The Vital Relationship Between Editor and Writer

My next two posts contain the text of a talk I gave to the Cosmopolitan Club in New York City in late June 2011. The subject was the vital relationship between editor and writer. First half of text follows:


MY MISSION TODAY IS TO GIVE YOU SOME INSIGHT INTO THE EDITOR/WRITER RELATIONSHIP, WHICH I BELIEVE IS STILL VITAL AND STILL NECESSARY, BUT AS ENDANGERED, I’M AFRAID, AS SILENCE IN THE LIBRARY.

BUT FIRST, IF YOU’LL ALLOW ME TO DIGRESS A LITTLE, I WOULD LIKE TO PUT THIS RELATIONSHIP INTO CONTEXT, WHICH IS THE CURRENT STATE OF THE BOOK BUSINESS IN AMERICA. I’M SURE MR. ROSENTHAL COVERED THE SUBJECT IN HIS TALK LAST WEEK, SO FORGIVE ANY REPETITION. TO PUT IT BRIEFLY, THE BOOK BUSINESS AND ALL ITS PRACTICIONERS ARE IN FERMENT.

ON THE ONE HAND, WE ALL KNOW THAT THE INTERNET HAS CHANGED THE WAY WE READ. IN A WORLD OF BLOGS, WEBSITES AND SOCIAL NETWORKS (ALL SHORT FORM READING), LONG FORM READING—BOOKS, MOSTLY--SEEMS AS DOOMED AS THE VILLAGE BLACKSMITH. I CERTAINLY AGREE THAT WE NOW LIVE IN A FRAGMENTED, SHORT ATTENTION-SPANNED ELECTRONIC WORLD, AND EVEN THOSE OF US WHO GREW UP READING BOOKS FIND LESS AND LESS TIME TO SIT DOWN WITH A GOOD READ. I MYSELF CAN WASTE AN ENTIRE DAY PLAYING AROUND ON THE INTERNET, BUYING STUFF, LOOKING UP STUFF, READING GOSSIP ON GAWKER. LATEST STATS SAY LESS THAN 50% OF THE READING PUBLIC HAVE PICKED UP A BOOK IN A YEAR. SOME SAY OUR LONG FORM READING OF THE FUTURE WILL CONSIST OF COMPUTER-GENERATED ADVERTISING SLOGANS. (HOW GHASTLY TO CONTEMPLATE!)

AT THE SAME TIME, MORE BOOKS ARE BEING PUBLISHED. I FOUND THREE DIFFERENT REFERENCES TO THE NUMBER OF CURRENT BOOKS PUBLISHED IN THE UNITED STATES. THE NUMBERS RANGE FROM 500,000 TO 1,000,000, WHICH INDICATES HOW LITTLE THE BOOK BUSINESS KNOWS ABOUT ITSELF, BUT EVEN IF WE TAKE THE LOWER FIGURE, THE PUBLISHING OUTPUT IS EXTRAORDINARY TO THE POINT OF BEING RIDICULOUS. AND NEW GADGETS LIKE EBOOKS AND TABLETS ARE PROVIDING MORE VENUES FOR READING. HOW TO EXPLAIN THIS PARADOX(LESS LONG FORM READING BY THE AMERICAN PUBLIC, BUT WITH THOUSANDS MORE BOOKS AVAILABLE AND MORE PLATFORMS TO READ THEM ON) HAS YET TO BE EXPLAINED CLEARLY TO ME.

I’VE COME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT SELF-PUBLISHED BOOKS (WHAT USED TO BE KNOWN AS VANITY PUBLISHING) ARE A BIG PART OF THE PROBLEM. CONSIDERED LEGIT TODAY, MANY SELF-PUBLISHING COMPANIES HAVE SPRUNG UP THAT WILL TAKE YOUR WORK, PUT IT INTO BOOK FORM, ADD A JACKET AND HELP YOU DISTRIBUTE IT. HAVE WE COME TO AN ERA WHERE THERE ARE NOW MORE WRITERS THAN READERS? WHERE ONCE UPON A TIME GRANDDAD WROTE A STORY ABOUT HIS LIFE AND WITH THE HELP OF A LOCAL PRINTER DISTRIBUTED A FEW SOFT-COVERED TOMES FOR HIS GRANDCHILDREN’S EYES ONLY, TODAY THERE ARE MEMOIR-WRITING WORKSHOPS ASSURING STUDENTS THAT THE ENTIRE WORLD IS WAITING BREATHLESSLY FOR THE STORY OF THEIR LIVES. IN ADDITION, WHAT I CALL LITERARY JUNK FOOD--HOW TO’S, INSPIRATIONALS, ROMANCES, CHRISTIAN MYSTERIES, CELEBRITY MEMOIRS, GENERAL PULP FICTION—HAVE INCREASED EXPONENTIALLY, UNTIL ONE IS FORCED TO AGREE WITH TRUMAN CAPOTE, WHO FAMOUSLY REMARKED, “THAT’S NOT WRITING; THAT’S TYPING!”

