I'm pretty sure that Ingram's new tech is the wave of the future in publishing. It eliminates much of the waste that we currently see while still allowing the traditional features of publishing (an in-house editor, design and layout, etc.) to flourish.
I've been saying for a while that the current model of large batch printing, which is sent to bookstore and allowed to sit for months on end, only to be returned at the end of the credit cycle, is a poor model. Ideally, I foresee bookstores offering a very limited physical selection, while maintaining a large database of digital copies which than be printed on demand, in-house while you browse.
Powell's in Portland already does something like this. I was able to see a demonstration last time I was in town and it convinced me both of the feasibility of on-demand publishing and of its economy.
Thursday, August 9, 2012
Wednesday, August 8, 2012
Top 4 Grievances Against Popular Writers . . . Or, How to be More Literary
With a title like this, I'm sure to get some flak. I mean, who ever heard of a popular writer being literary? Popular writing is a world apart from literature, I've been told, and never the twain shall meet. But whenever someone puts "never," or "always" in a sentence, I'm immediately inclined to disagree with them.
The phrases "always are" and "never are" seem to be axiomatic of the unimaginative or the arrogant. I mean, think about it. Who are you to tell me what can never occur? It implies that you are somehow aware of all past events, and clairvoyant enough to perceive all possible futures. So, as the cartoon mouse once said, "Never say never, Papa."*
With that being said, literary conventions do creep into popular writing, and that is definitely a good thing. But just to be clear here, when I say "literary" and "popular" I am invoking two worlds of the written word. "Popular," in its most literal sense, means just that. These are the works both intended for, and consumed by, the widest possible audience. Stephen King is a pretty good example. His works sell millions; they've been made into, and optioned for, movies. They have literally shaped the way we speak and perceive reality. (In case you don't believe me, let me ask you: That big, scary dog over there . . . bet you called him Cujo, didn't you? Or, if I start a sentence with "All work and no play," you can probably finish it. That's the power of King.)
Literary works aren't intended for mass consumption. They probably aren't even intended for consumption, in the modern sense. They're meant to be savored, pondered, and fought about. They are ambiguous and difficult and delve into subjects that most of us (thank God) don't have to deal with. But if all of human experience is the purview of the artist, then these authors use every aspect of human experience as the paint upon their canvas. Cormac McCarthy comes immediately to mind. His works are wicked and sharp and rarely pleasant. Even reading them is a challenge, as he takes convention and stands it on its head.
So what's the big deal? Popular fiction is that way because its intent, primarily, is to entertain. But, can we expect, or even hope, that our entertainment also aspires to greatness? Toward reaching certain levels of aesthetic delight? I think we can. And I think that we ought to. Certainly, Stephen King will never be Dostoyevsky, but that doesn't mean that we can't hold our entertainment to greater intellectual rigor.
Toward that end, here are four points toward popular fiction, which also happen to comprise some of my own literary pet-peeves.
On that note, let's talk about the difference between good storytelling and good writing. It's self-evident that popular writers are good storytellers. The numbers back up the fact that people like to read what they're writing. But just like Jerry Bruckheimer would never be confused with Martin Scorsese, Stephen King will never be confused with McCarthy.
Storytelling is about being entertained. Good writing is all about the aesthetic quality of the material you're presenting. A fine piece of writing engages the intellect and moves the reader with the grandeur of the prose and the delicacy of the craft. My hope is that popular authors can provide not only satisfaction of the spectacular thrill, but also engage the intellect.
Let me know what you think in the comments section.
*The movie mentioned at the beginning is "An American Tail." Love that movie.
The phrases "always are" and "never are" seem to be axiomatic of the unimaginative or the arrogant. I mean, think about it. Who are you to tell me what can never occur? It implies that you are somehow aware of all past events, and clairvoyant enough to perceive all possible futures. So, as the cartoon mouse once said, "Never say never, Papa."*
With that being said, literary conventions do creep into popular writing, and that is definitely a good thing. But just to be clear here, when I say "literary" and "popular" I am invoking two worlds of the written word. "Popular," in its most literal sense, means just that. These are the works both intended for, and consumed by, the widest possible audience. Stephen King is a pretty good example. His works sell millions; they've been made into, and optioned for, movies. They have literally shaped the way we speak and perceive reality. (In case you don't believe me, let me ask you: That big, scary dog over there . . . bet you called him Cujo, didn't you? Or, if I start a sentence with "All work and no play," you can probably finish it. That's the power of King.)
