Art is not media

[Jackarandajam]

“I wish that future novelists would reject the pressure to write for the betterment of society. Art is not media. A novel is not an ‘afternoon special’ or fodder for the Twittersphere or material for journalists to make neat generalizations about culture. A novel is not Buzzfeed or NPR or Instagram or even Hollywood. Let’s get clear about that. A novel is a literary work of art meant to expand consciousness. We need novels that live in an amoral universe, past the political agenda described on social media. We have imaginations for a reason. Novels like American Psycho and Lolita did not poison culture. Murderous corporations and exploitative industries did. We need characters in novels to be free to range into the dark and wrong. How else will we understand ourselves?”

Imperfectly worded, but a sentiment that resonates.
Let us not forget that the internet is an unprecedented phenomenon.

What we seem to have (and what I think many writers have trouble navigating), is a very loud, very united voice on what is and what is not acceptable in a book, with what seems to be very little regard for how or why the disagreeable content is used in the story. Publishing houses also seem to be catering to this loud voice.
I purposefully use vagaries; it could be certainly argued that this pseudo, pre-censorship problem isn't as real as it seems, that it has historical precedents (albeit none of them good), or that there is another more reasonable way to view it.

Regardless, the hyper-analytical deconstruction of past classics is a great example of my point:

Someone mentioned Uncle Tom's Cabin - but, uhh, the main character gets criticized by many readers for being too submissive, for being portrayed as the ideal timid slave instead of a dynamic real person, and for popularizing some stereotypes. But that's kind of missing the point and diminishing its massive real world impact. Could it have made such an impact if it portrayed its character any other way? I'm (unfortunately) doubtful.

I agree that there are many ways to be published, but the danger of social outrage over unexorcised minutiae that may contradict the constantly evolving (faster than ever in history because of the internet) definition of appropriate, regardless of intention, FEELS very real, particularly for new writers.
Just look at the staggering percentage of "is this okay?" posts on most writing forums (Read "I don't want to hurt anyones feelings" and/or "I don't want to be burned in effigy by the maddened hordes if this story ever sees the light of day").

From that perspective, her quote is refreshing and empowering.

 

[Jackarandajam]

To look at the issue another way, I think it's safe to say that writers are generally trying to "do the right thing."
No matter the style or genre or scope of the work, writers are trying to tell a story without degrading society, even if the work only appeals to very specific audience with very specific tastes.

The question is; who is the writer trying to "do the right thing" for?

It feels like there is currently an unusually sharp pressure to do the right thing, but equally in the exactly "right" way and for the exactly "right" people.
in my lifetime, Ive never heard so many people agreeing to boycott books because they were pretty sure they didn't agree with something in them, something the author said one time on myspace, or something someone else said about what the author might have meant about something.

AI-generated novels are going to do extremely well in a world where everyone wants their worldview to be perfectly unchallenged by what they read.
Not a new problem, but an old problem exacerbated in orders of magnitude by the internet and with a brand new solution; feed them with the machine.

I think that generally, writers are expecting to be able to "do the right thing" for themselves; freedom to share their worldview to some extent through the art of the written word.

I took the quote by Ottessa Moshfegh this way:

Writers share their consciousness with the world through books. Those that read the books expand their own consciousness by experiencing someone else's.
A writer should feel free and encouraged to share their consciousness without feeling the obligation to purge it of anything that doesn't perfectly align with popular opinion, rather than worrying that if they don't toe a line they didn't draw they could suffer the highest societal consequences of the 21st century.

 

[Queshire]

I guess that I acknowledge that others feel that way, but it's so far outside my personal experiences that it's always rather mystifing. =/

EDIT: And hey, if it helps encourage people then that's great. I still don't get it though.

 

[Jackarandajam]

I guess that I acknowledge that others feel that way, but it's so far outside my personal experiences that it's always rather mystifing. =/

EDIT: And hey, if it helps encourage people then that's great. I still don't get it though.

An example:

I want BIPOC characters in my book. It would be boring without them.
I would never want to be perceived as one of those writers who relegates BIPOC characters to the sidelines, so I choose one of my POV characters.

