3 ms·

The article describes what it takes to getting published; ie, passing an ever increasing number of gatekeepers. Agents, "blurb writers", publishers, reviewers a

by bambax 4y ago

The article describes what it takes to getting published; ie, passing an ever increasing number of gatekeepers. Agents, "blurb writers", publishers, reviewers are all professional gatekeepers, organized in a giant, very strict filter. In a perfect world, gatekeepers should be neutral observers of an external reality, expert cherry pickers who would detect and promote the best; in the real world, they influence and shape reality. "MFA" is much talked about in the article but never spelled out. It means "Master of Fine Arts" and is like an MBA for aspiring artists -- or, put it another way, a kind of training camp on how to pass the gatekeepers. In another article [1], the same author discusses whether MFAs have "swallowed literature". Indeed, having all wannabee authors go through the same training can result in uniformization; and worse, it can produce "perfect candidates" who lack substance. The best writers are inspired by the life they lived and the tragedies and successes they went through. When every novel sounds like a story from the New Yorker, with perfect language, perfect syntax, and perfect, respectable morals, we have a problem. [1] https://erikhoel.substack.com/p/how-the-mfa-swallowed-literature https://erikhoel.substack.com/p/how-the-mfa-swallowed-litera...

bambax 4y ago
A quote from that second article: > Faulkner didn’t finish high school, recent research shows Woolf took some classes in the classics and literature but was mostly homeschooled, Dostoevsky had a degree in engineering. Joyce did major in literature, but even he entered medical school (before leaving), and also failed multiple classes in his undergraduate days. Not one of these great writers would now be accepted to any MFA in the country.
- TheOtherHobbes 4y ago
  Woolf was born rich and married rich, started a publishing house with her author husband to publish their work, and was also central to the Bloomsbury Set who promoted the books. I'm not sure what the modern equivalent would be, but clearly doing the usual round of agents etc wouldn't be it. Joyce got almost nowhere until he was promoted by Ezra Pound, who was a Significant Figure on the literary scene. I don't know about Faulkner, but Dostoevsky also came from a scene and - after some really bad times - made an impression when Crime and Punishment was serialised in a magazine. So I don't think the MFA issue is the problem. The issue is more that literary scenes don't really exist any more, in the sense of groups of people who all know each other and have common values. The 2022 publisher pipeline is very much just a content creation business with no higher aspirations. The gatekeeping steps - MFAs included - mostly exist to extract cash from the hopeful, not to curate quality.
  - bambax 4y ago
    MFAs certainly exist to "extract cash from the hopeful"; the linked article says as much: > On average, these MFA programs are sending a generation of aspiring artists into debt for often zero financial return. Before MFAs, starving artists simply didn’t have any money. Now, starving artists have massive debt. But that's not true of the other gatekeepers? Publishers make money if books sell. Ditto agents. Blurb writers work for free (in general). If they don't curate quality, they certainly think they do.
  - syl_sau 4y ago
    > The issue is more that literary scenes don't really exist any more, in the sense of groups of people who all know each other and have common values. This is a very good point. It's especially striking in visual arts; we used to have groups of more or less young people obsessed with certain ideas and aesthetics. They would meet up in old Parisian flats, write manifestos and plot against their rivals. Nowadays it's all about individual genius. I'm not making a judgement here-- it simply seems we've lost a sense of community attached to this (which certainly relates to the broader social fabric too). I guess you could say furries are an art movement in this regard. Though they meet up sometimes (I guess), when they do it's not really the same thing. They communicate through a Discord server; it's no longer a public forum, it has become an echo chamber.
21723 4y ago
> The article describes what it takes to getting published; ie, passing an ever increasing number of gatekeepers. Agents, "blurb writers", publishers, reviewers are all professional gatekeepers, organized in a giant, very strict filter. If you self-publish, you have to anticipate the tastes of readers. There are millions of them; you have to reach the right ones. The best and the worst are out there, and sometimes the best for one genre are not the right readers for your book. Hit the wrong crowd, and you'll (arguably deservedly) get lackluster reviews. As a no-name self-pubber, you'll also have to price your first book low--which itself is tricky, because the most price-sensitive readers are not the ones you really want... at some point you run into the boos from the cheap seats problem... so there's a fine line, in discounting, between rewarding early adopters (which you must do) and courting readers who won't be invested enough in your book to generate desirable word-of-mouth, and who might leave lousy reviews. Ultimately, if you self-publish, you're betting on readers--you're betting on people with no status (nobodies like you and I and 99% of authors; mostly under-25, 75% female) but who are (of course) just as smart as the literati, and who actually read. They will push your book, but they're not influencers or "book buzz" people, so it will happen slowly (the best you can hope for is a slow exponential). Or you can aim for trade publishing. In that case, you're betting your career on a small number of expensively educated and overly connected people who haven't read for pleasure--haven't read deeply at all; reading for work at a 45-minutes-per-book pace doesn't count--since... well, since they were under-25 nobodies with no social status. If you do trade publishing, you have to give up on the idea of "great literature". Don't write books you love; write books people will show to their bosses, because that's what you need to get through... a manuscript that people aren't afraid to show to the next person up the chain... and it takes several decision-makers to give your book the nod to even have a chance at playing. And yeah... MFA fiction is quite a plague. If you write enough books that nobody reads but lots of people claim to read, you can get a prestigious job where you teach other people how to write books that nobody will read. Where have we seen this before?
- bambax 4y ago
  Yeah I self-published a novel last year, in French. It has been mostly a positive experience. The book did relatively well, was selected as one of the five finalists of the Amazon Storyteller contest (out of 1200+ contestants) and is still selling a little. Before that, it had been refused by all the publishing houses I sent it to (10 of them); and the experience was rather unpleasant. There are no agents in France (the market is too small); authors send their works to publishers, on paper (nobody accepts electronic versions), and then wait between 1 to 4 months for a response. Negative answers are just a polite "no" with never any justification, or ideas for improvements, etc. (Positive answers, I don't know.) For my next book I don't think I will even attempt trade publishing; why print so many copies, send them via post, and wait three months. I'd rather spend the time and money on getting early reviews. I understand the appeal of traditional publishing when the full power of an established house pushes a book everywhere and gets lots of press; but if you don't get the full treatment there is little point nowadays.

