Branding means grabbing words and territory for ourselves within the mental universe. For instance, "avant-garde." Who "owns" that term? With what writers is it identified? Is its use for some styles of them anachronistic?
My thesis is that any attempts to promote underground/outsider writing should have labels/brands ready to go, beyond "outsider" and "underground," which in the bigger picture weren't/aren't good enough.
Tuesday, January 5, 2010
Saturday, December 26, 2009
Supply and Demand
THIS IS THE KEY POINT.
There's a huge oversupply of both writers and books, along with dwindling demand for them in the culture-- which means the value of the writer has plummeted.
The only way to solve this is through extreme measures: Extreme presentation, promotion, and products. As important is to separate oneself from the mass in as many ways as possible, in order to change the supply/demand fundamental.
This is what early rock n' roll did on both counts. Rock began with a mere handful of acts notable for their extreme look, presentation, and music. Think Screaming Jay Hawkins. (Due to overexposure and oversupply, the rock model has been destroyed.)
The idea with literature, in the projects I pushed, was always to be different, and corner the market on that difference. This is the road to success.
There's a huge oversupply of both writers and books, along with dwindling demand for them in the culture-- which means the value of the writer has plummeted.
The only way to solve this is through extreme measures: Extreme presentation, promotion, and products. As important is to separate oneself from the mass in as many ways as possible, in order to change the supply/demand fundamental.
This is what early rock n' roll did on both counts. Rock began with a mere handful of acts notable for their extreme look, presentation, and music. Think Screaming Jay Hawkins. (Due to overexposure and oversupply, the rock model has been destroyed.)
The idea with literature, in the projects I pushed, was always to be different, and corner the market on that difference. This is the road to success.
Thursday, December 24, 2009
Going Forward
THE QUESTION
is whether there's a desire among underground/unconnected writers for a new literary movement-- to be a "new avant-garde" as espoused further below; or if instead writers truly believe they can have success by following the "mainstream" crowd.
MY OBJECTIVE
with this blog right now is to present arguments in favor of such a movement. Surely, it would have to be much different a movement, in conception and look, than the "rebellion" which made noise a few years ago.
Do there exist writers capable of writing "pop" stories?
Moreover, a new kind of literary art would be only the first step. That new art would have to be accompanied by theoretical/critical justification for it. A new movement would be two-track: A.) Exciting new stories on one track; B.) Quality essays and reviews about the stories on the other.
Watch for a prototype "pop" story of my own upcoming-- more stripped-down than my "Death of a Drug Dealer" (now up on another blog), which itself is in a pop mode.
is whether there's a desire among underground/unconnected writers for a new literary movement-- to be a "new avant-garde" as espoused further below; or if instead writers truly believe they can have success by following the "mainstream" crowd.
MY OBJECTIVE
with this blog right now is to present arguments in favor of such a movement. Surely, it would have to be much different a movement, in conception and look, than the "rebellion" which made noise a few years ago.
Do there exist writers capable of writing "pop" stories?
Moreover, a new kind of literary art would be only the first step. That new art would have to be accompanied by theoretical/critical justification for it. A new movement would be two-track: A.) Exciting new stories on one track; B.) Quality essays and reviews about the stories on the other.
Watch for a prototype "pop" story of my own upcoming-- more stripped-down than my "Death of a Drug Dealer" (now up on another blog), which itself is in a pop mode.
Wednesday, December 23, 2009
Pro and Con
A Lit Movement?
PRO
There's not a doubt in my mind that those in charge of our literature are wrecking it. Whatever their successes, the art is being marginalized. They're not giving the public what it wants. Literary products are badly flawed. We're a long way from a golden age of American literature. This leaves openings.
CON
For myself, I wonder if I any longer want anything to do with the art. I'd be better off selling cars.
The problem is writers themselves. I can't begin to express the depth of my disappointment when I was trying to promote some of them. By and large-- with exceptions, of course-- writers are egoistic, self-defeating, timid, undependable, unimaginative when it comes to marketing and with no conception of how business works in the real world but considering themselves experts regardless. (Mainstream writers, utter phonies to a person, are worse.) Good luck to those who attempt to work with writers!