I’M GOING TO TAKE THE HIGHROAD AND BET THAT THIS PERPLEXING SITUATION WILL SORT ITSELF OUT. I’M GOING TO BELIEVE THAT OUR LEADERS OF TOMORROW--THE GEN X’S, THE MILLENNIUMS, ALL THOSE UNDER 40’S-- WILL SOONER OR LATER BECOME BORED WITH THE DAILY AVALANCHE OF ELECTRONIC OUTPOURINGS, MOSTLY DUBIOUS, AND RETURN TO THE IMMENSE PLEASURE OF READING SENSIBLE IDEAS, IN SOLITUDE, IN TRANQUIL SETTINGS. MY ENDANGERED PROFESSION, REQUIRING NURTURING, EDITING, MARKETING AND DISTRIBUTION OF BOOKS, WILL ONCE MORE FLOURISH. AND MY PROFESSION, EDITING QUALITY BOOKS, WILL NOT SEEM SO LONELY, SO CONFINED TO THE BACKWATERS OF THE INFORMATION INDUSTRY.

BECAUSE TODAY, ALONG WITH THE DUMBING DOWN OF LITERATURE, THE DOWNSIZING OF PUBLISHING HOUSES, THE TAKING ON OF FEWER WORKS BY PUBLISHERS, PARTICULARLY THOSE WORKS THAT WILL REQUIRE TIME FOR THE AUTHOR TO CATCH ON, THERE ARE VERY FEW REALLY GOOD EDITORS LEFT. SO I NEED TO KEEP TELLING MYSELF THAT THIS VITAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN EDITOR AND WRITER, WHILE IN DEEP TROUBLE, LIKE THE REST OF THE INDUSTRY, IS STILL EDDYING AROUND IN OUR OWN SMALL BACKWATERS.

I GREW UP BELIEVING THAT EDITORS WERE RELATIVES OF GOOD ENGLISH TEACHERS—THOSE FACT CHECKERS FOR MANKIND—AND AN INTEGRAL PART OF THE PUBLISHING PROCESS. AN EDITOR DID NOT NEED TO JUST KNOW WORLD LITERATURE, BUT TO KNOW LIFE AS WELL. EDITORS WERE SCHOLARS, INTIMATE WITH THE CLASSICS, AS WELL AS HAVING A MORE THAN CASUAL INTEREST IN STANDARD ENGLISH USAGE. I WAS TAUGHT HOW TO DIAGRAM SENTENCES, FOR HEAVEN’S SAKE!

LUCKILY, HISTORY HAS PROVIDED US WITH A FEW EDITORS WHOM THOSE OF US STILL CARRYING THE FLAG CAN REVERE AND LEARN FROM. PROBABLY THE MOST FAMOUS, MAX PERKINS OF SCRIBNER, AN EDITOR SO FAMOUS HE HAS HIMSELF BEEN BIOGRAPHED, GATHERED UP THOMAS WOLFE’S TONS OF TYPESCRIPT, CUT 90,000 WORDS, AND PRODUCED A LITERARY MASTERPIECE CALLED LOOK HOMEWARD, ANGEL.

PERKINS ALSO WAS INSTRUMENTAL IN PERSUADING THE SUITS TO KEEP HEMINGWAY’S PROFANITY IN HIS WORKS. THIS WAS A FIRST, AND EVEN THOUGH PERKINS WAS A GENTLEMAN, HE KNEW WHAT STREET TALK SOUNDED LIKE. IT WASN’T STANDARD ENGLISH. BUT IT WAS A NECESSARY ELEMENT OF MODERNISM,SO HE STOOD UP TO THE MORE PRUDISH. AND HE HELPED A REJECT CALLED THE ROMANTIC EGOIST BECOME THIS SIDE OF PARADISE.

IN MORE RECENT TIMES, DIANA ATHILL, THE ENGLISH EDITOR WHO WROTE STET ABOUT HER 50 YEARS EDITING JEAN RHYS AND V. S. NAIPAUL AMONG OTHERS, WAS A BOON TO SOME REALLY DIFFICULT WRITERS. SHE WAS QUOTED AS SAYING SHE LOVED EDITING NAIPAUL BUT WAS GLAD SHE DIDN’T HAVE TO LIVE WITH HIM. AND ROBERT LOOMIS, SOON TO RETIRE FROM RANDOM HOUSE AT 85, HAS LONG BEEN RESPECTED FOR HIS GUIDANCE AND ENCOURAGEMENT OF THE LIKES OF MAYA ANGELOU AND WILLIAM STYRON.

AMONG THE YOUNGER, RESPECTED EDITORS TODAY IS MICHAEL PIETSCH OF LITTLE BROWN, WHO PROVED TO BE NOT ONLY A CONSUMMATE EDITOR OF THE TROUBLED DAVID FOSTER WALLACE, BUT A REAL FRIEND. UNFORTUNATELY, WHILE HE DID SKILLFULLY EDIT WALLACE’S BRILLIANT, DENSE AND DIFFICULT WORK (CONSIDER THE LOBSTER, INFINITE JEST) INTO CULT STATUS, WHILE TRYING TO COPE WITH THE AUTHOR’S INSTABILITY, IN THE END, HE COULDN’T KEEP WALLACE FROM HIS PREMATURE DATE WITH DEATH.

