- a brilliant summation, I think. Read the whole post, though: it's very measured and thoughtful.On the whole, good and great fiction is not written by beautiful people who feel successful. It’s written by the person who is most overlooked, all their life, and who understands things about the human condition which is very different from that of the experience of the twenty-five year old part-time model. Every author has a professional deformity – club feet, an uncomfortable religious inheritance, short stature, or incurable alcoholism, take your pick. Writers are always outsiders, and our nearest kindred isn’t someone in Hollywood but the bag-lady who rootles through dustbins muttering to herself
Thursday, February 03, 2011
Best not to be beautiful?
I commend to you a post by novelist Amanda Craig, titled 'On being a middle-aged, mid-list novelist'. Here's how she concludes:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
36 comments:
This is really comforting. I fit so many of the categories I'm bound to be a success!!!!
Having just read Amanda Craig's whole piece, I am optimistic for the future but am concerned by the fact that I am a 26 year old ex-model (I know, cringe!) - does this mean I will never make it? Or have nothing to say? No, it doesn't; I enjoyed the article but disagree a little with the notion that you need a club foot to feel things.
Anyway, I've recently just done a re-jig of my blog and FictionBitch is sat very proudly on my blogroll; if you happened to like mine, any chance you could add it to yours? If not, don't worry.
Thanks,
Lyndsay Wheble
Hi Lyndsay, thanks for dropping in. Amanda does say that she doesn't agree with the notion that younger people have nothing to say - she says she appreciates the energy and insights of younger writers. I guess what she's really saying (apart from the central point that we shouldn't be dropped the minute we stop being young) is that writers so often have an outsider's view of some kind or other, and I think I agree with that.
Many thanks for linking and I'm off to look at your blog!
Oh, you know, isnt it funny how many of these pieces appear, and seem to say 'xxx' is the age at which we write our best ' and it just happens to fit the age of the author of the piece?
I dont know who this lady is talking about when she says 'ALL women novelists' are discussing whatever... she is not speaking for me, for one.
yes, sure, I may. need to lose a bit of weight before publicising 'The Coward's Tale'. But that will be so I can leap up and down stairs at Waterstone's with speed and precision, to escape hordes of fans...
ahem. Back to knitting.
.
Isn't what she's saying rather that it isn't only when we're young that we have worth as novelists, and pointing out that older writers do have certain worth (in the form of experience)?
Her message is a bit ambiguous - I took it to mean younger writers had not a lot to say, when actually, sometimes they do! Look at Rachel Tresise for example.
Well, she does specifically say that she values what younger writers have to offer. Her main complaint is that middle-aged writers get dropped, especially if they are mid-list. I do agree that she says they the have experience to offer which younger writers don't, but I don't think she's saying that you can only write well when you're middle-aged.
Her piece seems absurdly hostile to young writers. Here- "Nowadays, I might well say the same thing myself to a teenager - but I'd be wrong. I think the young have a lot of experience to write about, much of which we tend to forget when older. I love the freshness of young writers, and the way they’re still so exposed to painful feelings; I love the mistakes they make, and the violent extremes of emotion. Adults are so often so nasty to the young that they forget, the young can be just as observant and as critical back." -she appears to say that the young aren't adults, which is odd. It's also quite patronising. There are plenty of sixteen year olds around who have seen enough of life, let alone twenty-six year olds. And there are fifty year olds who have barely tasted life. Later she describes a twenty-five year old as a "stripling". I think striplings are fifteen or sixteen aren't they?
A very odd piece, full of barely (if at all) concealed dislike of younger writers... Of course many creative people are at their peak of energy and connection-making and drive and vitality in their twenties.
Please, target the cynical marketeers who reject the older writers, not the younger writers themselves. Not very perceptive, frankly.
It's as well to remember that Craig is writing not just about middle age but the condition of being mid-list. A mid-list author by definition is one who has been publishing for some years. Thus it follows that most mid-list authors who are middle-aged were once themselves young (published) writers. Amanda Craig did not spring fully formed as a middle-aged writer, but was once a young (published) writer herself, and I think it's a mistake and a disservice to paint her post as 'middle-aged writer against young writers'. I do agree that some of her wording is unfortunate - I too balked at her opposition of 'young' and 'adult', and also her reference to the mistakes of younger writers, but in the overall context of the post I think it's possible to see that she is talking there about her own past self rather than some 'other' contingent.
I would point out that the main thrust of her article is indeed to tackle the 'the cynical marketeers who reject the older writers'.
And didn't you take the 'stripling' adjective as ironic?
"And didn't you take the 'stripling' adjective as ironic?"
-it's used with light humour but it's not ironic in the sense of meaning the opposite of what it says.
"As...a writer of thirty, you are unlikely to have the understanding of human nature, and the experience of the ironies of life to draw upon."
What? I mean... what?
Sorry, I don't buy one column-inch of this. It feels disingenuous and not properly considered.
'stripling': nevertheless, it's humorous, and not the humourless insult you seemed to imply, and I repeat, the subtext subject here is her former self.
