I love all these questions. As a middle school English teacher in the US, the question that stands out to me is the one about children’s literature.
I find it fascinating because I’m sure if you looked at numbers they would say it is exploding. I’m specifically talking about middle grades literature. Every time I turn around there are 20 new books coming out. Are they quality books?? I’m not sure how to answer that. My gut says no (I’m not attacking the quality of writing).
These books don’t have depth—they are certainly not Narnia-type books. I’ve found that the main genre that even attempts to tackle the BIG questions are dystopian books, and frankly most kids won’t pick those up.
I do think kids (11-16) are prime for thought provoking books. They want to wrestle with the tough questions, but they lack the reading stamina to take this task on. They live in a tech infested world.
I think the question might be how do pull them into the quiet, mind bending world that on literature can offer. What do those stories look like? Should short stories be the gateway to longer novels?
I'm not sure I have any answers to the general questions you ask, but I can at least use this to recommend my own favourite recent(ish) middle-grade book, which I discovered because my daughter's 6th grade English teacher set it for the class: Laurel Snyder's Orphan Island (https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/25753092-orphan-island). I found it absolutely haunting, and my daughter (who is not a huge reader, I'm afraid) found it compelling as well. I don't know how widely it is read, but it seems to me to have all the qualities of great classic literature, and to be thought-provoking without being dystopian.
Admittedly all too many of the OTHER books my daughter was set in middle grade conformed more closely to your experience, unfortunately.
(1) What is most beautiful and what is ugliest? Most sublime and most taken for granted? Where are the full ranges of moral and aesthetic qualities in the world?
(2) What prevalent social and personal issues are most frustrating and rewarding to bring to public reflection, and why?
(3) Do I really know the people I'm writing for? (Standing for many other specific questions about readers, including about themselves as readers of their own work.)
Who is your character in the beginning? Who is your character in the end? What’s the difference?
Most stories today, lack character development (either tragic or comic). You’re expected just to spend (ie waste) time with a character, without expecting any transformation from them. In a way, it’s cheap Gnosticism: you don’t need to change—the rest of the world just needs to get to know who you’ve always been.
I'm not sure I totally understand the question or your answers. Some of the things you say (like "how to get out of the auto-fiction cul-de-sac"?) have blatantly obvious answers ("stop writing auto-fiction" - but in any case there are no end of writers who are NOT writing auto-fiction, even if we feel that too many are!). Others are interesting enough questions (e.g. "should arts funding depend more on patrons and less on committees?"), but it isn't clear why "writers" should be asking those questions, or how it would influence their writing if they did - they seem to be more about the general structure of the role of literature and the arts in society, and that is something that writers and non-writers alike have to deal with as they find it.
So I suppose that the reason I find the TLS answers so unsatisfactory is that the entire premise seems to be ill-founded. Why is "asking questions" something that writers are deemed to do in a distinctive way, or why should being a "writer" produce distinctive answers to those questions? It is hardly surprising to me that, faced with that, so many people answering the question slipped into vague political banalities - it is not the poverty of their imaginations, but that the entire exercise seems so puzzling.
Henry, Thanks for this, even if you're now distracting me from my writing work this morning. ;)
You're question is something I'm turning over in my mind constantly. Before I go any further, however, can you please tell me what TLS stands for? I assume this is maybe a legislative measure or memorandum in the U.K.?
Your question about intellectuals writing more fiction caught my attention. Also the one about more serious literary non-fiction. I'd love for you to expand on both of these. Where are these questions coming from? What would you say is the epitome of literary non-fiction? Was there an era for it? Particular authors you're thinking of?
So, I guess here are some starter questions from there:
I wonder how we get intellectuals to value fiction in the first place--let alone see it as a worthy craft to engage with? To see it as serious and just as capable--sometimes more capable--to speaking deep truth into a moment/era/reality than any other form.
I wonder how we get writers to value deep, slow, thoughtful reading as essential to their craft?
I wonder why we don't teach writing craft in school--I mean beyond the "5 point essay" bs. Why do we teach students how to think like scientists in order to do science and like mathematicians to do math, but don't teach them how to think like writers in order to write?? Does anybody even know how to teach that?? Did we ever?
Okay. I have to work. But, I'm coming back to this.
How does the individual-- starting in youth, knowing little about adult normatives-- develop an identity that is both communal and self sufficient; individualized but not merely rebellious? Then, in old age, how does that same person accept independence while grappling with loneliness and grief?
Damn that came out of nowhere. Plus the children's lit thing got me thinking about Pullman and suddenly the rebel is Lucifer and I have a paper brewing. On a WORKDAY
Good questions, all. Thanks for a thought-provoking piece.
I wonder, how does a generation of writers wedded to screens and its own media-channelled identity become a generation of anything other than writers of auto-fiction, to a lesser or greater extent?
Note to self: turn off screen and go and do/see/hear/think about something non-digital and preferably outdoors, despite the rain and without a phone. (And thank you for the prompt.)