THAT’S NOT TO SAY THAT THERE HAS NEVER BEEN CONSTERNATION IN THESE EDITORIAL RELATIONSHIPS, EVEN AMONG THE GOLDEN OLDIES. THERE’S A VERY OLD JOKE WHEREIN THE WRITER TELLS HIS EDITOR THAT SHE MUST HAVE A PIMP FOR A BROTHER, SO SHE CAN HAVE SOMEONE TO LOOK UP TO. I MYSELF HAVE HAD SIMILAR STAND-OFFS WITH WRITERS, IF NOT AS COLORFUL. ONCE, AS THE AUTHOR AND I WERE APPROACHING THE END OF THE EDITING OF A BIOGRAPHY OF VICTORIA WOODHULL, THE FIRST WOMAN TO RUN FOR PRESIDENT, WE WERE SO CLOSE, WE COULD SEE DAYLIGHT JUST AROUND THE BEND. INSTEAD OF CLOSING THE PROCESS AND SAYING, “GOOD JOB”, I FOUND MYSELF PUSHING FOR JUST ONE MORE CHANGE. AND THE AUTHOR LET ME HAVE IT. “NITPICKER, IF YOU’RE SO GOOD, WHY AREN’T YOU WORKING FOR KNOPF OR PENGUIN?” I TOLD MYSELF THAT MY OWN CHILDREN OFTEN FIRED OFF SUCH ATTACKS ON MY AUTHORITY WHEN THEY WERE FRUSTRATED.

FOR, IN TRUTH, ALL GOOD EDITORS, EVEN IN THOSE GOLDEN YEARS I JUST SPOKE ABOUT, SEEK AN IMPOSSIBLE PERFECTION IN THE POTENTIAL WORKS THEY ARE INVOLVED IN THAT EXISTS ONLY IN THEIR OWN MINDS. MY OWN MODEST OPINION IS THAT EVEN DICKENS AND PHILIP ROTH COULD BE IMPROVED UPON. THAT’S JUST HOW EDITORS THINK. I GREET EVERY INQUIRY WITH ENTHUSIASM, SURE THAT EVEN IF IT HAS FEW DISCERNABLE POSSIBILITIES, WITH A LITTLE WORK ON THE WRITER’S AND MY PART, IT WILL PRODUCE DAZZLING METAPHORS, CAPTIVATING IMAGES, UNIQUE CHARACTERS. AND LET’S THROW IN A PLOT THAT WILL SIZZLE ITS WAY TO THE TOP OF THE HOLLYWOOD PYRAMID. THE AUTHOR, ON THE OTHER HAND, IS SURE THAT ALL THOSE ELEMENTS ARE PRESENT AND ACCOUNTED FOR ALREADY, IS PERFECTLY HAPPY WITH THE WORDS HE HAS BROUGHT FORTH, AND DOES NOT LOOK KINDLY ON MEDDLING. THAT DILEMMA IS PART AND PARCEL OF THE EDITING PROCESS.

SO, PATIENCE, TACT AND COMPROMISE ARE THE WATCH WORDS. AS I WARILY CIRCLE THE WRITER LIKE A FOX CIRCLING THE HENHOUSE, HOPING AGAINST EXPERIENCE THAT HE HAS CHECKED HIS SENSITIVITY AT THE DOOR, AND THAT I WILL DISPLAY A NURTURING INSTINCT THAT MY CHILDREN HAVE ALWAYS THOUGHT I LACKED. IN THIS PURSUIT OF EPHEMERAL PERFECTION, SOMETHING’S GOT TO GIVE—AND HOPEFULLY, NEITHER MY JOB NOR THE AUTHOR’S MIND. IN THIS PROCESS OF IMPROVING THE PLOT STRUCTURE, ROUNDING OUT THE CHARACTERS, GETTING THE AUTHOR TO UNDERSTAND THAT A SINGULAR NOUN DEMANDS A SINGULAR PRONOUN WHEN REFERRING TO ITSELF, THERE IS A LOT OF SPIRITED DIFFERENCE. IF YOU CAN GET TO THE END OF THE PROCESS AVOIDING FISTICUFFS, COUNT IT A VICTORY. A VITAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN WRITER AND EDITOR? I OFTEN THINK A MORE PRECISE ADJECTIVE IS CALLED FOR. ADVERSARIAL, MAYBE?

BARBARA PHILLIPS

Celebrity Memoirs

Although I haven't posted since April, I'm still thinking of memoirs. My husband, an ex-newspaperman and CEO, will be published by McGraw Hill in September. Of course, the usual memoirs published by legacy publishers these days are celebrity memoirs, because America eats up celebrities like chocolate bars. And yet, nine-tenths of these tell-alls are ghost written. "Life", the well-reviewed memoir of Keith Richards of the Rolling Stones, was praised for its writing style, so unusual in a rock musician. The obvious answer is that Keith Richards didn't write his memoir; he either dictated it or talked to his ghost, the excellent writer, James Fox. Fox then set about to write the book using the musician's chatty, intelligent speech. If Keith Richards or other celebrities did write their memoirs, they would be no more intriguing than the one from the little old lady from Dubuque. Incidentally, my husband is (or was) a celebrity of sorts, and so far the trade reviews like his title. He can also write, having been a journalist and tells good stories. So, congrats to him and the rest of you who have no clout can try X-Libris. B. Phillips

It's My Life, Isn't It?