EXAMPLE
One example of what I mean is that many of the writers I was strenuously making noise for and about had complete scorn for me. A host of them considered me "not a writer"-- from Ann to Finch, Grover, Noah, Tim Hall, and others. (A great motivator for my own work!) I'd rather do p.r., but, er, I'm also a writer.
(See http://www.happyamericawriting.blogspot.com/ )
PRO
There's not a doubt in my mind that those in charge of our literature are wrecking it. Whatever their successes, the art is being marginalized. They're not giving the public what it wants. Literary products are badly flawed. We're a long way from a golden age of American literature. This leaves openings.
CON
For myself, I wonder if I any longer want anything to do with the art. I'd be better off selling cars.
The problem is writers themselves. I can't begin to express the depth of my disappointment when I was trying to promote some of them. By and large-- with exceptions, of course-- writers are egoistic, self-defeating, timid, undependable, unimaginative when it comes to marketing and with no conception of how business works in the real world but considering themselves experts regardless. (Mainstream writers, utter phonies to a person, are worse.) Good luck to those who attempt to work with writers!
EXAMPLE
One example of what I mean is that many of the writers I was strenuously making noise for and about had complete scorn for me. A host of them considered me "not a writer"-- from Ann to Finch, Grover, Noah, Tim Hall, and others. (A great motivator for my own work!) I'd rather do p.r., but, er, I'm also a writer.
(See http://www.happyamericawriting.blogspot.com/ )
Tuesday, December 8, 2009
The Writing
ONE OF MY POINTS
in the post two down from this one is that our writing-- the underground's writing-- isn't good enough. We all need to pick up our game myself included. Our writing, as well as our ideas, needs to be nuclear. It needs to jump off the page.
It all should be a "brand"-- instantly recognizable; almost a genre unto itself. That's how we'll stand out.
We're only as strong as our weakest link. If/when we again make real noise, we have to be selective in what we put forward. Only our best.
One of my many mistakes with the ULA was believing we could do what the Beats did in the 50's-- when the climate in 2001 was very different. As it's very different, more difficult, now than it was nine years ago.
STILL, one has to be optimistic based on what the literary establishment puts out there.
1.) I browsed through the 2009 "Best American Stories." The readability factor of each one is very low. They're hard to get into. They're accomplished in workshop fashion, which is also their flaw: Too Much Information. Where's the story? The essence of literature-- narrative and character-- is buried under the attempt to write well.
2.) Check out this link:
www.keithgessen.tumblr.com/post/218369638/neuronovel
The neurological novel? What a dead end!
These people are abandoning the playing field and inviting writers like us to take it.
in the post two down from this one is that our writing-- the underground's writing-- isn't good enough. We all need to pick up our game myself included. Our writing, as well as our ideas, needs to be nuclear. It needs to jump off the page.
It all should be a "brand"-- instantly recognizable; almost a genre unto itself. That's how we'll stand out.
We're only as strong as our weakest link. If/when we again make real noise, we have to be selective in what we put forward. Only our best.
One of my many mistakes with the ULA was believing we could do what the Beats did in the 50's-- when the climate in 2001 was very different. As it's very different, more difficult, now than it was nine years ago.
STILL, one has to be optimistic based on what the literary establishment puts out there.
1.) I browsed through the 2009 "Best American Stories." The readability factor of each one is very low. They're hard to get into. They're accomplished in workshop fashion, which is also their flaw: Too Much Information. Where's the story? The essence of literature-- narrative and character-- is buried under the attempt to write well.
2.) Check out this link:
www.keithgessen.tumblr.com/post/218369638/neuronovel
The neurological novel? What a dead end!
These people are abandoning the playing field and inviting writers like us to take it.
Thursday, December 3, 2009
Infrastructure
What the underground lacks, to give it the ability to compete with the established literary machine, is its own infrastructure. I'm not talking about websites and blogs, which are lost in a sea of internet websites. I'm talking about magazines and review publications to give validity to our writings.
