5 ms·

It's a positive feedback loop: an author becomes high profile by getting positive reviews in the NYRB -> they become more likely to contribute to the NYRB -> th

by briga 4y ago

It's a positive feedback loop: an author becomes high profile by getting positive reviews in the NYRB -> they become more likely to contribute to the NYRB -> they become more likely to get more positive reviews, and so on. Literature is especially cliquey--almost all the most famous writers are based out of hubs like New York, London, Paris. How many authors get passed over just because they happen to live somewhere else? There are so many books released every year that it would be impossible for any one publication to review them all. So instead of a curation of the best authors, publications like this inevitably just become a curation of authors who are in the club.

shreyshnaccount 4y ago
Seems like there's scope for building local literature review communities (or book clubs lol) but that properly review local authors.. The interesting question for me would be how this system works
- 21723 4y ago
  You can't compete against "New York" or "London" on locality terms. They just have so many more people in a small area; they're an implicit link farm. To build something up that can challenge the literary mainstream, you've got to align on something else. I do think something like this is already happening, but along genre lines. Twenty years ago, self-publishing was a last resort option for people who were mostly writing perma-slush. Ten years ago, it was an admissible strategy for certain genres but still considered an undesirable way to go for most authors. Five years ago, it had become a respectable alternative (in part, due to consolidation-induced dysfunction in trade publishing). Now, we're starting to see self-publishing take over literary fiction [1] as well. This isn't necessary good news--to self-publishing properly is expensive, beyond what most people can afford; and traditional houses are now able to farm out their risk unto authors--so much as it is a mix of good and bad, but the scene is changing and I think the New York literati are already under 20% of peak relevance (midcentury). They confer a bit of prestige, but they don't actually get you read, and they certainly don't get you read deeply, which is what you want if you want your books to still be read 20 years from now. ---- [1] I'll skip over the long, long debate over "What is literary fiction?" That would add 3 kilowords to this post, just to define terms.
  - shreyshnaccount 4y ago
    That makes a lot of sense
  - whatshisface 4y ago
    >I'll skip over the long, long debate over "what is literary fiction?" that would add 3 kilowords to this post, just to define terms. I'll bite: Self-publishing began as an option for publishing books that nobody reads, evolved over time into a viable option for publishing books that some people would read, and finally reached the high status of being an option for publishing books that nobody reads.
    - 21723 4y ago
      Brutal, but not entirely false. There is something to be said for writing a book that people claim to have read, though.
      - jacobr1 4y ago
        And further, that people buy and don't read.
  - ikr678 4y ago
    Sanderson's very succesful suprise foray into self-publishing has probably caught the attention of genre leading authors and I expect more to follow.
killjoywashere 4y ago
Don Thompson gets after this from another angle in "The $12 Million Stuffed Shark: The Curious Economics of Contemporary Art". The particular thread I'm thinking of is the purchases of Charles Saatchi. It looks externally like there's a positive feedback loop where he collects you, which makes you famous, which makes your work valuable, which he can then sell. But ... if you look at the average value of work in Saatchi's collection, it asymptotically approaches $0. The man buys a lot of art. Warehouses full of stuff that hasn't been seen. Similarly, there are a lot of poor writers in New York. Is there a positive feedback loop? Try measuring it. https://www.amazon.com/dp/0230620590 https://www.amazon.com/dp/0230620590
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
majormajor 4y ago
> Literature is especially cliquey--almost all the most famous writers are based out of hubs like New York, London, Paris. Is this true? Smith, discussed in the parent, sure, born and lives in London. In general, I have a suspicion this concentration is more true of British authors than American ones, although the most recent one I can think of that came to fame is... Sally Rooney? Ireland. Naming a few other famous novelists I've heard of in the last several years, and doing some quick Googling... trying to stick to "literary" ones: Franzen? Santa Cruz Knausgård? Sweden + London. Looks like it was only London after he got famous, though. Ferrante? Heh, well, famously nobody knows for sure, but seems like people believe Italy. Stephen King? Maine until very recently. Go further into genre content and we get out of the point of the "literature" discussion here, though. I'm looking at novelists vs columnists both because of the example given of Smith and because novelists are less geographically constrained than someone whose day job is to write for a publication that historically has been based in those cities, to try to avoid "once you're in the club you get the job that makes you move to the city" factors.
- sfsffgrgdg 4y ago
  The relevant term here is "coterie", and I think the key is that it's easier to find and become part of one in the hub cities, not that they don't exist in a more attenuated form elsewhere. See this article for a discussion of the dynamics https://www.academia.edu/2763450/The_New_Coterie_Writing_Community_and_Collective https://www.academia.edu/2763450/The_New_Coterie_Writing_Com...
- biorach 4y ago
  Zadie Smith lived in New York from the late 2000's to 2020.
spoonjim 4y ago
Well writing novels is something that people who grow up in New York aspire to do more than people who grow up elsewhere, and those from elsewhere with those ambitions often move to places like New York.