I agree that this section weakens her argument, but I feel that by concentrating on it we deflect attention from her core argument, which is that all authors are once young and then become old and then suffer from the ageism of the industry.
Not all authors, sorry: there are a very few who do spring fully-formed in middle age, the above-commenting Vanessa Gebbie among them. Craig however is concerned with those, herself included who start out young and are then dropped for getting middle-aged.
The great value of Craig's post and the reason it has been greeted enthusiastically by so many older writers is that she is one of the few to have the courage to come and admit to feeling affected by the ageism of the industry.
Come out, I meant.
So a long-standing author entering middle age with an established readership and fan base, who continues to write to her own standard of excellence will be dropped by a publisher? Because of her age? Really?
The blog is tendentious in its disparagement of writers in their twenties, especially in its disingenuous conflation of teenagers/young people/twenty-somethings, and the 'stripling' line -light-hearted or not- is a net contributor to that tendency.
Yes, really. Mid-list authors are being dropped left, right and centre. The perception is that age is a factor, and we should take this seriously. As Craig points out, it's of concern to young writers too as before they know it they will be middle-aged midlist authors (unless of course they happen to one of the few mega sellers who thus would not be defined as mid-list.)
As for your second repeated point, I refer you back to my answer above.
I haven't written for several years since my brain has been absent while raising my still young children. (how much SpongeBob does it take to make your left hemisphere nonfunctional?) So for me, to think if I am of the right age and have the right deformities and have the right experiences - I simply can't go there. I simply feel the need to write.
thatswhyyouloveme.blogspot.com
K
Kay, that's so true that in order to write you need to shut all these things from your mind!! (Can't help saying though that your latest blog post is very apposite!)
Sorry I mean K!
I thought the article and the original blog were rich and deep, devoid of finger-pointing. It is foolish to think an argument was intended. We offer different visions and temperament as young people, which evolve as we age. Those of us who are writerly will always be so. The grind of economic placement seems to be much more of Craig's concern, and this fits with obvious market factors. A writer must read and write til he or she can do no more! Love this blog ciao cat
As a reasonably successful mid-list author myself, albeit one who never actually set out to write -but that's another story- I find these type of conversations both confusing and irritating in equal measures.
As I see it, the brutal reality is that writing for publication is about one thing and one thing only. It has nothing to do with age, sex, genre or in certain respects it could even be argued quality. It is to do with the market.
Young, old, male or female my advice would be the same. Research your market and target it because
If a book sells and makes money, then the publisher will want more. It really is as simple as that.
"If a book sells and makes money, then the publisher will want more. It really is as simple as that."
This was my point when I asked:
'So a long-standing author entering middle age with an established readership and fan base, who continues to write to her own standard of excellence will be dropped by a publisher? Because of her age? Really?'
Because why would a publisher want not to make money?
Dougie, you are absolutely right that it's all to do with the market, and that I think is central to Amanda Craig's point. There is a suggestion/perception/suspicion that publishers' conception of marketability increasingly includes the persona of the author rather than just the book - ie that they think, rightly or wrongly, that young, personable authors will sell books, especially literary books, better than otherwise. Such a perception does not seem unreasonable since there is a consensus now that authors need to take an active part in marketing their books with appearances etc. In a discussion of Craig's post on Facebook someone reports that a publisher asked an agent: 'Will she look a babe in an author photo?'.
I think the crucial point is that it's literary fiction Craig is talking about. It's quite true that if an author's books are mega sellers then no one cares about their appearance - no one cares about the appearance of well-selling crime fiction authors, for instance - but very few literary books are mega sellers nowadays: indeed, publishers have a big job making them break even, for all the reasons of books discounting etc. Of course, Pete, publishers want to make money, but in an decreasingly literary culture (ie we are now dominated by other media) it becomes harder and harder for publishers to sell literary fiction. There is in fact a long tradition of publishers publishing literary fiction for other reasons and financing it with more commercial books, but in an age where the financiers rather than the editors control the industry, this is happening less and less. It would seem a logical step that publishers either abandon challenging fiction (a lot have) or they look for market-wise ways to sell it.
Though none of this matters, of course, if you believe that the only important thing is that books should make money and appeal to the mass market, and don't hold with the concept of books that are worth publishing for quality even if they don't have obvious immediate market appeal.
Why thanks Elizabeth, I just wanted to reinforce it as it seemed to be getting lost!
I think that traditionally, the idea of publishers actually wanting and needing to make money has not only been lost on some authors but is actually treated with distain. In part, this is at the core of what I’ve always considered to be the very worst side of he publishing world and that’s the snobbery. But that’s an entirely different debate and one I best not let myself be dragged in to. However I must take issue with your final point regarding books making money and mass markets.
As a professional writer, I write books to make money. I have no problem admitting that and I resent the inference that there is something wrong with it. After all, if people like me didn’t do what we do, the simple reality is that not only would there be no ‘worthy’ books but there would be no publishing world period!
"make money and appeal to the mass market" -the two aren't the same thing. But surely a book has to make money. Even if it's only a bit.
I can't think of many big-selling lit-fic writers who are good looking. Perhaps there are one or two. A great book will be turned down because the author is ugly?