The establishment has its tottering flagships like New York Times Book Review and the New Yorker. The Eggers crowd has The Believer. We, likewise, need noise outlets-- not limited to print outlets (a radio show would be nice!), but as many substantive noise-making avenues as possible. It's one area where I and the ULA dropped the ball.
The establishment has its tottering flagships like New York Times Book Review and the New Yorker. The Eggers crowd has The Believer. We, likewise, need noise outlets-- not limited to print outlets (a radio show would be nice!), but as many substantive noise-making avenues as possible. It's one area where I and the ULA dropped the ball.
Monday, November 23, 2009
New Avant-Garde II
The first question is whether a new literary movement is needed. I've argued strenuously that it is. That's what my "attacking" of Demi-Puppets and Overdogs was about-- making the case for an entirely new American literature. If you don't agree with the premise, then it's useless for you to read what follows.
WHAT DO WE GAIN?
We're so marginalized, so at-the-bottom of today's literary pyramid, there's nothing to lose by crashing out of it.
WHAT NEXT?
The next question is what our new literary art will look like. I avoided this question when fronting the Underground Literary Alliance. We allowed underground literary art to speak for itself. Much of it was good and most of it was adventurous. Yet, in hindsight, this wasn't good enough.
Should new writing be neo-traditional-- clear writing; a return to the "stuff" of literature: character, structure, and plot? Or should it be a new avant-garde, escaping in an entirely new direction?-- if so, what would that new direction look like?
I'll be arguing that new literary art can-- MUST-- be both.
THE PRESENT
"Literary" fiction has been stuck in ruts promoted by MFA programs:
1.) Overly detailed static workshopped stories.
2.) "Minimalist" lobotomized static workshopped stories.
(Both of these types, whatever the setting, present a narrow and timid view of the world. Novels of this kind are in fact heavily padded short stories whose viewpoint scarcely advances. See Lorrie Moore. Genteel subtlety is the overarching quality.)
3.) David Foster Wallace-style postmodern verbiage, presenting mountains of endless long sentences of insane solipsism.
4.) Eggers-style cutesiness; a toned-down, less intellectually crazy version of #3.
5.) Variations and hybrids of the four accepted styles.
GRAPHIC NOVELS
But wait! A new phenomenon in the reading experience has been the rise of the graphic novel-- whose genesis was the popularity of the "Dark Knight" Batman comic books of twenty years ago. Curiously, leading status quo postmodernists like Jonathan Lethem and Michael Chabon are big fans of this genre-- even though graphic novels represent the opposite of their own word-clotted art.
What is the graphic novel art? (The superhero/detective versions.)
1.) Plot, in the sense of ceaseless narrative drive containing hyperbolic action.
2.) Writing stripped to its essence. The "Keep-It-Simple" sales maxim of engaging the customer/reader.
3.) An artsy, impressionistic "look" in the panels, which equates to stripped-down description; or, description cut down to its essence. The hint; the impression; the glance.
4.) Melodrama: every remaining ingredient exaggerated. Exaggerated character, personality, dialogue, emotion, and plot.
How is this traditional?
Many 19th-century giants, in some of their works, were already doing these things. Think Dickens, Dumas, Hugo, even Dostoevsky. This was done more in over-the-top popular French fiction like Leroux's Phantom of the Opera and the serial Fantomas, which were indirect influences on the early, darkly melodramatic "Batman" style comic books. The cycle of life and the world: Everything comes back to its start.
Graphic novels without the graphics, if done right, can convey more, in character, narrative drive, and emotion, than the graphic novel itself. The graphic novel IS the substance of fiction-- all unnecessary postmodern/literary garbage taken out. Can we do this using only words?
To do so would be the ANTITHESIS of status quo literature now.
Other undergrounders may have different takes than mine on how to create non-graphic graphic novels. I'd like to see the underground's best writers-- Wred Fright, James Nowlan, Pat King et.al.-- at least think about how to do it. In different ways, they have talents (Wred's "pop" qualities; Nowlan's darkness) which might be put into play toward this goal.