Now there are two perfectly legitimate, perfectly opposed opinions that i have heard from the BIPOC community:
"Just write them the way you would write anybody. Don't make it weird."
VS.
"You as a white male can never possibly understand what it is like to be BIPOC, and would be unwise to try."

So now I can either whitewash my book, sideline BIPOC characters, or spend an unfathomable amount of time researching and trying to respectfully glean enough feedback from appropriate sources to assure myself that I am not about to portray myself as an author in the worst possible way; an entitled white man badly pandering inclusivity for societal virtue points.

All because I want to write a little non-epic fantasy book that entertains people without marginalizing anybody.

I'm old enough to know that my best is the best I can do and you can't please everybody, but man, I don't envy the 13 year old newby writers who are trying to navigate how to do the right thing right now, while watching published authors get eviscerated on the largest stage the world has ever seen over blunders that look so easy to make.

 

[Queshire]

An example:

I want BIPOC characters in my book. It would be boring without them.
I would never want to be perceived as one of those writers who relegates BIPOC characters to the sidelines, so I choose one of my POV characters.

Now there are two perfectly legitimate, perfectly opposed opinions that i have heard from the BIPOC community:
"Just write them the way you would write anybody. Don't make it weird."
VS.
"You as a white male can never possibly understand what it is like to be BIPOC, and would be unwise to try."

So now I can either whitewash my book, sideline BIPOC characters, or spend an unfathomable amount of time researching and trying to respectfully glean enough feedback from appropriate sources to assure myself that I am not about to portray myself as an author in the worst possible way; an entitled white man badly pandering inclusivity for societal virtue points.

All because I want to write a little non-epic fantasy book that entertains people without marginalizing anybody.

I'm old enough to know that my best is the best I can do and you can't please everybody, but man, I don't envy the 13 year old newby writers who are trying to navigate how to do the right thing right now, while watching published authors get eviscerated on the largest stage the world has ever seen over blunders that look so easy to make.

Why should I consider that different from people protesting Harry Potter when it came out for promoting witchcraft? Or the satanic panic around D&D? Or all that stuff about violent video games? Or any other moral panic?

I suppose the spread of Twitter increased the amount of noise, but the core of it is really the same.

When you hold it up against stuff like library challenges to get particular books pulled from school libraries or looking at the history of stuff like the Hays code or the comics code authority it just doesn't seem to be on the same level to me.

 

[Jackarandajam]

Why should I consider that different from people protesting Harry Potter when it came out for promoting witchcraft? Or the satanic panic around D&D? Or all that stuff about violent video games? Or any other moral panic?

I suppose the spread of Twitter increased the amount of noise, but the core of it is really the same.

When you hold it up against stuff like library challenges to get particular books pulled from school libraries or looking at the history of stuff like the Hays code or the comics code authority it just doesn't seem to be on the same level to me.

I agree with everything you said here, more or less.
It does smack of the backward religious fanaticism the fantasy community has suffered through the decades.
I think the difference is one of scale and source; the internet is unprecedented and has come a very long way.
Which did more damage to Rowling; the geriatric snake-handlers from the deep south who burned her books, or the teens and young adults in the internet aftermath of her social media comments? Same premise, incomparible results.

And yes, there are absolutely lots of problems that this one pales in comparison to, problems that should be brought to the light and seen for what they are. They should inspire anger, research, and a commitment not to further them.

 

[A. E. Lowan]

Not usure how I've managed to miss this thread going by, but it looks like you've been spared my influence... until now.

So, it looks like we're tapdancing around the position of 'damned if we do and damned if we don't,' to which I reply, buckle up, buttercup. Some of these are a little dated, but the sentiments and viewpoints expressed are no less relevant. I need to eventually build this in to a collection, but not today. Let's dive in.

How to Write Women of Colour and Men of Colour if you are White

Alternate Visions: Some Musings on Diversity in SF

5 Writing the Other Fails And How To Avoid Them: A Guest Post

https://writingwithcolor.tumblr.com%2Fpost%2F94840198717 (This is Writing With Color. Get to know this blog like you'd get to know the cutie you're taking home to meet your parents.)

And that's not even scratching the surface, but it's a good place to start. Buckle up, get to know your fellow humans, and good luck!

