Art is not media

[Finchbearer]

I think she was responding to mainstream publishing and the influence that mainstream media has over it. How successful is an obscurely published book going to be? You are suggesting that it’s ’easy’ to get published via traditional means and to write with complete freedom - I am not too sure that is true.

Self publishing, if we’re talking about sticking something on Amazon, does not require anything more that pressing publish. It’s not that that method can’t be valid, but I am not sure it can be comparable to what she talks about.

It’s her opinion too, she is not saying ‘thou shalt’ and making absolutes as others have suggested. She is an advocate for creative freedom. To think that so many basically oppose that idea on here is kind of strange to me…but also quite predictable.

 

[Ban]

No, I clearly stated it was "comparatively" easy. That is a distinction, between merely easy. Climbing Mont Blanc is hard, but it has never been easier. I don't like it when I am told I suggest something I don't, especially when I made sure to include that important adjective "comparatively" and prefaced it with an example from the past that showcases the comparison.

You are suggesting that it’s ’easy’ to get published via traditional means and to write with complete freedom - I am not too sure that is true.

 

[Queshire]

Advocating for pushing the boundaries but then limiting yourself to success through traditional publishing strikes me as a bit odd.

 

[Finchbearer]

She didn’t specify a method of publishing though…

Sure, she is traditionally published. Or she might have older works that aren’t as mainstream. That isn’t in the quote either way. I don’t think she is being contradictory at all. She is advocating for creative freedom by pushing the boundaries of not just creative writing but also of the publishing industry itself - but that is just what I get from that. If all future novelists are producing work that is self limiting and pandering to imagined marketable standards then nothing changes if nothing changes…

 

[Ban]

Right, but those constraints have never not been there. The artists who worry about fitting into the standards aren't the ones who would ever, in any time period, rebel against those standards to begin with. They have the means to do so, more than at any other time in history.

 

[Finchbearer]

The standards have definitely changed, in my opinion.

 

[Rexenm]

Advocating for pushing the boundaries but then limiting yourself to success through traditional publishing strikes me as a bit odd.

Does it strike you as a bit odd, or a bit even?

 

[Fyri]

Saying media is social commentary

On the subject of differentiating art from media: art is creativity, media is social commentary.

That is not to say that art cannot also be social commentary, but the key difference is in the medium. The medium is the message.

I also like to refer back to something I remember from design school: art is honest, advertising is lying.

I’d go as far to say that media is advertising, and therefore is a lie.

This would also say social commentary is therefore lying, which I take issue with. Social commentary can be revealing truth.

 

[Devor]

“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?”

First I want to talk a little more creative license, and then I want to address each of the three bolded statements above.

People used to accept, pretty much for granted, that what happens in a story isn't always meant to be taken that seriously. People get away with stuff in stories which they can't in real life. That's creative license. There's a variety of MeToo-type examples, but instead I'll use Severus Snape as the example I want to discuss, because there's a shift in how he's seen with the younger readers of today, and fans really fight over whether he was a decent person or not - because of his bullying of the kids, as a teacher (there are other reasons as well, but they're not relevant for the point I'm making). And if we hold his actions in the story to a real world standard, his bullying crosses so many lines, and it's horrible. But, so are lots of things at Hogwarts, which some modern readers also have trouble with. The degree of Snape's bullying, and all the weird and dangerous things at Hogwarts, all fall under that creative license, the exaggerated version of life the kids have to deal with. They're not meant to be taken with real-world seriousness. He's meant to be taken as the Hogwarts example of a mean teacher, and judged for it as if he were the real-world equivalent - the mean and strict real world teacher. The gap between the two is creative license.

A growing share of the audience, especially among younger people, is starting to reject this kind of creative license and to judge characters at face value. There's reasons for this from the MeToo movement and diversity and so on, none of which I care to address right now, but it's also spread into other kinds of actions. People will still take poor behavior when it's part of the character's arc, but on the surface line-by-line level, audiences want more and more for their characters to demonstrate better behavior overall.

I want to respond to the quote from this perspective.

I wish that future novelists would reject the pressure to write for the betterment of society... A novel is not an ‘afternoon special’ ... for journalists to make neat generalizations about culture. ... We need novels that live in an amoral universe, past the political agenda described on social media.

Two things: I think writing for the "betterment of society" is different than writing for all the political agendas and niceties demanded by various segments of the audience. IMO, a story that's going to make any kind of impact on society is going to do so with the big arcs and plot points, and not with the surface level stuff. 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.

But do the surface level niceties have a real world impact of their own? I think - yes. I've read stories and have felt, "That's a nice way of handling the situation..." and ".... it's nice to see people supportive of each other like that," and even "I should try to be nicer like that." I also think some of the things I've watched and read in the past have effected me in little ways, kind of negative ways, that I didn't realize until much later in life. But the effect is small, and you can't pin it on any one thing. It's like - how do I put this? - it's like audiences have got to exert tons of pressure to micromanage the messaging of lots of different stories to make a relatively small impact. Give how much people naturally hate that kind of pressure, I don't know if it's worth it. (Again, to be clear, I'm specifically not including diversity/metoo issues with these statements, where there may be a large clear impact to push for.)