Literary works aren't intended for mass consumption. They probably aren't even intended for consumption, in the modern sense. They're meant to be savored, pondered, and fought about. They are ambiguous and difficult and delve into subjects that most of us (thank God) don't have to deal with. But if all of human experience is the purview of the artist, then these authors use every aspect of human experience as the paint upon their canvas. Cormac McCarthy comes immediately to mind. His works are wicked and sharp and rarely pleasant. Even reading them is a challenge, as he takes convention and stands it on its head.
So what's the big deal? Popular fiction is that way because its intent, primarily, is to entertain. But, can we expect, or even hope, that our entertainment also aspires to greatness? Toward reaching certain levels of aesthetic delight? I think we can. And I think that we ought to. Certainly, Stephen King will never be Dostoyevsky, but that doesn't mean that we can't hold our entertainment to greater intellectual rigor.
Toward that end, here are four points toward popular fiction, which also happen to comprise some of my own literary pet-peeves.
- Use the active voice!
- Basically, give your characters agency. My background emphasizes agency in our writing, so this might be something that's tied to my own personal preferences more than the rest, but I don't think so. Active voice means that the action is performed by the subject, and not a passive subject being acted upon. It also means that action is more taut, and the narrative faster paced. Both of these are things that most writers want in their books, so active is the way to go.
- Avoid idiomatic or colloquial expressions.
- The expressions that come to mind the most are those that use some form of [verb] + "up." Speed up, catch up, keep up, brighten up, spice up, etc. These are probably some of the more egregious examples that I regularly see, but they're hardly unique. Just consider sentence level editing more often, and take care with your choice of words. Economy of writing is a big step toward fine writing.
- Also, avoid "there is," and "there are." Often, a sentence can be rewritten to omit the construction entirely and is rarely necessary. Often, this construction signals that you're about to write a sentence in the passive tense, so by fixing one problem you fix the second as well. Give it a shot: "There are five students in the room waiting for class to start," turns into, "Five students waited in the room for class to start."
- Avoid repetition of same (or similar) words or expressions in the same sentence.
- This is similar to the above, in that I tend to see "speed up" and "catch up" often used in the same paragraph, perhaps even the same sentence. Better ways can be found to express the same thought.
- Similarly, some words are so perfectly evocative of a particular idea that you're tempted to use it over and over again. It is also probably an unusual word that jumps off the page and grabs the reader's attention. Try to avoid using unfamiliar or unusual words very often. Their novelty makes for economy but it also becomes glaring when it creeps into the narrative too many times.
How much is too much? That's a very delicate decision but as a general rule of thumb, consider how often you hear it used in conversation with people you think of as your audience. If it's used daily then it's probably not a novelty and you can sprinkle it throughout the book.
If it's used once or twice a week, use it no more than once per 25,000 words or so.
If you hear it once every few months, perhaps no more than three times in the entire book.
If you've never heard the word used in conversation, but you've seen it in print elsewhere, once per book.
If, however, you have never heard it used in conversation, and have never seen it in print (if it is just something you found in your thesaurus) DON'T use it. More likely than not you're misusing the word. Find something else.
- Differentiate characters' voices.
- This one is tough because it depends to a large degree on your talent as both a writer and a listener. However, any competent writer should be able to distinguish his characters dialogue by something other than tag lines--"he said," and "she said," or some variation thereof.
More often than not, characters' voices betray the same rhythms and cadence as one another. Perhaps you've heard someone criticize a work because the tough-as-nails biker chick "sounds" just like the sheltered nerd. That's because the author him or herself cannot hear the difference.
Listen to how people talk in real life. Certainly, I'm not arguing that written dialogue is an accurate reproduction of how people speak, but you can mimic how people talk.
For instance, a friend of mine begins almost every sentence with "Well," and often interrupts himself. The rhythm of his dialogue would be quick and somewhat choppy, interspersed with reversals and self-interruption. "Well, it's sort of like this. In 1920 the Soviet Union started this thing where they'd put cars in every driveway and--oh my god this is so crazy--actually put gas in the tank."