I agree certain kinds of writing are no longer subsidised by publishers who make money on other projects, but that's general isn't it and not really a matter of gender or age? More about subject matter/ approach/ style ie literariness (sp?).
Joyce Carol Oates is not a babe but what a compelling speaker and what an appealing person. Articulate, sincere, humourous, stylish: what better qualities could you wish for to promote your work?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LgJ809QKmas
Things have got bigger and brassier at one end of the spectrum but at the same time isn't there a long-tail effect created by the internet whereby niche publishers can bring out runs of 'challenging' books and market them directly to the people who have an interest in this kind of writing. Isn't it in that sense almost an ideal time for this kind of work? Do the kind of people who enjoy challenging or literary works really need the author to look sexy? Really?
You don't hear classical or folk or roots performers moaning about the big marketing budgets and sexiness of rock and pop stars. They're just whole different worlds. A crude analogy I know, but there's some value in it.
Dougie, in no way did I intend an implication that there was anything wrong with writing books for money. I have done it myself, under another name, and in no way am I ashamed of it either.
I must say that one thing that frustrates me about these internet discussions is a general confrontational either/or air that leads one to make these defensive inferences - if someone defends older writers it's automatically assumed she's attacking younger ones; if someone defends literary fiction it's automatically assumed she's attacking commercial fiction - and I must say I fell into the trap, too, as I felt that in defending commercial fiction you were attacking literary fiction!
I would actually go further than I did above, and say that publishers not only want but NEED to make money - otherwise what books will get published at all? The core point is the address the fact that literary fiction seems to be under pressure in the present stae of the industry.
sorry, I meant to say there 'is the need to address the fact'
I'm replicating the post deleted above with confusing errors corrected:
Pete,it seems that in a publishing industry run by financiers those two things - making money and having mass market appeal are not so different. By all reports, the financiers too often override editors' choices of books for publication simply because they're not sure-fire best sellers.
Many mid-list books make no money at all, indeed make losses. Of course it's not all about looks - there's the Nielsen book scan which means that a publisher can look up an author's previous sales and decide they just weren't big enough to make it worthwhile investing in another book by that author. This is happening to a lot of mid-list authors now, whereas previously publishers were in a financial position to hang on and allow an author to grow. I guess that however good-looking an author is this won't save them if they're book sales aren't good enough for the financiers in the industry. But then so many authors are approaching middle-age by the time this happens, that the whole thing becomes tangled up with ageism. Whether that perception is just a perception or a reality is indeed something we need to think about seriously. I agree strongly that readers don't care about a literary author's looks if they love the books, but it's more a question of the perception of those publishing the books. It's the marketers, along with the financiers, who now run publishing (in the big houses) and what they're concerned with is the marketing campaign, rather than the reading experience, the effort to persuade bookshops that people will pick up the books in the first place, and at the core of that is image, and increasingly at the core of that image (in that visual marketing campaign) seems to be the person of the author. I have to say that even several years ago now I watched a TV programme that followed 5 authors trying to get their literary books published, and the only one who interested a publisher had to go down and be scrutinised personally, and only then did the publisher decide to publish. And indeed, his books were then very much pushed on his very handsome image. (If you don't mind I won't name names, as I don't want to be seeming to smear anyone personally.) Personally, I can think of several literary debuts where the looks of the author were pushed visually and then picked up on by commentators, the latter then reinforcing the marketing strategy (It's nice to be able to do a feature with a pretty face etc, so newspaper editors replicate the photos, the books with the pretty authors thus get most prominence, and the strategy of having pretty authors is proved successful.)
No way is Joyce Carol Oates a mid-list author!
Anyway, I would very much like to think you are right that the internet is opening up new channels for books to be marketed more directly to readers.
Thanks Elizabeth, that was a very enjoyable and informative post.
I think you're right about a lot of this stuff; I work in television and power has slipped away from programme-makers in the last twenty years and into the hands of accountants, and you only have to flick through the 35 channels of freeview each night to see the dire result... And perhaps, yes, mid-lister women writers are the most vulnerable to what is a general trend in society. But I wonder how you counter it. In many ways in the history of the world we've just lived through what might be a freak blip, a perfect storm of conditions and social history which permitted a certain kind of output to reach a wide audience, in all the arts. The same conditions that allowed people to have safe jobs, big pensions, free health, which catapulted able people from poor backgrounds into the very highest echelons... And maybe that time has simply gone.
I hope I'm right about other roads. It's a golden age right now in music in many ways for niche performers and writers (though no-one's getting rich) and I do hope a similar thing might attach to writing. Historically, did many writers make a living solely from writing? I'm not sure they did, and perhaps that expectation in authors who can't secure a big readership needs to moderated...?
Dunno.
It's bleak and potentially brilliant, all at the same time...
Pete, thanks for that insight into TV. And I feel the same - it's both bleak and potentially brilliant!
Oh dear god.... a future career based on my looks! Well that's me done then!
Dougie you miss the point: your appearance is perfect for what you write. If you looked like an effete romantic poet, then you might lose some sales...
So that's my rom-com aspirations out of the window then!
Post a Comment