 

[MrFrench]

So I recently came across this quote by the brilliant Ottessa Moshfegh;

“I wish that future novelists would reject the pressure to write for the betterment of society. Art is not media. A novel is not an ‘afternoon special’ or fodder for the Twittersphere or material for journalists to make neat generalizations about culture. A novel is not Buzzfeed or NPR or Instagram or even Hollywood. Let’s get clear about that. A novel is a literary work of art meant to expand consciousness. We need novels that live in an amoral universe, past the political agenda described on social media. We have imaginations for a reason. Novels like American Psycho and Lolita did not poison culture. Murderous corporations and exploitative industries did. We need characters in novels to be free to range into the dark and wrong. How else will we understand ourselves?”

Now, to me that is a monumental quote that could be taken a thousand various ways, but not only do I agree with it, but her words seem to have ignited a fire within me to go ahead and create my art rather than be preoccupied with the perceived need to pander to a set of specific societal expectations that are constantly perpetuated across various media channels. While I’m not going to create anything stupendously controversial, there is something so freeing by realising that we are creating art - not media fodder.

I’m sure many of you have created your work without a second thought to this issue, but nevertheless, I think it’s an interesting conversation to be had.

What do you think of this statement?

How much do you implement this ideal into your work?

Finch,

When you write to create something from your imagination there absolutely should be no boundaries regardless of the critique of others that you should not go there. That is purity of creation. Still, by keeping that in mind you have to understand that the genre you are writing in/for may not be so willing to accept your work with open arms if you stray too far past the readers lines of acceptability. If you are writing to/for a specific audience, such as fantasy, to earn an income you are chained to work within that audience. That is why after you finish your manuscript you have to do market research to find your audience, who will be excited to read it. Crossing beyond the line of what an audience/reader will accept versus what media will accept are two different things. Think of the controversy about the artist who took a dump on a dinner plate and presented it as art at a gallery. Most art enthusiast had no interest in paying money to see it. It was literary shit.

Funny thing is, this includes myself, is I have written what I thought was science fiction. Including my current novel I am working on. My audience I thought was adult science fiction, but by doing market research it was not adult science fiction but a sub-genre of romance. Could it pass as science fiction? I am sure it could, but the subject matter is more romance in with a science fiction setting. The Fourth Wing is a perfect example of this. The author is a traditional romance novelist. By adding in dragons and wyvern and all of that does it make it fantasy?

My point is that your audience determines whether going amoral or not, media does not. If you write for yourself and do not plan to share it then the question is moot.

 

[Queshire]

I agree with everything you said here, more or less.
It does smack of the backward religious fanaticism the fantasy community has suffered through the decades.
I think the difference is one of scale and source; the internet is unprecedented and has come a very long way.
Which did more damage to Rowling; the geriatric snake-handlers from the deep south who burned her books, or the teens and young adults in the internet aftermath of her social media comments? Same premise, incomparible results.

And yes, there are absolutely lots of problems that this one pales in comparison to, problems that should be brought to the light and seen for what they are. They should inspire anger, research, and a commitment not to further them.

Considering the amount of money she's still racking in I'd say she's doing just fine.

 

[Jackarandajam]

Considering the amount of money she's still racking in I'd say she's doing just fine.

No doubt. It's basically impossible to crush a billionaires source of income with a smear campaign. Like putting out a wildfire.

Normal people who think following their writing passion may be a route to financial freedom, on the other hand? Like pinching out a candle.

 

[Prince of Spires]

Normal people who think following their writing passion may be a route to financial freedom, on the other hand? Like pinching out a candle.

I'm calling bullshit on this one. By far the biggest issue with writers not making any money isn't people disagreeing with the message in the book or a witchhunt against the book or the author that silences the whole thing. It's obscurity. Plain and simple. Standing out among the millions of books on Amazon, among the thousands of books released in a month, is very, very hard. Only a handful of people manage to do so. 90+% of all readers simply want to read a good book, and they have a hard time finding a beginning author. Most authors and books are simply ignored, which is a lot more harmful than someone with an opinion and a twitter acount.

If you, or anyone else, thinks that writing is a sensible path to financial freedom, then you're probably in for a run-in with reality unfortunately. If you're after money, almost anything else is a better way to spend your time.

