Posted by Persephone Green on Dec 31, 2008 in
Temet Cognosce Two hours and twenty-two minutes to go, give or take an extra second!
Now, for resolutions. I resolve to:
1. Lose weight. (Don’t we all?)
2. Blog every day. (Yeah, right. We’ll see how long THAT one lasts. I’m gessing until January 3rd. Taking bets now.)
3. Comment more and link more to other people. This goes hand-in-hand with Number Two.
4. Not engage in discussions with stupid, ignorant, and/or bigoted people. I will instead mock them here or on a different blog with other sane and sage people.
5. Encourage the rise of e-books.
6. Publish something significant that is fiction. (I’ve published lots of non-fiction pieces under a different name, but not much fictional.)
Happy New Year, everyone! May you make progress and exact change from those in power when the need is great.
Tags: 2008, 2009, 2009 Resolutions, Happy New Year, New Year's Resolutions
There ARE sub-genres, however, and they are not ‘low standards’ by which to judge fiction simply because they may not encompass literary fiction.
Yes, Virginia — excuse me, Lorraine Adams — historical romance IS a successful section of the bookstore, just like any other sub-genre. It is not the equivalent of Paris Hilton when comparing acting careers. You are not allowed to act like it is the Playboy section of the magazine racks.
This is basically what Ms. Adams did when criticizing The Jewel of Medina in the New York Times’s Sunday Book Review:
Spellberg’s characterization of “The Jewel of Medina” as soft porn doesn’t hold up, since the language describing A’isha and Muhammad’s conjugal relations is always euphemistic and most often juvenile. The novel is, in fact, an example of that subspecies of genre fiction, “historical romance.” Yet even judged by that standard, Jones’s prose is lamentable.
‘By that standard?’ By that standard? By what standard, exactly? A bestselling, award-winning standard? A sub-genre that includes Karen Marie Moning, Lisa Jackson, Julia Quinn, Julie Garwood, Brenda Joyce, Christina Dodd, Jude Deveraux and Robin Carr? Oh, wait, that’s right! They’re not ‘real authors’ because they write romance. *FISTBANG OF RAGE*
Ms. Adams? The ways you are an uninformed twit — LET ME SHOW YOU THEM.
Actually, I don’t have time. SBTB pretty much wrote what I would’ve said.
Note: Thanks to Smart Bitches, Trashy Books for the scoop on Lorraine Adam’s lack of education in the genre side of publishing.
Tags: Historical Romance, Idiocy, Lorraine Adams, NYTBR, Reviews, Romance Sub-Genres, Someone Is Wrong on the Internet, Sub-Genres, Subgenres, The Jewel of Medina
Posted by Persephone Green on Dec 19, 2008 in
Publishing & the Economy,
Publishing Industry Literary Agent Colleen Lindsay noted that editor Mark Tavani, senior editor at Ballantine Books, had sage words of advice about the current economic crisis and how the publishing industry’s problems started long before the September 13th* economic collapse. In Books, Going Forward, he said this:
Anyway, maybe we contract. Maybe fewer books get published. Maybe some publishing folks have to look elsewhere for a paycheck. I don’t say those things lightly, because I love those books, and I’m one of those publishing folks, and I have a lot of friends in the industry. But on the bright side, maybe fewer books will mean better books. Maybe, over time, books will regain an elite status that I sense they once had. Maybe, in the end, books won’t qualify precisely as mass entertainment, but entertainment for a sizable if select audience.
Travani has a lot of salient points, and I agree with him in part here: consumers are having to drag the publishing industry kicking and screaming into the twenty-first century, and it shouldn’t be that way. If fewer imprints means that editors will stop giving multi-million dollar advances to anyone, let alone illiterate celebrities, if publishers will look at newer technology like Print-On-Demand with interest instead of scorn, if corporate lawyers will give up on the idea of DRM because it alienates consumers and actually increases piracy, then yes, I will be the first out there to champion reorganization. The Millenial Generation is coming of age, and we do not look at traditional institutions he way our parents did.
