The effect of novelists not "allowed" to write about the poor unless they were poor themselves is most often to erase the poor from fiction. Which is very unhelpful to the poor. Because what we don't see we are free to ignore.
Spot on. I have framed this lack of imagination and empathy as shadow boxing with straw men. It degrades literature, politics, and interpersonal relations.
It is the product of a lazy indisposition to think and understand. Thinking is hard, and it often hurts.
I find your vitriol towards this novel interesting in light of your own request for feedback from beta readers of your manuscript “Blue Snow.” You said, “I know that we tend to hyper-focus on what isn’t working and overlook what is. I would love in particular to hear what you liked about the book!” You even decided not to send a gift card to beta readers that did mot praise your book. Constructive, thoughtful criticism that attempted to help you develop your novel was evidently viewed as unnecessary.
It goes along with the cringe that passes for humor these days. Thinking beyond step one is increasing uncommon anywhere along the political continuum.
It's a slippery slope when "diversity" is the goal no matter who is in the minority at any given time. We should just focus on objectively meritorious fiction regardless of ideology. The entry fee for being able to effectively proliferate an ideology via fiction (I'm thinking, say, Orwell or Sinclair) is that the author must be able to entertain at the surface level with a compelling, if not beautifully wrought, narrative. Trad publishing has seduced itself into believing that it can dictate to the audience what is quality and what isn't and that is simply becoming less and less the case.
A grim reality for heterodox readers indeed. Publishing is a marketplace like any other. If it's not wanted, people won't buy it. How many best-sellers will instead be merely abortive, because of the whimsical keyholding of publishers? Because the market (read: real people!) was never allowed to judge to begin with? Hard to tell.
Individual publishing choices are hard to collectively display (as you've done well to try), and you are right to say that this orthodoxy of publishing choice *amounts to* soft censorship. Where this leaves me as a relatively young and aspirant author is hard to say.
This post only covers the first chapter, from what I can tell, but the rest is obvious; massively reductive stereotypes about historical people and their cultures, and a presentation of their morals and intelligence as backwards or 'medieval'.
E.P. Thompson wrote about 'the enormous condescension of posterity'. In his time, he was a Marxist taking aim - and rightly, in my view - at traditionalist historians and indeed traditionalist historiography, which favoured the broad-strokes history of Great Men over so-called 'ordinary' folk. In our time, the meaning has changed. We are quick to believe our own time morally superior to that of the past, despite all our grievances. We are quick to ridicule the past and believe very little should be modelled off of it. We do so at our peril.
And it’s all about the publishing “industry” and who controls it. From Lit Agencies to publishing hierarchy who hires only “like minds,” and, in essence, fails to realize every book on their list is a redundancy of voice, thematically vapid. They are killing literature in the name of their “perfect ideology."
The effect of novelists not "allowed" to write about the poor unless they were poor themselves is most often to erase the poor from fiction. Which is very unhelpful to the poor. Because what we don't see we are free to ignore.
Spot on. I have framed this lack of imagination and empathy as shadow boxing with straw men. It degrades literature, politics, and interpersonal relations.
It is the product of a lazy indisposition to think and understand. Thinking is hard, and it often hurts.
Outstanding work, Liza. Thank you!
It's also so badly written.
I find your vitriol towards this novel interesting in light of your own request for feedback from beta readers of your manuscript “Blue Snow.” You said, “I know that we tend to hyper-focus on what isn’t working and overlook what is. I would love in particular to hear what you liked about the book!” You even decided not to send a gift card to beta readers that did mot praise your book. Constructive, thoughtful criticism that attempted to help you develop your novel was evidently viewed as unnecessary.
It goes along with the cringe that passes for humor these days. Thinking beyond step one is increasing uncommon anywhere along the political continuum.
A major one ☝️
It's a slippery slope when "diversity" is the goal no matter who is in the minority at any given time. We should just focus on objectively meritorious fiction regardless of ideology. The entry fee for being able to effectively proliferate an ideology via fiction (I'm thinking, say, Orwell or Sinclair) is that the author must be able to entertain at the surface level with a compelling, if not beautifully wrought, narrative. Trad publishing has seduced itself into believing that it can dictate to the audience what is quality and what isn't and that is simply becoming less and less the case.
And badly written - from the first line : “…like usual.”
?!
Regardless of ideology, these lists strike me as whiny, petty, and narrow-minded. This is your job, not "what do I want to read on the beach?"
A grim reality for heterodox readers indeed. Publishing is a marketplace like any other. If it's not wanted, people won't buy it. How many best-sellers will instead be merely abortive, because of the whimsical keyholding of publishers? Because the market (read: real people!) was never allowed to judge to begin with? Hard to tell.
Individual publishing choices are hard to collectively display (as you've done well to try), and you are right to say that this orthodoxy of publishing choice *amounts to* soft censorship. Where this leaves me as a relatively young and aspirant author is hard to say.
This post only covers the first chapter, from what I can tell, but the rest is obvious; massively reductive stereotypes about historical people and their cultures, and a presentation of their morals and intelligence as backwards or 'medieval'.
E.P. Thompson wrote about 'the enormous condescension of posterity'. In his time, he was a Marxist taking aim - and rightly, in my view - at traditionalist historians and indeed traditionalist historiography, which favoured the broad-strokes history of Great Men over so-called 'ordinary' folk. In our time, the meaning has changed. We are quick to believe our own time morally superior to that of the past, despite all our grievances. We are quick to ridicule the past and believe very little should be modelled off of it. We do so at our peril.
I did not realize when you posted that except that it was from Yesteryear. That's what everyone this raving over? Geez.
Given these blacklists it’s a wonder that anything gets published.
Nailed it again.
And it’s all about the publishing “industry” and who controls it. From Lit Agencies to publishing hierarchy who hires only “like minds,” and, in essence, fails to realize every book on their list is a redundancy of voice, thematically vapid. They are killing literature in the name of their “perfect ideology."
👏👏👏 So well-said, Liza!