Isabel Allende doesn't like mystery novels, so she wrote one as a joke.

Perks said:

And now she is apologizing, saying that calling it a joke was a joke and that she has great respect for the genre, and that she takes all her writing very seriously.

Click to expand...

It doesn't look good, does it.

"Sometimes my humour doesn't come through," Allende explained.

Click to expand...

No?

Maybe she should write a humorous novel next.

No, no, no! She should write spec fic that she says isn't spec fic because even though it has all the elements of spec fic it isn't because she wrote it and --

Wait. Never mind. Been done.

In the end, the lesson we can all learn is how easy it is for the Writer to make a Big Mistake, even someone as practiced as Allende. The good thing: That there are readers in all genres passionate enough to take offense when they (rightly OR wrongly) perceive their favorite books to be dissed.

Definite thumbs-up for the display of passion.

Torgo said:

I don't think it is an inherently bad thing at all; the PR problem is just in the construction you can put on her words. And I'm mentally adding a caveat about newsworthy interviews conducted in other languages.

Click to expand...

I don't care what language it's in, she said some incredibly stupid things. There's no PR problem, there simply a woman who should have kept her mouth shut.

It sounds for all the world like she's trying to justify writing a really bad novel by saying it was a joke novel, and her real talent lies elsewhere, with literary type novels.

You just can't get any dumber than some of her statements.

Jamesaritchie said:

I know who she is, and tried reading The House of the Spirits, I think it was called. I couldn't get through it.

Click to expand...

That is what it was called, and it was her first novel. I did get through it. I've read several of hers and liked them, though I haven't read her in a while. But her comments regarding this new novel (which I haven't read) are unfortunate to say the least.

Jamesaritchie said:

I don't care what language it's in, she said some incredibly stupid things. There's no PR problem, there simply a woman who should have kept her mouth shut.

Click to expand...

My inclination is always to give a fellow author the benefit of the doubt, especially as I haven't actually heard the interview, just read the link in the OP. She might have expressed herself poorly or it might be sensational reporting. I recall a Stephen King interview reported in the Guardian very unfairly in recent months.

I'd certainly hate to be her publicist, who could legitimately wish she'd not said any of this.

Torgo said:

My inclination is always to give a fellow author the benefit of the doubt, especially as I haven't actually heard the interview, just read the link in the OP. She might have expressed herself poorly or it might be sensational reporting. I recall a Stephen King interview reported in the Guardian very unfairly in recent months.

I'd certainly hate to be her publicist, who could legitimately wish she'd not said any of this.

Click to expand...

This, plus I have to say I'm weak with admiration at the thought of writing a novel as a joke. A whole novel? I've never managed to move beyond the prank phone-call.

For me as a writer, there would be a vast mental difference between satirizing something I love and satirizing something I have no respect for and think is worthy only of mockery.

I've loved a lot of SFF satire, but it's so, so clear that the creators are doing it with a deep love of the genre. Like Galaxy Quest! Perfect example. It's abundantly clear they're making fun of the genre they love.

On the other hand, some satire is incisively critical.

Being a SFF fan, I don't think I'd be interested in reading something that was mocking my genre not lovingly, but because the author thought the genre was crap (and by extension that the fans were deluded or unintelligent or what have you). I'd be insulted. Feel like I was being laughed at, rather than with.

Phaeal said:

No, no, no! She should write spec fic that she says isn't spec fic because even though it has all the elements of spec fic it isn't because she wrote it and --

Wait. Never mind. Been done.

Click to expand...

The Handmaid's Tale, right?

Sometimes you figure out that you have an unexamined bigotry when a boneheaded statement spills out of your mouth. It's what you do after that moment that defines the real quality of your character, rather than the boneheaded words themselves. Do you instantly apologize? Do you double-down on the sentiment to mask your embarrassment? Do you shut up as if you did nothing wrong but also quietly vow to uproot that bigotry and get it out of your thinking forever?

I'm willing to accept her apology. She didn't do anything worse than reveal a (rather benign) unexamined bigotry, and if she's regretting it now, then maybe she's also making an effort to change her mindset now.

What more can you ask of a human being? We screw up.

If you're going to poke fun at a genre, you should make that clear right off. I have an idea for a comic fantasy sitting in my head, and when I get to writing it, it will be clear that I'm poking fun at the genre. But not because I hate it.

Perks said:

"Crime writing may be the supermarket-checkout stepchild to ''real'' literature, but it's still a serious craft — one that Allende, alas, hasn't mastered.

Click to expand...

Joke's on her.

The frustrating thing is when writers of literary fiction say things like this, they open the more level-headed literary readers/writers to accusations of snobbery. And lets not forget Lee Child's:

Last week I was in Britain and Ian McEwan’s Solar came out the same day, so there was this kind of “grudge match” thing going on — 61 Hours by Lee Child vs Solar by Ian McEwan, you know, the Good Guy vs the Bad Guy, the Smart Guy vs the Thug — and I was asked about it constantly in interviews, and I made the point, and I think this is a serious point actually, that the rivalry does not come from us — why would I care about Ian McEwan? — the rivalry comes from them, and it is not necessarily about the sales, it’s about something else, it’s about this: that they know in their heart that we could write their books but they cannot write our books. That’s what it’s about.