Novels like American Psycho and Lolita did not poison culture.

No, those two books did not poison the culture. It doesn't follow that other books and stories cannot or do not poison the culture. In marketing, they look at the properties of a message which make it more likely to stick with audiences. These stories lack those properties. But other stories do have them, and so would have that potential to make an actual impact.

Which is the final point I wanted to make: Many people who want to make an impact, or criticize the impact other storytellers are making, are looking at the wrong things. Every portrayal of drug use, for example, does not encourage audiences to take drugs. Some do, some actually discourage it, and most have no impact at all. It's a deeper and more subtle question than can be taken at face value. The real impact of a story, if any, may be more surprising than what you'd expect.


A novel is a literary work of art meant to expand consciousness.



Sorry, but people get to write novels with whatever intention they want. If nobody likes it, nobody needs to read it. That's one of those fundamental freedoms. There's no set purpose to writing a novel. Get off the high horse.

 

[Finchbearer]

Considering social commentary is biased, I would say it’s more about personal interpretation as to whether the reader sees it as something they either agree or disagree with.

 

[Queshire]

She didn’t specify a method of publishing though…

Sure, she is traditionally published. Or she might have older works that aren’t as mainstream. That isn’t in the quote either way. I don’t think she is being contradictory at all. She is advocating for creative freedom by pushing the boundaries of not just creative writing but also of the publishing industry itself - but that is just what I get from that. If all future novelists are producing work that is self limiting and pandering to imagined marketable standards then nothing changes if nothing changes…

I agree with that 100%. That said, though, the topic at hand reminds me of stuff from other mediums.

For boundary pushing art it seems logical to look at the world of, well, art. In particular modern art.

Piss Christ isn't my favorite example of modern art. Honestly kinda gross in my opinion, but there's few pieces that sum up pushing boundaries in art quite as succinctly. According to the photographer it sounds like the focus was to bring back some humanity to people's mental image of Jesus Christ.

Spoiler

My favorite piece of modern art that I've found recently is probably Can't Help Myself.

Spoiler

And when it comes to restraint on art I tend to think of the Hayes Code for movies which, among other things, said that LGBT people could never have a good ending (leadimg towards queer coded villains who wouldn't get a good ending anyways and the trope of bury your gays.) As well as the comics code authority which pretty much killed off the horror comics genre by itself.

 

[skip.knox]

First, I object to using a perfectly good word like "media" to mean, more or less, "the venal and destructive subset of specifically online platforms". This mischaracterizes online conversation (witness for the defense includes Mythic Scribes), letting the worst stand for the all. It narrows and subverts the meaning of the word, which is merely the plural of medium. If Mosfegh has a beef--which is evident--then be specific. It is lazy and disingenuous to paint all forms of communication as if it were all a nasty Twitter thread.

As for journalists making generalizations about culture, what else is Mosfegh doing here but exactly that? There's nothing wrong with generalizations, generally. She has a beef with certain kinds of generalizations. So say that.

We don't need novels that live in an amoral universe. We already have them and plenty of them. She wants more. Sure, ok. Say that.

There are political agenda described on social media. This isn't the fault of social media, as political agenda were declared in whatever forms of communication were available at the time, going back to Roman emperors striking coins with mottos on them. Art is not media? Art doesn't even exist without a medium.

Few things irk me more than when people who are writers give out with badly written prescriptions to other writers. Go ahead and rant. It's an art form in itself.

Eh. So much for what I think about the statement.

I don't try to implement the ideal; indeed, I recoil from it. As an academic, my instinct is to teach rather than preach, and to understand rather than praise or condemn. As a writer, my goal is nothing more than to tell the story I have in mind as clearly and memorably as possible. I leave it to my readers to draw moral inferences, which they are in no way obliged to do. And if they do, I won't hold it against them.

Or, to use the medium more economically: sometimes a story is just a story.

 

[Finchbearer]

As someone of my generation, (a thirty something) I can only say that from my perspective what this quote, even in its isolation, at the very least and also at the most, it resonates with me deeply. Why? I’ve grown up with mass media in its most vitriol form. I’ve spent my formative years and my twenties engrossed, invested, with my own consciousness dipped into the soup of information and trends and moral agendas and all the other stuff thrown into it, and it was maddening, so I’ve detached myself from it, just enough so that I can breathe. I also consume books (not literally that would give me a bad stomach) that are being trad published and are coming out now, and I also read articles and reviews on them. I follow the discourse, basically and I can only say that this quote was super refreshing to read. You can pick it apart and criticise it in many ways, but I like bold statements, and I like bold writers, like Ottessa. She inspires me.

 

[pmmg]

Well, I dont know Mrs. Moshfegh. Reading the quote again, her statement appears to me to be one advocating for creative freedom, and upping ones game. It is suggesting we reject the boxes outside forces might contain us, and looks for us to reach higher. I dont see in it the absolutes that many here are reacting too. Its strange to see the vehemence of some of the rejections. I dont think Mrs. Moshfegh would ever hold the opinion that writing that falls short (in her opinion) has no value.

