I’m sorry, but I thought the argument about who gets to define art was over. Or at least, had been deconstructed so thoroughly that attempting to mount an argument has been deemed not only pointless but laughable. And correct me if I’m wrong, but since when does anyone get to say that black text on white pages bound between two covers has any more obligation than a Saturday evening popcorn movie?
In other words, since when do all books have to be art? And who are you to say that a book is not?
Recent current events have launched myriad discussions about what a book is allowed to be. Apparently, it’s not allowed to be any of the following:
a) merely entertaining
b) chick lit (come on, you saw that one coming)
c) conceived, designed, and/or written by committee
d) a product to be sold
And so I must pose the question: Why the hell not?
Let’s take this one backwards. The “books are art, not product” thing has been bouncing around in several places, not the least of which is a discussion on Bookseller Chick’s blog which asks about the validity of movie and television tie-in novels. BSC herself doesn’t take a stand, which makes sense, since she, you know, makes a living at selling all manners of books, from Proust on down to the latest Buffy tie-in manga. My favorite response, hidden amongst all the ravings vis-a-vis “it’s a travesty that not every piece of black text on white paper between two covers isn’t a timeless classic of literature” is the following, by Robin Brande, who argues:
I see no reason for all the snobbery. Books to movies, movies to books, TV to books–let’s have them all. It’s all story-telling, and if someone wants to watch a movie based on one of my novels instead of reading it, I’m not going to complain. Or if someone is so excited by a television show they want to read a dozen books based on the series, great–they’re reading.
Word. I know a lot of authors who do tie-in novels. Sometimes they do it to pay the rent, or support other, more independent pursuits (a lot of those Buffy novelists are writing Bombshells and urban fantasy in their spare time). Sometimes they are honestly thrilled to be able to play in such a fecund sandbox (which sounds rather gross, but there you have it). How come you are to be envied if you’re invited to, say, write a spec script, but not if you write a novel tie-in for the same show? How come, if it’s printed instead of shot, you are somehow held to this high expectation that it needs to be art?
Sometimes a book is a product. Actually, no, it’s always a product. It’s bought, it’s sold, it’s returned, it’s paid for with credit cards and gift certificates, it’s sold alongside coffee and magazines and breathmints and Itty Bitty Book Lights and porn, it’s a stack of rectangular bound paper (unless it’s Clarissa, which is practically a square, it’s so frickin’ thick) with a barcode on it. Product.
Books are always products. They are produced by publishing houses in order to make the publishing houses money. They are only produced by pulishing hosues if the publishing hosue thinks it will make money.
You’re getting confused. Books are always product. Sometimes, also, they’re art.
Okay, moving on. The next thing that books are apparently not allowed to be is created by more than one person, slaving away (and hopefully tubercular whilst doing so) in a garret with a typewriter. Television shows can have whole teams of scriptwriters. Movies have directors and producers and actors and art designers and makeup artists. Even plays, those grand old dames of the artisitc world, are created by committee. They are written and directed and acted and choreographed and set designed and costumed designed and music designed and lighting and makeup and who knows what else designed and everyone has a hand in influencing the final product. But books, oh, the holy medium! They cannot be produced by more than one person, well, at the most two, but only if they have equal billing, none of this “as told to” and hell no to the “ghostwritten” or “writer for hire” bullshit. And don’t even speak to me about packaging! That’s heresy! An abomination! Don’t you realize these are boooooooks?
Please.
Next. Chick lit. Wow, do we have to do this again? I’m weary of talking about it. Nothing anyone who actually reads and knows something about the genre has to say about the matter will convince some people that books with “cute and curvy dresses on the cover” are anything but crap. The argument about judging books by their covers was clearly lost on these snobs. Most of them haven’t even read the really interesting chick lits, or indeed anything at all beyond a few post-Bridget bestsellers. And don’t get me started on booksellers who have decided that, like the Jack Black character in High Fidelity, they are the self-appointed guardians of culture, doling out their pet books to people they deem worthy and “qualified” to read it. that’s like when that Corrections bloke decided that soccer moms in flyover states who watch Oprah weren’t good enough to read his book. You people should be ashamed of yourselves, first off for dismissing a whole genre of books based on some color choices and secondly, for deciding who gets to read what, where, when, and why. I’ve read all your blogs this week, and you should be ashamed of yourselves.
