11:15:44.018-07:00

Blogger thoughtful1 said...

Oh, ye folk who disparage Proust:( Read this and weep:

"I would ask myself what time it could be"?

I don't even understand what that means. Making a sentence difficult to comprehend does not make it good. You want modern literary writing? This is poetry, and yet, it's also understandable:

"My soul grazes like a lamb on the beauty of indrawn tides."

When millions of readers fall in love with a commo...

2009-10-30T11:07:03.176-07:00

When millions of readers fall in love with a common novel, it speaks more highly of the appeal of the content than of the craft. I know that this is subjective and the two can be closely related, but they are not necessarily exclusive, either. Novels with less craft can have popular appeal. Novels that sell millions can also be very well crafted. It is a simple formula.

An element of the reading public, however, takes it upon themselves to lift literature to a higher standard. I do not champion their effort, but I can give them a golf clap for effort. They are often the same element that choose alternate operating systems, word processors and web browsers. And what they are doing is laudable, but not for everyone.

I, for one, sit upon the literature fence. I love the great works of literature and can discern between what is great and why. I also love to lose myself in the "pulp" literature and genre classifications just like the other million readers out there. I read the Harry Potter series and was captivated. I read King, Salvatore, Brown and the Star Wars Legacy series. Call me a dope. But, I feel I am in the majority. Most people read what makes them feel good or has a common element with their lives that appeals to them. We read to live, to learn, to experience. We write to do the same.

To judge content on "literary merit" is one way to qualify our tastes, but often it is meant to elevate our feelings about our own quality. It is a way for us to exercise the ever-present literature envy mantra: "WOW! THAT novel is trash! I can write better than that!"

When our aspirations for our own work is high, it is easy to become snobs. This is true with anything. Just attend a middle school basketball game and sit next to a parent with a child on the bench. We are possibly in the "why not me?" generation.

High-concept premises; low concept premises: Low-b...

2009-10-30T10:39:15.898-07:00

High-concept premises; low concept premises: Low-brow literal meaning; high-brow figurative meaning.

Literary elements: any device or method in a narrative predicated to stimulate emotional response, yeah, like rhetoric, which is the art of persuasion, the art of storytelling. A literary element can be as obvious and essential as a plot, though plot isn't necessarily all that obvious, or a literary element can be as sublime as deep subtext or even more sublime.

How much or how little a story is in its figurative meaning is a filtering mechanism for distinguishing the "literary" from the literal story. But there's the thing, a writer's (reader's too) subconscious is a busier and more talented storyteller than his conscious mind.

What meaning may be found in the figurative story isn't absolutely there in a writer's foremind. Once published though, figurative meaning is no longer an author's to own. It's owned by the audience in its parts and wholes. As long as the literal meaning still tells an engaging story, it's all good.

Anyway, there's a whole lot of reading and writing going on. The masterpieces are few and far between in the now of an era. But the really great masterpieces accumulate thoughout time, so there are a multitude today.

It's hard to write a simple story, harder still to write a complex one, all but impossible to write a masterpiece that will also be widely popular in it's author's own time.

Meanwhile, there's a marketplace void to fill with all the literal stories that serve audience needs until a masterpiece comes along and sweeps aside all the hubris.

Nathan, I think you have to separate two differen...

2009-10-30T10:16:36.907-07:00

Nathan,

I think you have to separate two different things: 1) the art of reading literary fiction 2) the art of writing a query letter. When you say "Yeah. Forget all that," what you really mean is, "Forget all that when writing a query letter," don't you? I assume you're not advocating that everyone forget the analytical, close-reading skills they learned in college. Rather, you are saying that "themes" (yuck, what a word) should spring forth from the act of reading and should occur to the READER. "Themes" should not be supplied by the author in a query letter.

And really, isn't it true that "themes" shouldn't be driving the writer during the act of writing either? The writer should concentrate on telling a story, whether that story chronicles a traditional plot or the story of a character's inner life.

Lisa, wonderful points! I was thinking about the ...

2009-10-30T10:07:58.198-07:00

Lisa, wonderful points!

I was thinking about the whole "themes" issue, and remembered something I had heard Jerome Kern say on a documentary about composing the music for "Showboat."

He said that (I think) Oscar Hammerstein had encouraged him to use musical themes, even though Kern thought that most people listening to the music would have no clue that they were there. In other words, that it was a waste of effort on the composer's part. For example, the musical themes for "Cotton Blossom" and "Old Man River" are inverted (try singing the words "Cotton Blossom" and "Old Man River" from the two songs and you'll see what I mean.)

"Cotton Blossom" is an upbeat song, so the notes go from lowest to highest. "Old Man River" is mournful ballad, so the notes go down.

Hammerstein told him that although the masses might not consciously recognize the musical themes, they will nonetheless respond to them. In other words, just because a listener or reader can't define what makes a song or book great, they will still recognize its quality.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that li...