Mimicry is hard, but you can do it. Or at the very least, you can teach yourself handy shortcuts so that you can mimic that you're mimicking. It's not hard, but that's why good writing takes so much effort.
On that note, let's talk about the difference between good storytelling and good writing. It's self-evident that popular writers are good storytellers. The numbers back up the fact that people like to read what they're writing. But just like Jerry Bruckheimer would never be confused with Martin Scorsese, Stephen King will never be confused with McCarthy.
Storytelling is about being entertained. Good writing is all about the aesthetic quality of the material you're presenting. A fine piece of writing engages the intellect and moves the reader with the grandeur of the prose and the delicacy of the craft. My hope is that popular authors can provide not only satisfaction of the spectacular thrill, but also engage the intellect.
Let me know what you think in the comments section.
*The movie mentioned at the beginning is "An American Tail." Love that movie.
Monday, August 6, 2012
Library Books . . . The Dialectic
I love libraries. I love interlibrary loans. I especially love Summit and WoldCat and all the other services that let me get books from ANYWHERE in the world. Seriously, they're awesome. But there is a problem with libraries and it is continually apparent. The fact is, libraries only lend books. I don't get to keep them. Which means that after a few weeks, I have to take them back or face fines, even if I haven't finished them.
And let's be serious here. I haven't finished them.
The reason I haven't finished them is because I like to read more than a few books at the same time. When I'm researching something I like to have at least five different books out and put them in dialogue with one another. I find the dialectic helpful. It's as though Book A (who we'll call Georg, for no particular reason) and Book B (who is Sophie; again, for no particular reason) are having a discussion in my mind.
"Well," says Georg. "I believe that this is how it is."
"Clearly," says Sophie, who also speaks in a mildly British accent, "you've never considered the existential ramifications of x, y, zed. Honestly. Why Steven picked you up in the first place I'll never know."
"Perhaps," says Georg, "he really liked the cover illustrations."
"Yes, he would go in for something like that."
And so on like that. The point is that I have a peculiar style of readings that does not make borrowing from the library the most perfect medium. Ideally, I would have endless shelves that I could fill up with books that I have purchased (with the unlimited funds I have acquired through a recently deceased and heretofore unknown rich relative). But that situation will probably never happen. So I'm forced to plow through those books that I've checked out and hope I can get through them before the fines rack up.
And let's be serious here. I haven't finished them.
The reason I haven't finished them is because I like to read more than a few books at the same time. When I'm researching something I like to have at least five different books out and put them in dialogue with one another. I find the dialectic helpful. It's as though Book A (who we'll call Georg, for no particular reason) and Book B (who is Sophie; again, for no particular reason) are having a discussion in my mind.
"Well," says Georg. "I believe that this is how it is."
"Clearly," says Sophie, who also speaks in a mildly British accent, "you've never considered the existential ramifications of x, y, zed. Honestly. Why Steven picked you up in the first place I'll never know."
"Perhaps," says Georg, "he really liked the cover illustrations."
"Yes, he would go in for something like that."
And so on like that. The point is that I have a peculiar style of readings that does not make borrowing from the library the most perfect medium. Ideally, I would have endless shelves that I could fill up with books that I have purchased (with the unlimited funds I have acquired through a recently deceased and heretofore unknown rich relative). But that situation will probably never happen. So I'm forced to plow through those books that I've checked out and hope I can get through them before the fines rack up.
Preposturize . . . A Preposterous Neologism
According to Google (who is all-knowing in such matters) the word "preposturize" does not exist in the English language. I hereby declare my intention to, and herein do, lay claim to this bit of intellectual real-estate. "Preposturize" shall henceforth and forevermore be defined as a verb, whose meaning is to extemporize preposterously; i.e., "The presidential candidates preposturized at the debate last night." See also, "preposturizement," and "preposturizingly."
Saturday, August 4, 2012
The Inferno . . . With "Star Trek?"
So there's a new, modern translation of Dante's Inferno. You can read the original article, as well as the author's comments here. Written by Mary Jo Bang, it hopes to translate the vernacular Italian that Dante used in the 14th century into something that modern readers can understand. To that end, she has replaced much of his original language with things like Star Trek, John Wayne Gacy and Eric Cartman. This isn't really a translation anymore; it's akin to the mash-up of Pride and Prejudice and Zombies, and the spate of other classical mash-ups that we've seen in the past few years. None of that is particularly bothersome to me--I enjoyed . . . and Zombies because the author, while taking his subject matter seriously, realized that the book itself wasn't that serious. He did it for fun, and because people seemed to like it.
