Hello
Guest

Sponsored Links


Topic: Good for the Public!  (Read 2697 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Good for the Public!
« on: August 28, 2004, 03:38:38 PM »
(ganked from my LJ)

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=487&ncid=762&e=13&u=/ap/20040828/ap_en_ot/anti_bush_novel

Apparently, this guy's book, about a long conversation between a guy and his friend who is planning to assassinate Bush, has sold about 6,500 copies since release. Blessings on you, reading public!

This isn't a political thing. It's outrage that a novel so self-indulgent, so clearly pointless, so much a manifesto barely disguised as fiction, should get not only a publishing *deal*, but a huge amount of publicity paid for by that publisher. When will publishing companies stop paying out huge advances for this crap? When will they remember that the purpose of fiction is to entertain, or to expand the horizons of the reader?
Yes, there are novels that make a point. But it's a subtle point, or at least it's told with interest and subtlety. This novel is a self-important piece of crap, and I don't think I have to read it to make that judgement. I'd say the same thing about an author who decided it was worth his/her time, or expected it to be worth a reader's time, to sit and read a boring conversation between two fictional people about why war in Iraq was justified or really any political topic. Did the publishers really think people were going to buy this garbage? (That's a whole other rant.)

Sh** like this gets the red carpet rolled out for it. A celebrity hack like Madonna can decide to write children's books, hire a ghost-writer, and snap her fingers. Anything written by any celebrity will be published immediately, or any number of political polemics that appeal to a much smaller audience than the publishers seem to think, but there are thousands of writers out there, talented writers (and no I'm not referring to me. I hope I have talent, but I certainly wouldn't refer to myself as a talented writer) who can't get a break.

It would be nice to think that the publishing companies will learn something from this. They won't, of course, but it would be nice if they did.


  • *
  • *
  • Posts: 5875

  • You'll Never Walk Alone
  • Liked: 8
  • Joined: Apr 2002
  • Location: Rochester, Kent
Re: Good for the Public!
« Reply #1 on: September 01, 2004, 04:46:01 PM »
It would be nice to think that the publishing companies will learn something from this. They won't, of course, but it would be nice if they did.


Publishing companies - learn something?  Perish the thought!  ::)
"Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy."

- Benjamin Franklin


  • *
  • Posts: 17

  • Liked: 0
  • Joined: Aug 2002
  • Location: Guildford
Re: Good for the Public!
« Reply #2 on: September 01, 2004, 05:32:04 PM »
SAF

I'm not a regular contributor to the board but I do read posts from time to time and had a stong urge to respond to this one because it raised a number of questions for me.


Quote
It's outrage that a novel so self-indulgent,

Don't you think the term self indulgent could be applied to many written works  that are seen as among the greatest works of literature?

 
Quote
so clearly pointless

how is it pointless?

without having read the novel, how can you dismiss it as pointless?

does a novel have to have a point to be published?

I don't think I'd presume to judge any book without actually reading it.
I read something by Nicholson Baker a few years ago and it was entertaining. Certainly a long way from the best thing I've read but I didn't feel I've entirely wasted my time, which I have felt with other books.


Quote
When will they remember that the purpose of fiction is to entertain, or to expand the horizons of the reader?

How do you know this novel doesn't do either of these things without reading it?


Quote
This novel is a self-important piece of crap, and I don't think I have to read it to make that judgement.

why don't you have to read it to make that judgement?



Quote
I'd say the same thing about an author who decided it was worth his/her time, or expected it to be worth a reader's time, to sit and read a boring conversation between two fictional people about why war in Iraq was justified or really any political topic.


Are you saying that publishers should never consider publishing a book that takes the from of a conversation between two characters on a political issue?

Quote
When will publishing companies stop paying out huge advances for this crap?

Publishing is a commercial business and publishers want all the attention they can get, so something a little controversial is going to be in their interests to publish.

It's a shame that they won't take more chances but in the end they're running a business.

It can be purely down to luck whether a writer makes the right connections with readers and editors but I'm not sure how that can be changed in the world we are living in.

James



Mr.  Mindy.


Re: Good for the Public!
« Reply #3 on: September 01, 2004, 06:11:14 PM »
SAF

I'm not a regular contributor to the board but I do read posts from time to time and had a stong urge to respond to this one because it raised a number of questions for me.