2009-10-30T09:59:25.383-07:00

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that literary fiction, which I define as fiction that takes special care with language and/or that offers unusual insights into the human condition, is BETTER than run-of-the-mill popular fiction. When a writer can combine real intelligence and a capacity for complex, critical thinking with a facility for language in all its beauty, ferocity, and delicacy, the product is a work of art with the potential to move the reader and therefore to change the reader's life. This is no small task. Although popular fiction can sometimes move us, offer us alternative worlds, amuse us, etc. it simply does not have the depths and the power that a work of the finest quality literary fiction possesses.

Also, our culture's skepticism toward experts can offer a healthy corrective to certain staid hierarchies. But to throw authority out the window and conclude that every goofball with an opinion deserves an equal hearing is madness. Just as I would not want my ex-husband, a history professor, to perform open heart surgery on me, so I would not particularly want to subject my intellect to a writer who's writing without training (intensive reading in the history of literature, an apprenticeship in the art of writing fiction).

The publishing market (for top sellers) encourages...

2009-10-30T09:52:44.598-07:00

The publishing market (for top sellers) encourages this view, doesn't it?

But I'm currently reading a quiet literary novel by Ron Hansen and feeling at one with the earth and with the human condition, in all its screwed up glory, and there's only one reason why writers would pretend to look down their noses at such a heartfelt display of literary power.

I have a Bachelor's degree in English and when I w...

2009-10-30T09:49:50.248-07:00

I have a Bachelor's degree in English and when I was in college I was as deadly serious an English major as you would find. I read A LOT of classics and found myself able to write papers about books that initially seemed dry and boring. But I have always enjoyed a good, fast-paced suspense novel. I was sometimes harangued by my student and faculty colleagues for not reading something "more intelligent" or "more meaningful" or "better written" so I know about the snobbery. Having read on both sides of the tracks, in my experience a truly great book is not necessarily one that keeps you up all night reading or takes your breath away (although many of them do those things) but is one that does two things: 1. It asks questions. It doesn't just give you the story, the theme, the moral or the lesson. It asks YOU questions. You're left going, "Holy crap? I'm not sure how I feel about that or what I think about that." For days afterward you might be turning these questions over in your mind. 2. A truly great book is one you can read over and over again and each time take something away from it. Almost all of the "classics" I read in college did these things. A great example is Ralph Ellison's Invisible Man. All of Shakespeare's works do these things. Today books that are touted as great are usually trade paperbacks and are considered more "literary" and many of them that I've read seem to me to be truly great books. Atonement for example--it was beautifully written and it brings up the whole issue of trusting the narrator in the same way that Dostoyevsky's Notes from Underground did. I'm sure there are other questions that book brings up but I think I could read that book a few times and take different things from it. At the same time I'm not embarrassed to say that I think Dean Koontz has written some truly great books. There are a handful of his novels I've read over and over again that both raise a lot of questions for me and give me lessons to take from them. So I think it's inappropriate to think that a mass market or genre novel that is not considered "literary" has nothing to offer. There are a couple of other genre writers whose books I could say the same about but I cannot think of any names at this moment.
Also as a writer I find it's too hard to set out to write some great literary novel. My story ideas come to me and that is what I write about. I'm not really worried about whether or not it's literary or even if it has something to offer. I'm just worried about getting it onto the page. Then again, I am one of those writers who would keep writing even if I knew I'd never be published. But I am trying to get published because that would be pretty cool too. I write because it's fun and I write about the things that are fun for me to write about. So far I would say they are suspense novels. Who knows? Maybe if I write long enough a deep, meaningful literary novel will pop out.

Nathan, your skills in rhetoric are very strong. ...

2009-10-30T09:18:14.037-07:00

Nathan, your skills in rhetoric are very strong. A nicely written piece that is difficult to refute. (Not that I would. I agree with the sentiment behind it.)

And I think this has resulted in a cultural moment that celebrates mass appeal rather than the elite.

To translate:

Today, the mob rules.

I believe that, when the mob gains power, the potency of their backlash is in direct proportion to the effects that caused it. France's revolution resulted in a complete and fairly gruesome dismantling (literally) of the existing elite. America's revolution resulted in a reasonably civilized war and enduring diplomatic ties.

Over the past eight years we saw reverse snobbery in virtually all aspects of American culture. Worst of all, it is occurring in our schools, where low expectations are being institutionalized, and standardized tests are creating standardized students.

The reverse snobbery the reading/writing mob exhibits today is, I think, in direct proportion to the perceived snobbery of past decades by the literary elite. It was not so long ago that educated people wouldn't be caught dead holding a popular title. In fact, the popularity of a title was frequently cited as proof of its inadequacy as "literature."

It is not high quality literature per se that the mob rebels against. It is the snobbery of the elite that offends. Unfortunately, mobs are very bad at distinguishing babies from bathwater, so they tend to throw out everything because, well... it's easier, I guess. Mobs like easy, direct, unambiguous action.

