My previous article, Will eBooks Be the Downfall of Literature?, turned out to be quite controversial, provoking lots of comments around the Internet, few supportive. Arguments against my article ranged from free speech (which is a legal concept that really doesn’t apply) to with so much dreck the cream will rise to the real culprit being print on demand to literature includes dreck by definition to … pick your own dart. Many commenters lauded the ability of anyone with a computer to “publish” their ebook. Swimming through an open floodgate is not, in my view, a good way to swim; it is only a good way to drown.
It is obvious to me that — although others assure me to the contrary — I failed to articulate my point very well, or that if I did articulate it well, it was too subtle or esoteric or whatever because no one really zeroed in on the issue. So I not only want to try again, because I think the point is deserving of debate, but I plan to do so over the course of several articles (thus the round numbering).
So, let’s start the great debate (divide?) by defining literature. As some commentators pointed out, the dictionary definition of literature is all-encompassing — it includes all writings in prose or poetry form. The dictionary definition, however, goes on to say especially “writings having excellence of form or expression and expressing ideas of permanent or universal interest.” Literature is something more than words assembled in a logical stream. It is this “writings having excellence of form or expression and expressing ideas of permanent or universal interest” that is the literature of my discussion.
I use literature to be synonymous with that small portion of writing that by consensus is of such caliber that it will still be remembered, read, and pointed to as an exemplar of literary merit long after the particular style has gone out of fashion and the author has died. I use literature to mean that body of work that society in its amorphous whole has determined should be put on a pedestal, distinguishing it from all other publications.
I do not use literature to mean popular or fashionable or award winning. James Patterson’s books are popular but I do not see society declaring his novels to be literature. I guess what I mean by literature is what many call great literature – works such as Shakespearean plays that are still read and performed hundreds of years after the death of the author. It is possible for a work to be both literature and popular, but whether something is literature is independent of whether it is popular. The terms literature and great literature are synonymous here.
When we look at what has been denominated great literature over the course of time, we can observe that there is something more to the work, something that may be indefinable or something that caused a revolution in thinking or perspective. It is that intangible that separates literature from simply being in print.
Consider music. People recognize the greatness of a Beethoven symphony — a masterpiece of music that has withstood the test of time. Yet, not all of Beethoven’s symphonies were well-received at the time of their premiere — other composers were more popular, but once they died they became dust in the dustbin of musicology. The great composers — the Mozarts, the Bachs, the Beethovens of music — had patrons and publishers who acted as gatekeepers.
The same is true of art. Consensus is that van Gogh, Picasso, Matisse, and Da Vinci, for example, were true masters. But that hasn’t stopped your neighbor from painting and trying to sell his or her artwork. The great artists were represented and their works competitively sought after by galleries that acted as gatekeepers. The gatekeepers began the separation of run-of-the-mill art from great art.
Writing is similar to art and music. And before the advent of ebooks and print on demand (POD), the process of separating literature from the rest of what was published or available to be published was easier. eBooks and POD have changed the landscape. In 2009, at least 1 million new books were published, 75% nontraditionally, i.e., as ebooks, POD, and micro-niche publishing.
With 250,000 traditionally published books it was already difficult to separate literature from run-of-the-mill work. We relied on gatekeepers to start the process. But in 2009 we were overwhelmed. Name 1 novel that was published in 2009 for which there is consensus that it is great literature and will withstand the test of time?
When J.D. Salinger published Catcher in the Rye in 1951, it was but a short time until a consensus was reached that this book was literature. By the 1960s it was standard reading in high schools across the country. Publishers, book reviewers, teachers, and readers were already comparing new works by other authors to Catcher, looking for the next book that could be called literature. Catcher had become a standard. Probably the next book to reach that status was Harper Lee’s 1962 novel, To Kill a Mockingbird. Like Catcher, Mockingbird became a literary staple, a standard, and required reading near universally. We continue to celebrate these books today.
So, out of the 1 million books published in 2009, name the novel that is today’s equivalent of Catcher or Mockingbird. Perhaps there is one, but I admit I don’t know of it.
Literature is significantly more than numbers, more than a good story that is well executed. Literature comes about by building a societal consensus, something that is easier to do when there are fewer choices.
The debate continues in round II…
Editor’s Note: Rich Adin is an editor and owner of Freelance Editorial Services, a provider of editorial and production services to publishers and authors. This is reprinted, with permission, from his An American Editor blog. PB
Universally?
