Oh man, I’m not even sure how such distinguished writers can stand so very close to common riff-raff. Edna St. Vincent Millay looks traumatized.
WHEW. Back to the reading rages after what seems like about a million years, give or take a million. How are you guys? Did you miss me? I MISSED YOU.
Today’s topic is one I had planned for last week, but then the thing happened, and I don’t know, and now it’s this week so I’m writing it now. What’s kind of fun is that, if I had written it last week like I planned, it would have coincided with this post by Amanda over at Book Riot (go read it after you read this post, it’s a hoot and a half), which touches on a similar topic–a topic, in fact, that concerns us all very deeply.
The death of literature.
Yes, my friends, those who are in the know say that literature is dying. Quality writing gasps its last tortured breaths while obviously inferior works like Twilight and The DaVinci Code and most anything by Stephen King rush in to take its place. Why, it’s really only a matter of time before bookstores will be half Harlequin romance, a third paranormal horror, and Tom Clancy filling the rest, with nary a Faulkner or an Austen to be found. In a few decades, James Patterson and Danielle Steele will be taught in schools, and the next generation of writers will be little more than drooling, furiously-masturbating penmonkeys who couldn’t define symbolism if their lives depended on it and are only good for writing sex scenes and violence.
(has a fit of uncontrollable coughing)
Sorry, I always choke on bullshit.
According to Amanda over at Book Riot, there’s a man who thinks that the death of good literature is my fault. And your fault. Basically, every book blogger’s fault, and hell, while we’re at it, let’s just blame all readers, too–after all, if “readable” books are displacing “literature,” I guess everyone who has ever bought a “readable” book has some measure of culpability. The man in question is Sir Peter Stothard, an editor for The Times Literary Supplement. While he thinks it’s “wonderful” that we all have our little sites, talking about our reading and so forth, we’re not on the level of real critics; if we are allowed to run wild, suggesting books for people to read and talking about said books, why, we’re going to ensure that no actually good books are ever read and literature as we know it will die off. Because, you know. We should only be getting book recommendations from professionals who actually know what good books are.
Can you hear that? It’s the sound of the world’s saddest violin playing for Sir Peter Stothard. I believe it’s being played by Itzhak Perlman.
Book bloggers are, of course, just the latest in a long chain of scapegoats being blamed for the death of literature. And let’s get real, literature isn’t even dying–changing, yes, but not dying. Hand-wringers like Sir Peter talk about the death of literature in the same way that our parents fretted over that rock-and-roll (or rap or industrial or whatever) “noise” that we’re listening to, or we fret over those morons on reality television; but, to be fair, there has been quite a change in the past century or so in publishing. Books went from being revered and a bit rare to being cheap and common. What happened? What gives?
If anything is “killing” literature, it’s fairly simple to pinpoint exactly what has happened: more people started reading books.
That’s it. I mean, that’s the whole thing. More people started reading books.
Combine a rise in literacy with the 1930′s innovation of mass-market paperbacks pioneered by Penguin and others, plus the publication of pulp fiction magazines preceding even that, and you’ve got yourself a winning formula for people reading solely for entertainment. And why not? Books are inexpensive, they give you hours of enjoyment, they’re quiet, they’re portable, and you can keep them forever if you want. It’s no secret to us, of all people, that books really do make the perfect entertainment.
Like all entertainment, there are . . . grades, you might say, of books. Some people like to read books that challenge their minds; some like to read books that provide thrilling and/or racy stories; some like to read books that take them to distant lands, or even distant planets; some people like a mix of “thinking” books and “junk” books. What’s more, we now have cheap publishing options to help put as many of all of these kinds of books into the hands of consumers as they can read; hell, you can even publish books digitally now. Publishers, rather than being the “gatekeepers” and preservers of literary culture that they claim to be, are really quite the opposite: they’re out there grabbing up as much content as they can, and they don’t care if it’s 15-year-olds writing steamy romance novels or epic fantasies about dragons, or middle-aged women living out their raunchiest fantasies in 75,000 words or less. Book about a girl in a love triangle with a werewolf and a vampire? You said it did well in the focus groups? Let’s put that baby to bed, motherfuckers! Large publishers are all about the benjamins, and there are MANY BENJAMINS in selling crappy books. (Hey, despite an overall increase in literacy, there’s still no accounting for taste.)