For instance, I don’t look at the internet model of instant gratification and see it as a temporal phase that will wax and wane as blogs overpopulate the digital enivironment. The first (and last) problem with that way of thinking is that environments, unlike the Internet, have limits.
There is one sector of book reading that has not declined over the past few years, and that is ebooks. Granted, many of these books are in two genres, erotica and romance, but the sci-fi, fantasy, and horror genres are making headway with publishers like Baen and one-stop shps like Fictionwise. Meanwhile, Amazon wants to dominate and overtake the publishing industry as the seller of all proprietary creativity, just as Google wants to be the organizer of all proprietary creativity. Someone needs to move in front of the train before there is no more room left on the tracks for anyone else to ride.
I also look at traditional models of mass media as just what they are: models of what has worked in the past, what holds up in the present, and what may or may not survive into the future. Lest someone interpret this point of view as a writ of doom on the current vetting system, however, literary agents are the part of the publishing industry most likely to survive and thrive. Our society is built to delude unskilled, mediocre creators into thinking that they are unique, special snowflakes and to reward incompetence as long as the person embodying it sells it efficiently and with enough self-confidence. As long as there are abject failures lacking in artistic merit who believe they deserve to be published, there will always be a need for the gatekeepers. This does not preclude other authors who simply choose to work outside the model from being good authors – although the vast majority of them will be terrible authors — because there are some who want complete editorial control, some who aren’t in it for the money at all, and some who have built-in platforms that do not require the services that a literary agent can provide in order to succeed financially. None of these trends above are new, only the modus operandi has changed.
There’s nothing wrong with publishing fewer books — if the books we’re cutting are coffee table books, celebrity biographies, compendiums of useless facts and self-help ripoffs like The Secret. If we’re talking about publishing fwere vampire stories, then maybe we should talk about publishing fewer BAD vampire stories. There are different taste levels, and then there’s just straight-up bad writing. Bad writing should not find an agency, much less a publisher. Trends should not preclude sales of sub-genres.
I know that the average non-writer does not see a difference in quality betwen Tom Clancy and Stephen King, only genre and taste. Writers should see a difference. One of those two men can write damn good prose; the other just makes a lot of money. But I still think that both of them have a place on our bookshelves.
Why? Because as a whole, the literacy rate should be increasing, not decreasing. If airport novels are what it takes to keep the average consumer literate, then so be it. It’s bad enough that national news anchors have forgotten what adverbs are. There is no need to send the populace into a grammatical tailspin by serving up only The Kite Runner or the lastest book by Thomas Pynchon.
For the record, I feel no personal animosity towards authors or readers of literary fiction. I read it, I’ve written it (or at least tried to, in my not-so-humble opinion, under a different name), and I’ve enjoyed it. The deciding factor for me is usually the plot, and genre fiction tends to have plots that are more appealing to me on the whole. As someone who dreams of supporting herself one day by her words alone, I can look at the bestellers lists right now and tell you that the road I want to travel will be a hell of a lot easier if I write genre fiction. History has given us many, many decades of literary elitism and maybe three decades of commercial elitism. Why would the pendulum swinging too far in either direction appeal to any of us? Can’t we strive for artistic merit without falling prey to the pseudo-intellectual hype about Iowa Writer’s Workshop graduates and New Yorker pieces? Can’t we read beautiful prose that appeals to a broad audience?
* (JYFI, I say September 13th and not the first actual date of the stock market plunge because that was the day that at noon EST, everyone was pretty sure Bank of America or Barclays would buy Lehman Brothers. By 6 p.m. EST, Those potential deals had fallen through, it was pretty clear Lehman Brothers would file for Chapter 11 bankruptcy, and the credit options for buying cars had frozen. I know this because my family bought a new car at appoximately 3 p.m. EST, and we received a great finance rate on our loan. We were probably one of the last families in the country to purchase a vehicle before dealers received panicked calls and the banks stop issuing loans. Then, on Monday, the stock market crashed.)
Tags: Publishing & the Economy, Publishing Industry
