More Literary vs Genre--Is It Snobbery?

If you're going to criticize the abilities of large numbers of authors, please try to write clearly as you do so.

BotByte said:

The eBook author (to me) is someone who wishes either to get their story out there without the downfall of publishers and agent.

Click to expand...

What does this mean?

BotByte said:

They wish to do away with the excessive pandering of their words and just to push their story out into the world. Whether this be good, or bad, depends on what is placed into the world.

Click to expand...

What does this mean?

BotByte said:

Genre has nothing to take for either the eBook nor the Book authors. True, most people would rather read a book defined to a genre. But there are a lot of authors that label themselves to a genre, only in the spirit of their works.

Click to expand...

Huh?

BotByte said:

Authors like Mievelle who stretches the ideas and thoughts with works that completely break rules and time periods.

Click to expand...

Um, read that again. It's not a sentence.

BotByte said:

His latest work EmbassyTown works at what I would think of as scifi and cyberpunk, but has almost no hold to the genres.

Click to expand...

I have no idea what your point is.

BotByte said:

I see a lot of people that publish eBooks as writers who are either too pretentious of their writing to know that it sucks, or people who are taking on the strong drive to self-publish in this new format.

Click to expand...

First, you are ascribing identical motives to everyone who self-publishes, which is silly. There are many reasons to self publish (and many reasons not to).

Second, you make your brush even broader by including the e-book releases of commercially published authors in your harsh assessment of the self-published.

Commercially published books can be released as e-books, paper books, or both.

Self-published books can be released as e-books, paper books or both.

Conflating the two terms makes your argument incredibly confusing to me.

BotByte said:

Either way, the buisness of mass publishing (to me) is a way to proof the writing ability (in both technique and story) and to set a standard.

Click to expand...

Yes, good thing we have the "buisness" of "mass publishing" to "proof the writing ability" of those silly authors who are "too pretentious of their writing"!

This may be a derail, but I can understand why some people might think that epubs and self-pubs are sort of the same thing--the reason being that many of the early epubs were started by authors who published their own works (whether by their real name or by using a pen name). In fact, I think it would be helpful to me (in deciding whether or not I would like to submit my work to an epub) to know whether or not the owners are also authors with the company. Some of them are very clever at hiding their identities and some don't even bother to try.

/end derail

dangerousbill said:

"Lost in the conversation of the impact of eBooks is the plight of the mainstream novelist, who writes books that fit no genre category but nevertheless represent the crown jewels of the authorial world"
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/warren-adler/the-plight-of-the-mainstr_b_1105723.html

It seems to be like the whining of steam engine builders against the encroachment of the internal combustion engine, or sanitarium owners against using new drugs to fight tuberculosis instead of fresh air and rest.

Click to expand...

Do you still have a bug up your ass over literary fiction, Bill?

thothguard51 said:

I pay no attention to the man/woman behind the curtain at the Huff...

Now, with that said, both have their places and both have produced many memorable experiences for readers. But when you compare the two, genre fiction is younger than mainstream literary fiction. It would be nice to see the two get equal footing and equal publicity.

Click to expand...

Thank you. Especially for the first bit. Huffington Post may be popular, but it's about as representative of mainstream opinion as is Fox News. Taking anything HuffPo publishes as some kind of message from on high is ridiculous.

SRHowen said:

Just freaking stop it-- e-publishing is not self pubing.

Click to expand...

Best typo of this thread.

Carry on.

Libbie said:

Best typo of this thread.

Carry on.

Click to expand...

wasn't meant to be a typo, but looking at it pretty funny.

Karen Junker said:

This may be a derail, but I can understand why some people might think that epubs and self-pubs are sort of the same thing--the reason being that many of the early epubs were started by authors who published their own works (whether by their real name or by using a pen name). In fact, I think it would be helpful to me (in deciding whether or not I would like to submit my work to an epub) to know whether or not the owners are also authors with the company. Some of them are very clever at hiding their identities and some don't even bother to try.

/end derail

Click to expand...

Whether or not the mistake is understandable, it benefits every writer to know the difference. Nothing screams amateur louder than misusing common terms.

BotByte said:

The eBook author (to me) is someone who wishes either to get their story out there without the downfall of publishers and agent.
I see a lot of people that publish eBooks as writers who are either too pretentious of their writing to know that it sucks

Click to expand...

