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.
This was my immediate thought. In one paragraph, we had multiple parenthetical thought interruptions. Presumably this is from the stage where we get to know the characters. This is the first impression that’s supposed to make us keep reading?
It does feel like a really good literary agent would be concerned less with their own pet issues/preferences and more with WHAT WILL ACTUALLY SELL. Those people must exist, surely.
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.
I basically don't read contemporary fiction for the exact reasons you lay out. I used to be a script reader, and unfortunately the film industry suffers from the same problem. Publishing is like education and the arts—they're all fields dominated by progressive women and therefore driven by their sensibilities. What I can't stand is the pathologizing of every issue in these modern books.
There's of course niche publishing of conservative/religious content, but from my perspective the primary purpose of the agent should be to FIND THINGS THAT WILL SELL. They are eliminating about half the market share by rejecting anything that doesn't align with their particular agenda. We need some apolitical capitalists in this business.
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.
It is humorous that these people fancy themselves as highly empathetic, yet write such wooden and hackneyed characters that demonstrate they are anything but.
Is it me, or do these "please send me ..." sheets read like dating profiles. You need to be this but not this and I have no interest in this but you have to be that but not this and this and this so even if you think you are that I'll decide.
Also, if we're looking at gender imbalance in fiction, the whole "no military/cop/spy that is portrayed in a good light" is a guarantee that men won't read. From what I observe, men tend not to be too into fiction in the first place - we like stuff that happened or learning about how shit works or who won some conflict - so this is sure to solidify the gap.
That book sounds like it was written for children, rather than adults. Rose Horowitch writes about this in the upcoming issue of The Atlantic magazine in her article, "The End of Reading is Here." We have dumbed down TV and movies and theater and every form of art. I used to think literature was immune, but obviously I was wrong.
Over the years, I've seen three trends follow along with each other: reading popularity/frequency has dropped, "popular books" have homogenized into some dull, nebulous form, and reading comprehension has dropped. We've been chasing the lowest common denominator in order to best include every possible soul rather than challenging everyone to live (and read) at a higher standard. I do not like modern publishing as the writing is dull and vapid at best, like a dollar store candy bar that all you get is the quick sugar boost and the nausea of artificial additives and the insulin dump after. I am not sure why they keep doubling down on the way they manage the industry, though, almost as if they refuse to hear the children (us) revealing to them that they aren't wearing any clothes, convinced of their own superiority even as they know deep inside they've been all sold a lie for their creative souls.
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.
Looks like Dickens is out.
Dickens was poor as a child.
Yes but also white, straight, and cis, so ding.
It's also so badly written.
This was my immediate thought. In one paragraph, we had multiple parenthetical thought interruptions. Presumably this is from the stage where we get to know the characters. This is the first impression that’s supposed to make us keep reading?
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?"
It does feel like a really good literary agent would be concerned less with their own pet issues/preferences and more with WHAT WILL ACTUALLY SELL. Those people must exist, surely.
Given these blacklists it’s a wonder that anything gets published.
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.”
?!
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.
One of those agents doesn’t like archaeology. I am personally offended.
I basically don't read contemporary fiction for the exact reasons you lay out. I used to be a script reader, and unfortunately the film industry suffers from the same problem. Publishing is like education and the arts—they're all fields dominated by progressive women and therefore driven by their sensibilities. What I can't stand is the pathologizing of every issue in these modern books.
There's of course niche publishing of conservative/religious content, but from my perspective the primary purpose of the agent should be to FIND THINGS THAT WILL SELL. They are eliminating about half the market share by rejecting anything that doesn't align with their particular agenda. We need some apolitical capitalists in this business.
Well, looks like I’m never selling my book.
Some of these lists seem to be a long winded way of saying “I’m not an agent. I don’t read. Stop sending me stuff.”
Oh well. Lots of great authors failed to sell their best work in their lifetime. I can always be one of those, if need be. No shame in it.
Outstanding work, Liza. Thank you!
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.
It is humorous that these people fancy themselves as highly empathetic, yet write such wooden and hackneyed characters that demonstrate they are anything but.
Is it me, or do these "please send me ..." sheets read like dating profiles. You need to be this but not this and I have no interest in this but you have to be that but not this and this and this so even if you think you are that I'll decide.
Also, if we're looking at gender imbalance in fiction, the whole "no military/cop/spy that is portrayed in a good light" is a guarantee that men won't read. From what I observe, men tend not to be too into fiction in the first place - we like stuff that happened or learning about how shit works or who won some conflict - so this is sure to solidify the gap.
That book sounds like it was written for children, rather than adults. Rose Horowitch writes about this in the upcoming issue of The Atlantic magazine in her article, "The End of Reading is Here." We have dumbed down TV and movies and theater and every form of art. I used to think literature was immune, but obviously I was wrong.
Over the years, I've seen three trends follow along with each other: reading popularity/frequency has dropped, "popular books" have homogenized into some dull, nebulous form, and reading comprehension has dropped. We've been chasing the lowest common denominator in order to best include every possible soul rather than challenging everyone to live (and read) at a higher standard. I do not like modern publishing as the writing is dull and vapid at best, like a dollar store candy bar that all you get is the quick sugar boost and the nausea of artificial additives and the insulin dump after. I am not sure why they keep doubling down on the way they manage the industry, though, almost as if they refuse to hear the children (us) revealing to them that they aren't wearing any clothes, convinced of their own superiority even as they know deep inside they've been all sold a lie for their creative souls.