Click to expand...

And they have tried, and they sometimes say, “Oh well, you know, I don’t want to,” and I say, “Well, why wouldn’t you? You could set yourself up for life.” In the paper in Britain last week, I deliberately said — I was trying to start a fight about it — I said, “Oh, I could write a Martin Amis book. It would take me about three weeks, it would sell three thousand copies like he sells.” And that’s what it is. They know they can’t do what we do and they are jealous of that skill.

Click to expand...

http://kirstynmcdermott.com/2010/05/16/literary-vs-popular-fiction/

Both sides are loaded with ignorance, but when Allende says something as dumb as this, she gives Child's argument more credence.

If Lee Child could write like Ian McEwan (who actually sells quite a lot in litfic terms, 100k plus copies in UK hardback usually) then I would certainly like to read him.

Meanwhile, reviews of Ripper have been positive, at least the ones I've read so far: a solo review from last week's Observer here and part of a thriller review roundup in today's Guardian here. John O'Connell, who wrote the latter, reviews crime and thrillers regularly for The Guardian, so I presume he does know his genre.

Well gee, that's not condescending at all. I'm sure none of the mystery writers out there, who love their genre and dedicate themselves to writing it well could possibly take offense. Since OBVIOUSLY their work is so simplistic a truly brilliant author could crank one out without even trying and be a huge success.

Oh wait...

Man, I wish I could faff about writing a novel in a genre I don't like/read, as a joke. I'm sure that would be a really constructive use of my time and energy.

So... I'm just wondering.... is she giving this book away for free? Seing as it's just a joke on the MTS reading public?

No?

Ah. Thought not.

Never be too snobby to take someone's money, eh?

eyeblink said:

If Lee Child could write like Ian McEwan (who actually sells quite a lot in litfic terms, 100k plus copies in UK hardback usually) then I would certainly like to read him.

Click to expand...

Lee Child is really rather good. Or at least the first dozen or so were; recently they feel a little flat. I've had way more enjoyment out of Lee Child than McEwan over the years, in any case. They are both undeniably commercial writers, though, which neatly indicates that literary and commercial aren't mutually exclusive categories.

Perks said:

If it was always supposed to be a satire

Click to expand...

I didn't suggest that. You seem not quite to be differentiating between "irony" and "satire"? Which do you think Nabokov's Lolita was, when that was published?

Perks said:

But nobody mentions that it's a goof on the genre, just that it's not up to Allende's usual snuff.

Click to expand...

We've read different reviews. (No surprise there: that's doubtless because I've been reading the British ones, which have been saying things like "jeu d'ésprit", "very much better-written than it needs to be", and so on). I haven't deliberately looked at any - these are just the turns of phrase I happen to remember from the normal places I read book reviews. They may even not be representative. Interesting, what's happened here, though. And presumably bad for her.

Torgo said:

I've had way more enjoyment out of Lee Child than McEwan over the years, in any case. They are both undeniably commercial writers, though, which neatly indicates that literary and commercial aren't mutually exclusive categories.

Click to expand...

I agree with this, certainly. I admit I've always instinctively thought of McEwan as "literary". But then again he's a Man Booker Prize winner, and that inevitably brings commercial success, which perhaps makes them all "commercial" by definition, in a sense?

Perks said:

He's one I haven't read yet, but I mean to. I did get to hang out with him several times over the span of a weekend conference and he's absolutely the nicest guy. Completely lovely.

Click to expand...

As a digression: what's great about his books:

- the variety of plots and settings; the early ones are all very distinct from each other.

- there's at least one really nifty bit of plotting in each. They're fairly light on the mystery elements compared to the thriller elements, but when there's a mystery it's a good one. "The Visitor" ("Running Blind" in the US I think), for example, is a superior serial-killer story - Child slipping in to the genre effortlessly.

- the protagonist. Reacher doesn't have many flaws, really - he's the toughest, the most cunning, the best shot, a super-sleuth - but Child writes him interestingly, and in fact writes him from either third and first person depending on which novel you pick up.

Recently I feel the first two of those have been stuttering a bit; we've seen a couple of books with very similar setups and settings, and Reacher tends to do a lot of driving around, which is a sign Lee is spinning his wheels I fear. (I sort of worry that he's publishing a little too often.) The first half of the most recent one was excellent, but then it rather faltered; so I'm hopeful for a return to form with the next.

alexaherself said:

I agree with this, certainly. I admit I've always instinctively thought of McEwan as "literary". But then again he's a Man Booker Prize winner, and that inevitably brings commercial success, which perhaps makes them all "commercial" by definition, in a sense?

Click to expand...

Pretty much. Hilary Mantel is hugely commercial, for instance. They're not the same kinds of category, so they can cut across each other. (cf also genre fiction: Hilary Mantel writes literary commercial historical fiction.)