I suppose in fairness, I do think she was aiming at a target in her comments, and if you do not feel you are in that target, then it might feel like something you dont need to hear. But...I would not discount the value she may bring to those that do. No one has the ability to say the whole of their thoughts in any written form. I am sure, if I had longer discussion with her, I'd find she was more able to define her target, and soften a bit on the comments. But she says it bold, with vitriol and passion, not for the benefit of all, but for the benefit of those she wants to reach.

As someone of my generation, (a thirty something) I can only say that from my perspective what this quote, even in its isolation, at the very least and also at the most, it resonates with me deeply. Why? I’ve grown up with mass media in its most vitriol form. I’ve spent my formative years and my twenties engrossed, invested, with my own consciousness dipped into the soup of information and trends and moral agendas and all the other stuff thrown into it, and it was maddening, so I’ve detached myself from it, just enough so that I can breathe. I also consume books (not literally that would give me a bad stomach) that are being trad published and are coming out now, and I also read articles and reviews on them. I follow the discourse, basically and I can only say that this quote was super refreshing to read. You can pick it apart and criticise it in many ways, but I like bold statements, and I like bold writers, like Ottessa. She inspires me.

To this, I would say, congrats on coming out the other end of all the stupid stuff that tried to get you in that box when you were shaped. This is why I say frequently, keep asking for what is true. Cause you cant keep asking that, and stay in the stupid stuff. Maddening though...at first its maddening, cause maddness is pushed upon you, later it maddening cause so many don't get it. What can you do? Madness is just a sign that there is still something fighting in you. Sometimes all you can do is scream, 'I am mad as heck, and I am not going to take it anymore.' Hopefully thats enough to keep one sane

 

[Mad Swede]

And I agree with demesnedenoir, where I think Moshfegh is kind of saying without actually saying, novels like Lolita and American Psycho would unlikely get past the gatekeepers in the publishing houses today. People would be outraged and disgusted. I honestly think that would be the case, and that just shows you where we’re at in terms of our imagined moral baselines today. I bet the publisher would not know how on earth they would market such books and panic would ensue.

That is to ignore when Lolita was published: 1955. And it was published by a small French publisher after all the major US publishers rejected it. It was a very controversial novel even then, and the book was banned in several countries after a number of newspapers criticised the book. So the idea of mass media as a major source of influence isn't new either.

I wonder if some of the debate is influenced by what we as authors perceive that publishers want. I can only really comment about the Swedish market, but what I notice here is that many publishers want very literary fiction. Yes, the big three also publish popular fiction. But there is a form of what I regard as literary snobbery, that only literary fiction is worth publishing and that lighter novels are somehow unworthy. To me that ignores the impact that writers like Vilhelm Moberg had (those of you who haven't read him, he wrote the novels The Emigrants, Unto A Good Land, The Settlers and The Last Letter Home), in that he and many other authors wrote popular books which also later came to be considered great literature.

I guess my real objection to the sort of argument that Ottessa Moshfegh is making is that we should aim for a certain sort of novel. It isn't we or our contemporaries who decide if what we write is great literature. It's those who come after us who make that judgement about what we have written. We should just write. If our readers like it that's fine by me. If the later critics think it's great literature that's a bonus, albeit a very flattering one.

 

[skip.knox]

As someone of my generation, (a thirty something) I can only say that from my perspective what this quote, even in its isolation, at the very least and also at the most, it resonates with me deeply. ... She inspires me.

I hasten to repeat: if it's inspirational for someone, then that's great.

 

[Rexenm]

*finch finishes some red tape* * skip forms the word good*

 

[LittleOwlbear]

We need novels that live in an amoral universe, past the political agenda described on social media.

I hate that take, mainly because

1. They only think of political parties when they talk about politics, maybe about "identity politics" too. But everything is more or less political, at least to a certain extent.
Even stuff in a romantic novel or subplot. Is the female heroine ashamed of her own sexuality? Why? Because the author thinks it's taboo and she has to wait until marriage? Or does the author portray in a critical way a society that makes young people ashamed of their sexuality?

2. What kind of people do you portray? Are most or all important heroes white, male, not queer etc ...

3. Since we all human beings with an idea of morality, we need to become robots to write a novel outside of morality. Even if you let write ChatGPT a novel, it will copy people's idea of morality.


That take also leads to the weirdest outcome.
Lot of people already told me they love apolitical anime for example, but his favorite anime was Fullmetal Alchemist, like ...? Explain?

 

[Fyri]

Yeah. I was gonna mention that earlier. Politics, or "political agenda" is in everything whether you want it or not. Fashion, sports, stories... If it doesn't bother you, then it's probably just the politics you agree with already.

 

[Queshire]

Yeah. I was gonna mention that earlier. Politics, or "political agenda" is in everything whether you want it or not. Fashion, sports, stories... If it doesn't bother you, then it's probably just the politics you agree with already.

Ha! Now that'll get people arguing.

I mean I agree with it, or rather I agree with the less pithy version of "all stories can be seen through a political lense and it's not a bad thing to acknowledge that. Just because a story can be seen through a political lense doesn't mean that seeing it through a political lense is actually important."

Still, it's something that'll get people arguing.