One thing I know: we need a more unified aesthetic-- theory put into practice-- if we're to create a more coherent, cutting edge movement.
To be successful, new art-- a new avant-garde-- will have to blow readers out of the water. We as writers have to imagine new writing, then CREATE IT. It will have to be both simpler, more basic, more exciting and more colorful than "traditional" novels, taking the core essence of the art and exaggerating it.
I don't know if this is possible. It's an open road.
These are my ideas. What are yours?
WHAT DO WE GAIN?
We're so marginalized, so at-the-bottom of today's literary pyramid, there's nothing to lose by crashing out of it.
WHAT NEXT?
The next question is what our new literary art will look like. I avoided this question when fronting the Underground Literary Alliance. We allowed underground literary art to speak for itself. Much of it was good and most of it was adventurous. Yet, in hindsight, this wasn't good enough.
Should new writing be neo-traditional-- clear writing; a return to the "stuff" of literature: character, structure, and plot? Or should it be a new avant-garde, escaping in an entirely new direction?-- if so, what would that new direction look like?
I'll be arguing that new literary art can-- MUST-- be both.
THE PRESENT
"Literary" fiction has been stuck in ruts promoted by MFA programs:
1.) Overly detailed static workshopped stories.
2.) "Minimalist" lobotomized static workshopped stories.
(Both of these types, whatever the setting, present a narrow and timid view of the world. Novels of this kind are in fact heavily padded short stories whose viewpoint scarcely advances. See Lorrie Moore. Genteel subtlety is the overarching quality.)
3.) David Foster Wallace-style postmodern verbiage, presenting mountains of endless long sentences of insane solipsism.
4.) Eggers-style cutesiness; a toned-down, less intellectually crazy version of #3.
5.) Variations and hybrids of the four accepted styles.
GRAPHIC NOVELS
But wait! A new phenomenon in the reading experience has been the rise of the graphic novel-- whose genesis was the popularity of the "Dark Knight" Batman comic books of twenty years ago. Curiously, leading status quo postmodernists like Jonathan Lethem and Michael Chabon are big fans of this genre-- even though graphic novels represent the opposite of their own word-clotted art.
What is the graphic novel art? (The superhero/detective versions.)
1.) Plot, in the sense of ceaseless narrative drive containing hyperbolic action.
2.) Writing stripped to its essence. The "Keep-It-Simple" sales maxim of engaging the customer/reader.
3.) An artsy, impressionistic "look" in the panels, which equates to stripped-down description; or, description cut down to its essence. The hint; the impression; the glance.
4.) Melodrama: every remaining ingredient exaggerated. Exaggerated character, personality, dialogue, emotion, and plot.
How is this traditional?
Many 19th-century giants, in some of their works, were already doing these things. Think Dickens, Dumas, Hugo, even Dostoevsky. This was done more in over-the-top popular French fiction like Leroux's Phantom of the Opera and the serial Fantomas, which were indirect influences on the early, darkly melodramatic "Batman" style comic books. The cycle of life and the world: Everything comes back to its start.
Graphic novels without the graphics, if done right, can convey more, in character, narrative drive, and emotion, than the graphic novel itself. The graphic novel IS the substance of fiction-- all unnecessary postmodern/literary garbage taken out. Can we do this using only words?
To do so would be the ANTITHESIS of status quo literature now.
Other undergrounders may have different takes than mine on how to create non-graphic graphic novels. I'd like to see the underground's best writers-- Wred Fright, James Nowlan, Pat King et.al.-- at least think about how to do it. In different ways, they have talents (Wred's "pop" qualities; Nowlan's darkness) which might be put into play toward this goal.
One thing I know: we need a more unified aesthetic-- theory put into practice-- if we're to create a more coherent, cutting edge movement.
To be successful, new art-- a new avant-garde-- will have to blow readers out of the water. We as writers have to imagine new writing, then CREATE IT. It will have to be both simpler, more basic, more exciting and more colorful than "traditional" novels, taking the core essence of the art and exaggerating it.
I don't know if this is possible. It's an open road.
These are my ideas. What are yours?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