Pretty likely no-one in Moldova or China gives a crap about any of those books, wouldn’t you think?
So lets see, 250,000 books were published through formal channels, and you are worried about finding great works of literature amongst a million or more books published in all venues? Honestly, the current number published traditionally is already far beyond the point where any group of people can adequately survey what is published.
So, how are we going to find the “literature” in that collection? The same way we always have; by letting time sort the wheat from the chaff. While there are books like Catcher in the Rye that almost instantly are accepted in the Canon of Literature, there are also many other works, perhaps popular, perhaps not that are initially ignored by those who make such judgments.
To my mind, there are two types of literature that get accepted in the Canon. The first is the type of work that the literary establishment embraces from the start; works like Catcher in the Rye, and the books that win the Pulitzer, the Booker and the other major literary prizes. These might be good stories, but in modern literature, often story takes a back seat to other concerns (hence why some of these sell so few copies unless Oprah gives them a recommendation). The other type of work is one where the enduring popularity of the work (or works) ultimately demand that they be added to corpus of literature. Yes, James Patterson may be forgotten in a generation, but will J.K. Rowling? Or Stephen King? I doubt it. And how many generations do works have to endure before we can safely say they will endure? Robert E. Howard and H.P. Lovecraft have both been dead for more than 70 years, their works are still popular to this day (And probably voluntarily read by more people than many of their contemporaries who wrote for more literary outlets than the pulps). Yet, I don’t see too many classes offered on their works (Want to get young boys reading? You will have more success with these authors, I think, than with F. Scott Fitzgerald and J.D. Salinger).
Now brings up the question… should there be gatekeepers? More than one book, later accepted as great, was passed over by many publishers and more than a few were self published. Further the vast majority of books that are published are not selected for any particular literary merit; they are chosen because the publisher believes the books will sell. Even then, most of the books they publish fail to make enough money to pay back the advances paid to the author.
In other words, the gatekeepers are not doing a very good job to begin with. We have no reason to believe that they are doing a better job than if we just toss all the works out into the electronic ether, and see if the best rise to the top.
Oh, sigh.
How will anyone possibly find anything good to read without those publishers, to separate the truly talented from the great unwashed masses?
Somebody please save us from ourselves.
(After all, it is publishers, wise and noble and gifted of exceptional taste and discernment, who fill our bookshelves with the wit and wisdom of Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Shawn Hannity, Carl Rove and Sarah Palin. Yes, they are truly the Great Ones…well, I suppose they could be considered Great Ones in the Lovecraftian sense of the word.)
The shift to “floodgate publishing” merely represents a shift of power and authority, from publishers and academics and other gatekeepers (who presume to tell us what we SHOULD be reading while snidely disdaining what we actually do read) to actual readers, who can enjoy, comment and share.
True works of literature, IMO, stand a BETTER chance of being recognized now because of the change in the marketplace: Any work will be available instantly around the world at a reasonable cost (and when publishers get their act together, in open formats without DRM, too).
Readers will have a better chance of discovering the literature that resonates with them and can instantly tell people with common interests around the world. Readers will not have to scrounge around for used copies…they can order direct and get near instantaneous fulfillment.
In the old days, books had to be “discovered” almost instantly or they would be returned, remaindered and disappear into the ether. If they didn’t make the cut immediately, they had only a small chance of being recognized for their merit later.
Now, a great work need not be recognized immediately — as the article points out, many works that ultimately came to be regarded as great received a lukewarm reception when first published or released. With the new dynamics of publishing, works need never go out of print, need never be unavailable to readers — and so a work that may not have resonated with its audience when first released can be rediscovered years later and find its place.
This can be a golden era for publishing, for both the literary and the disposable dreck. For the first time in the history of humanity, the Internet age (and ebooks as just one medium within this revolution) allows us to instantly communicate to anyone around the world to share ideas, perspectives and great works of art.
I think that is a step forward, not backward.
Rich:
Sorry if I was being overly snarky in the above post. It is just an instinctive reaction from years of being badgered by literistas for my unbridled and unrepentent love of sci-fi, fantasy, comics and roleplaying games…some of which are unquestionably great literature disguised as pop culture.
I don’t disagree that there is the *potential* for a lot of the good stuff to be overlooked. (There has *always* been that potential, just the reasons why are different. Before it was scarcity that was the issue…now it is abundance.)