Don't you think the term self indulgent could be applied to many written works  that are seen as among the greatest works of literature?
Uh...no...what works considered literature greats would you class as self-indulgent?  I wouldn't see, for example, Moby Dick or The Grapes or Wrath or any number of other "greats" as self-indulgent.  To me great literature-great fictional literature, I should say-is by definition *not* self-indulgent, because it speaks to the human condition as a whole, to themes greater than a political situation.

Quote
how is it pointless?

without having read the novel, how can you dismiss it as pointless?
Because, as I said, it is a manifesto disguised as fiction.  There is no point in my reading this man's manifesto when what I am looking for was a work of fiction. 

Quote
does a novel have to have a point to be published?
I think it should say something, yes.

Quote
I don't think I'd presume to judge any book without actually reading it.
I read something by Nicholson Baker a few years ago and it was entertaining. Certainly a long way from the best thing I've read but I didn't feel I've entirely wasted my time, which I have felt with other books.
How nice for you.  I have read many reviews of this book by people who were fans of the man-they all say this book is, well, a pointless political manifesto thinly disguised.  I don't need to read Mein Kampf to know it's crap, either.

Quote
How do you know this novel doesn't do either of these things without reading it?
Again, I have read excerpts and reviews.  I don't think I need to read a book that the author says was written just to vent his anger at GW Bush to know it's not for me, and that it's aimed at a very particular market.

As I stated, I believe the purpose of fiction is to entertain, enlighten, and expand.  You might not agree.  I don't care.  To me, the book is pointless because it was not written to do any of the above things.

Quote
why don't you have to read it to make that judgement?
OK, answered this in several different forms already.


Quote
Are you saying that publishers should never consider publishing a book that takes the from of a conversation between two characters on a political issue?
NO.  I'm saying maybe they should stop publishing BORING books, especially ones with so little imagination.  I consider that type of book to be dull.  It sounds dull to me.   

Quote
Publishing is a commercial business and publishers want all the attention they can get, so something a little controversial is going to be in their interests to publish.
Yes, and that's my point.  That quality, not controversy or fame, should be a bigger factor in their decisions.  Did I not make that clear?  Did you skip the entire last paragraph of my post?

Quote
It's a shame that they won't take more chances but in the end they're running a business.
Yes, and they should learn that people want quality in their fiction if they want their business to survive.  Publishing is losing revenues, and I think it's because they waste millions on stuff nobody wants to read while rejecting books people might enjoy.

Quote
It can be purely down to luck whether a writer makes the right connections with readers and editors but I'm not sure how that can be changed in the world we are living in.
And nobody's suggesting it can be changed or needs to be.  I'm just saying that I wish publishers would think before they leap onto a sensationalist ms and publish the heck out of it without regard to whether or not they are actually putting out a quality work.


« Last Edit: September 01, 2004, 06:13:51 PM by Saf »


  • *
  • Posts: 17

  • Liked: 0
  • Joined: Aug 2002
  • Location: Guildford
Re: Good for the Public!
« Reply #4 on: September 01, 2004, 09:25:47 PM »
Quote
Uh...no...what works considered literature greats would you class as self-indulgent?  I wouldn't see, for example, Moby Dick or The Grapes or Wrath or any number of other "greats" as self-indulgent.  To me great literature-great fictional literature, I should say-is by definition *not* self-indulgent, because it speaks to the human condition as a whole, to themes greater than a political situation.

I think we're talking about different things when we talk about self indulgence. I was talking about the act of writing a novel. It could be argued that Ulysses, Finnegan's Wake, Gravity's Rainbow to name a few that are considered great could also be considered self indulgent because of the time and absorption.   Even Moby Dick could be considered to be self indulgent. It's a novel I love but the act of writing it must have consumed huge amounts of Melville's time but his vision demanded that.






Quote
Because, as I said, it is a manifesto disguised as fiction.  There is no point in my reading this man's manifesto when what I am looking for was a work of fiction. 

I still don't quite see how you can say that.
You have read what people have said and written about the book but without reading it you can't be definitive.





Quote
I think it should say something, yes.

ok

i think we disagree there, but everybody perceives the worth and purpose of art in different ways.



Quote
How nice for you.

how was it nice for me?

is that meant to be patronising?

I don't understand why you need to be patronising.

