Got here via a colleague and found myself going down the rabbit hole of posts. I read through your novel pitches and found them all interesting, and definitely worth reading once they're finished. Hopefully you're giving them the time they need and not spending too much time lurking social media and going on YouTube podcasts, thereby contributing to the forms of media taking away from people's attention spans! (Or so you and P-Bo seem to address in the video.)
I thought the conversation was intriguing. I don't know if I have the space to address all of my thoughts about it; I agreed in some parts but took grievance with others. (For example, I am a defender of the romantasy readers. What's to say romantasy titles can't teach or express great ideas about humanity?)
My biggest overall disagreement was the criticism of viewing literature though specific lenses. I think it's inevitable - and not a dumbing down of culture by any means - that people who interact with a piece of work (literature, music, film, art) will overlay meaning onto it. The humanities - and academia as a whole - allow for people with differing ideas to share what they derive from the works with which they interact. The good thing about academia is that despite its supposed shift to the left, it is still a big tent that continues to support the free exchange and debate of ideas. The ones bemoaning the death of academia and the "dumbing down" of culture are the ones choosing to instead take their ball and go home, frustrated with any sort of criticism against their views. This comes not just from the left, but the right as well.
The great blog Defector had an article last month from Canadian professor David Hollingshead titled "Humanists Have Done Nothing Wrong". In it, Hollingshead stresses the importance of humanities and humanists (and what he calls "Secondary Source People") assigning layers of meaning and discourse onto works, while also poking a stick at his own area of study, fully understanding its faults (its verbosity and self-importance, mostly.) I would take a gander at the article; it seems like the kind of thing that would interest you, and if you do end up reading the article, I'm curious to know your thoughts.
In any case, I do hope you continue to work on your books, as when they come out I'll gladly read them and recommend them to the folks in my life who might appreciate them. I think getting people to read - especially folks who don't think they enjoy reading - is to meet them where they are and show them why they may relate to the written word rather than scroll through their phones in search of a social media fix. It's why romantasy authors succeed: They know their audience and know how to reach them while also expressing their own ideas about love, trust, humankindness, etc. Yes, they do this in a tale about spicy wizards and elves and whatnot, but it's effective.
What is your "beef" (gasp!) with pornograohic fairy elves, please? Am sorry but i couldn't get that far. Podcasts themselves are surely subject to the same aural and visual factors of all 'attention-corrupting' media? )Even more so when p'caster is F and.viewer/listener M ?(
The YT algorithm brought me to your channel. I appreciate what you are sharing here and on your podcast.
Got here via a colleague and found myself going down the rabbit hole of posts. I read through your novel pitches and found them all interesting, and definitely worth reading once they're finished. Hopefully you're giving them the time they need and not spending too much time lurking social media and going on YouTube podcasts, thereby contributing to the forms of media taking away from people's attention spans! (Or so you and P-Bo seem to address in the video.)
I thought the conversation was intriguing. I don't know if I have the space to address all of my thoughts about it; I agreed in some parts but took grievance with others. (For example, I am a defender of the romantasy readers. What's to say romantasy titles can't teach or express great ideas about humanity?)
My biggest overall disagreement was the criticism of viewing literature though specific lenses. I think it's inevitable - and not a dumbing down of culture by any means - that people who interact with a piece of work (literature, music, film, art) will overlay meaning onto it. The humanities - and academia as a whole - allow for people with differing ideas to share what they derive from the works with which they interact. The good thing about academia is that despite its supposed shift to the left, it is still a big tent that continues to support the free exchange and debate of ideas. The ones bemoaning the death of academia and the "dumbing down" of culture are the ones choosing to instead take their ball and go home, frustrated with any sort of criticism against their views. This comes not just from the left, but the right as well.
The great blog Defector had an article last month from Canadian professor David Hollingshead titled "Humanists Have Done Nothing Wrong". In it, Hollingshead stresses the importance of humanities and humanists (and what he calls "Secondary Source People") assigning layers of meaning and discourse onto works, while also poking a stick at his own area of study, fully understanding its faults (its verbosity and self-importance, mostly.) I would take a gander at the article; it seems like the kind of thing that would interest you, and if you do end up reading the article, I'm curious to know your thoughts.
In any case, I do hope you continue to work on your books, as when they come out I'll gladly read them and recommend them to the folks in my life who might appreciate them. I think getting people to read - especially folks who don't think they enjoy reading - is to meet them where they are and show them why they may relate to the written word rather than scroll through their phones in search of a social media fix. It's why romantasy authors succeed: They know their audience and know how to reach them while also expressing their own ideas about love, trust, humankindness, etc. Yes, they do this in a tale about spicy wizards and elves and whatnot, but it's effective.
Hope you're well, and happy writing.
I can't believe you are in my city! I didn't think there was anybody else sane here but me!
What is your "beef" (gasp!) with pornograohic fairy elves, please? Am sorry but i couldn't get that far. Podcasts themselves are surely subject to the same aural and visual factors of all 'attention-corrupting' media? )Even more so when p'caster is F and.viewer/listener M ?(
* sorry, same factors.. as all...
What has happened to the substack editing function?.
I never watch podcasts. I watched this one, on account of I have been thinking, perhaps I should tell people I write Victorian style novels.
I came away thinking I should look that up before I make the claim.