Art is not media

[Finchbearer]

‘Politics’ really is everything - so in a way it is unavoidable, and is important to talk about as authors, but that subject can only be talked about so much on here it would seem.

I don’t think Moshfegh is a literary snob, although certainly I think some publishers are, and perhaps that is part of the problem, but I actually see it as more an issue of an agent or a publisher asking if a book is relevant to current discourse, which I think is what Moshfegh is kind of rejecting the idea of. I could be wrong.

I personally like the more literary or conceptual novel just as much a gen fic, but I do not need it to feel relevant or current to what’s being debated on Twitter etc. and I think that is part of the issue too. Marketability almost sometimes comes before a well written engaging story.

On amorality - I also do not think that line need be taken literally. I think she is saying we need *some* books that go into amoral territory, not *all*. And morality is not black and white, but neither is it scripted.

 

[Devor]

Lot of people already told me they love apolitical anime for example, but his favorite anime was Fullmetal Alchemist, like ...? Explain?

I don't know if you'll accept this answer.

They did a study in the US where they gave democrats and republicans a survey of moral-based questions and asked them to fill them out twice: Once for themselves, and once as they thought someone from the other party would fill them out. The result was that democrats dramatically underestimated how normal the republican answers were.

There's a range of media that's "not political" because most people from all sides are fairly normal people, but that might look political to someone who has a skewed view of what messages they believe other people need to hear.

 

[LittleOwlbear]

I don't know if you'll accept this answer.

They did a study in the US where they gave democrats and republicans a survey of moral-based questions and asked them to fill them out twice: Once for themselves, and once as they thought someone from the other party would fill them out. The result was that democrats dramatically underestimated how normal the republican answers were.

There's a range of media that's "not political" because most people from all sides are fairly normal people, but that might look political to someone who has a skewed view of what messages they believe other people need to hear.

But Fullmetal Alchemist? That's like saying the Gundams and Attack on Titan are not meant to be political, or Miyazaki is not an environmentalist.
That's not even subjective interpretation, they called King Bradley the Fuhrer and made sure to let the audience know how wrong the former war they lead has been. The whole plot revolves around bringing the Fuhrer and the system down.

 

[Queshire]

I don't know if you'll accept this answer.

They did a study in the US where they gave democrats and republicans a survey of moral-based questions and asked them to fill them out twice: Once for themselves, and once as they thought someone from the other party would fill them out. The result was that democrats dramatically underestimated how normal the republican answers were.

There's a range of media that's "not political" because most people from all sides are fairly normal people, but that might look political to someone who has a skewed view of what messages they believe other people need to hear.

I mean, the fact that you put not political in quotes there is the key point to me. What people consider normal or whats considered political/nonplitical is inherently political. Whether the politics matter or not is an entirely different thing.

It's like saying that the atmosphere is full of air. True, can be important if carbon monoxide levels get too high, but generally not something people notice in day to day.

 

[skip.knox]

I don’t think Moshfegh is a literary snob, although certainly I think some publishers are, and perhaps that is part of the problem, but I actually see it as more an issue of an agent or a publisher asking if a book is relevant to current discourse, which I think is what Moshfegh is kind of rejecting the idea of. I could be wrong.

I don't think you're wrong, but I do say her rhetoric is so absolute and sweeping, you are cutting her too much slack. I'll say it again: if that's what she meant to say, she ought to have said precisely that. She's a writer. And because she's a writer, I call that sloppy writing.

I personally like the more literary or conceptual novel just as much a gen fic, but I do not need it to feel relevant or current to what’s being debated on Twitter etc. and I think that is part of the issue too. Marketability almost sometimes comes before a well written engaging story.

This is one reason why I do not try to get traditionally published. When you're self-published, most of her hand-wringing just vanishes.

 

[LittleOwlbear]

I mean, the fact that you put not political in quotes there is the key point to me. What people consider normal or whats considered political/nonplitical is inherently political. Whether the politics matter or not is an entirely different thing.

It's like saying that the atmosphere is full of air. True, can be important if carbon monoxide levels get too high, but generally not something people notice in day to day.

I've seen an interesting video on tiktok of a black woman, where she stated how her curly hair, big jewelry, long nails etc. are all labeled as unprofessional and tacky, all that is inherented to her culture (and her hair is just her natural hair structure), even tho she doesn't hold any job, where the nails or jewelry get in her way.

So, in a fantasy world, daily things could be "political" too (= better saying: important for a culture and how it works) and ask, if mundane things are influenced by society somehow, or most people would look at these things.

Maybe calling cultural, daily things political is the off-putting part for some people, because it's a very emotionally loaded word overall that led to many, heated discussions.

 

[skip.knox]

I'm sort of interested in issues (political is too narrow a word), but not in our real-world issues. I don't find them especially interesting.