And finally, “books can’t be merely entertaining.” Whoa. Who died and made you the thought police? Books can be whatever their authors want: entertaining, meaningful, entertaining and meaningful, entertaining but not meaningful, meaningful but not entertaining, neither…
I’m a genre writer, so my goal is to make my books entertaining, first, last and always. I hope also that they are meaningful to the person who reads them, but entertainment is the point. Of course, what passes for entertainment is different for everyone. Me, I’m entertained when a book: makes me laugh, a lot; makes me cry; makes me think about a time we don’t live in anymore, or have never lived in, or haven’t… yet; makes me think about another place; scares the crap out of me; worries the crap out of me; makes me wonder what I’m doing with my life; makes me think about religion; reminds me about things I’ve learned, or things I wish I’d known; teaches me things I don’t know at all; inspires me to do something; discusses the nature of love; makes me think about my relationships; makes me wonder what I’d do; talks about cool ways to have sex, or to do anything else (kill people, blow up shit, make a cheesecake, jump off a cliff, drives a sportscar, whatever); makes me question my beliefs; distracts me from a bad day; or any of another endless list of reasons that books can entertain me. Don’t kid yourself: being entertained is meaningful. It’s as meaningful as it gets.
May 1st, 2006 at 9:11 am
Diana, this is an OUTSTANDING post.
I’m often left at a loss for words in reply because you so eloquently describe what many of us are thinking.
Thank you.
May 1st, 2006 at 9:16 am
Ditto. Nice job, Diana.
May 1st, 2006 at 9:18 am
You said it, Diana.
May 1st, 2006 at 9:33 am
I was in a fine froth last night.
I think bookstores are just like any other stores. Why can’t they sell the fine, hand woven billion dollar silk pashmina, and then sometimes, tube socks. Nobody gets up in arms about people who need tube socks. Sometimes you are at the grocery store for gourmet roasted red peppers, and sometimes you’re there for oreos. Where’s the problem? Who is to say I’m wrong for loving oreos? Unless I’m kosher. But I think they even have kosher oreos now.
That reminds me. I’m hungry.
May 1st, 2006 at 9:59 am
And a fine froth it was, too.
You tell ‘em.
I hope those snobs come read this blog. Most of them are just mad because the books that are pure entertainment make WAY more money than the others. Not that there is anything wrong with the others–though in most cases, those “literary” books make you want to slice open a vein. A few hours in my life might make you want to do that, too.
May 1st, 2006 at 10:01 am
By the way, I bet if you compared the sales of Oreos to the sales of say, pate, the Oreos would win hands down.
I’m also hungry. And there are Oreos in the kitchen.
May 1st, 2006 at 10:05 am
I’ve been reading some of the books are art posts and even though I am admittably not a truly deep thinker, even I had to go “huh?” Doesn’t the fact that they are bought and sold make them product? Are publishing companies publishing books because they are merely art lovers? It’s a business. Even art is a business. Many musicians and artist thorughout history could not have created their work without the good will of a king who sustained them, bought their work and often told them what to produce.Yes, told them what to produce.
Thanks for the post.
Teri
May 1st, 2006 at 10:11 am
I absolutely agree with you.
I also tend to believe that books that entertain are a higher art than those that simply try to be arty for the sake of “art”. A book that entertains and stays with you when you close the cover is what defines great literature to me, whatever the genre.
May 1st, 2006 at 10:29 am
Whoa, I musta missed something. But as a fellow genre writer (and I’ve often heard that fantasy is the “ugly stepsister” of true literature), I don’t blame you a bit for getting so upset.
What the hell? This is America. We’re the most highly entertained nation in the world. We pay good money every day of the year for entertainment. And what qualifies as entertainment changes from person to person.
Frankly, I don’t think the classics would be considered classics today, if they didn’t entertain someone somewhere, way back when. And many books we consider to be staples of the cannon today were once the entertainment of the masses.
Miriam Kriss wrote a similar article on Romancing the Blog (not exactly the same subject, but close) here: http://www.romancingtheblog.com/blog/index.php?cat=56
Snobs are just, well, snobs. I write to entertain. What’s more, I read for entertainment.
May 1st, 2006 at 10:59 am
Diana, right now the rant in my own head is creating a knot at the back of my skull. But I think you already put it so eloquently, I’m not going to try to translate it into a coherent post. But Julie, when you said, “in most cases, those “literary” books make you want to slice open a vein,” I couldn’t help but think of my and my husband’s (okay, not so) recent attempt to elevate our film tastes. We generally subsist on a steady diet of sci-fi, action, and juvenile comedies. A friend, who is a major film buff, recommeded Pedro Aldomovar’s “Talk to Her,” as the best movie he’d seen that year. And do you know what that movie was about? COMA RAPE!! And, it was implied that the fact that the girl who was RAPED AND IMPREGNATED while COMATOSE, was somehow lucky that it happened. Okay, before everyone screams at me, I realize the movie was about other things as well, but that’s what stuck with me. And I’ve also seen and enjoyed other Aldomovar’s movies (like Tie me Up, Tie me Down, and yes, I see the hypocrisy in this, and Women on the Verge of a Nervous Breakdown). That’s what I get for trying to refine my tastes. But really, after this, we needed to go home and watch “Old School,” as a a sort of palate cleanser.