What about aspiring to create something that is great, rather than merely popular? What about pushing the envelope even when it's not what's currently in fashion? What is wrong with being elite and appreciated by experts if not by the masses?

Nothing is wrong with it. It's a free country, as we say. This does not fit well, however, with the demographic of writers who frequent the blogs of literary agents. Especially those who are looking for their first modest success. Asking this question here is somewhat like asking a fifth grade basketball team, "What's wrong with trying to win three straight NBA titles?" Maybe one of those kids will do that, one day, and I bet they all dream of it. But you can't hold that as the only worthy goal, which I think the literary elite have done in the past.

I just helped set up a book fair for children in K...

2009-10-30T08:16:05.682-07:00

I just helped set up a book fair for children in K-12. A few books appealed to teens by using text message language, such as u for you. The librarian said she's had to explain to kids they must use "you" instead of "u" in their term papers. This is as frightening as ghouls on halloween.

I enjoyed viewing the marketplace of books for middle through high school and doing the first-line test, which tells me whether I am interested in reading more. The art of the first line is key, especially in these distracting texting times. Meet your audience and take them with you. They won't wait 20 pages, unless they've read you before.

Oh, ye folk who disparage Proust:( Read this and ...

2009-10-30T07:48:40.420-07:00

Oh, ye folk who disparage Proust:( Read this and weep:

I would ask myself what time it could be; I could hear the whistling of trains, which now nearer and now farther off, punctuating the distance like the note of a bird in a forest, showed me in perspective the deserted countryside through which a traveler is hurrying towards the nearby station. . .

from Swann's Way

Roweena @ 8:22pm has a point -- between "writers" ...

2009-10-30T07:19:42.535-07:00

Roweena @ 8:22pm has a point -- between "writers" and "entertainers."

Interestingly, it wasn't that many months ago where Stephen King slammed Stephenie Meyers publically, saying her writing "just wasn't very good."

I would imagine if Roth would call out James Patterson then he'd also call out Stephen King (as an entertainer). But King (through sales and craft) was eager to distinguish himself from the Stephenie Meyers of the world.

Who is really a writer and who is an entertainer? Where is that line drawn?

I also agree with the comment that every published...

2009-10-30T06:30:17.897-07:00

I also agree with the comment that every published writer "is doing something right."

I can think of two examples of authors who have written long series of books that have a faithful readership, whose writing is so bad (IMO) that I cringe when I read them.

But I still read them.

Why? Because they have appealing concepts and characters, and I enjoy the idea of their world even if I think I could write it better.

But I didn't write it. The authors did. So they deserve the credit, and the royalties.

I think that both of them are examples of how less talent but a lot of perseverance (and in one case, publishing connections) can go a long way.

No, I won't name them. But they aren't recent hits - they are long-running authors of "cozies."

Nathan, mostly I agree with you. I guess my only ...

2009-10-30T06:19:31.917-07:00

Nathan, mostly I agree with you. I guess my only hesitation is that what is difficult for a reader should not be the use of language that is inappropriate for the times. Today's grammar involves more direct statements than passive or multiple dependent clauses. Somewhere in my lit crit studies I remember the importance of saying something as directly and simply as possible. If a theme is complex then all the more reason for crystal clear and immediate writing. As for pulp fiction, well, sometimes I enjoy it, but maybe my definition is off. I enjoy Patricia Cornwell. I don't think of her work as great lit, but she writes well in my opinion. Then there are books I pick up for a nanosecond full of immediacy of crude or no brainer themes. So then the question is What Is Great.

"In America the majority raises formidable barrier...

2009-10-30T06:14:15.930-07:00

"In America the majority raises formidable barriers around the liberty of opinion; within these barriers an author may write what he pleases, but woe to him if he goes beyond them." Alexis de Tocqueville

Nowadays I think they call it group think.

Nathan, I have been thinking about this post sin...

2009-10-30T05:59:06.585-07:00

Nathan,

I have been thinking about this post since yesterday afternoon. It really hit a nerve.

I agree with you... books should be written at the highest level possible for that author's skill and for the intended audience.

I think what people are trying to say about books being published that aren't as well-written as we think they should be, is how FRUSTRATING it is to feel as if you are banging on the door trying to get in, and are being told that your work isn't good enough (for some mysterious, unexplained reason), when even you, the Unpublished, can tell that your work is better than some of the stuff written by people that that DID get into the Hallowed Halls of Publishing.

As I said before, I have been told that I need to craft my first novel towards genre fiction in order to get my foot in the door, because literary novels don't sell as many copies as genre fiction. And publishers don't want to risk money on a new author unless they think the book will sell a zillion copies.

So it seems that the public appetite isn't being challenged because the publishers are selecting books with wider appeal - i.e. the lower denominator. Because publishing isn't about great literature, it's about money.

Am I right?