But I am interested in seeing how matters of identity would play out in a fantasy setting. Altearth is a polytheistic, polyglot world. There's room for dwarves to hate elves, sure, but there's just as much room for Franks to despise Bretons, and for orcs to hate everyone. But even hate is a bit boring. I'd rather look at dislikes, prejudices and misconceptions, and just plain old characteristics that distinguish one people from another, and how that might play out in a story.

That's why the original rant doesn't resonate with me. First, I've never felt any pressure from anyone to make my art be anything other than what I want it to be. I don't need rescuing. But also, when it comes to improving the world (whether or not it wants me to), I feel that realism literature is the better choice. If the story is about real troubles and triumphs, set it in the real world. If the story is about a fantasy world, then explore that world thoroughly. If the reader wants to draw parallels and lessons, that's fine. But that's on them, not on me. If that's why very few people buy my books, I'm ok with that, though I readily recognize I have that luxury because I'm retired and don't need the dough.

 

[Devor]

But Fullmetal Alchemist? That's like saying the Gundams and Attack on Titan are not meant to be political, or Miyazaki is not an environmentalist.
That's not even subjective interpretation, they called King Bradley the Fuhrer and made sure to let the audience know how wrong the former war they lead has been. The whole plot revolves around bringing the Fuhrer and the system down.

I should probably apologize, it's been a while since I've seen Fullmetal Alchemist, and the Japanese WW2-related politics went right over my head at the time. I equated your point with some others that I've heard elsewhere and misunderstood some of what you meant.

I mean, the fact that you put not political in quotes there is the key point to me.

I put it in air quotes because politics is one of those words where people can mean different things, or maybe refer to a certain degree of politics. Fullmetal Brotherhood, when I saw it like a decade ago, wasn't "political" to me as an American, by which I mean it didn't reference current real-world issues that are relevant to modern American politics. So, I normally take it in the most narrow sense of the word, which isn't the only one.

I will say that, for me, I don't mind when things are political when that's clearly the intention going in, when it's part of the implied promises an author makes with the basic setup of the story. It's annoying to me when the story kind of interrupts itself for a moment of politics that doesn't really vibe with the story.

 

[Rexenm]

When things get political, throws me a bit. A book can mean differing things at differing times. My understanding of Fullmetal Alchemist, is they are looking for a gem. It is not clear where it comes from, but it is literally there. That is where kosher kicks in, wondering why there is a gem, that isn‘t explained in flashback.

The premise of these two worlds, relies heavily on politics, even though the history is rather light. For example, how would a warrior band get along? Through firmly established law. In the end, the gem is just a vehicle for change, that comes and goes, steadily throughout the story.

 

[Rexenm]

Altearth is a polytheistic, polyglot world. There's room for dwarves to hate elves, sure, but there's just as much room for Franks to despise Bretons, and for orcs to hate everyone.

There is probably some room for comedy as well, or romance. Though romance, is probably a bit passé. Maybe an inkling of social commentary too, to see where relations lie, these days, in old Middle Earth.

 

[Ban]

I should probably apologize, it's been a while since I've seen Fullmetal Alchemist, and the Japanese WW2-related politics went right over my head at the time. I equated your point with some others that I've heard elsewhere and misunderstood some of what you meant.




I put it in air quotes because politics is one of those words where people can mean different things, or maybe refer to a certain degree of politics. Fullmetal Brotherhood, when I saw it like a decade ago, wasn't "political" to me as an American, by which I mean it didn't reference current real-world issues that are relevant to modern American politics. So, I normally take it in the most narrow sense of the word, which isn't the only one.

I will say that, for me, I don't mind when things are political when that's clearly the intention going in, when it's part of the implied promises an author makes with the basic setup of the story. It's annoying to me when the story kind of interrupts itself for a moment of politics that doesn't really vibe with the story.

Politics is when USA

To engage with the politics tangent a little, I don't mind it whatsoever, simply because almost everything in prose can in some way be twisted or interpreted as politics. Whether we are personally affected by it, or even notice it, depends on our nationality, cultural background and in many cases for historical literature, the time we belong to. Dante's works are deeply political, but do we read them as such? Not quite, because we are culturally long divorced from that era. So too are we divorced from fiction from foreign soil, as well as fiction from our own which just happens to have no overlap with our own lived experiences/taught knowledge.

 

[Miles Lacey]

There was a time when I might've cared about what people thought about my writing but my declining health - including blood pressure that is so high I could have a stroke, a heart attack or a brain aneurysm at any time, suspected angina, weak heart muscles and epilepsy - has put things in perspective. There are certain things I want to write about before I drop dead and they include a fair bit of social commentary about the things that matter to me, including poverty, the dehumanising and stereotyping of the poor, the lousy treatment of minimum wage workers and not having a place to live in that has indoor plumbing.