May 1st, 2006 at 11:10 am
Bravo, Diana! And right, as always.
Of course books can be entertaining – Jesus H. Christ – they should be entertaining. Otherwise, what would be the point?
I, like many other writers (and readers) I know, have a very hard, very stressful day job. I read for escape, for a laugh, to momentarily live a life other than my own.
Why in the world would the author who can take me away not be considered an artist?
May 1st, 2006 at 11:12 am
Hey, who’s dissing Chick Lit? I wanna read for myself. If they’re posting it on the net for the world to see then you can provide a link, right?
I miss all the good stuff.
Abby
May 1st, 2006 at 11:45 am
Word, Diana. I’m a big believer that stories in all forms and of all sorts enrich us as human beings. And I mean all stories- books, tv, radio, stories told to us by the random person on the bus; they all mean something. Different media and different types of stories enrich us in different ways, but they’re all about expanding who we are beyond our own experiences, and there is a value in that no matter what.
May 1st, 2006 at 12:19 pm
Jami, LOL!! After Old School, pop in Wedding Crashers. That ought to do the trick.
I wish these “books as art” people who go rent SHAKESPEARE IN LOVE just to remind them what the bard–the highest standard of literary brilliance–really was all about. The coin, girls, the coin.
May 1st, 2006 at 12:49 pm
Julie, I LOVE Wedding Crashers – mad crush on Vince Vaughn. Personally, I say Jen made out better in the end! And if you ever want another hilarious example of lowbrow, rent “Waiting,” with Ryan Reynolds, who is so adorable, and all the hotter for being engaged to Alanis Morrisette!
So you can all see that I spend way too much of my time on “entertainment.” But I totally agree with what Carlyle said, “A book that entertains and stays with you when you close the cover is what defines great literature to me.” As a writer, what’s cooler than having someone one laugh, cry, or fall in love along with your characters? That you can make readers care about people you made up (or made up new stories around them, if they already exist)? I don’t know if that’s art, and I don’t really care
May 1st, 2006 at 5:07 pm
Now the literary snobs aren’t just going after the content of books, but where you buy them. There’s been a lot of gasping, moaning and sighing about the fact that Target has started having booths at big book festivals, selling books at prices lower than the “real” booksellers offer.
How dare they! If you buy your books somewhere other than a “real” bookseller, then I guess they can’t be “real” books. And that pesky discounting means the masses might be able to afford to buy books. We can’t have that!
Seriously, between that and the “no books as entertainment” issue, you kind of have to wonder if these people really want other people to read, or if they’re trying to keep reading as some kind of elite activity so they’ll feel smarter about themselves. If reading is fun, then the rabble might do it, and then how would these people feel superior?
May 1st, 2006 at 5:17 pm
Ugh, i can’t believe that about Target, Shanna! My only complaint with Target is that they have a shelf of “chic lit”
Seriously, buy the damn things from a candy machine if you want — just BUY THEM.
I love what you said a few weeks ago, shanna, about how after reading Kinsella’s latest, you thought a lot about the role of women. Proof positive that books designed to entertain can also be meaningful.
By the way, I have Stilettos here on my desk, looking at me like a little reward for when I get my work done. Sigh.
I haven’t seen wedding crashers, but I love Old School! Ah, Netflix queue, where would i be without you?
May 1st, 2006 at 7:36 pm
Thanks for quoting me, Diana, but obviously you said it all far better than I did! Glad to know I’m not alone in thinking this. Carry on with your outstanding blog!
May 1st, 2006 at 8:31 pm
I know you can’t see me, but I’m standing and applauding.
May 2nd, 2006 at 2:59 am
Perfectly said. Well done, and am particularly fond of the part about being entertaining. My goal for my book is to entertain, to make people laugh, to give them a moment when they truly forget their world for a little while when wrapped in the craziness of mine. If I just manage the laugh part, I will be over the moon.