Looking at myself, I don't care about societal issues or representation or anything else. I just want to tell fun stories that people want to read. I would also love for my hobby to pay for itself instead of being a huge money sink, but I guess you can't have everything...

 

[Finchbearer]

Imperfectly worded, but a sentiment that resonates.
Let us not forget that the internet is an unprecedented phenomenon.

What we seem to have (and what I think many writers have trouble navigating), is a very loud, very united voice on what is and what is not acceptable in a book, with what seems to be very little regard for how or why the disagreeable content is used in the story. Publishing houses also seem to be catering to this loud voice.
I purposefully use vagaries; it could be certainly argued that this pseudo, pre-censorship problem isn't as real as it seems, that it has historical precedents (albeit none of them good), or that there is another more reasonable way to view it.

Regardless, the hyper-analytical deconstruction of past classics is a great example of my point:



I agree that there are many ways to be published, but the danger of social outrage over unexorcised minutiae that may contradict the constantly evolving (faster than ever in history because of the internet) definition of appropriate, regardless of intention, FEELS very real, particularly for new writers.
Just look at the staggering percentage of "is this okay?" posts on most writing forums (Read "I don't want to hurt anyones feelings" and/or "I don't want to be burned in effigy by the maddened hordes if this story ever sees the light of day").

From that perspective, her quote is refreshing and empowering.

Yes, I basically share this sentiment.

 

[Jackarandajam]

I'm calling bullshit on this one. By far the biggest issue with writers not making any money isn't people disagreeing with the message in the book or a witchhunt against the book or the author that silences the whole thing. It's obscurity. Plain and simple. Standing out among the millions of books on Amazon, among the thousands of books released in a month, is very, very hard. Only a handful of people manage to do so. 90+% of all readers simply want to read a good book, and they have a hard time finding a beginning author. Most authors and books are simply ignored, which is a lot more harmful than someone with an opinion and a twitter acount.

If you, or anyone else, thinks that writing is a sensible path to financial freedom, then you're probably in for a run-in with reality unfortunately. If you're after money, almost anything else is a better way to spend your time.

Looking at myself, I don't care about societal issues or representation or anything else. I just want to tell fun stories that people want to read. I would also love for my hobby to pay for itself instead of being a huge money sink, but I guess you can't have everything...

I concede your point. I should have said: "normal people following their writing passion, on the other hand?"
The financial aspect was completely off base, and unrelated to the original post or the conversation.

 

[Demesnedenoir]

Calling it censorship to get certain books out of school libraries is a tad annoying to me. I like the comedian Steve Martin, but he was once bitching about his Shopgirl book getting pulled out of a school library... I know people who know Steve, and he's a legit good guy, but that was some TwitteX grandstanding.

My books are in a couple of College and high school libraries, and maybe more I don't know about, but would I recommend them for midgrade? Ah, hell no. I'm a tad offended that someone thought mush brained high schoolers would like my books, heh heh.

Why should I consider that different from people protesting Harry Potter when it came out for promoting witchcraft? Or the satanic panic around D&D? Or all that stuff about violent video games? Or any other moral panic?

I suppose the spread of Twitter increased the amount of noise, but the core of it is really the same.

When you hold it up against stuff like library challenges to get particular books pulled from school libraries or looking at the history of stuff like the Hays code or the comics code authority it just doesn't seem to be on the same level to me.

 

[Demesnedenoir]

Yeah, most indie writers will never manage to get noticed by the haters to get hated on, heh heh. The bigger threat to sales is piracy once you've gotten past the threshold of getting noticed. I doubt there is some star-chamber or secret book Gestapo out there destroying indie books, although these days, algorithms could do it.

I've been attacked by both sides on occasion, so I figure I'm doing something right, heh heh. It's friggin' amazing what people think they know about you from an ad or snippet of a book.

I'm calling bullshit on this one. By far the biggest issue with writers not making any money isn't people disagreeing with the message in the book or a witchhunt against the book or the author that silences the whole thing. It's obscurity. Plain and simple. Standing out among the millions of books on Amazon, among the thousands of books released in a month, is very, very hard. Only a handful of people manage to do so. 90+% of all readers simply want to read a good book, and they have a hard time finding a beginning author. Most authors and books are simply ignored, which is a lot more harmful than someone with an opinion and a twitter acount.

