Despondence Over Divisions In Writing
338 words.
Yesterday’s Promptapalooza topic, spearheaded by Dragonray, asked which popular media we didn’t like.
The first thing that sprang to my mind was a very touchy subject. I know it’s hard to imagine now, but in the not-too-distant past, there was a time when Harry Potter was universally loved. I, however, never particularly liked it. The movies were okay, but I didn’t even make it more than a chapter or two into the first book. (Less controversially, and more currently, I’d have to go with any Marvel or superhero-related property.)
Controversial authors leads me to the topic that’s actually on my mind this morning. The Hugo Awards were just announced on August 1st, and I’ve seen some grumbling in and around my circles about it. I don’t know what the grumbling is specifically about this year (a brief perusal of the award winners does not reveal anything obvious to me), but I do know that since The Puppy Wars of 2013-2017 there has been a great deal of divisiveness in the world of readers, authors, and publishers about the Hugos and, well, books in general.
It reminds me of, and reinforces, my recent despondence about the prospect of ever publishing a book. I feel like I should scratch that childhood dream and potential retirement plan off the list forever. There’s so much focus on the author’s personality, their reputation, their politics, their connections, their fandom, their “celebrity,” and yes, sadly, their ethnicity and gender, that what they actually write is irrelevant. The craft of writing and storytelling appears to be meaningless in the modern world of publishing, so what’s the point?
It’s a bummer, is what I’m saying.
It’s hard enough trying to ignore all of one’s inner critics to write fiction, but it’s even worse when there’s a horde of external forces running around with torches and pitchforks. It leaves me not wanting to go anywhere near readers, writers, or publishers for fear of being tainted by that stain of divisional ugliness that permeates the industry these days.
Archived Comments
Roger Edwards 2020-08-02T15:27:49Z
I do believe that you are worrying disproportionately. J K Rowling has attracted a degree of vocal criticism from certain quarters, due to her raising certain points in a rather fraught and ongoing debate about equality for a specific section of society. Has she gone broke? Has Warner Bros chosen to end its cinematic partnership with her? The answer to both questions is no. If you asked the majority of adults who have read and enjoyed her books, they would probably be totally oblivious to any controversy surrounding her work. Yes, there is a degree of pushback from some lobbies at present on specific issues but they do not have the powers that many are led to believe that they do.
The tabloid press and more sensational aspects of the media, often attribute far more reach and leverage to certain lobbies, than what they actually have. Cancel culture and other spurious terms are good for selling papers and getting clicks. But the reality of matters is that a lot of this is a storm in a teacup. An outrage on twitter is not the same as a national outrage.
I like and enjoy the work of H P Lovecraft. Yet the man was a racist and there’s a strong streak of such sentiments in his work. But that doesn’t negate the other aspects of his writing which are deemed to have been of note. In fact rather than being purged from popular culture, Lovecraft is being used for a lot of new source material. Often writer and directors of colour our using his work for inspiration and defusing its inherent racism. This is done by making lead characters in the material they produce of to be of ethnicity.
It strikes me that the more strident a lobby, the less intellectual rigour they show in dealing with nuanced, problematic issues. A blanket denial of a difficult situation or outright censorship seldom do much to solve deep seated prejudices. Political correctness which was an honest attempt to remove the language and semantics of prejudice out of public discourse, in the hope it would eradicate the problem. It did not. It merely drove bigotry into the closet. Those that exalted such a strategy have now accepted its failure.
So to summarise. Forget or ignore the perceived might of the current cultural gatekeepers. It is bogus and arguments about collateral damage for a greater good are often suspect. You beat a problem through education, leading by example and winning arguments. It takes time and effort. In the meantime I say write and be damned! Life is damn uncomfortable when sitting on the fence.
bhagpuss 2020-08-02T20:31:08Z
Let’s be realistic. The problem would be getting published in the first place. It’s about as likely as winning the lottery and even less likely that, should you get the book onto anyone’s shelves, anyone would ever pick it up and look at it. The idea that publishing a book is a ticket to fame and riches is a peculiarly prevalent fantasy.
A University of london study of 2,500 published authors found that " fifty-four percent of traditionally-published authors and almost eighty percent of self-published authors earn less than $1,000 a year." My second-cousin, a school teacher at the time, got a three book deal with a major publisher for a series of historical novels. The first book was a feature title for the season and was heavily promoted. It outperformed the publisher’s expectations and was deemed to have done very well. And yet my cousin, faced with the prospect of writing the second, almost gave up. That success earned him less than his salary as a teacher. He stuck with it and finished the trilogy. Sales on the next two were not as good. I’m not sure if he’s gone back to teaching. I haven’t seen any more books by him though.
Probably no need to worry about the cultural pushback!
Sorry, new comments are disabled on older posts. This helps reduce spam. Active commenting almost always occurs within a day or two of new posts.