by briga 4y ago

shreyshnaccount 4y ago

Seems like there's scope for building local literature review communities (or book clubs lol) but that properly review local authors.. The interesting question for me would be how this system works

21723 4y ago
You can't compete against "New York" or "London" on locality terms. They just have so many more people in a small area; they're an implicit link farm. To build something up that can challenge the literary mainstream, you've got to align on something else. I do think something like this is already happening, but along genre lines. Twenty years ago, self-publishing was a last resort option for people who were mostly writing perma-slush. Ten years ago, it was an admissible strategy for certain genres but still considered an undesirable way to go for most authors. Five years ago, it had become a respectable alternative (in part, due to consolidation-induced dysfunction in trade publishing). Now, we're starting to see self-publishing take over literary fiction [1] as well. This isn't necessary good news--to self-publishing properly is expensive, beyond what most people can afford; and traditional houses are now able to farm out their risk unto authors--so much as it is a mix of good and bad, but the scene is changing and I think the New York literati are already under 20% of peak relevance (midcentury). They confer a bit of prestige, but they don't actually get you read, and they certainly don't get you read deeply, which is what you want if you want your books to still be read 20 years from now. ---- [1] I'll skip over the long, long debate over "What is literary fiction?" That would add 3 kilowords to this post, just to define terms.
- shreyshnaccount 4y ago
  That makes a lot of sense
- whatshisface 4y ago
  >I'll skip over the long, long debate over "what is literary fiction?" that would add 3 kilowords to this post, just to define terms. I'll bite: Self-publishing began as an option for publishing books that nobody reads, evolved over time into a viable option for publishing books that some people would read, and finally reached the high status of being an option for publishing books that nobody reads.
  - 21723 4y ago
    Brutal, but not entirely false. There is something to be said for writing a book that people claim to have read, though.
    - jacobr1 4y ago
      And further, that people buy and don't read.
- ikr678 4y ago
  Sanderson's very succesful suprise foray into self-publishing has probably caught the attention of genre leading authors and I expect more to follow.

killjoywashere 4y ago

Don Thompson gets after this from another angle in "The $12 Million Stuffed Shark: The Curious Economics of Contemporary Art". The particular thread I'm thinking of is the purchases of Charles Saatchi. It looks externally like there's a positive feedback loop where he collects you, which makes you famous, which makes your work valuable, which he can then sell. But ... if you look at the average value of work in Saatchi's collection, it asymptotically approaches $0. The man buys a lot of art. Warehouses full of stuff that hasn't been seen. Similarly, there are a lot of poor writers in New York. Is there a positive feedback loop? Try measuring it. https://www.amazon.com/dp/0230620590 https://www.amazon.com/dp/0230620590

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

majormajor 4y ago

> Literature is especially cliquey--almost all the most famous writers are based out of hubs like New York, London, Paris. Is this true? Smith, discussed in the parent, sure, born and lives in London. In general, I have a suspicion this concentration is more true of British authors than American ones, although the most recent one I can think of that came to fame is... Sally Rooney? Ireland. Naming a few other famous novelists I've heard of in the last several years, and doing some quick Googling... trying to stick to "literary" ones: Franzen? Santa Cruz Knausgård? Sweden + London. Looks like it was only London after he got famous, though. Ferrante? Heh, well, famously nobody knows for sure, but seems like people believe Italy. Stephen King? Maine until very recently. Go further into genre content and we get out of the point of the "literature" discussion here, though. I'm looking at novelists vs columnists both because of the example given of Smith and because novelists are less geographically constrained than someone whose day job is to write for a publication that historically has been based in those cities, to try to avoid "once you're in the club you get the job that makes you move to the city" factors.

sfsffgrgdg 4y ago
The relevant term here is "coterie", and I think the key is that it's easier to find and become part of one in the hub cities, not that they don't exist in a more attenuated form elsewhere. See this article for a discussion of the dynamics https://www.academia.edu/2763450/The_New_Coterie_Writing_Community_and_Collective https://www.academia.edu/2763450/The_New_Coterie_Writing_Com...
biorach 4y ago
Zadie Smith lived in New York from the late 2000's to 2020.

spoonjim 4y ago

Well writing novels is something that people who grow up in New York aspire to do more than people who grow up elsewhere, and those from elsewhere with those ambitions often move to places like New York.