You know, after the hurricanes blew through here and destroyed so much, when I needed so desperately to escape, what do you think I picked up? Somber, depressing stories? Of course not. I needed to laugh and to escape, and I turned to humor and romps and entertaining books, and they kept me sane when everything else was so bleak. I think about my friend’s aunt, who’s battling cancer, and the fact that she’s doing really well and she chalks it up to the fact that she constantly reads books that make her laugh, that are fun and entertaining. It’s crazy for some snobby person to think that just because they want all serious, all the time that that’s what the rest of the world wants, too.
May 3rd, 2006 at 3:45 pm
Diana,
(a) I did a quick re-read of the discussion at Bookseller Chick. The discussion certainly seems much more balanced than you’re willing to give it credit for.
(b) Even if it was’t balanced, did you really feel a need to rant because booksellers think books are Sacred Works Of Art? I’d think that you’d be thrilled that there are educated people on this planet that work for sub-standard wages because they absolutely LOVE books and consider your work art, rather than simply product. In fact, isn’t it kind of human to think that something you love is special? Goodness…me and my silly ideas.
(c) Gee whiz, you’d think someone like yourself – with such an exceptional grasp of the book business – would instinctually understand that when books are treated as Nothing Special by publishers (and some authors), then the consumer will see them as Nothing Special…like our good friend Shanna Swendson…
(d)Shanna Swendson is welcome to buy her books wherever she’d like. I wonder if she knows how many books Target and Walmart won’t carry because some jackass in their Corporate Headquarters objects to the content. And if she does know, I wonder if she’s ready to say “How Dare They!” again. Hey Shanna, congratulations. Yea, you might be supporting a bunch of corporate buffoons…but hey, you saved three dollars…and that’s what counts.
So there. I guess I’m a just another Uninformed Book Snob. Kill me.
May 3rd, 2006 at 4:09 pm
Dear Anonymous, You’d be surprised to learn how tough it is to target a hit against a person whose identity is unknown. Ah well. Bizarre suggestions to off you aside, I am left wondering if you even read my post, since it was certainly not formulated on the basis of the BSC conversation, nor were most of my comments directed towards booksellers, nor were… um, any of the other comments you made in any way reflective of my post.
a) The BSC conversation was not the only one I was commenting on (hence the reference to “myriad discussions”), and almost all of the comments up to Robin’s were pretty one-sided.
b) It’s not booksellers that I’m talking about. It’s ANYONE who thinks that books, alone in the media galaxy, should somehow be held to some lofty, insubstantial, subjective, and pointless artistic standard. Writers, readers, whatever. the same people who think nothing of watching Desperate Housewives and General Hospital would simply keel over and die if someone sugested they read a “trashy” romance. Because it’s a… book? The same people who applaud my college classmate for getting a role on a shoot ‘em up action flick or sex-filled reality tv show are appalled that I would write comedy or romance or chick lit.
c) I don’t know why you think I think that books should be treated as “Nothing Special.” Nowhere have I ever made that claim. In fact, I think that books that are created for the purposes of entertainment, irrespective of any other purpose, “are as meaningful as it gets.” And I’ve already made my point about anyone treating anything as nothing special.
d) Wherefore the hatred of Shanna? Ms. Swendson is one of the most dedicated, hardworking, and talented writers I have had the pleasure of meeting in the industry. Here’s a hint — EVERY bookseller controls what is shelved. The local indie might choose not to shelve Ann Coulter because they thinks she’s a psycho. Or maybe not to shelve Shanna’s book because they don’t do “trash” like chick lit. I have as much a problem with that as I do with Walmart. But hey, free enterprise has it’s ups and downs. I don’t see why a corporate bookseller has any less right to sell books than a non-corporate one does.
May 3rd, 2006 at 4:40 pm
Diana, as your post linked only to the Bookseller Chick blog, it certainly seemed that you were targeting those folks.
Also, I’m sure you do believe that books are Something Special. Folks you’ve referred to as Book Snobs – whether booksellers, critics, readers, writers, etc. – also believe that books are Something Special (and I absolutely acknowledge that there are “Book Snobs” out there that make me look like a piker). But why go off on them – they’re harmless.
Case in point (always wanted to type that): I’ve NEVER met a Bookselling Book Snob that wanted to limit access to ANY book. Yea, there are some booksellers whose shelves reflect their political leanings, and even their individual tastes. But they are neither true Snobs, nor successful booksellers. Bookstores that survive have shelves that reflect their Customers’ sensibilities — not their own. As such, I’d argue that Customers control the shelves…not booksellers.