Congratulations. You win seun's award for biggest pile of crap I've read in a while.

SRHowen said:

Just freaking stop it-- e-publishing is not self pubing.

Click to expand...

Self pubing?

SRHowen said:

self pubing.

Click to expand...

Hey! You can't do that in here! This is an all-ages forum! (whistles) Security!

Ok, already, got it. *headdesk* Slinks out on belly.

Karen Junker said:

This may be a derail, but I can understand why some people might think that epubs and self-pubs are sort of the same thing--the reason being that many of the early epubs were started by authors who published their own works (whether by their real name or by using a pen name). In fact, I think it would be helpful to me (in deciding whether or not I would like to submit my work to an epub) to know whether or not the owners are also authors with the company. Some of them are very clever at hiding their identities and some don't even bother to try.

/end derail

Click to expand...

It also doesn't help when you have the certain self publishing gurus conflating the two so they don't come across as hypocrites signing book deals with Amazon.

Christyp said:

And you have officially coined the phrase of the day. "Getting butthurt!"

Click to expand...

I rather like JAR's typo: "E-publishing doe snot"

Beth

ETA: Self pubing ranks right up there, too.

BotByte said:

This article sounds like it's written by a snob for the less-snobbish.

I see eBooks, not as the future, but as a convenience.

The eBook author (to me) is someone who wishes either to get their story out there without the downfall of publishers and agent. They wish to do away with the excessive pandering of their words and just to push their story out into the world. Whether this be good, or bad, depends on what is placed into the world.

Genre has nothing to take for either the eBook nor the Book authors. True, most people would rather read a book defined to a genre. But there are a lot of authors that label themselves to a genre, only in the spirit of their works. Authors like Mievelle who stretches the ideas and thoughts with works that completely break rules and time periods. His latest work EmbassyTown works at what I would think of as scifi and cyberpunk, but has almost no hold to the genres.

I see a lot of people that publish eBooks as writers who are either too pretentious of their writing to know that it sucks, or people who are taking on the strong drive to self-publish in this new format. Either way, the buisness of mass publishing (to me) is a way to proof the writing ability (in both technique and story) and to set a standard.

Click to expand...

After pondering this...opinion for a few minutes I've come to the conclusion that you really don't have a clue what you're talking about. Not in the slightest.

mscelina's restraint is why she publishes filth and I just write it.

I wonder if BB's intent might have been misinterpreted slightly. Is he/she is writing almost perfectly in their second language? If not then it seems willfully aggressive.

Pu-leeeze people. If it's not in an archaic language it's crap.




Ye knowe ek, that in forme of speche is chaunge
Withinne a thousand yere, and wordes tho
That hadden pris, now wonder nyce and straunge
Us thinketh hem, and yit they spake hem so.
—Chaucer Troilus and Criseyde Book II ll. 22-25

PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENT:

Both self-pubing and doe snot are illegal in many states and punishable by death in certain theocracies. In combination, they have been known to cause spontaneous combustion and/or hives.

END PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENT

Toothpaste said:

It also doesn't help when you have the certain self publishing gurus conflating the two so they don't come across as hypocrites signing book deals with Amazon.

Click to expand...

Why does that make them come across as hypocrites? (When they sign with traditional publishers, I mean.) Did they spend a bunch of time saying they'd never ever traditionally publish? I confess I don't follow any self-publishing gurus, which might be kind of funny, considering I do have one self-published book.

Yes, basically. In fact one of them has a blog post entitled "Are You Dense" which is in reference to the fact that since he has proven how profitable it is to self publish why on earth would anyone choose to go with a traditional publisher anymore.

I have absolutely no qualms with people self publishing some work, publishing others with houses etc and anything you can do in between. In fact in my ideal world, the author gets to choose from all of these options as they suit the individual works. It's when the person in question speaks his self publishing views as dogma, insults everyone else who might publish traditionally as well as that industry itself, and then when he finally does make a deal with a publisher, sort of tried to sweep it under the rug that he is being paid an advance by a royalty paying publisher by pointing to all the unique qualities of Amazon.

