Mine has always been a contentious household. My wife, my three children, and I believe we are from five different planets, so different are our outlooks and tastes. There are only two things we have in common: (1) books, and (2) music. Surprisingly, most of us like the same books and the same musicians. This has afforded a nice number of family-bonding over the decades, with books being passed back and forth between the generations. For instance, it was my youngest who "turned me onto" (to use that generational phrase) steampunk, which I wrote about here a few weeks back.
I also quite like the fact that my wife and I are able to keep up with modern music. The kids make us playlists, and we do the same, or we trade CD's back and forth. Because our kids grew up in a household that pledges allegiance to Intellectual Property, they know that borrowed CD's are solely for temporary use. If they like it, they buy one of their own or download it (and pay for it) from iTunes.
The death of Amy Winehouse several weeks ago was something we all felt keenly. One of my girls cried her eyes out over it, and all of us had a general sense of tragedy, of a great talent gone to waste. My oldest discovered Amy's debut album, Frank, and the rest of us rapidly became fans. When she really took off in the States, we were able to boast that we'd seen her in concert in Europe long before she was refusing to go to Rehab in song.
Thinking about Amy has made me consider how much musicians and writers have in common. There's that long, intense uphill climb to get recognition, and then the fear of not "making it" once you're out there. When you do make it, there's always the insecurity of thinking "Will the public buy my next book/CD? Do I keep doing what I've always done, or do I strike out in new ways? What happens if my contract isn't extended? How much money should I really be making?" And, of course, writers and musicians suffer massively from a public that believes all its entertainment should be free and therefore has no qualms about illegally stealing music or books via "share" sites. (Nice euphemism, by the way. These should be called "Theft" sites.) So how does the artist devote his/her time to writing/singing, to making the books and music that people love, while also taking care of little things like the rent and medical insurance?
The Amy Winehouse situation also made me think about my taste in manuscripts. I'd seen Amy interviewed on a number of occasions, and I found her honesty refreshing and slightly overpowering. For example, in one interview she was asked why her songs often talk about the violent aspects of love. Amy replied something along the lines of, "Listen, I don't think a lot of people experience love as all sweetness and light. There's often a lot of anger and frustration, and the desire to beat your lover. I've had certain boyfriends and we've beaten the crap out of each other. But that didn't mean we didn't love each other." Hmm, now one could argue that such an outlook was one of Amy's underlying issues, but ... I do think she has a point. Love may be a many-splendored thing, but it's rarely the treacly syrup that one finds in Top 40 music and romance novels.
Ultimately, what I liked about Amy was the fact that she wasn't afraid to be dirty and honest. And you know what? I like the exact same qualities in manuscripts. Many of the manuscripts that come across my desk seem sanitized, carefully scrubbed and shined for presentation. Certainly I am not arguing that manuscripts should come to me in 6-point type, single-spaced, in 14 different fonts. But the writing sometimes seems to have been overseen by an Ethics committee that censors the Messier Emotions and tames the writer's Inner Wildness. I LIKE a book that's powerfully itself, with characters that are conflicted and sometimes inconsistent. For me, this was one of the great appeals of Sophie Littlefield's A BAD DAY FOR SORRY, whose protagonist, Stella Hardy, was abused one too many times by her husband, and who finally ups and kills him. The fact that Littlefield handles that with a light touch, with just enough seriousness, made for a very enjoyable read.
Sometimes I pick up the mass-market paperbacks on display at the drugstore and read a couple of pages from each. I think, "These all sound the same." And I guess that's why they are mass-market books with little character or little that is truly memorable. I like something that's going to stay with me, something that takes some chances. When I look at Amazon reviews of books I've published, I find that they are often wildly divisive, with those who loved the book giving it 5-stars and those who hated it giving it 1 star. Needless to say, the 1-star people just didn't get it. I suppose they are the same type of people who post comments along the lines of "Amy Winehouse was a drug addict who wrecked her own life and deserved to die."
A thought-provoking post. I think you just presented the argument of commercial success vs. literary greatness in a different light.
Don't mass market 'best-seller-type books need to be 'sanitized' so they appeal to the greatest number of potential readers? Or, conversely, offend the least number of potential readers?
I'd love to write a book filled with raw emotion, my deepest, darkest thoughts, break all the writing rules, and have it be a novel that no one who read it would ever forget. But my gut feeling is that unless I'm already a 'commercially viable author', the only readers of that book will be my friends and family.
Thanks for reminding us writers that there are never any easy answers out there.
Posted by: Chris | August 18, 2011 at 10:34 AM
"Take a chance" is something you book editors do only on the weekend -- in Atlantic City. :)
Posted by: Jersey Jack | August 19, 2011 at 09:20 AM