As far as Shanna goes, my challenge remains. Is she willing to damn Target and Walmart for limiting access to books that their communities actually want (remember the Jon Stewart book? the George Carlin book? these were national bestsellers that Walmart refused to carry becuase of their content).
May 3rd, 2006 at 4:54 pm
No, Anonymous, they *aren’t* harmless. People who say, “Why even bother pursuing plagiarism cases against romance novelists (or, recently, chick lit novelists) since all the books sound the same anyway?” in NATIONAL NEWSPAPERS are not harmless. People who refuse to accept as a class project in a fiction course a work of children’s fantasy because “we don’t do genre here” are not harmless. People who walk up to your table at booksignings and scare off customers by loudly proclaiming that you write “porn” and “trash” and that your books aren’t real are not harmless. People who think nothing of inserting terms like “bodice ripper” into any article about romance, even if it’s about CHRISTIAN CHICK LIT THAT TAKES PLACE IN SILICON VALLEY, people that casually make “Harlequin romance” a synonym for bad writing, treating this ignroace and prejudice as an understood and accepted idiom are not harmless. And mainstream booksellers that refuse to sell what they call “trash” — whether it’s liberal politics, romance, chick lit, conservative politics, erotica, what have you, are not harmless.
Let’s just say I’ll stop attacking them when they stop attacking me. there are PLENTY of forms of fiction that I don’t care for, but I don’t think they are worthless.
May 4th, 2006 at 7:02 am
And that, dear girl, is where you and I part. Being the Bookselling Book Snob that I am, I view books as works of Art, and I expect good Art to create emotion — positive and negative. You view them as entertaining products that should generate a positive diversion or indifference.
I happen to love genre writers. The really great ones create stories and characters that thrill their fans and disturb their critics. In fact, if I were you, I’d smile and say “Thank you” when somebody attacked my work. You probably don’t need to start worrying until the critics are all gone.
Yes, yes, yes, books are products. Obviously. But so is anything else that can be bought and sold. Do you really believe that books should be treated like any other product? In fact, I’m dying to read your thoughts on just what it is that makes books Special.
May 4th, 2006 at 7:39 am
Anonymous, did you even READ my post? because I’m getting kind of tired of repeating, verbatim, what I already said.
A few quotes to jog your memory:
“Books are always product. Sometimes, also, they’re art.”
“Books can be whatever their authors want: entertaining, meaningful, entertaining and meaningful, entertaining but not meaningful, meaningful but not entertaining, neither…”
I believe books should be able to be art if they want to, and entertainment if they want to. I believe that books should be treated like any other medium of creativity. Sometimes, it’s a gritty art film. Sometimes, it’s a summer popcorn flick. Sometimes it’s Guernica. Sometimes, it’s After the Prom. Paintings can be whatever, Movies can be whatever. Why is it books that are derided so? *That* is what I’m saying, and I can’t figure out why you refuse to believe that’s what I’m saying.
I never said that books HAD to be only for entertainment. But I also never said that they COULDN’T be. *That* is, apparently, where you and I part. I say apparently, because you say that genre fiction is fine. So where’s the disagreement here?
there’s only so much debate I can have with an anonymous eristic who won’t even recognize the basis of my argument.
I’m not the one saying any kind of novels are bad and shouldn’t be read, published, sold, whatever. usually, hte people who say that are the ones who haven’t read them, though. HTat mush I *do* know.
May 4th, 2006 at 7:54 am
Anonymous, if you want to have an open dialogue, identify yourself. Honestly.
And re-read Diana’s post! For Pete’s Sake, you’re not getting it. As an author of over twenty novels, I certainly get it–but then, I’ve had my books attacked on a regular basis simply because of what they are and not at all because of the content–because, of course, these critics would never DARE crack open the covers of such “trash.”
You’re a bookseller. Bully for you. You like genre fiction. Fabulous. But don’t imply that all successful booksellers do–I know different. I’ve been to one too many stock signing where the booksellers refuse to give me the time of day to believe otherwise. One even accused me of bringing my books in from my car! I had to gently inform her that my SIMON & SCHUSTER release had been pulled from its prominent spot on the new release table.
Hell, this crap happens to NY Times authors like Tess Geritsen! It’s genre, therefore it’s crap and unworthy.
I can’t believe as a bookseller that you don’t see that attitude all the time.
May 4th, 2006 at 1:33 pm
Jeeze, Diana, why are you still bothering with this. Anon may read a lot, but based on her comments here, her reading comprehension leaves a lot to be desired.
Jana, writer of “entertaining product” and damned proud of it