« Elsewhere | Main | Internalization of Crisis »

Sordidly Filthy

Michael Orthofer at The Literary Saloon:

"As far as the issue of how tainted the Aurum money is ... well, dear god, do you really think any of the money that gets laundered through such prizes or any other fellowships or awards or anything of the sort -- whether private/corporate cash or government-channeled disbursements -- isn't so through and through sordidly filthy that if you knew the half of it you wouldn't be able to bear living with yourself ?

Short answer: No, I don't think that.

Therefore, it is beyond me why any self-respecting writer would perpetuate this scummy practice and accept any of these prizes.

More importantly, it is further beyond me why any self-respecting writer would think that a "prize" or an "award" is actually an appropriate measure of literary merit, or has anything whatsoever to do with serious writing and reading. It's a way for capitalism to reinforce itself as the ultimate arbiter of value--cash value--even among those who might be expected to believe that in literature more important values are at stake.

Posted by |

| | | | |

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Authors have to make a living as well. Therefore nothing wrong with getting money for what they're doing. What i find digusting is the big boostores, merging with publishing houses and printing only what grants them the safe profit.

Posted by: no-sugar.me | 12/08/2011 at 09:20 AM

"nothing wrong with getting money for what they're doing"

Always the excuse for continuing to prop up the system.

Posted by: Dan Green | 12/08/2011 at 09:29 AM

Yes, win a prize and you're corrupt or a dupe. Accept a fellowship and you're corrupt or a dupe. In fact, the position can be extended as far as you like: publish with a trade house? You're corrupt or a dupe. Publish with a small press funded by private and government grants? Well, uh, obviously you're corrupt. Or a dupe. Sounds a lot like King Wenclas.

Posted by: Chris | 12/15/2011 at 08:41 AM

No, King Wenclas would be fine with winning prizes and awards; he just thinks he and his favored writers don't win them because the wrong people are deciding. Prizes and awards are to me inherently stupid.

Posted by: Dan Green | 12/15/2011 at 08:51 AM

Could be that they're stupid, though I don't think they're inherently so. I was responding to your response to commenter #1, "Always the excuse for continuing to prop up the system," which seems overly simplistic. The National Endowment for the Arts is not the Lannan Foundation is not the National Book Foundation is not PEN. It seems to me that at the very least each of these entities represents a "system" that has concerns at least partially exclusive of those of the other entities, and that if we are talking about supporting "systems" then it is equally "scummy" to pursue and accept a PhD or to do anything other than to self-publish.

And it seems as if, in positing "capitalism" as the abstraction behind the equally abstract (in this formulation) concept of "prizes or any other fellowships or awards or anything of the sort," what you're saying is essentially that "the wrong people" are deciding.

Posted by: Chris | 12/16/2011 at 02:12 PM

I would object to using prizes or awards as a measure of literary merit in any system. That in the current system we're only contributing to the triumph of cash value as the supreme value makes them all the more objectionable.

Posted by: Dan Green | 12/16/2011 at 02:35 PM

I don't think they're the "measure of literary merit" in our "system," if by system you're referring to commercial publishing and the media generally. I think cash is the measure of literary measure in that system. If literary awards had any but the most token significance within that system, they would translate into sales, which they don't, at least not in the USA.

But you used Michael Orthofer's statement as a jumping off point without amplifying on it in any way -- he speaks of the sordid filth that is at the source of the money, not the sordid filth of a literary establishment that (allegedly) uses its awards either to confer added value upon its products or rewards those whose products have already made a profit. I don't see a clear connection between the two, and in order to make it I would have to be convinced that (say) a Guggenheim Fellowship and a National Book Critics Circle award are distinctions (false or not) of the same kind.

Posted by: Chris | 12/16/2011 at 05:33 PM

If the amount of space devoted on literary blogs to keeping up with the latest prizes and awards, or the number of prizes offered by various literary magazines, are bellwethers, prizes and awards are definitely taken as a measure of literary merit.

I also speak of the sordid filth of the source. I think the "literary establishment" should stay as far away from that sordid filth as possible.

Posted by: Dan Green | 12/16/2011 at 08:48 PM

Well, I guess I don't know what a "literary blog" is, exactly. A blog that discusses literature, a blog that keeps up with the publishing industry, or a blog intended as a sort of Baedeker for "emerging" writers? I don't know of any blogs that I read seriously for their treatment of books that discuss prizes other than incidentally. I don't see, either, how the intensity of what is discussed among a self-selecting group of people constitutes a "bellwether" that can be extended beyond the confines of that group.