by bambax 4y ago

bambax 4y ago

A quote from that second article: > Faulkner didn’t finish high school, recent research shows Woolf took some classes in the classics and literature but was mostly homeschooled, Dostoevsky had a degree in engineering. Joyce did major in literature, but even he entered medical school (before leaving), and also failed multiple classes in his undergraduate days. Not one of these great writers would now be accepted to any MFA in the country.

TheOtherHobbes 4y ago
Woolf was born rich and married rich, started a publishing house with her author husband to publish their work, and was also central to the Bloomsbury Set who promoted the books. I'm not sure what the modern equivalent would be, but clearly doing the usual round of agents etc wouldn't be it. Joyce got almost nowhere until he was promoted by Ezra Pound, who was a Significant Figure on the literary scene. I don't know about Faulkner, but Dostoevsky also came from a scene and - after some really bad times - made an impression when Crime and Punishment was serialised in a magazine. So I don't think the MFA issue is the problem. The issue is more that literary scenes don't really exist any more, in the sense of groups of people who all know each other and have common values. The 2022 publisher pipeline is very much just a content creation business with no higher aspirations. The gatekeeping steps - MFAs included - mostly exist to extract cash from the hopeful, not to curate quality.
- bambax 4y ago
  MFAs certainly exist to "extract cash from the hopeful"; the linked article says as much: > On average, these MFA programs are sending a generation of aspiring artists into debt for often zero financial return. Before MFAs, starving artists simply didn’t have any money. Now, starving artists have massive debt. But that's not true of the other gatekeepers? Publishers make money if books sell. Ditto agents. Blurb writers work for free (in general). If they don't curate quality, they certainly think they do.
- syl_sau 4y ago
  > The issue is more that literary scenes don't really exist any more, in the sense of groups of people who all know each other and have common values. This is a very good point. It's especially striking in visual arts; we used to have groups of more or less young people obsessed with certain ideas and aesthetics. They would meet up in old Parisian flats, write manifestos and plot against their rivals. Nowadays it's all about individual genius. I'm not making a judgement here-- it simply seems we've lost a sense of community attached to this (which certainly relates to the broader social fabric too). I guess you could say furries are an art movement in this regard. Though they meet up sometimes (I guess), when they do it's not really the same thing. They communicate through a Discord server; it's no longer a public forum, it has become an echo chamber.

21723 4y ago

> The article describes what it takes to getting published; ie, passing an ever increasing number of gatekeepers. Agents, "blurb writers", publishers, reviewers are all professional gatekeepers, organized in a giant, very strict filter. If you self-publish, you have to anticipate the tastes of readers. There are millions of them; you have to reach the right ones. The best and the worst are out there, and sometimes the best for one genre are not the right readers for your book. Hit the wrong crowd, and you'll (arguably deservedly) get lackluster reviews. As a no-name self-pubber, you'll also have to price your first book low--which itself is tricky, because the most price-sensitive readers are not the ones you really want... at some point you run into the boos from the cheap seats problem... so there's a fine line, in discounting, between rewarding early adopters (which you must do) and courting readers who won't be invested enough in your book to generate desirable word-of-mouth, and who might leave lousy reviews. Ultimately, if you self-publish, you're betting on readers--you're betting on people with no status (nobodies like you and I and 99% of authors; mostly under-25, 75% female) but who are (of course) just as smart as the literati, and who actually read. They will push your book, but they're not influencers or "book buzz" people, so it will happen slowly (the best you can hope for is a slow exponential). Or you can aim for trade publishing. In that case, you're betting your career on a small number of expensively educated and overly connected people who haven't read for pleasure--haven't read deeply at all; reading for work at a 45-minutes-per-book pace doesn't count--since... well, since they were under-25 nobodies with no social status. If you do trade publishing, you have to give up on the idea of "great literature". Don't write books you love; write books people will show to their bosses, because that's what you need to get through... a manuscript that people aren't afraid to show to the next person up the chain... and it takes several decision-makers to give your book the nod to even have a chance at playing. And yeah... MFA fiction is quite a plague. If you write enough books that nobody reads but lots of people claim to read, you can get a prestigious job where you teach other people how to write books that nobody will read. Where have we seen this before?

bambax 4y ago
Yeah I self-published a novel last year, in French. It has been mostly a positive experience. The book did relatively well, was selected as one of the five finalists of the Amazon Storyteller contest (out of 1200+ contestants) and is still selling a little. Before that, it had been refused by all the publishing houses I sent it to (10 of them); and the experience was rather unpleasant. There are no agents in France (the market is too small); authors send their works to publishers, on paper (nobody accepts electronic versions), and then wait between 1 to 4 months for a response. Negative answers are just a polite "no" with never any justification, or ideas for improvements, etc. (Positive answers, I don't know.) For my next book I don't think I will even attempt trade publishing; why print so many copies, send them via post, and wait three months. I'd rather spend the time and money on getting early reviews. I understand the appeal of traditional publishing when the full power of an established house pushes a book everywhere and gets lots of press; but if you don't get the full treatment there is little point nowadays.