You’ve covered some good ones already, and this question deserves more serious thought than me shooting from the hip, but a few: how literature can continue to stake its claim as one of the best artforms for articulating and illuminating human experience when the line between human and machine is blurring; how ‘serious’ literature can get better at engaging with the way that modern technology is woven into our lives (many novelists ignore it in a manner that would be tantamount to Tolstoy trying to write War and Peace whilst avoiding cannons or gunpowder); how an artform that is still best experienced via printed material can grow and thrive with the common reader when its competition is less cognitively taxing media; how to make literature and the appreciation of it into a broad culture and not a limited cult. Lastly, I like your notion about literary entrepreneurship, and I think the world needs both writers and publishers more focused on selling reading, not just selling books.
What makes some domains 'literature' and others ghettos? Why do these mental barriers persist? Is literature always fiction? (Presumably not, as I guess Orwell is literature.) But there are a lot of writing ghettos with fine writing but definitely regarded as 'not quite'. Why? Who says? Who benefits? I think everyone loses.
What subjects, if they were deemed literary, might get a lot more readers and have more influence?
Do book reviews in newspapers still matter and, if so, why? Why are so very few reviewed--a miniscule proportion of what is published?
Why is being a writer the only job I've ever had that everyone seems to respect?
Have you written elsewhere about what you consider the golden age of children's literature? It's very hard to find modern good stuff, but then I don't know if that's because the old BAD stuff has simply never been republished, while the absolute best remains beloved. Currently reading the Mysterious Benedict Society, which my 8yo loves.
How do we encourage appreciation of literature by the non-specialist media? The paucity of TV programmes about books/literature/reading always scares me a little. The SkyArts book club works reasonably well, but the BBC Sara Cox thing is mostly dire. I'm wondering how 'non-readers' are reached and influenced.
Can Literary Festivals survive without being dominated by celebrity 'authors'?
I love all these questions. As a middle school English teacher in the US, the question that stands out to me is the one about children’s literature.
I find it fascinating because I’m sure if you looked at numbers they would say it is exploding. I’m specifically talking about middle grades literature. Every time I turn around there are 20 new books coming out. Are they quality books?? I’m not sure how to answer that. My gut says no (I’m not attacking the quality of writing).
These books don’t have depth—they are certainly not Narnia-type books. I’ve found that the main genre that even attempts to tackle the BIG questions are dystopian books, and frankly most kids won’t pick those up.
I do think kids (11-16) are prime for thought provoking books. They want to wrestle with the tough questions, but they lack the reading stamina to take this task on. They live in a tech infested world.
I think the question might be how do pull them into the quiet, mind bending world that on literature can offer. What do those stories look like? Should short stories be the gateway to longer novels?
I don’t know. Just a thought.
I'm not sure I have any answers to the general questions you ask, but I can at least use this to recommend my own favourite recent(ish) middle-grade book, which I discovered because my daughter's 6th grade English teacher set it for the class: Laurel Snyder's Orphan Island (https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/25753092-orphan-island). I found it absolutely haunting, and my daughter (who is not a huge reader, I'm afraid) found it compelling as well. I don't know how widely it is read, but it seems to me to have all the qualities of great classic literature, and to be thought-provoking without being dystopian.
Admittedly all too many of the OTHER books my daughter was set in middle grade conformed more closely to your experience, unfortunately.
Thank you! I will check it out.
Yeah these are some of the most pressing issue imo
Why are you procrastinating! Get back to finishing your book!
lol is this a general question or one for me
Two for the price of one!!!
Haha nice
What does it mean to be human in the age of the machine?
Bump for this, I wrote it in mine without reading your comment.
(1) What is most beautiful and what is ugliest? Most sublime and most taken for granted? Where are the full ranges of moral and aesthetic qualities in the world?
(2) What prevalent social and personal issues are most frustrating and rewarding to bring to public reflection, and why?
(3) Do I really know the people I'm writing for? (Standing for many other specific questions about readers, including about themselves as readers of their own work.)
Who is your character in the beginning? Who is your character in the end? What’s the difference?
Most stories today, lack character development (either tragic or comic). You’re expected just to spend (ie waste) time with a character, without expecting any transformation from them. In a way, it’s cheap Gnosticism: you don’t need to change—the rest of the world just needs to get to know who you’ve always been.
I'm not sure I totally understand the question or your answers. Some of the things you say (like "how to get out of the auto-fiction cul-de-sac"?) have blatantly obvious answers ("stop writing auto-fiction" - but in any case there are no end of writers who are NOT writing auto-fiction, even if we feel that too many are!). Others are interesting enough questions (e.g. "should arts funding depend more on patrons and less on committees?"), but it isn't clear why "writers" should be asking those questions, or how it would influence their writing if they did - they seem to be more about the general structure of the role of literature and the arts in society, and that is something that writers and non-writers alike have to deal with as they find it.