Last year it was book clubs; this year, it is memoirs. Every other Baby Boomer's parent, feeling the cool hand of death approaching, is scribbling down his/her life's experiences, to have a record for the grandchildren is the excuse, but really it's a hope to get published, achieve that longed-for fifteen minutes of fame. As an acquiring editor for Bridge Works, I receive many of these heartfelt but amateurish writings, and feel bad that someone has convinced the authors that the world is waiting for their life records.
But Granny keeps at it, and today there is a reward. It's called self-publishing. Today, that old geezer who was praised in the St. Louis Post Dispatch for his innovative presidency of Rotary does not have to die anonymously. He simply gives LuLu or X-Libris a copy of his ink-stained, tear-stained manuscript and the self-publishing titans will produce as many copies as desired, complete with a dashing book jacket, blurbs by friends, and even photos or drawings never meant to be seen by other than the family. Most self-published writers think the expense is well worth it.
In today's world, no one's life goes unremarked and there are definitely second acts for anyone with know-how.
Barbara Phillips
B. Phillips

The End of Reading?

Wow, have things changed since I wrote about the end of plot. There I was, a little down yesterday because I've been festering about the end of Hamlet and his dad, when I met with a really pessimistic friend, Chauncey Mabe, a writer and long-time editor. You can access his blog at http:\\Flcenterlitarts.wordpress.com. He repeated what he wrote in his 3/21/11 post, namely that within two or three generations, we (Americans, the world?) will be functionally illiterate, unable to read sustained works (books and/or newspapers). And to think I was simply concerned about the Prince of Denmark...
Advertising slogans will be just the ticket in this new non-reading world, as they are short and snappy and poetry will gain prominence (every cloud has a silver lining). Even now, Twitter is pushing "twaikus", twitter haikus. The death knell is sounding for "long-form content"--OMG, what a phrase--and those of us "content providers" who are still hooked on books will need to get cracking on a new 140-word writing format or we'll be desperately seeking new jobs!
But in spite of Chauncey and my own doubts, I refuse to believe that longer works will totally disappear. I must say that these 500-600 page bios that are continually rolling off the presses (Mark Twain and Keith Richards)are not exactly reader friendly and even a reader like me who practices total immersion in literature can't stay the course these days. And it is certainly true that there are so many diversions on one's smart phone and IPad that there is little time left over to try out more challenging stuff. But when a millenial's idea of a good read is a friending on Face Book, I'm prepared for "apres moi, le deluge".

THE END OF PLOT?

The common complaint is that the novel is dead. Don't believe it. Every day new novels dominate review pages, blogs and web sites.
At the same time, there is lots of noise about the death of "plot". Young writers, some critics maintain, don't employ the use of "plot" today. My feeling is that like a lot of dogma, this isn't accurate, either. I think that most readers and writers (especially) are really not sure exactly what "plot" is and how it differs from "story".
It is possible to have a story, that is, a narrative of events that proceeds throughout the book, describing what happens next and then next,without employing a plot. Narrative is the who, what, when, how. Someone once gave the meaning of "story", one that gives you
a sequence of events, as the following: the king died, then the queen died, then the prince died. That can certainly be a good tale, but to make it great, there must be "plot", the "why" behind all these events. Plot is what gives a story meaning and conveys to the reader that deep satisfaction of discovering why she married a dork, why he killed his mother, why friends and lovers betrayed them. And that is why plot will never disappear from fiction (which isn't going to disappear, either.)
We readers will always want to know why. Shakespeare showed us the "why" of Hamlet's family tragedy and created a masterpiece by doing so.
Barbara Phillips

This 'n That

Sorry for the long delay in blogging. I was recovering from comments about my blog on "The Help". Such positive ones as "you self-righteous old fart" and "if you're so smart, why aren't you running Random House?". At least, someone is reading me. And while these writers might actually have valid points, I can't reply to them personally because they (3) were all Anonymous. Come on, you guys, what are you hiding behind? Why not put your money where your mouth is and stand up for your positions by giving your names and addresses?

Now for something totally different...Riveted as we have been by the publicity blitz about the new platforms for reading, like IPad, Kindle, Nook and, for all I know, other unknown gadgets, we have lost sight of that poor orphan, the words themselves, the story being read or, in the words of the electronic mavens, THE TEXT. No publisher in his/her right mind could object to having the author's words disseminated far and wide, no matter how. But let's not forget that what's important in the long run isn't necessarily the means to an end, it's the end itself that counts. And too many adults don't read in a sustained way. Something like 27% of surveyed adults haven't read a book in a year. Not even a hardboiled heist or a cozy mystery. Clueless!
And Anonymous, if you're still reading www.barbthebookie.blogspot.com, change your name and reply!!!
Barbara Phillips

