![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Novel as writer
May. 16th, 2006 09:04 pmLaura Kinsale posted a piece on the novel as writer from the writer's perspective over at Smart Bitches. Her essay is beautifully written, intelligent, and a wonderful peek into the writer's perspective. I absolutely agree that writing is an art, and that books are like children in that they don't necessarily do what their authors desire.**
But I disagree with her assertion that books automatically merit respect from readers. Readers should respect the effort that went into the crafting of the book, but that does not necessarily translate into respect for the sum total of the book itself. Once a book has been published, it becomes a commodity, a product. A reader doesn't have the right to criticize the author personally, but as a consumer, a reader has a right to praise or criticize the book/product.
I'm not saying that criticism is painless or that authors should suck it up and pretend it doesn't hurt. But published authors chose to sell their books. If they wrote for themselves alone, their mss would stay on a disk or in a desk drawer. The choice to sell opened the authors up to a world not only of praise but of criticism.
**Side bar: LK's comparison of books to children reminded me of an old quote I read from an old, old Green Bay Packer fan who had stuck with them through good and bad and awful years: "The Packers are like your children. You don't love them because they're good, you love them because they are yours." Which reminds me -- mother-love can be quite obtuse. If book=child, then are authors not capable of the same blind devotion and refusal to hear criticism as many parents? Must readers respect that? I don't believe so.
ETA: Ms. Kinsale has clarified her post in the comments at SBTB, and very eloquently, too. She wasn't trying to comment on reviews but on the relationship of the author to the novel. She was also disagreeing with the idea of a novel as simply a commodity for sale.
While I think the best books are not those written to reader demand (for example, although NR's Chesapeake Blue was good, it was the weakest of that series, because it felt tacked on after the story was over), the mass marketing and production of books blurs the idea of the novel as art only. Unlike a painting or sculpture that will be purchased by a single admirer at a time, the (modern) novel is designed for mass consumption. Check out the wikipedia entry on the history of the novel, which indicates that the novel as "literature" or "art" is a relatively new phenomenon; originally novels were "market goods" only. Hmm, I may have to learn more about the history of the novel.
I'm going to shut up now and stay out of whatever the next tempest in a teapot blows up in blogland. It's too hard for me to divine writer's intent without accompanying body language and context.
But I disagree with her assertion that books automatically merit respect from readers. Readers should respect the effort that went into the crafting of the book, but that does not necessarily translate into respect for the sum total of the book itself. Once a book has been published, it becomes a commodity, a product. A reader doesn't have the right to criticize the author personally, but as a consumer, a reader has a right to praise or criticize the book/product.
I'm not saying that criticism is painless or that authors should suck it up and pretend it doesn't hurt. But published authors chose to sell their books. If they wrote for themselves alone, their mss would stay on a disk or in a desk drawer. The choice to sell opened the authors up to a world not only of praise but of criticism.
**Side bar: LK's comparison of books to children reminded me of an old quote I read from an old, old Green Bay Packer fan who had stuck with them through good and bad and awful years: "The Packers are like your children. You don't love them because they're good, you love them because they are yours." Which reminds me -- mother-love can be quite obtuse. If book=child, then are authors not capable of the same blind devotion and refusal to hear criticism as many parents? Must readers respect that? I don't believe so.
ETA: Ms. Kinsale has clarified her post in the comments at SBTB, and very eloquently, too. She wasn't trying to comment on reviews but on the relationship of the author to the novel. She was also disagreeing with the idea of a novel as simply a commodity for sale.
While I think the best books are not those written to reader demand (for example, although NR's Chesapeake Blue was good, it was the weakest of that series, because it felt tacked on after the story was over), the mass marketing and production of books blurs the idea of the novel as art only. Unlike a painting or sculpture that will be purchased by a single admirer at a time, the (modern) novel is designed for mass consumption. Check out the wikipedia entry on the history of the novel, which indicates that the novel as "literature" or "art" is a relatively new phenomenon; originally novels were "market goods" only. Hmm, I may have to learn more about the history of the novel.
I'm going to shut up now and stay out of whatever the next tempest in a teapot blows up in blogland. It's too hard for me to divine writer's intent without accompanying body language and context.