But I want to have my poverty-stricken heroine to be something other than a criminal or a victim. I want to show the world that girls from even the most impoverished circumstances can become heroines. Doing the right thing - whether it's fighting dragons, rescuing a drowning person or fighting someone who is hiding behind patriotism to justify doing bad things - doesn't require having a fat wallet, the right bloodlines or looking like a porn star.

I just hope I live long enough to finish my work in progress....

 

[Rexenm]

You always have to slay the dragon in the tower, to get to the princess. It is a trope. You may think that the hero triumphs, but here is the realm of fantasy. Take the ring, the Lord of the Rings possesses it. Or the Lord of the Flies - Piggy loses his glasses, falls off a cliff. I was once destined to be dead, being born frail - but I found my talent in lying in my bed - difficult as it is. Sure I do the house work, but everything is made up, and a story no longer seems to make sense. God, nothing does. But it makes me happy to see people have opinions, goals they pursue, stories that they in themselves weave. The tall and the short, seems like some Aesop’s race to the beginning, middle or end, but really it is just a return to the same old tale - the faith of the ways of being a man.

 

[pmmg]

Ftr, its a cave not a tower. The dragon is never slain and does anyone ask the princess if she wants to be rescued?

I suppose, if you feel the kingdom has a pesky knight problem, you can send them after the dragon, but…

 

[Miles Lacey]

Sometimes the dragon wins. Though I suspect the dragon would've been happy to hand back the Princess if the Knight had just asked them. But, no, the knight had to try and prove he was a real man. Now the dragon's got diarrhoea thanks to feasting on poorly cooked knight....

 

[Finchbearer]

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.

I am surprised at your reaction to be honest because it wasn’t that long ago that you were criticising me for never having heard of Solzhenitsyn and championing award winning authors of literary fiction…

 

[Mad Swede]

I am surprised at your reaction to be honest because it wasn’t that long ago that you were criticising me for never having heard of Solzhenitsyn and championing award winning authors of literary fiction…

Why? What I said in that thread was that we don't choose how we're seen as writers. I also said that most of us aren't trying to win any form of literary prize, we're trying to entertain our readers. If my readers like what they read then I've probably entertained them and I'll be selling a few more books. So why should I or any of the rest of us aim for the sort of novel Ottessa Moshfegh thinks is appropriate?

 

[Finchbearer]

Why? What I said in that thread was that we don't choose how we're seen as writers. I also said that most of us aren't trying to win any form of literary prize, we're trying to entertain our readers. If my readers like what they read then I've probably entertained them and I'll be selling a few more books. So why should I or any of the rest of us aim for the sort of novel Ottessa Moshfegh thinks is appropriate?

I was just surprised at your reaction. I thought you’d generally agree with the line of her thought of new writers not feeling pressured into writing something that is dictated by what they think they should write rather than what they actually want to write.

 

[skip.knox]

Hm, that last brings up another angle. Again, I'm not trying to tear anything down; just consider this another way of looking at it.

I agree with your summary, above, but there's a huge presumption there that a new writer has a clear vision of what they should write and, secondarily, that any vision they have is worth pursuing.

That is to say, a great many new writers have only a foggy notion of what they want to write, in a couple of ways. Some genuinely don't know. They're open to anything, they just think they want to be "a writer". They have the urge but not the vision. Another group--and I was certainly among them--have a sort of notion, a vague idea, some cloudy thoughts. They want to explore possibilities but are very much open to changes of course, and very impressionable from "authoritative" sources. These may be who the OP had mostly in mind.

But even those who do have a clear vision, and there are many of these, is that alone sufficient? After all, these are new writers. We readily say they have much to learn about their craft, so why not admit also they have much to learn about vision? Why not be open to arguments from the commercial sector? Writing to popular taste or even for commercial profit doesn't *necessarily* mean a betrayal of values and social worth. There were whole generations of SF writers who write to popular taste--as represented mainly by magazine editors but also for radio and TV--yet managed also to write absolutely some of the most important and influential SF of the 1950s-1970s. Yes, I do agree that the influence of the almighty dollar can frustrate, corrupt, or even crush writers. But that's not the guaranteed universal outcome, and anyway we all ought to be able to listen to the arguments without being swept away by them.

I was decades figuring out what I wanted to write.

 

[Mad Swede]

The trouble is that Ottessa Moshfegh wasn't suggesting that writers had complete freedom. What she said was

"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."

To me she is arguing that novels are a form of art and that they're not primarily about entertaining the reader. Yet the sort of novel she seems to think is appropriate tends not to sell many copies. And yes, I do think it is a form of literary snobbery, despite myself having enjoyed many of those novels considered to be great classics.

So what should new writers aim for? When I read comments like those Ottessa Moshfegh made I'm reminded of Tom Sharpe's satirical novel "The Great Pursuit". And I come to the conclusion that we should follow C S Lewis' approach to the subject: write the sort of books you enjoy reading.