In one of my last emails, I promised to read David Shields's "Reality Hunger", and report back if I felt he was putting us on. I am more comfortable with his philosophy of writing now in spite of all his appropriations, because his borrowed essays and his own are instructive. They gave me a lot of information about the history of writing and art in general, also the geniuses involved. But I still can't take Shields too seriously. So what, he takes himself seriously enough for both of us. In these days when the book business in general is in trouble, readers need more help than ever, and to flog a major literary theory change right now is like giving the tiger the key to its cage.
But, interestingly and serendipitously, after reading Shields, I came across "Possessed", a non-novel by Elef Batuman (a woman and a PhD). Shields would give her an A. Batuman has written a series of essays (all her own work, though!)about her obsession with Russian literature and how Tolstoy, Dostoevsky, Chekhov et al provided reference points for her life and those of her grad-school friends. She is that rare bird,an academic with a sense of humor, and she can be wry and amusing about the darndest subjects. But I found I needed a lot more craziness as a relief from her interminable book synopses and academic disquisitions. When she concludes that one of Dostoevski's characters suffers from mimetic desire, (a literary theory put forth by a Stanford prof whom Batuman studied with), and then segues to a personal friend she is sure is afflicted with the same problem, I wished there was less scholarship here and more tourist hi-jinks in Samarkand. I'd like to see this talented woman channel less Dostoevski and more Woody Allen! Barbara Phillips

Amazing New Technology

THIS AMUSING ESSAY IS MAKING THE ROUNDS OF THE WEB.


Introducing the new Bio-Optic Organized Knowledge device, trade-named BOOK.
BOOK is a revolutionary breakthrough in technology: no wires, no electric circuits, no batteries, nothing to be connected or switched on. It's so easy to use, even a child can operate it.Compact and portable, it can be used anywhere -- even sitting in an armchair by the fire -- yet it is powerful enough to hold as much information as a CD-ROM disc.
Here's how it works: BOOK is constructed of sequentially numbered sheets of paper (recyclable), each capable of holding thousands of bits of information. The pages are locked together with a custom-fit device called a binder which keeps the sheets in their correct sequence.
Opaque Paper Technology (OPT) allows manufacturers to use both sides of the sheet, doubling the information density and cutting costs. Each sheet is scanned optically, registering information directly into your brain. A flick of the finger takes you to the next sheet.
BOOK never crashes or requires rebooting, though, like other devices, it can become damaged if coffee is spilled on it.
The "browse" feature allows you to move instantly to any sheet, and move forward or backward as you wish. Many come with an "index" feature, which pin-points the exact location of any selected information for instant retrieval.
An optional "BOOKmark" accessory allows you to open BOOK to the exact place you left it in a previous session -- even if the BOOK has been closed. BOOKmarks fit universal design standards; thus, a single BOOKmark can be used in BOOKs by various manufacturers.
Portable, durable, and affordable, BOOK is being hailed as a precursor of a new entertainment wave. BOOK's appeal seems so certain that thousands of content creators have committed to the platform and investors are reportedly flocking to invest. Look for a flood of new titles soon.

The Help

At the instigation of my daughter, who loves the work of Junot Diaz, I have just finished reading THE HELP, by Kathryn Stockett, published a year ago, but still hot with book clubs. Said daughter was puzzled about the best-selling story of three women, two black and one white, two maids and one mistress, in Mississippi in the early
1960's, and commented that while THE HELP was engrossing, at the end she felt something smelled. Expert intuition. This is chick lit of the worst kind--story sentimental slush, characters thin as paper dolls, writing style amateurish. The juxtaposition of the unfortunately written work and the simple, honest author afterword of Stockett, wherein she makes clear that yes, there were honest, humane relationships between white and black women even in a segregated south, is especially unhappy. That relationship exists to this day, not only in the south, but wherever women work together.
And who would argue with the book's concept that women can be remarkable agents for change? But this reader would hope that the execution is carried off with some semblance of reality. I was particularly interested in critiques from African-American women (the writer is white). Several grew up in the south (as I did) and their comments are uniformly negative. They comment on disdainful cliches, offensive caricatures and inaccurate use of dialect in The Help. While the jacket copy refers to "pitch-perfect" language, I can only counter that the Uncle-Tom's-Cabin version of simplistic villainy and nobility could only be the result of a mashup of tin ears.
Once upon a time, there were Faulkner, Welty and Flannery O'Connor, all of whom knew how to spin a tale of the south without insulting the reader's intelligence. Except for the author, I doubt if any of the people involved in the publication of The Help have ever been south of the Mason-Dixon Line. Minstrel-show dialect and antics do not a fine novel make. Barbara Phillips

Technorati Tags:
book publishing, writing, books, writers, authors

The Novel is Dead: 2.0

I've been hearing a lot lately about David Shields, a writer whose most recent book, REALITY HUNGER: A MANIFESTO, has mesmerized critics. From a writer who queried me about his own work and had interviewed David Shields for The Huffington Post; from Michiko Kakutani of the NYTimes, who mentioned Shields in her magnificent long article about the Internet on 3/21 and from reviewers who have mostly lauded Shields' as a spokesman for the new age of writing, he is very much in the news. Today, I am ordering REALITY HUNGER to form my own opinion.

Shields is against literary fiction as well as genre and bestseller fiction. Plot is yesterday. Story is for middlebrows. No character development, dialogue, setting anymore. Essay is in (I never knew it was out.) Apparently, REALITY HUNGER is one long essay, in which Shields defends appropriation of other writers' works as well as suggesting we obliterate the boundaries between fiction and nonfiction. Explanation of our consciousness is what books should be about and the form should be a mashup of all that has been written before. REALITY HUNGER consists of quotations new and old, mashed together and only attributed in an appendix that Shields put in because the publisher's lawyers insisted.

None of this is new, but apparently Shields is persuasive. I think of the many school kids in the future who, bidden to write a researched essay, appropriate the whole work from someone else. Where once they would be labeled plagiarists and admonished to be original, they can now receive A's and become famous writers, even if the great American novel will no longer be their goal.