But IMO, fretting about the possible consequences of something that is unstoppable (the flood of books) does not resolve the issue.
We know there will be a virtually limitless supply of new books going forward.
We know only a few of them will be “great literature” by the definitions established in the article — that is a combination of the law of averages* and the fact that each individual’s definition will vary — it is only through consensus of many varied perspectives and often a good deal of time that something becomes widely acclaimed as “literature.”
(* The law of averages as represented by Sturgeon’s law: 90% of everything is crap. The addendum: Sturgeon was an optimist.)
So, rather than bemoan the inevitable and clinging to the past, all of us can seize the power inherent in the new possibilities of communications. We can start telling the world about the “great works” that we have discovered. The great works will be found and loved if the people who believe in them tell the world.
Bill, no problem about snarkiness. I tend not to read much fiction and 95% of the fiction I do read is scifi/fantasy.
FWIW, as I hope you and others will see over the course of the remaining rounds of the article, I am not suggesting that we need to cling to the current system but that of we do not, we need to create some new type of gatekeeper.
I suppose that the biggest impediment — with or without direct to Internet publishing — is the sheer number of new fiction titles published every year. And that is unlikely to either diminish or be controllable.
Rich,
All those new titles don’t need to be “controlled”… I think that’s the point. The old system allowed a few people to tell a lot of people what “literature” is. The new system will let more people figure it out for themselves. I see that as a good thing, myself, since the mark of literature should be that it speaks to you, not that someone else said it should speak to you.
Our present system may have trouble dealing with the outflow of literature, to find the best material… that is one of the reasons why the current system will fall.
But rest assured, a new system will eventually develop that uses the new technology to its best advantage, and will not only help quality material rise to the top, but help individuals find the material that most appeals to them.
“I suppose that the biggest impediment — with or without direct to Internet publishing — is the sheer number of new fiction titles published every year.”
What about a government program? You’d have to get permission to publish it and then there’s be a rating system for different categories.
Yes, I am joking and I hope, Rich, that you are too about what amounts to a non-problem.
Rich Aden said:
“we need to create some new type of gatekeeper.”
I agree with the notion of say, a “guide” rather than a “gatekeeper.”
Guides help steer people to where they really want to go but ultimately readers and writers are free to do as they wish.
I do see a clear need for a site (or a number of sites and communities) that help match up readers with writers, not unlike many current websites like Digg, Slashdot, Facebook, etc — I see there being a number of sites that are like MobileRead, Shelfari, Library Thing, Dear Author, etc.
These hub sites will likely combine news, commentary and networking where readers and writers can interact. You’ll see “star commentators” emerge who tend to have the same tastes as other groups of readers. I’d love to see sites that fully browsable without mandating that you join the community, so you can lurk to your heart’s content but to post and interact, obviously you need to join.
I think these communities will provide the benefits of gatekeeping while still having much more freedom than the traditional agent-publisher-distributor model, which is functional but far from perfect. The community model allows authors to publish the stories they want to write and allows readers to find what interests them.
Blue Tyson, I think you would be surprised at just how widely translated a lot of great English literature is, and as for Shakespeare well he is known, loved and performed in countries the world over.
Quality tells and lasting quality most of all.
Rich Adin’s mistake, and I believe it is just that, is not his concern for good literature being found and read amongst the swamps of muck that spills out every year, for it is true in paper print literature what gets missed will eventually disappear, but electronic literature persists…
That’s the thing, once published always available, and the amount that will be published will be an exponential increase if it is not already over anything in the print world.
New great literature will initially be smothered. Initially…
The means for rectification are also within this, in that specialised vendors of ebooks will cut out quality from the common herd, review magazines will brand new authors of quality and amongst the sea of trash islands will slowly emerge.
Given the social changes likely to happen in the next few decades, the new electronic literature may well become a new golden age for literature around the world—never out of print, never beyond finding, and no manuscript of genius lying around for the criticism of mice.
It’s simply NOT TRUE that the currently accepted canon represents the best of the past. The canon is to a great extent a chance selection. There are other books out there, just as good, which have fallen by the wayside. If they aren’t assigned in lit courses, they aren’t reprinted; if they aren’t reprinted, they can’t be assigned in lit courses (or at least they couldn’t before ebooks). I proof a great many books at Distributed Proofreaders that strike me as just as interesting as canon.
There are no infallible arbiters of taste. There are simply people whose tastes you happen to share.