So I suppose that the reason I find the TLS answers so unsatisfactory is that the entire premise seems to be ill-founded. Why is "asking questions" something that writers are deemed to do in a distinctive way, or why should being a "writer" produce distinctive answers to those questions? It is hardly surprising to me that, faced with that, so many people answering the question slipped into vague political banalities - it is not the poverty of their imaginations, but that the entire exercise seems so puzzling.
Yes this is true to some extent but the real issue is deeper
Henry, Thanks for this, even if you're now distracting me from my writing work this morning. ;)
You're question is something I'm turning over in my mind constantly. Before I go any further, however, can you please tell me what TLS stands for? I assume this is maybe a legislative measure or memorandum in the U.K.?
Your question about intellectuals writing more fiction caught my attention. Also the one about more serious literary non-fiction. I'd love for you to expand on both of these. Where are these questions coming from? What would you say is the epitome of literary non-fiction? Was there an era for it? Particular authors you're thinking of?
So, I guess here are some starter questions from there:
I wonder how we get intellectuals to value fiction in the first place--let alone see it as a worthy craft to engage with? To see it as serious and just as capable--sometimes more capable--to speaking deep truth into a moment/era/reality than any other form.
I wonder how we get writers to value deep, slow, thoughtful reading as essential to their craft?
I wonder why we don't teach writing craft in school--I mean beyond the "5 point essay" bs. Why do we teach students how to think like scientists in order to do science and like mathematicians to do math, but don't teach them how to think like writers in order to write?? Does anybody even know how to teach that?? Did we ever?
Okay. I have to work. But, I'm coming back to this.
Times Literary Supplement
Oh. Ha! Duh. I guess I did see the picture of the paper in your article. Didn't put that together at all.
How does the individual-- starting in youth, knowing little about adult normatives-- develop an identity that is both communal and self sufficient; individualized but not merely rebellious? Then, in old age, how does that same person accept independence while grappling with loneliness and grief?
Damn that came out of nowhere. Plus the children's lit thing got me thinking about Pullman and suddenly the rebel is Lucifer and I have a paper brewing. On a WORKDAY
- How can you order your words to make a reader feel something totally new?
- In light of modern brain science, is normal first-person perspective misleading? Is free indirect discourse utterly untenable?
- Plots are almost never original. Characters can be, but often aren't. But what about tone/mood? Are there vast tracts of unexplored tones out there?
Why is s/he the way they are and what will they become? Not to mention, where are they (geographically, culturally, naturally)?
Good questions, all. Thanks for a thought-provoking piece.
I wonder, how does a generation of writers wedded to screens and its own media-channelled identity become a generation of anything other than writers of auto-fiction, to a lesser or greater extent?
Note to self: turn off screen and go and do/see/hear/think about something non-digital and preferably outdoors, despite the rain and without a phone. (And thank you for the prompt.)
You’ve covered some good ones already, and this question deserves more serious thought than me shooting from the hip, but a few: how literature can continue to stake its claim as one of the best artforms for articulating and illuminating human experience when the line between human and machine is blurring; how ‘serious’ literature can get better at engaging with the way that modern technology is woven into our lives (many novelists ignore it in a manner that would be tantamount to Tolstoy trying to write War and Peace whilst avoiding cannons or gunpowder); how an artform that is still best experienced via printed material can grow and thrive with the common reader when its competition is less cognitively taxing media; how to make literature and the appreciation of it into a broad culture and not a limited cult. Lastly, I like your notion about literary entrepreneurship, and I think the world needs both writers and publishers more focused on selling reading, not just selling books.
What makes some domains 'literature' and others ghettos? Why do these mental barriers persist? Is literature always fiction? (Presumably not, as I guess Orwell is literature.) But there are a lot of writing ghettos with fine writing but definitely regarded as 'not quite'. Why? Who says? Who benefits? I think everyone loses.
What subjects, if they were deemed literary, might get a lot more readers and have more influence?
Do book reviews in newspapers still matter and, if so, why? Why are so very few reviewed--a miniscule proportion of what is published?
Why is being a writer the only job I've ever had that everyone seems to respect?
Have you written elsewhere about what you consider the golden age of children's literature? It's very hard to find modern good stuff, but then I don't know if that's because the old BAD stuff has simply never been republished, while the absolute best remains beloved. Currently reading the Mysterious Benedict Society, which my 8yo loves.
I have not but maybe I will…
Will it ever be possible for writers of all kinds to be paid fair wages, regardless of the type of writing and the amount of labor involved?
How do we encourage appreciation of literature by the non-specialist media? The paucity of TV programmes about books/literature/reading always scares me a little. The SkyArts book club works reasonably well, but the BBC Sara Cox thing is mostly dire. I'm wondering how 'non-readers' are reached and influenced.
Can Literary Festivals survive without being dominated by celebrity 'authors'?