I don't know if you mean "sordid filth" as in blood money from foundations that aren't divested of immoral investments, blood money from government agencies that perpetuate war and aggression, corrupt awards from associations that are essentially extensions of the publishing industry, or simply small-scale fraud, like Glimmer Train's bilking thousands of entrants out of submission fees. I'm still not sure whether, in your view, a Guggenheim fellowship is the same sort of thing as a Pulitzer, or whether you think that Small Press X or Literary Magazine Y should forgo private or federal funding because of its sordidly filthy nature.

Posted by: Chris | 12/19/2011 at 11:58 AM

No,I don't consider a Guggenheim fellowship to be the same thing as a Pulitzer. I don't really know what "private or federal funding" of literary magazines has to do with prizes. Presumably if more literary magazines had such funding, they wouldn't be offering so many prizes (which are usually funded by entry fees).

Posted by: Dan Green | 12/19/2011 at 12:35 PM

Regarding both, I was just referring back to Orthofer's question ("do you really think any of the money that gets laundered through such prizes or any other fellowships or awards or anything of the sort -- whether private/corporate cash or government-channeled disbursements -- isn't so through and through sordidly filthy..?"), with which you seemed (granted, as a "short answer") to agree. Orthofer appears to think that people and (presumably) cultural entities like small presses and magazines accept private, corporate, or government cash of any kind at the risk of being unable to bear living with themselves.

I can understand the dramatic temptation to divide people into collaborators and resisters, although (again) the impulse seems intellectually suspect, and in this case appears to be attempting to tar the achievements of people who are awarded such things, whatever their artistic worthiness, as morally dubious. As blanket condemnations go, that's a doozy.

Posted by: Chris | 12/20/2011 at 11:15 AM

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

Posted by:  | 

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

Read Later

Literary Views

  • Sam Allingham on Thomas Bernhard:
    "What seems always to be neglected, amongst this sea of praise for the author’s supposed hatred for all the things of this world, is what one might call the softer side of Bernhard: the side which incurable misanthropes, thinking they have found a brother with which to hurl rage and bile at the horrors of this world, might easily miss. There is beauty in Thomas Bernhard, if you are willing to look for it, and sadness. Not despair, mind you, or aesthetic perfection; not intellectualization thereof, but the genuine article. There is even love, of a difficult kind, in the sense of love for a place in which you can no longer live, love for a homeland that has harmed you, and which you love deeply without ever quite forgiving. . . ."
  • George Murray:
    "New book blogs emerged in the years between the rise and fall of Bookninja. Many of them are local, genre or concept specific, offering a specificity we couldn’t match. The big newspapers and magazines started blogs of their own, a few of which were actually good. Most of these seem to rely on longer-form writing, whereas Bookninja relied on links and jokes. Still, people seemed to be reading these more and more. Book blogs no longer have to beg publishers for attention; publicists now actively court blogs — the multi-city book tour has been replaced by the multi-site “blog tour.” Bookninja was still well-read, but it wasn’t really 'needed' like it once was. The void it had filled was no longer a void. . . ."
  • Miriam Burstein:
    ". . .the novel's drive towards fragmentation is, by this point in the postmodern historical novel's development, too predictable. Legend falls apart under close consideration; news at 11? Trawls through the archives reveal only more linguistic constructs? Subjectivity may intrude on the historian's point of view? Haven't we been told this already--and often?. . . ."
  • Algis Valiunas:
