Out of Touch

Book review publications are failing across the board. Meanwhile, NBCC, a book review organization, is absorbed in gender counting. See:

http://www.booktrade.info/index.php/showarticle/47207/

NOT in figuring out how to make book reviews in particular, and the lit scene in general, more exciting. No. Instead: Gender Counting.

We have a collection of monothink people who all view literature the same narrowly constipated way, but within their slim ranks, they want to enforce rigid concepts of gender counting. Hmm. Not representation by class background. (Counting numbers of Ivy Leaguers might be an embarrassment!) Not diversity of viewpoint: populist versus “literary.” Gender counting. How will they enforce what they want? Can’t leave it up to individuals!

Women are in fact well-represented in most aspects of literature. They dominate many areas as it is: English Lit degrees; writing degrees; bookstore employees. God knows, with the feminization of the art, how they’ve avoided taking over book reviews—but I suspect that’s coming. They shouldn’t panic. Men are wildly underrepresented in colleges, and will soon be underrepresented among readers—if they aren’t now.

I notice New York Times Book Review Editor Pamela Paul is on the panel. She’s best known for her Atlantic essay, “Are Fathers Necessary?” which suggests as an answer: “No.” (She’s apparently never noticed the fate of young men raised in lower class areas without fathers. It’s not good.)

Likely the next item on Ms. Paul’s agenda, with full support from VIDA, NBCC, and other politically correct outfits, will be, “Are Men Necessary?” No use waiting for the answer. We know it.

The Buddy System

When I take a look at what’s going on within the literary establishment, I notice nothing there has changed. It continues to operate on the “I’m okay, you’re okay” philosophy. Everyone’s okay. Literature is okay. It’s wonderful.

See this article in The Daily Beast by Insider writer Ben Greenman:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/05/20/constructive-criticism-reviewing-the-idea-of-reviewing.html

(Note my comment at the bottom of page.)

What’s Greenman’s essay really about? The essay is a glorified sucking up to fellow members of the Club—and to writers in general. It’s of a piece with the mindset of trained writers; taking an insular viewpoint, from within the literary world, without placing that world within the context of the larger culture. From the outset it reflects a defensive posture, from behind the walls of the castle.

While reading Ben Greenman’s essay, one sees heads nodding: “Yeah, that’s right.” Protect the published author. The work is valued by fiat; by its existence.

Note the ready outrage and perplexity at a review not properly in line. It violates the First Principle of Insider Lit, which is the Principle of Sucking Up. The principle which undergirds the entire shaking establishment. An establishment powered by the energy of this principle. A principle, within that world, which is everywhere; on every level and in every corner.

With the essay, Ben Greenman is looking for agreement, as all writers are always looking for agreement. Consensus. Conformity to what is.

Their concerns are the concerns of privileged writers, those who already have station and standing. Many other writers, especially over the past few years, have been concerned with sheer economic survival, and with obtaining the time, energy, and availability to write.

Note that in Greenman’s view of literature there are no standards, and there are no distinctions—other than assumed workshop standards of the well-written sentence, meaningless or not, and mild situations and emotions sure not to displease writing peers. Agreement. Beyond these basics, there’s no judgment of literary works, and no way to judge them. “Some people will like the work and some won’t,” is the notion, all a matter of feelings and impressions with no thought involved.

After all, standards were thrown out long ago—again, except for making the writing sound good. Making it vaguely look like an example of literary art—a facsimile of what others are doing.

The qualities which make a good novel—pace, clarity, intelligence, structure—are never mentioned. “Some people will like it and some won’t.” Which means, it’s all good. If it’s produced by them, and approved by existing institutions, it must be good.

It’s all wonderful.

A Cliched Milieu?

In today's New York Times, Janet Maslin makes an unintentionally funny remark in the middle of a review of the novel The Starboard Sea by Amber Dermont. The novel is set in a prep school. Janet Maslin calls prep schools a "cliched fiction-writers milieu." No shit! Do you ever wonder why, Ms. Maslin? Could it possibly be that so many novels chosen to be published by the big New York publishing companies, and designated to be reviewed in the New York Times, are set in prep schools? Is that why they've become a cliche? Either prep schools are all today's fiction writers want to talk about, or possibly, just maybe, the fiction writers chosen for publication attended prep schools. Take your pick.