For people who don't read, "writing a book" by itself comes across as pretentious (they're likely to have the same opinion about painters, sculptors, and composers). As to 'poetic" vs "minimalistic", it comes down to enjoyment. I can get transported by a long, literary, heavy with atmosphere passage from Tana French, as well as a hilarious and punchy Carl Hiaasen chapter. I've also read minimalistic prose that made me yawn. You can be too dry. I don't think Fitzgerald is pretentious, by the way. The big sin is to be boring. Who said that?
"For people who don't read, 'writing a book' by itself comes across as pretentious..."
Another great example of eye of the beholder!
I do tend towards the poetic, though I've gained a greater appreciation for Hemingway. He does the tip-of-the-iceberg thing that really works. I guess the trick is to decide what the right tips are to keep. (I'm still not a fan of reading his fiction though, except in small bites... "A Moveable Feast" is interesting -- though many would classify that as fiction, too... lol)
"The big sin is to be boring."
Without looking it up, I'd guess Oscar Wilde. I have heard it before, just can't remember where! (Mae West and Bette Davis come to mind as well, but they're not authors... lol)
I wonder if it was Bradbury... but he said so many great things, lol. Maybe he just said, "just don't be boring"... close to Elmore's "cut out the parts readers skip over".
I also found, "The one unforgiveable sin is to be boring." attributed to Christopher Hitchens. Perhaps ironically given Hitchens' extreme atheism, there are also a lot of entries in Google from religious scholars talking about the sin of being boring...
Related: I struggle with marketing labels for my novel(s), and also comp titles.
I cringe to describe my novel and WIPs as “literary,” because that sounds SO pretentious. And also, I think they’re more accessible than many books with that label, but my work is less commercial than others’ books.
(And also, my novel does talk about Why Do Bad Things Happen to Good People and the book of Job, which aren’t generally elements of beach reads.)
Which also doesn’t really matter to my own sense of “doing work that’s important to me” (which is how I am lucky enough to choose projects)—except that publishers like it when readers find books.
Which means accurately describing them so that readers are excited about what they’re getting and are delighted when they dive in. Which means comp titles and labels.
Which I’m trying to better learn about so I can write the book I want to write and be a good partner for a publisher. Not that I’ll add something randomly popular to my work for marketing ease—like dragons (for example) (although … hmm).
Which attention to the market is viewed by some artists as “selling out.” Which I understand and see differently.
I just flashed back to the high school question about the Beatles, “are you John or Paul?” Meaning the deep artist, courting controversy, or the popular sellout. I also think there’s room for a George, a uniquely curious musician following his interests, and a Ringo, who’s sitting in the back singing about octopi (pretentious sounding plural) in gardens and holding the beat so everyone gets along.
I don't think "literary" is pretentious at all, and I think it perfectly describes your work. Although it's different when you're evaluating your own work, pretentiousness is still in the eye of the beholder. I do get what you're saying -- I find it vaguely embarassing to describe my own work as literary. That term sets the author up, like Mohammad Ali screaming, "I'm the Greatest!" At some point, you'll be forced to live up to it.
That being said, Canadian books skew more to the literary side than American books. The "biggest" names in Canada tend to be literary authors like your Atwoods or Richlers or Edugyans, while in the US it's your Stephen Kings or John Grishams or Lee Childs. There should be less of a stigma about it here!
Maybe we need to find another, less pretentious name for literary novels? The "A rose by any other name..." theory is proven bunk. We wouldn't have marketing, otherwise. Maybe "aspirational" or "deep" or "John (Lennon)", like "Yeah, I'm writing a John novel -- I'm tired of reading the same ol' Paul!" If you go too far into Job country, you could call it a "George" novel instead. The Ringo category covers wit, humour, and heart.
Sadly, the only novel I finished so far turned out to be a Pete Best...
BTW, I delved into my own struggles with "literary" and "pretentiousness" in a post a few years ago called "Bloomsday Prophecy" (https://www.towritewithwildabandon.com/p/bloomsday-prophesy) when I dropped my attempts at "commercial" fiction and embraced the literary. (Fittingly enough, it also has an embarassing typo in the URL... that knocked me off my high horse!) Spoiler alert - that may be the subject of my next post (though no guarantees -- I don't have a strong handle on it yet...)
Lastly, and just as a heads up, I hear dragons are out this year. I have it on good authority that pirates will be the next big thing, starting in about five months and three days or so...
See, it doesn’t pay to chase the market. Pirates are a tougher fit but maybe I can get a character into a puffy shirt.
And really, getting a book across the finish line is work enough, and making it one I’m proud of is the most important. The marketing side needs to come later. For me.
Ha -- for sure! That's the conclusion I came to as well. Best to write something I'm interested and care about. It's hard enough as it is to get the stars to align. No use skewing them from the outset...
And also, Ha! -- I envision Jerry Seinfeld right now. "But I don't wanna wear a puffy shirt!"