    ". . .Neither response does justice to the cursed poets of nineteenth-century France, men whose verse did so much to shape modern literature. Truth be told, one finds it difficult to sort out the injuries that others inflicted upon them, and those they caused to themselves. Verlaine’s inborn predisposition to alcoholism and the monstrous things he did while drunk; Rimbaud’s abandonment by his father when he was six and his blasphemous rages against the Father who indifferently permits his children’s suffering: It would take a bourgeois moralizer of the old school to condemn these men unequivocally for what they made of their lives, considering what they were given. . . ."
  • Robert Archambeau:
    "But if ["The Lake Isle of Innisfree"] contains a kind of nationalism, and an implicit statement that the poet's place and duty lie back among his own people, it's a funny kind of nationalism. The plan for life at Innisfree, after all, is a plan of isolation — or more than that: of an almost Robinson Crusoe-like self-sufficiency, with the poet building his own dwelling and raising his own food in autonomous isolation. Is this nationalism or individualism? Political commitment or individual withdrawal?. . . "
  • Harris Feinsod (Arcade):
    "You hardly need to be a digital humanities proselyte to suggest that in the age of Google Books, the modern anthology should be re-conceptualized for the screen. It could be made contractable or expandable at readerly or pedagogical imperative. It need not any longer be organized by movement, nor by the "neutral" chronology of the poet's birth. . .It need not come in under 656 pages. And if any poet garners a few more virtual "pages" than another, this should have no business constituting poetry criticism. . . ."
  • Special feature in Jacket2 on the work of Rachel Blau DuPlessis:
    "In the labyrinthine spirit of [DuPlessis's] *Drafts*, the essays gathered here provide interweaving, overlapping points of entry into the poems. Vectors, swarming. There is no school of RBD as such, either poetical or scholarly, yet many of us have studied there all the same. . . ."
  • Chad Post:
    "The reason I bring this up is because it’s worth wondering if the Big Six are in this publishing game for the benefit of book culture as a whole, or to make as much money as possible for their shareholders. The correct answer is the latter, and that’s reflected in nearly every decision they make. As a result, people like Richard Russo and Stephen King publish their books with Random House and Simon & Schuster so that they can reap the benefits of these corporate practices. Namely, Russo and King get way more cash and reach way more readers by being part of this system. They’re also not motivated by 'doing the right thing for book culture' but by trying to maximize their impact, relevance, and earnings. . . ."
  • From an interview with Georgi Gospodinov (link via The Literary Saloon):
    "Fortunately, Natural Novel was published in almost all European languages and I met a lot of people in cities around Europe. Yes, we must admit that they read more than us. But the attitude of media towards literature there is completely different. The biggest and most widespread newspapers there are not tabloids. This is a paradox, I know. Such newspapers have more than 100 pages and are published on weekends, and they have around 30 pages set aside for culture with very vast and serious articles. In these countries the media dictate the values of the people. If you tell me one Bulgarian daily, which publishes serious analyses of literature, ballet, cinema, opera, or has a message from a writer, musician, or another artist on its front page, I would be very happy, but unfortunately there is no such one. . . ."
  • Rohan Maitzen:
    "Curiosity-driven research can hardly, in consistency, be made compulsory. But I don’t think that means they have no value (why should my interests and preferences be the arbiter?), and I wouldn’t want to propose (as [Mark]Bauerlein certainly implies) that 'saturation' means 'completion'–what would it mean to be finished studying something? how could we ever be sure we have found out everything there is to know? 'We can no longer pretend … that studies of Emily Dickinson are as needed today,' Bauerlein proclaims, but how can he know this? There’s some irony in his relying on simple quantity of research to decide there’s nothing of interest or value left to be said. . . ."