What Sir Peter doesn’t seem to realize is that he’s a book nerd, and nerds occupy a very special area of the continuum of enjoyment. It’s a very small area, and if you look closely, you can see that it has a wedgie but still manages to look superior and self-satisfied. (He claims that he’s only ever seen six films in his entire life because he loves reading so much. That’s a special brand of nerdism.) The hand-wringing starts when people like Sir Peter see “other” books start polluting the literary pool. We’re all quite well-meaning, they’re sure, but we really shouldn’t be allowing such trash to be published or encouraging it by buying the books or talking about them on the internet. We’re just not qualified.
I have sad news for the supernerds bemoaning the “downfall” of literature: you’re never going to be able to put this bus in reverse. Even the people who make books aren’t on your side; they’ll give you a pat on the head and pretend to commiserate, then go back to making fat cash selling the newest Stephen King or Nora Roberts, or putting up insane advances to get the next book by Snooki secured at their press. I have happy news, though, too: as long as people are putting pen (or keyboard) to paper, there will always be literature. Great literature, even. It won’t look like your grandpa’s literature, but it will be there. And as long as it is there, there will be discourse by learnéd people about literature. And I’ll tell you a secret: not all of the bloggers out there are telling people to read “bad books.” To think that is absurd. Sorry, Sir Peter. But it is.
What do you think, book fans? Is literature, in fact, dying? Are book bloggers preserving literary culture or ruining it? Did you know that you were playing a part in the downfall of ALL OF LITERATURE? Drop those comments like they’re a steamy Harlequin romance heroine.
I wish Sir Peter would start a book blog.
He’s probably too busy being important and stuff.
He sort of has one- he writes for the TLS blog. I just. I can’t even.
OHAI AMANDA
Your post was awesome and I hope everyone went to read it from the linky I put up there.
I wonder which six films made Sir Peter’s watch list.
I ALSO would like to know this information.
I don’t think people like him realize that books we consider good, proper “literature” nowadays was probably banned, looked down on with disdain, or considered trashy in its day. And look where we are now. *shrug* Just like Stephen King, there can be excellently written books among popular/”trashy” books. And those will probably be the ones who will hold up to the test of time. Just like many of the ones we hold dear now.
I like books. Just give me books. :)
Oh, I forgot to say, it’s just like how language has changed over the years. It’s not that it’s degraded in quality, necessarily, but that it’s simply changed. It’s expected.
(._. )
I do not know how to interpret this face :\
If Sir Peter watched stuff like The English Patient or Nacho Libre, I can totally understand why he only watched six movies. I am sure sj would recommend a sweeping epic from Peter Jackson.
I d0 think that perhaps high literacy is highly over-rated when they’re selling 50 Shades of Poop at Target. (for real. no hot glue guns, but they sell THAT?) Maybe we’d be better off if only five or six of us could read. Then Sir Petey could choose his favorite works and read it to the rest of us by the light of the fire. Maybe he could preach also and tell us what to believe.
Dude is pretty old, though. He’s only averaged one movie per decade since the 50′s. And he was totally alive when all of the Godfathers and Rockys came out. And Star Wars. Who doesn’t watch Star Wars? And he didn’t go to the cinema for double features when he was a kid? Dang.
I’m off to delete my blog from the interwebs! It’s RUINING LITERATURE!
Sigh. That dude is a tool.
Right? I am totally in the process of deleting ALL THE POSTS. But not really.
Wait, I’m helping to contribute to the demise of LIT-TRA-CHURE?
Dammit. DAMMIT. When you asked me to write here, you didn’t tell me I’d be a BOOK-MURDERER. I am so upset by this bait & switch, I can’t even tell you.
I’m not taking the fall for you, missy. I UTTERLY REFUSE. I’m so stool-pigeoning you out to the man. I CAN’T DO HARD TIME I’D GO STIR CRAZY!!!
Plus you know they’d never let me tweet in there and I’d get itchy, yo.
Oh… I already told them this was all your idea. Oops.
DAMMIT. Well, you’d better start baking me cakes with files in them, because it’s on you to break me outta the big house, then.
It’s good to know that I need only start applying my Mavis Beacon lessons to contribute to the death of literature.
I will keep that in mind the next time I talk about something. Or comment. Or give an opinion.
I wonder if Sir Peter’s problem is REALLY that the majority of book-bloggers are women?
I wish you and your lady parts would just SHUSH. No more opinions ok???
CAN’T HELP IT. My vagina has MANY OPINIONS.
Oh we’re helping it, for sure. And it’s a pity he doesn’t realise that. You make a good point about technology helping people to read. As much as I’m not keen on ereaders, as long as people are able to buy them (thinking of costs), if it gets people reading then it’s a good thing. I find it funny I’m supposedly contributing to the downfall, and I find it even funnier when coming across blogs that are rather academic, because it just isn’t true.