Shields' ideas seem to me to be an extension of the web notion that "information should be free". But what about those writers who are being appropriated? How do they earn enough money to survive? How do publishers sell books that over-intellectualize form? As it is, the book business, although still doggedly sticking to the scorned old model of story and characters to accommodate readers, is in pretty dire straits. Sustained reading is disappearing like land-line phones. Is this the right social temperature for violent overthrow of literary landmarks?

Hoping to shoehorn literature into a new pair of glittery Cinderella pumps has had varied success in the past. And since many of these revolutionary schemes originate in academe, I suggest that the fight for reality-based literature be battled out right there, in the academy, instead of in the real world. That should provide the next generation with ideas to put into practice when they leave their cocoons, while the rest of us, for the time being, read on to find out what happens next. Or maybe I'll change my mind completely after I've read REALITY HUNGER and mount the barricades, too. Barbara Phillips @www.barbthebookie.blogspot.com.

Mystery Land

In Mystery Land, book sales are hot. Two hard-boiled thriller writers--Robert B. Parker, (who unfortunately died last month) and James Patterson--continue to sock it to a universe of readers, and both have been designated by different marketing experts as the successor to Raymond Chandler. If only it were true. Chandler was a smooth operator, both on and off the typewriter. He even used metaphors and similes in both arenas. Jim Patterson and Co. is the world's biggest thriller writer in terms of sales, and his publisher wishes he could clone him, but his more recent works read as if they were produced by committee, which they are. Dozens of points of view pour out from forgettable characters who speak in italics and exclamation points. It is sometimes said that Patterson's audience moves its lips while reading.
Parker's prose style and structure are more conservative; his chapters are normal length, and his private eye, the one-named Spenser, is a middle-aged ex-boxer, as good with his fists as with his .38 revolver. Spenser has a girl friend, whom he refers to as a "stunning Jewess with a PhD from Harvard", who cooks like Julia Child and looks like Scarlett Johansson. She thinks Spenser is as hot as book sellers do. Trouble is: Parker made Spenser speak almost exclusively in wise-guy one-liners. Twenty-five percent are smart and funny and 75% make your teeth ache.
As Tom Evans, author and lifetime Parker reader, said, "Parker got to be formulaic--Susan with her tiny bites of food, the darky dialogue with Hawk." Neither writer measures up to the great Chandler. Ross Macdonald had the last word. Chandler, he said, "wrote like a slumming angel."

Technorati Tags:
book publishing, writing tips, writing criticism

Recently, I came upon a list of the No.1-audience-rated tv shows over 60 years of U. S. viewing Among the shows were Wagon Train, Marcus Welby, M.D., and Laverne and Shirley. Nowhere was there a sign of M.A.S.H, NYPDBlue or Mad Men, all smart, edgy, sophisticated shows highly rated by television critics. This made me realize that there is a parallel in literature. Best sellers, those books that fly out of bookstores and online, like Tuesdays with Morrie, Three Cups of Tea and Eat, Pray, Love,have ranked right up there at the top of the best seller lists, bringing their authors buckets of change and fabulous homes. The writing in each of these blockbusters is often clumsy and awash with dubious premises. However, their messages or moral points are clear to the point of being simplistic: be kind, do good works, get religion. These titles are the No.1 audience-rated books of their times. It makes me think of the oft-stated phrase "Heaven is boring".
Literary buffs prize Don de Lillo, Philip Roth and Lorrie Moore. Any one of those might win a Pulitzer Prize for literature or, sometimes, a McArthur genius grant and if obscure enough, a Nobel prize, but never will their works bring in enough money for the author to buy a house in Palm Beach or Malibu or Bali. And yet, to read any one of them is to be transported to a place where you've never been, never even knew existed, and peopled by characters you've always wanted to know.
And speaking of immortals, the creator of Holden Caulfield might have died last week, but Holden never will.

Back in the day, a "platform" meant the tall structure where the high diver stood before racing out on the board. But somewhere in biz school lingo, "platform" came to mean a product springboard, a way to distribute content (what we mossbacks called putting information or thoughts in writing). For 500 years, the platform of the book business was type on paper, bound and covered in cardboard. Now, we book publishers are saluting our new platforms--electronic books like Kindle, Sony Reader, Nook. These ebooks are more than mere gadgets, their inventors tell us. Instead, they are new platforms for the book business, the first in hundreds of years, finally giving the finger to old-style paper pages. Fine, I say: anything, including hand-helds, are grand platforms if they encourage more reading. But a startling statistic has recently come to the fore: there has been an increase of about 350 percent in American data consumption in the last 30 years, according to researchers at the University of California, San Diego. Sounds good, right? Most of this data is channeled into our brains by what is called "TV-related" content, which amounts to almost five hours per day. Then comes radio, then the computer, then Internet games and finally, at 36 minutes per day, reading. (I presume this means book-type material on any platform). Apparently, even the new book platforms, which now include hand-helds and computers, have not increased the low level of interest in longer content. We book lovers think we know the reason--that the young don't like sustained reading of any kind, that two pages is about their limit. But we don't know the answer to the problem. Since writers like Dan Brown and John Grisham corner the market on numbers of books sold, perhaps they could clone themselves! You can comment directly to my blog now, so speak up... Barbara Phillips

"HIGHLIGHTING GOOD FICTION IS MORE IMPORTANT NOW THAN IT HAS EVER BEEN"

--Recent quotation from Alice Sebold

Yes, but exactly what IS "good" fiction, anyway?