It's one thing to say that Amazon's new publishing division is revolutionising publishing. But to not actually ever confess that "Uh, okay, so when I said I would never publish with a house again, and you shouldn't either, what I meant was until the publishing model was fixed", but rather to sort of skirt around the issue quickly and place the lion's share of your focus on how awesome ebooks are as if somehow you are still talking about self publishing when you aren't? Yeah, that's manipulative and hypocritical.

There's also a certain author who compares print-published authors with "house slaves" and accuses anyone sticking with traditional publishing houses of having "Stockholm Syndrome," and yet carves out little exceptions for himself: "Unless it makes financial sense for me." Oh, well, okay then. But obviously no one else can make a rational financial decision for themselves and conclude that print publishing is still the best option.

The problem is the idea that somehow e-books are sub par, that they circumvent the process of submissions and editing, of agents.

Again e-books and self publication are not the same thing.

My question to anyone making that assumption, or pushing that as fact, have you ever heard of an e-reader? Kindle, Nook, what have you?

So by that thought process and belief then if i buy the latest King for my Kindle he then self published that book because it is an e-book? Is the e-book then sub par compared to the print edition simply because of the form it comes in? The Dome doesn't fit in my laptop case, but my e-reader does, so then to me the e-book is better simply due to its size.

The entire literary vs genre drives me bonkers. The only thing that sends me around the bend even further is the e-book = bad book = self published book.

Some definitions,

Literary fiction =Work of great sensibility and refinement, where it can take up to 500 pages for nothing to happen. From Frank Baron . com

Literary Fiction is considered to have ‘literary merit’ as opposed to wide commercial appeal. Generally focused more on the writing style or ideology than the content. Often the prose is admired for its lyrical quality. This from a romance publisher

Genre fiction = Genre fiction, also known as popular fiction, is a term for fictional works (novels, short stories) written with the intent of fitting into a specific literary genre in order to appeal to readers and fans already familiar with that genre.

hmmmm . . . . .

These constant discussions about literary v. genre fiction are like beating a dead horse. They both have their place, fans, detractors, etc. There are snobs on both sides of the fence.

I don't even understand the argument, because "literary fiction" is just another genre anyway.

A point I got in trouble for bringing up in one of my writing classes.

I don't even know what to say. First you title the post in a way that has me rolling my eyes into the back of my head, ready to tell everyone on both sides of the lit v. genre debate that they're absolutely full of shit and no one cares about their silly little war. That they should blow each other off the face of the planet so the rest of us writers who don't have time to worry about such idiotic nonsense have room to set up our desks in the craters and get to our work in silence.

But this article, after all, seems to have nothing to do with said debate. Which is a relief because for the love of Allah I'm sick of this getting drummed up more than the appropriate use of adverbs and adjectives, or a nice little chat on headhopping. No one cares, for those of you wanting to have those debates. There's a search function in the forum.

Sorry I had to rant a little bit, you had me ready for action and then dropped the thread out from under me

As per the article, I get that non-genrized stories are difficult to bring into the lime light (NOT literary, necessarily, which if I am correct focuses more on internalized character and experimentation of language, and has its own niche, with a looser idea of plot, in general, whereas "mainstream" fiction is still as plot heavy as genre, but without a very specific niche). <---Please correct me if my view is wrong or an exaggeration.

But I don't care. I think mainstream publishers need to learn how to better market their books in the emerging e-book world. Writers only have one job they have to do well and that's tell a damn good story.

joeyc said:

I don't even understand the argument, because "literary fiction" is just another genre anyway.

A point I got in trouble for bringing up in one of my writing classes.

Click to expand...

While your teacher is subbing for the Oracle of Delphi, the rest of us are writing. You should tell him/her "It doesn't matter."

RE:e-books--I have bought several e-books by well-sold and respected mainstream authors, have downloaded a ton that have fallen into the public domain, and I find the "paper is more legitimate" view quite troubling.

Medievalist said:

Pu-leeeze people. If it's not in an archaic language it's crap.




Ye knowe ek, that in forme of speche is chaunge
Withinne a thousand yere, and wordes tho
That hadden pris, now wonder nyce and straunge
Us thinketh hem, and yit they spake hem so.
—Chaucer Troilus and Criseyde Book II ll. 22-25

Click to expand...

I believe this is tongue-in-cheek but the funny thing is I don't know anyone in real life who has the time to be a working writer and at the same time believe crap like "certain genres are bad! screw those authors!"