I really couldn’t tell what his problem was, beyond “The book bloggers are doing the same thing I’m doing, only they’re doing it wrong.” I would argue that “readability” is not a “side issue”. I’d argue that it’s a necessary (albeit not sufficient) quality of a great book. If your book is exploring a complex character, it’s far easier to do it by being long-winded and comprehensive than by carefully choosing a few details that illuminate the whole. The same goes for prose-heavy descriptions.
I actually had to look up the definition of “literary fiction” to get some idea of what he was fussing about. My impression? “Literary fiction” isn’t something you read for enjoyment, but so that you can tell your fellow wine club members that you read it. Perhaps I’m a troglodyte. But my favored genre (sci-fi) seems to be definitionally excluded from the category of “meaningful literature”, despite all the wonderful, thought-provoking, sometimes “literary” genre work out there.
I see Sir Peter Stothard as a high-class hipster, someone who measures his skill as a literary critic by the extensiveness of his list of things that aren’t worth liking or caring about.
Conclusion: Overeducated white male decries the diminishing influence of overeducated white males. Film at 11.
P.S.: Can somebody tell me what he means by “novels need to renew the English language?” Cuz honestly, I think the work of modern art that has done the most to affect the trajectory of the English language in recent memory is Buffy the Vampire Slayer.
Meh. So, I actually KIND OF agree with him about the renewing the English language thing… but, he didn’t have to put it in such a SWEEPING, grand statement. I mean, it’s like painting.. there has to be something a little different about your style for it to be elevated from decoration to art, there has to be something there that’s a little bit new and personal, and not just a copy of something that someone else is doing, and writers must do that with language to elevate the work. But it was a really snooty way to put it.
From The Telegraph:
Errr, um. ‘Scuse me for a second.
Further on:
I feel like I’m reading some secret code. Looking over the paragraph critiques of the novels (further down in the article), I get the same feeling. Apparently, literary books have “mastery of method,” “perfumed prose,” “technical artistry,” “sternly paced to match its subject,” “a bleak inner landscape…”
When I was eight, I started a secret club, whose sole purpose was to let its three founding members be part of something that nobody else got to (especially not girls). I’m getting that vibe here.
The whole thing reminds me a little of this South Park episode (WARNING, FART JOKES AHEAD)
In fairness it really is hard not to get depressed about the state of literature when you look at most of what dominates the best seller lists, but then I (actually) remember something a professor once told a class I took circa a long fucking time ago – that he had been shown a best seller list from a peak 19th century period in English lit and not a single book on the top ten list was a book he’d heard of or by a writer he knew.
Goes to show.
Perspective! ;)
Hit reply too soon–wanted to add, what sells well is not always, or even usually, equal to what is best.
So I’m a few days late on this one, but I was actually having this discussion with a friend earlier today. Many people fear change, but change is the status quo. Fear of change is why old people look back at the youth culture from their youth and think that today’s youth culture sucks. Literature is just another facet of culture where things are changing.
I’m not saying I’m crazy about Twilight, Fifty Shades, or even the Hunger Games, but at least now more people are literate. I am a little disappointed that contemporary literature is big on monosyllables, because I love ridiculous words that are derived from classical languages. Still, I don’t complain about shitty popular books any more than I complain about shitty popular TV shows. If I don’t like it, I don’t read it (or watch it in the case of the TV shows).
As for book blogs, I think that the ease of publishing a book blog means that a wider variety of opinions are now available. It’s much easier to find a blogger whose taste matches your own. “Real” critics are just book bloggers who write for a “legitimate” source.
I think I could continue ranting about this all night, but I’m still a little jet lagged and I’m going to go to bed instead.
1) Amanda gets me in trouble at work because I laugh like a hyena every time i read anything she writes
2) Because, you know, Shakespeare wasn’t enormously popular with the unwashed masses or anything. Are we still having this argument? Really?
3) “People will be encouraged to buy and read books that are no good, the good will be overwhelmed, and we’ll be worse off.” Because the masses have ONLY JUST SUDDENLY STARTED READING TRASHY BOOKS! LIKE, YESTERDAY! BECAUSE OF BOOK BLOGGERS!
I feel sorry for the guy, really. Think of the daily level of internal tension required to maintain a view of literature so resolutely narrow! Also, a man who ignores one of the major art forms of the 20th century that completely is at risk of having his aesthetic sensibility called into serious question. (Think of all the references he is utterly unequipped to understand!)
Sounds similar to the argument that pencils (read technology) were going to ruin writing for everyone because “anyone” could use one, and they were cheap. Change is good.
Pingback: Literary Criticism Can Not Be Accomplished By Bloggers (Again) || The Worm Hole