Quote
I have read many reviews of this book by people who were fans of the man-they all say this book is, well, a pointless political manifesto thinly disguised.  I don't need to read Mein Kampf to know it's crap, either.


i find a comparsion with Mein Kampf astounding and wonder why you made the association.


Quote
Again, I have read excerpts and reviews.  I don't think I need to read a book that the author says was written just to vent his anger at GW Bush to know it's not for me, and that it's aimed at a very particular market.

As I stated, I believe the purpose of fiction is to entertain, enlighten, and expand.  You might not agree.  I don't care.  To me, the book is pointless because it was not written to do any of the above things.

You're contradicting yourself a little here. You've said the book is a manifesto. isn't the purpose of manifestos to force enlightenment?

Without talking to the author or reading his words about his motivations and purposes for writing the novel then everything else is really assumption based on the opinions of others.


Quote
NO.  I'm saying maybe they should stop publishing BORING books, especially ones with so little imagination.  I consider that type of book to be dull.  It sounds dull to me.   

That's extremely subjective. I don't find the theme of this book as dull as you do.


Quote
Yes, and that's my point.  That quality, not controversy or fame, should be a bigger factor in their decisions.  Did I not make that clear?  Did you skip the entire last paragraph of my post?

No, i read it all. I agree with you that controversy and fame should not be such influencing factors and I said I think they should take more chances.


Quote
Yes, and they should learn that people want quality in their fiction if they want their business to survive.  Publishing is losing revenues, and I think it's because they waste millions on stuff nobody wants to read while rejecting books people might enjoy.

I'd agree that I think that is a major issue.

How do you think we as the greater reading public start to put that right?


Quote
And nobody's suggesting it can be changed or needs to be.  I'm just saying that I wish publishers would think before they leap onto a sensationalist ms and publish the heck out of it without regard to whether or not they are actually putting out a quality work.


I'm sure there was a lot of thought put into how and when this book was published and marketed and whether it is a quality book or not is open to futher debate

James

 
Mr.  Mindy.


  • wench
  • Gin-soaked Floozie
  • *
  • *
  • *
  • Posts: 1849

  • Caution: wench on board
    • Wenchstead
  • Liked: 0
  • Joined: Jul 2002
  • Location: Feltham
Re: Good for the Public!
« Reply #5 on: September 01, 2004, 09:30:34 PM »
What is a good book...and what is a boring book, are both highly subjective issues (just look at the books you hate thread...).

wench

Ask and ye shall be babbled at.


  • *
  • *
  • *
  • Posts: 6435

  • Unavailable for Comment.
  • Liked: 0
  • Joined: Aug 2002
  • Location: Leeds
Re: Good for the Public!
« Reply #6 on: September 01, 2004, 10:00:48 PM »
As I stated, I believe the purpose of fiction is to entertain, enlighten, and expand.  You might not agree.  I don't care.  To me, the book is pointless because it was not written to do any of the above things.

...

NO.  I'm saying maybe they should stop publishing BORING books, especially ones with so little imagination.  I consider that type of book to be dull.  It sounds dull to me.   



But what's entertaining to you may not be entertaining to someone else and vice versa.

Hon, you made me laugh at that last line "they should stop publishing BORING books". You make it sound as if we all have the same taste and that the publishers are just being silly with printing all these boring books that no one could possibly want to read.

There are two things in life for which we are never truly prepared:  twins.


Re: Good for the Public!
« Reply #7 on: September 01, 2004, 11:02:04 PM »

I think we're talking about different things when we talk about self indulgence. I was talking about the act of writing a novel. It could be argued that Ulysses, Finnegan's Wake, Gravity's Rainbow to name a few that are considered great could also be considered self indulgent because of the time and absorption.   Even Moby Dick could be considered to be self indulgent. It's a novel I love but the act of writing it must have consumed huge amounts of Melville's time but his vision demanded that.
Then yes, we have very different views of self-indulgence.  The act of writing should be a joy.  I don't think we begrudge any writer the joy of creating.  To me, self-indulgence isn't spending a lot of time on a work until you're happy with it.  It's lazy writing, that isn't meant to do much.





Quote
I still don't quite see how you can say that.
You have read what people have said and written about the book but without reading it you can't be definitive.
Without reading it, perhaps I cannot say definitively for myself that it is a manifesto disguised as fiction.  I can only go by what I have read about it.  So?  This is my opinion, and I'm perfectly entitled to it. 