Reading Bang's account of her rationale for replacing another author's words for her own, she decides that the temporal and cultural distances between Dante and us have made it difficult or impossible to access his work. But what she seems to fail to realize is that it's okay if we don't immediately access his work. That's fine. We use his images still, but in ways that are wholly original to our time and place. I find her reasoning distressing, at best. Even more, this is no longer a simple translation but a re-telling of the story that excises the rigor of the original and replaces it with something cheap and lazy.
But hey, the way things are going it'll probably be adopted as required reading in public high schools.
Reading Bang's account of her rationale for replacing another author's words for her own, she decides that the temporal and cultural distances between Dante and us have made it difficult or impossible to access his work. But what she seems to fail to realize is that it's okay if we don't immediately access his work. That's fine. We use his images still, but in ways that are wholly original to our time and place. I find her reasoning distressing, at best. Even more, this is no longer a simple translation but a re-telling of the story that excises the rigor of the original and replaces it with something cheap and lazy.
But hey, the way things are going it'll probably be adopted as required reading in public high schools.
Top 10 Most Difficult Books
Publishers Weekly just put out the Top 10 Most Difficult Books as compiled by The Millions.
I was surprised to see Virginia Woolf's "To the Lighthouse" on this list, as I remember enjoying it immensely as I read it, but can no longer seem to recall what it was about. And maybe that's part of what makes it so difficult. The rest of the books on this list, though . . . Whew! Heidegger, Hegel, James Joyce and others make it a heavy-duty list of books you'd probably never pick up for fun. You go into it knowing that it's going to be hard, and you think maybe you're up for the challenge. So if you're up for the challenge, I dare you to make your way through just one of these.
I was surprised to see Virginia Woolf's "To the Lighthouse" on this list, as I remember enjoying it immensely as I read it, but can no longer seem to recall what it was about. And maybe that's part of what makes it so difficult. The rest of the books on this list, though . . . Whew! Heidegger, Hegel, James Joyce and others make it a heavy-duty list of books you'd probably never pick up for fun. You go into it knowing that it's going to be hard, and you think maybe you're up for the challenge. So if you're up for the challenge, I dare you to make your way through just one of these.
Plan for August
I know it's a couple of days late but I figure an outline of the next month within the first week is still acceptable. Anyway, school continues to take priority; and since I'm doing an immersive course in Spanish that means that most of my time is spent memorizing nouns, verbs, how to conjugate those verbs, when to use which conjugation, and everything else that turns random noises into language. That being said, I haven't given up the writing.
I've got a new novel in the works that should be really interesting. I don't want to say too much (I'm less concerned with intellectual theft than with committing myself to a course before I've even begun.) However, I can comment that it is a superhero origin story, it is science-fiction, it is set around the Second World War, and it is set someplace other than the United States of America. I'm doing the background on it now; working in a culture other than my own means that I have to do the intellectual legwork. I'll probably still get it all wrong, but at least the groundwork will have been laid.
Additionally, I'm plotting a long-ish short story. It is also science-fiction, set sometime in the future, in space. Since that doesn't mean much, I'll let you in on one of the central conceits: There's no FTL drive. Tentatively scheduled around 10,000-15,000 words it should be out of the plotting stage very soon. In fact, most of the pieces are in place and now I'm just playing around with characters.
So that's August in a nutshell.
I've got a new novel in the works that should be really interesting. I don't want to say too much (I'm less concerned with intellectual theft than with committing myself to a course before I've even begun.) However, I can comment that it is a superhero origin story, it is science-fiction, it is set around the Second World War, and it is set someplace other than the United States of America. I'm doing the background on it now; working in a culture other than my own means that I have to do the intellectual legwork. I'll probably still get it all wrong, but at least the groundwork will have been laid.
Additionally, I'm plotting a long-ish short story. It is also science-fiction, set sometime in the future, in space. Since that doesn't mean much, I'll let you in on one of the central conceits: There's no FTL drive. Tentatively scheduled around 10,000-15,000 words it should be out of the plotting stage very soon. In fact, most of the pieces are in place and now I'm just playing around with characters.
So that's August in a nutshell.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)