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.
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.
does a novel have to have a point to be published?
I think it should say something, yes.
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.
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.
why don't you have to read it to make that judgement?
OK, answered this in several different forms already.
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.
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?
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.
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.