Quote
ok

i think we disagree there, but everybody perceives the worth and purpose of art in different ways.
Yes, very true.

Quote
how was it nice for me?

is that meant to be patronising?

I don't understand why you need to be patronising.

And I'm not being patronising.  You stated that you enjoyed this author's works, and I replied, "How nice for you."  Am I supposed to jump up and down?  I'm glad you like his work.  That's nice for you, to find something you enjoy.  I enjoy Herman Wouk novels.  If I told you that, what would your response be?  Probably something like, "How nice for you."

Quote
i find a comparsion with Mein Kampf astounding and wonder why you made the association.
I was comparing a political manifesto I don't agree with to a political manifesto I don't agree with.  I don't see what's so astounding about that. 

Quote
You're contradicting yourself a little here. You've said the book is a manifesto. isn't the purpose of manifestos to force enlightenment?
Yes, but this book is a manifesto pretending to be fiction.
Quote
  Had it been released simply as a manifesto, I couldn't find as much fault with it.
Quote
Without talking to the author or reading his words about his motivations and purposes for writing the novel then everything else is really assumption based on the opinions of others.
The opinions of others and the interviews I've read, yes.  Again, so?  I'm expressing my opinion.  My opinion is, I'm glad people are rejecting this book.

Quote
That's extremely subjective. I don't find the theme of this book as dull as you do.
I really don't understand why you keep pointing this out.  Of course it's subjective.  It's my opinion.  Why are you acting like I'm committing some sort of fraud, or should be ignored, because I'm saying what I think?  Art is subjective.  Fiction is subjective.  I have every right to express my thoughts on something.  I didn't claim, and don't claim, to be an expert.  I admitted right away I hadn't read the book.  I still have an opinion on it.  I never met Jackie Onassis, but I still had an opinion of her.  Are we only allowed to have opinions about things that we have personally experienced?

Quote
No, i read it all. I agree with you that controversy and fame should not be such influencing factors and I said I think they should take more chances.
OK.


Quote
I'd agree that I think that is a major issue.

How do you think we as the greater reading public start to put that right?
Well, I personally think the fact that this book has sold only 6,500 copies-nationwide-in over 2 weeks of release is a good start.  We put it right with our wallets, by buying books we are interested in and avoiding ones we aren't.  As I said in my original post, perhaps the publishing companies will take this as a lesson.  I'm obviously not the only person who thinks this book sounds dull as dishwater and with much less purpose, or it would have sold more copies-there was certainly enough hype over it.

Quote
I'm sure there was a lot of thought put into how and when this book was published and marketed and whether it is a quality book or not is open to futher debate
I'm not so sure, but oh well.  Whether it's a quality book or not, sure, that's open to more debate.  How much thought was put into it-eh.

 

Quote


  • *
  • Posts: 17

  • Liked: 0
  • Joined: Aug 2002
  • Location: Guildford
Re: Good for the Public!
« Reply #8 on: September 02, 2004, 12:46:38 AM »
SAF

I'm not sure how productive it will be to continue the conversation on checkpoint because having read various reviews between my posts this evening,I really think i need to understand a bit more about the book and it's writers intentions before I continue on the subject. 

A very interesting review i read suggested the book is a satire that has been misunderstood

I've enjoyed our conversation and it's made me aware of a novel I wasn't aware of before. I hadn't heard of the book or the controversy until this evening but it's fascinating.

I'd be interested to read it if i do come across it. I'm not sure if its in English bookshops yet but I'll ask my local library to order a copy so i can borrow it.

I'm very interested to know whether other Brits or Uk Yankess on the forum had heard of the book or the debate before this topic came up. I sometimes don't keep as up to date as i should with the literary scene, but up to now this one slipped me by.

I'm not sure if the act of writing should only be a joy.

Maybe a calling, maybe a mission, maybe catharsis, call it what you will, for some writers the only purpose may be producing an income, that may involve no joy.

I have read books that i feel were written purely as commercial excercises and books where the writer's soul almost seems to seep through the pages.

I noticed you like Neil Gaiman from anoher of your posts to the reading section.

'American gods' is a great novel. it's one of the best I've read and i think it was written with joy.

James

 

 
« Last Edit: September 02, 2004, 01:16:26 AM by why65 »
Mr.  Mindy.


Sponsored Links





 

coloured_drab