Fair-minded editors and publishers can disagree on this topic for a year and a day. To this E&P, the definition goes like this:

NOT Experimental Fiction. Apart from academics and other eggheads and writers who are more interested in form than function, the majority of fiction writers throughout history have tried to please an audience. We can all be enlightened (maybe) by Joyce, Proust and Pynchon, but at the end of the day, most of us prefer a long text to have readability, fascinating characters and an intelligent style. After we have finished an experimental work, we breathe a sigh of relief. After finishing a work we admire, we say, "I want to read this again."

MAYBE to massmarket and bestsellers. There is no doubt about saleability here.

Stephen King and John Grisham outsell Philip Roth any day. Some readers have

pronounced THE DA VINCI CODE the best book they've ever read! Fun and easy, these works produce suspense, horror and along the way, some facts. My publishing house has put out several of this type of work. One in particular has kept us afloat over many years.

A BIG YES TO THE REST!!!. Often referred to in put-down fashion as "mid-list" books, lying uncomfortably between mass market and experimental , many publishers refer to this genre as "quality" fiction, "serious" fiction and (quietly, please!)" literature". Often taught in college courses and regarded by a smallish group of discriminating readers as packing in the right amount of quietly questioning stories about our fellow human beings and how they rise in , fall from, and learn about (or not) that situation we're all in together--life. These works become our classics. But sometimes it is so hard to identify the genre we publishers don't even try. We leave that to the critics. This genre receives prizes instead of buckets of cash. The works give publishing houses prestige, writers fame. To me, they deserve the "Good book" label most.

WHAT DO YOU THINK? COMMENT TO barbp39@gmail.com.

Questions and Answers:

1) Is the book business as we know it over? The outlook for conventional paper books is dire, but not yet dead. As more and more people switch to e-readers like Kindle, Sony Reader, Nook, Barnes and Noble's new gadget, fewer are left to read conventional paper. That, however, does not help the book business in general, as those switching are not making up for those not buying books. To solve this issue, publishers must not only have e-reading capacity, they must rethink old paradigms. The disgraceful practice of "returns", where booksellers return to the publisher any unsold books, must go the way of the buggy whip . The author-publisher relationship needs updating, too. Will books cease to exist, though? To me, as long as civilization exists, so too will books, whatever their forms.

2) Will the new "Vooks" take hold and change the way we read books? The "vook", a combination of video and e-book is the latest techno gadget to burst upon the scene. Videos are interspersed throughout electronic text. So far, these vooks seem to be genre types like fitness, diet, beauty, and romance. One reader said he liked the idea of presenting a picture of the protagonist (in novels) as it "makes the story more real". What ever happened to the imagination?

3) What exactly is the meaning of a "good" book? To me, books mean new ideas, new ways to get a handle on humanity. If all the cookbooks, how-to books and pardon me, Michael Chabon, sci-fi works disappeared tomorrow, I wouldn't despair. What I want in a book is a chance to change my often-narrow opinions of certain people, actions and concepts.

4) Will authors go for new-type contracts in this digital age? It's going to be a gamble, but I think a smart one. For instance, even though the number of books sold is down and some large publishers are reading fewer manuscripts, my house, Bridge Works, is receiving more mss than ever. That means more writers who want to be heard. To me, that suggests some compromises on contracts will be open to discussion. I have not heard from any writers (or agents) who feel otherwise. Do you?

5) Is the independent book business threatened? Not as long as enough adults really value reading. As I say, Bridge Works receives more manuscripts than ever. That said, I should also make full disclosure. Small publishers, dedicated to quality books above all, will never have the assets of larger publishers, most of whom are now owned by multinational corporations. Conventional book reviewers, with less space and fewer ads in their review pages, generally won't review the independents. However, online reviewers are swarming out there in cyber space. So, that's a good thing. Moreover, I feel confident that once two-page UTube posters age, they too will appreciate the value of a nice, long story, well-developed and well-told. With characters you can dream about and learn from.

Barbara Phillips
Comment at barbp39@gmail.com

FROM MIKE BIEHL, author of "Doctored Evidence" and "Lawyered to Death": My thoughts on the issue of author financial participation with the publisher (of the title): if the author and publisher are consenting adults, why not? Some might suggest it carries the taint of vanity press for the author, but I think that would only be a problem if the publisher didn't have a track record. If an established publisher of good reputation varies the usual contract in this manner for an unagented author, I don't see why that arrangement can't result in a meritorious and successful book. It's harder to see it working with an agented author.



Okay, another voice heard from. I wonder if there are any agents out there who would care to comment. Could this idea work?