Literary News

  • New York Times:
    "Ms. O’Brien and Ms. Newberg had cannily circumvented what many authors see as a modern publishing scourge — Nielsen BookScan, the subscription service that tracks book sales and is at the fingertips of every agent, editor and publisher — with a centuries-old trick, the nom de plume."
  • R.I.P Barney Rosset
  • Putin's canon.
  • Salon:"
    "So far, the world has been denied access to Salinger’s legendary hoard of unpublished works and his estate (which legally consists of his widow and son) has refused to acknowledge even the existence of the mysterious manuscripts, much less offer any hope that they will be made available to an anxious reading public. In all likelihood, that decision relies upon Salinger’s last will and testament, the contents of which are rumored to contain a clause requesting that the author’s family wait a number of years before publishing anything new, if only to forestall Salinger’s own fans from dancing on his grave. . . ."
  • Scholars liberated from the James Joyce estate.

Notable Reviews

  • Pamela Erens on Dan Chaon's Stay Awake:
    "Dan Chaon is a writer for those of us who thought we’d left genre behind. Sure, contemporary writers such as Michael Chabon, Jonathan Lethem, and Colson Whitehead import genre conventions into their literary fiction, but my guess is that their most avid readers tend to be those who never lost their taste for the detective story, the thriller, or the futuristic drama, stories in which character generally takes a back seat to magic and adventure. You may read Chabon or Lethem for their powers of invention and their remarkable sentences, but you don’t read them for richly nuanced characterization. . . ."
  • Sam Sacks on Pascal Mercier's Perlmann's Silence
    "To a philosopher, a novel is a vessel for ideas, and the shape of the vessel matters little so long as all the ideas get in. But to a novelist, a novel is the philosophy; its style and form embody the author's search for truth, and its readers join the search, bringing along their own insights and interpretations. In Mr. Mercier's fiction, readers are supposed to be attentive listeners—and just as in a Perlmann seminar, some of them may have a hard time staying interested. . . ."
  • Bill Marx on Jonathan Lethem's The Ecstasy of Influence:
    "For all of his claims to being a subversive termite, Lethem the puffy white elephant appears more often, trudging down a much safer, much happier road: leave the negativity to the snotty aristocrats — democracy is about the acceptance of all, discrimination distorts the disorder. For Lethem, there is no real need to argue for standards or criticize the mediocre: let a thousand canons Bloom he puns at one point. Sorting things out are bad for business. . . ."
  • A.S. Byatt on Umberto Eco's The Prague Cemetery:
    "There is no powerful narrative engine – the reader gets lost among unhappenings and untruths. The atmosphere is fusty and coagulated. Unreal blood is spilt by the undead. This is a scorpion of a novel. It waves its pincers with menace and is about things that could really hurt. But I am always surprised by dead scorpions, which are papery shells with no blood or soft tissue. This novel is a bit like that."
  • Donna Stonecipher on Joshua Harmon’s Le Spleen de Poughkeepsie (Rain Taxi):
    "[William] Morris answered critics who called beauty morally suspect and mere decoration by making a case for beauty as in fact deeply moral, a means by which workers and craftspeople since the dawn of time have brought pleasure to their labor. While the speaker of Le Spleen de Poughkeepsie catalogues the ugliness in Poughkeepsie with a righteousness that has something of this moral fire about it, the book is rendered more problematic—and more interesting—by moments in which he acknowledges that aesthetics might, finally, reveal itself to possess no moral component at all, and that beauty can be as adaptable (and as opportunistic) as the starlings that nest in a neon O at the strip mall. . . ."
  • Daisy Fried on SOMETHING URGENT I HAVE TO SAY TO YOU: The Life and Works of William Carlos Williams by Herbert Leibowitz:
    "Leibowitz knows his way around sonics and syntax. But he frequently treats poems merely as windows through which a poet’s life can be viewed. In a chapter called 'Poetry as Biographical Evidence,' Leibowitz writes, 'The biographer can’t overlook the examples, sometimes blatant and sometimes disguised, of poets projecting their unconscious feelings on personae.' Elsewhere, he says Williams 'routinely played slyboots with the reader or squirreled away embarrassing items about his conduct in obscure hiding places.' Leibowitz seems to think that poets deploy their poems primarily as evidence for biography. . . ."
  • Christian House on Millhauser's We Others:
    "Millhauser's fiction is a genre all of its own: part Stephen King, part Roald Dahl, part Gabriel Garcia Marquez. Like fantasies, dreams and nightmares, these tales are touchstones to the bizarre, unknowable nature of human existence and our capacity for imagination. Through narratives of disruption, they place a mirror to the face of civility, chipping away at the veneer of everyday constructs and respectable behaviour. Millhauser, in the terminology of the barnstorming conjuror, has pulled off a great reveal: that in our desire for escapism we highlight how tethered we are to human insecurity."
  • Sam Sacks on The Angel Esmerelda:
    "That sensation of floating, of being isolated from the welter of modern life in a condition of psychological standby, appears in every story in 'The Angel Esmeralda,' though the sensation is elsewhere described differently. One narrator calls it "dreaming space," another 'a floating fever dream'; another character is said to live 'inside a pause.' To DeLillo, these are prayer-like states (the man in 'Creation' calls it 'remote-controlled rapture'), and the stories here are a reminder that his literary innovation was not just to describe contemporary estrangement but, by likening technology to religion, to give that estrangement an oddly spiritual origin. . . ."
  • Scott Esposito on Sergio Chejfec's My Two Worlds:
    "Chejfec's publisher, Open Letter Books, has perhaps unwisely permitted this to be the first of Chejfec's twelve works to appear in English. I say unwisely because this book, Chejfec's latest in Spanish, is clearly a sort of summation and distillation of the decades of hard thought since (and undoubtedly before) he published his first book in 1990. Its daunting intelligence and clipped language create a situation of near-hermeticism that begs for some point of entrance. Whereas Spanish-language readers of Chejfec might turn to one of his earlier, surely less-perfected works, we who lack access to Chejfec's Spanish works (or cannot read them) must turn to writers to whom we do have access, such as Sebald. . . ."
  • Courtney Fiske on Ha Jin's Nanjing Requiem:
    "Sparse and unadorned, [Jin's] prose refuses to call attention to itself. Jin’s angles are rarely oblique, and his economy of words feels almost utilitarian: his is a concern with precision, honesty, and direct description. This predilection for confronting the facts head-on, no matter how macabre, inflects Jin’s writing with a bluntness that borders on brutality. Neither Jin nor his characters are prone to romanticize, and their worlds afford scant space for sentiment. . . ."

Search

Categories

THE READING EXPERIENCE: THE BOOK

  • Click here for information about the book-length adaptation of the original TRE.

Fiction by Daniel Green

Subscribe to this blog's feed