For people who don't read, "writing a book" by itself comes across as pretentious (they're likely to have the same opinion about painters, sculptors, and composers). As to 'poetic" vs "minimalistic", it comes down to enjoyment. I can get transported by a long, literary, heavy with atmosphere passage from Tana French, as well as a hilarious and punchy Carl Hiaasen chapter. I've also read minimalistic prose that made me yawn. You can be too dry. I don't think Fitzgerald is pretentious, by the way. The big sin is to be boring. Who said that?
"For people who don't read, 'writing a book' by itself comes across as pretentious..."
Another great example of eye of the beholder!
I do tend towards the poetic, though I've gained a greater appreciation for Hemingway. He does the tip-of-the-iceberg thing that really works. I guess the trick is to decide what the right tips are to keep. (I'm still not a fan of reading his fiction though, except in small bites... "A Moveable Feast" is interesting -- though many would classify that as fiction, too... lol)
"The big sin is to be boring."
Without looking it up, I'd guess Oscar Wilde. I have heard it before, just can't remember where! (Mae West and Bette Davis come to mind as well, but they're not authors... lol)
I wonder if it was Bradbury... but he said so many great things, lol. Maybe he just said, "just don't be boring"... close to Elmore's "cut out the parts readers skip over".
Oh, I thought you had the answer! Now you have me thinking...
Charles Bukowski:
don't be like so many writers,
don't be like so many thousands of
people who call themselves writers,
don't be dull and boring and
pretentious, don't be consumed with self-
love.
here's the poem link and it's a cool one: https://poets.org/poem/so-you-want-be-writer
Very nice!
I also found, "The one unforgiveable sin is to be boring." attributed to Christopher Hitchens. Perhaps ironically given Hitchens' extreme atheism, there are also a lot of entries in Google from religious scholars talking about the sin of being boring...
Thanks for the poem!
Related: I struggle with marketing labels for my novel(s), and also comp titles.
I cringe to describe my novel and WIPs as “literary,” because that sounds SO pretentious. And also, I think they’re more accessible than many books with that label, but my work is less commercial than others’ books.
(And also, my novel does talk about Why Do Bad Things Happen to Good People and the book of Job, which aren’t generally elements of beach reads.)
Which also doesn’t really matter to my own sense of “doing work that’s important to me” (which is how I am lucky enough to choose projects)—except that publishers like it when readers find books.
Which means accurately describing them so that readers are excited about what they’re getting and are delighted when they dive in. Which means comp titles and labels.
Which I’m trying to better learn about so I can write the book I want to write and be a good partner for a publisher. Not that I’ll add something randomly popular to my work for marketing ease—like dragons (for example) (although … hmm).
Which attention to the market is viewed by some artists as “selling out.” Which I understand and see differently.
I just flashed back to the high school question about the Beatles, “are you John or Paul?” Meaning the deep artist, courting controversy, or the popular sellout. I also think there’s room for a George, a uniquely curious musician following his interests, and a Ringo, who’s sitting in the back singing about octopi (pretentious sounding plural) in gardens and holding the beat so everyone gets along.
Hey, you asked 😆
I don't think "literary" is pretentious at all, and I think it perfectly describes your work. Although it's different when you're evaluating your own work, pretentiousness is still in the eye of the beholder. I do get what you're saying -- I find it vaguely embarassing to describe my own work as literary. That term sets the author up, like Mohammad Ali screaming, "I'm the Greatest!" At some point, you'll be forced to live up to it.
That being said, Canadian books skew more to the literary side than American books. The "biggest" names in Canada tend to be literary authors like your Atwoods or Richlers or Edugyans, while in the US it's your Stephen Kings or John Grishams or Lee Childs. There should be less of a stigma about it here!
Maybe we need to find another, less pretentious name for literary novels? The "A rose by any other name..." theory is proven bunk. We wouldn't have marketing, otherwise. Maybe "aspirational" or "deep" or "John (Lennon)", like "Yeah, I'm writing a John novel -- I'm tired of reading the same ol' Paul!" If you go too far into Job country, you could call it a "George" novel instead. The Ringo category covers wit, humour, and heart.
Sadly, the only novel I finished so far turned out to be a Pete Best...
BTW, I delved into my own struggles with "literary" and "pretentiousness" in a post a few years ago called "Bloomsday Prophecy" (https://www.towritewithwildabandon.com/p/bloomsday-prophesy) when I dropped my attempts at "commercial" fiction and embraced the literary. (Fittingly enough, it also has an embarassing typo in the URL... that knocked me off my high horse!) Spoiler alert - that may be the subject of my next post (though no guarantees -- I don't have a strong handle on it yet...)
Lastly, and just as a heads up, I hear dragons are out this year. I have it on good authority that pirates will be the next big thing, starting in about five months and three days or so...
See, it doesn’t pay to chase the market. Pirates are a tougher fit but maybe I can get a character into a puffy shirt.
And really, getting a book across the finish line is work enough, and making it one I’m proud of is the most important. The marketing side needs to come later. For me.
Ha -- for sure! That's the conclusion I came to as well. Best to write something I'm interested and care about. It's hard enough as it is to get the stars to align. No use skewing them from the outset...
And also, Ha! -- I envision Jerry Seinfeld right now. "But I don't wanna wear a puffy shirt!"
Thanks for the therapy 😂