In the meantime, this week brought news that Tina Brown, trend editor extraordinaire, has announced that her online journalism website, The Daily Beast, will partner with Perseus Books Group to speed up the conventional book publishing schedule. In that world right now, an author comes up with an idea, spends at least a year researching and writing and when the publisher takes over, another eight months to a year elapses for editing and the production process. Tina plans to turn out a title in less than six months from genesis to revelations. This approach is intended (at the moment) to be used for political subjects that can change completely by the time they are conventionally scheduled for publication or for celebrity memoirs before the fickle public transfers its mourning to a later overdose succumbant. Makes me wonder if those get-'em-while-they're-hot-titles need to be published at all.
Comment at barbp39@gmail.com. Barbara Phillips

I SOUND LIKE A STUCK RECORD (Of course, no one under 50 knows what a stuck record is). Okay, I keep ranting about the horrible state of the book business, but I do have some remedies, one or two of which I have stated before. 1) It is vital to immediately change the pernicious practice of Returns. Like making buggy whips, bookseller and wholesaler return of unsold books to publishers for full refunds is an anachronism that should no longer be acceptable. Large and small publishers should rally against the practice and set a date, say January 2012, after which no returns will be countenanced. The novelty and gamble will be more than interesting for all involved in the book food chain. 2) Make life easier for the beleagured publisher. I've observed that there seem to be more writers than readers. If an author truly wants her book published, with professional editing, distribution and publicity and a jacket that doesn't look like it was coughed up by a copying machine, she might consider becoming a partner with the publisher who signs her up. This would involve persuading the author to give up the advance on royalties or foregoing royalties altogether in favor of taking a cut of the publisher's profits. I like this idea particularly for first-time authors. 3) Publishers should continue to expand their sales to new venues and consider publishing simultaneously in offset print and on-demand or electronic downloads. (However, I personally believe that downloading a title onto a cell phone is good for nothing but keeping opthalmologists busy, and I'm not even sure that Kindle and its ilk will last after its initial craze in the marketplace.) A few large publishers are even now trying out No. 3. Stay tuned.

Comment to barbp39@gmail.com.

Why am I getting so exercised about POD and e-books? The latest digital publishing news is that Kindle and its ilk are already obsolete. Any titles that Barnes and Noble, Amazon and even some publishing companies have in their data bases can now be downloaded to your IPhone or Blackberry. I can just see us all squinting into the depths of our teeny, tiny smart phone hoping to hang on to the wonderful words of Janet Lynch or Michael Chabon, while wondering if it's the size of the type or cataracts that's causing the blurriness. How far will techies take this adventure into different reading methods? Barbara Phillips
For posting comments, go to barbp39@gmail.com.

Men write novels, women read them

According to an article in The New Yorker, the author Ian McEwan once did a survey in which he handed out copies of one of his books in a nearby park. Women accepted the books willingly and gratefully, while men were polite but negative. These actions led McEwan to conclude that "when women stop reading, the novel will be dead."

It has been documented elsewhere that men do not like to read novels. In fact, they seem to be ashamed to admit they are reading one, preferring instead long-winded biographies, doubtful social science and obscure polysci. But the major novelists, up to and including the present day, are mostly men. For instance, Trollope, Dickens, James, Fitzgerald, Hemingway, Updike, Roth, Franzen. What does this tell us? It tells me that some men are imaginative and show us, in David Foster Wallace's words, what our fucking life is all about, whereas those male readers who one would suppose would be interested in any information about their psyches, reject any hint of self-analysis. Instead, the male gender mostly lives in some neutered book world of so-called facts, which may or may not be factoids. Whereas novels do not have to worry about libel or naming names, so with impunity can and do cover all issues concerning them and their fellow humans. Boys, let's have some rethinking here! Barbara Phillips

For comments, barbp39@gmail.com

More about POD

WILL PRINT ON DEMAND TAKE OVER THE BOOK INDUSTRY?






I questioned in an earlier post whether the phenomenon of POD, or Print On Demand, the digital publishing industry, would soon become the successor to conventional offset printing. Many conventional publishers are either rushing or planning to rush onto the bandwagon of all things digital. Authors, who love the idea of not going through the submissions, editing and royalty processes with traditional publishers, are turning to POD companies to get their manuscripts published. The former epithet, "self-publishing" no longer pertains, and with the ever growing number of online reviewers (some professional but most just general readers), it no longer matters that a traditional book critic won't consider reviewing a print-on-demand book. Print reviewers are yesterday's news according to young writers, anyway. But what about publishers, who still wish to remain curators of quality, working with book agents and their own editors to produce what they consider superior professional products? They will still continue to do that for the near future, but what about tomorrow? Will POD save the book industry from crumbling into dust? According to experts, POD can be great for small press runs, to publish second editions, say, or for niche publishers, who publish very few books at a time. Traditional brick and mortar bookstores are still wary of carrying POD books because they cannot be returned if unsold. However, like anyone else, if a bookstore owner thinks she has a hit on her hands, she'll buy POD books PDQ. For Bridge Works, POD publishing is worth considering. We generally print twice the number of titles than we sell. That means we need space for inventory, therefore pay big bucks to buy that space. We wouldn't have to worry about overstock with POD publishing. But the average number of POD sales is about 200, probably because with POD, there is a charge for each book, as opposed to the one-time cost of a traditional print run no matter how many copies are involved. And we publishers still undergo a terrible uncertainty about how many copies a title will sell. What if a title takes off and we don't have the inventory to supply wholesalers? At the moment, the guessing game seems more viable than running out of product. For small publishers like Bridge Works, POD is still a large gamble. Comment at barbp39@gmail.com.