If you, or anyone else, thinks that writing is a sensible path to financial freedom, then you're probably in for a run-in with reality unfortunately. If you're after money, almost anything else is a better way to spend your time.

Looking at myself, I don't care about societal issues or representation or anything else. I just want to tell fun stories that people want to read. I would also love for my hobby to pay for itself instead of being a huge money sink, but I guess you can't have everything...

 

[Queshire]

Calling it censorship to get certain books out of school libraries is a tad annoying to me. I like the comedian Steve Martin, but he was once bitching about his Shopgirl book getting pulled out of a school library... I know people who know Steve, and he's a legit good guy, but that was some TwitteX grandstanding.

My books are in a couple of College and high school libraries, and maybe more I don't know about, but would I recommend them for midgrade? Ah, hell no. I'm a tad offended that someone thought mush brained high schoolers would like my books, heh heh.

Well now if it was honest then I'd agree with you. There's a few elements that pushes it into censorship for me.

First is that there's been organized groups pushing for books to be removed. These have ranged in size from entirely local affairs to groups like Moms for Liberty which has chapters in multiple states.

Secondly there's the sort of books that are getting pulled. According to a report by Pen America 41% of the books banned in the 2021 school year involved LGBT themes or had protagonists / prominent secondary characters who are LGBT. Now, some of them might be like Shopgirl or your book, but nearly half?

The book banned across the most districts in 2021 was evidently Gender Queer: A Memoir by Maia Kobabe. I did a quick google image search of the book since it's an illustrated memoir and the artwork looks fine?

Gender Queer: A Memoir - Google Search

EDIT: The Penn America report can be read here if anyone's interested Banned in the USA: The Growing Movement to Ban Books - PEN America

 

[Demesnedenoir]

The thing is, none of these books are actually "banned" by my definition, they just aren't in some school libraries, often middle grade. School libraries have limited space, and some of the books with sexual themes do have illustrations that would send me to the school board if my middle-school daughter brought it home. Straight or LGBTQ+ sex, I don't care. There's a lot of stuff out there that shouldn't be in middle-grade libraries. Game of Thrones, Lord Foul's Bane another, my books another just for the violence. In high school? I tend to say whatever, but... Well, my freshman daughter was forced to read a book that freaked her out. On the one hand, I get the social issues that were being brought up (and she didn't have an issue with those), but the sexual "comedy" of the book... let's just say if she'd been forced to read the passages aloud in class, which she came close to having to do, she would've been running from the room or crying. Then, teach and I would've been having words. By senior year, what the hell, but laying that on freshmen was a crude requirement. In the library? Sure. Required reading? No.
.
And frankly, I don't believe in statistics anymore, and haven't for a long time, seeing as Mark Twain was right about them. Everybody has an agenda, whether it's Christian Right or LGBTQ+. My natural instinct is libertarian, but society does have the right to draw bounds. This is why schools are not controlled by a single centralized force; let each school and community decide. The book stores and public libraries are still there for any book someone deems "banned."

In the case of Shopgirl, I doubt the thing was checked out often enough to stay in the library. It was probably bought by the library back when the movie came out almost 20 years ago, and interest peaked. After that? Time to make space for new books. We all land in the used book store or on the trash heap someday... unless we're lucky enough to become collectible.

Well now if it was honest then I'd agree with you. There's a few elements that pushes it into censorship for me.

First is that there's been organized groups pushing for books to be removed. These have ranged in size from entirely local affairs to groups like Moms for Liberty which has chapters in multiple states.

Secondly there's the sort of books that are getting pulled. According to a report by Pen America 41% of the books banned in the 2021 school year involved LGBT themes or had protagonists / prominent secondary characters who are LGBT. Now, some of them might be like Shopgirl or your book, but nearly half?

The book banned across the most districts in 2021 was evidently Gender Queer: A Memoir by Maia Kobabe. I did a quick google image search of the book since it's an illustrated memoir and the artwork looks fine?

Gender Queer: A Memoir - Google Search

EDIT: The Penn America report can be read here if anyone's interested Banned in the USA: The Growing Movement to Ban Books - PEN America

 

[MrFrench]

I'm calling bullshit on this one. By far the biggest issue with writers not making any money isn't people disagreeing with the message in the book or a witchhunt against the book or the author that silences the whole thing. It's obscurity. Plain and simple. Standing out among the millions of books on Amazon, among the thousands of books released in a month, is very, very hard. Only a handful of people manage to do so. 90+% of all readers simply want to read a good book, and they have a hard time finding a beginning author. Most authors and books are simply ignored, which is a lot more harmful than someone with an opinion and a twitter acount.

If you, or anyone else, thinks that writing is a sensible path to financial freedom, then you're probably in for a run-in with reality unfortunately. If you're after money, almost anything else is a better way to spend your time.

Looking at myself, I don't care about societal issues or representation or anything else. I just want to tell fun stories that people want to read. I would also love for my hobby to pay for itself instead of being a huge money sink, but I guess you can't have everything...

Absolutely agree with you. If you are authoring novels and books and toss them out there on Amazon KDP your chance of financial success is pretty slim. If that is all you are doing that is. Marketing and cover art will put you in the green somewhat, but for the most part not nearly enough to make a living off it unless you are lucky. On the other hand, if you stop being an author full time and become a writer you CAN make a living. Yes, there is a difference between the two. I have been ghostwriting for the past five years and have made significant money, enough to pay off the next 15 years of my mortgage. Have made money as an instructor for a university teaching creative writing and context of writing. Teaching alone definitely is not enough to live on, but it supplements the other ventures I work on as a writer. There are a few other writing-oriented things I do to make money too that I won't bore you with here. My former instructor told me, when I took my Intro to Creative writing course in college a bunch of years back, authoring a novel will not grant you an income you can live on. He said that you have to be a writer as well.

On the other hand, like you, creating stories that you enjoy writing as a hobby is always the most rewarding. I have tons of short stories taking up space on memory sticks that I share with only a few people.

 

[Demesnedenoir]

There are plenty of people out there making a living without "being a writer," as you seem to define it. Many of them make way more than most trad published authors. Marketing and whatnot will not put you in the green. That is what puts you deeper into the red until it doesn't. Cover art put you in the green? No. Bad cover art can keep you in the red, but with the mass of books available now, cover art won't do it alone. These notions were somewhat true in the early glory days of Amazon books when millions of readers were trying to discover a few thousand writers. Now? Nope. Make-a-living writers (as in support a family) aren't unicorns, but they are a scarce beast.

That said, it is still possible. If I was single and childless, I'd be a full-time writer right now, LMAO. At some point, I still will be, but for now, my time isn't my own, and the other business makes too much money to drop and take the risk and early slow down in income. Frankly, we spend too damned much money.

I'm impressed by people who can ghostwrite, but it just isn't in me. I've had an inquiry here and there, and even passed on helping with a screenplay rewrite way back when, because deep down, I'm a stubborn, ornery, bitchy artist with a bad attitude, heh heh.

Right now, I'm exhausted and rambling, so I'll shut up now.

Absolutely agree with you. If you are authoring novels and books and toss them out there on Amazon KDP your chance of financial success is pretty slim. If that is all you are doing that is. Marketing and cover art will put you in the green somewhat, but for the most part not nearly enough to make a living off it unless you are lucky. On the other hand, if you stop being an author full time and become a writer you CAN make a living. Yes, there is a difference between the two. I have been ghostwriting for the past five years and have made significant money, enough to pay off the next 15 years of my mortgage. Have made money as an instructor for a university teaching creative writing and context of writing. Teaching alone definitely is not enough to live on, but it supplements the other ventures I work on as a writer. There are a few other writing-oriented things I do to make money too that I won't bore you with here. My former instructor told me, when I took my Intro to Creative writing course in college a bunch of years back, authoring a novel will not grant you an income you can live on. He said that you have to be a writer as well.

On the other hand, like you, creating stories that you enjoy writing as a hobby is always the most rewarding. I have tons of short stories taking up space on memory sticks that I share with only a few people.

 

[Jackarandajam]

If I was single and childless, I'd be a full-time writer right now, LMAO.

Ha! A thought I have to bare-knuckle batter down fortnightly, the unhelpful, petulant, intrusive thought that it is. Especially with number three on the way.