Art has always been unfair. It's never been about merit or elevating the avant garde as you point out yourself. So nothing has changed. The battle has always been against entrenched interest because rich people see art as a way to make money. What yall are failing to admit is the market is liberal in the fiction world, the readers are liberal, so why would a publisher put out a book that isn't gonna make them money from their readers. Plus, honestly if a lot of yall were in the traditional media, you would see it's a humiliation routine that doesn't even treat the people it lets inside well. A lot of people with the big five get screwed. As far as writers going rogue, we also need diversity in thought even in that moment. The rogue writers all sound the same, have the same pet peeves, and get sensitive AF when someone who has their same grievances but different takes, engage them in good faith. So the rogue writers gonna have to toughen up and build a wide coalition if yall actually wanna change something.
I wouldn't say nothing has changed. Publishing today is much more myopic, ideological, political and elitist. Writing honestly with true grit is much tougher today.
Man come on....you know how long artists being whining about some force being unfair to them???? Yes, the force against them changes, but the reality is that a force being against you as an artist is part of making art. The only answer is to make great art and find a way. That's it. Nothing else. its the cold logic of the jungle. Im telling you its not myopic, or any of the other stuff you are blaming. Its the same rich forces holding art back that have always existed. you acting like there's something unique to your time is trying to find a reason to whine. Im telling you, it won't work. It won't matter. Whining never changes anything. It just creates a small community of likeminded whiners. I can tell you without looking too far, that not much has ever been really sacred.
The new and emerging structures that grant alternative art more viability also degrade the audience's ability to receive it. It isn't enough to end-around legacy gates, the art has to adapt to the new attention landscape (even if it is adapt in order to recalibrate the audience).
Pretty much. You can have a novel between two covers or you can have it on demand as a potential aspect of a user experience along with every other thing. The form wasn't meant for the new frame it has to live in and doesn't really survive the transition to it.
Great essay on the responsibilities and hardships of truly being an artist and behaving with conviction — thank you. I remember the Hobart scandal with @Alex Perez, remember wondering why so many editors and contributors would resign. The comments section was sooo long, but everything boiled down to criticism of his language and bland, broad ad hominem kinds of stuff. No one effectively refuted his central points. Cultural currents are so strong and deep, and Alex (and so many others, but at least he had the guts to open his mouth) had been subsumed.
"Revolution in literature is now a necessity. Literature stopped breathing years ago. The enemy of innovation in fiction is the Modern Literary Establishment. Guerrilla writers are the antidote. If literature is to have a renaissance, we must arm the rebels. The Establishment won’t."
So, Bret Easton Ellis is an unfairly maligned avant-garde enfant terrible? Jfc. The real take here was obvious from the fact that the only “rebels” you invoke were all mid-20thC sleazy men, not a sleazy woman among them. Have you ever read a book by a woman? Or do you only read bros in solidarity?
To talk about “political correctness” unironically is is to do the work of social control and conformity that Newt Gingrich bade you and spread the reactionary word that white men are the ones in charge always and forever and don’t you fucking forget it. If you are doing Newt’s work you are not -EVER- a rebel, you are a courtier and a boot-licker, begging for scraps of authority and power from those who hold it in exchange for being an ideological enforcer. You are the baddie.
Art has always been unfair. It's never been about merit or elevating the avant garde as you point out yourself. So nothing has changed. The battle has always been against entrenched interest because rich people see art as a way to make money. What yall are failing to admit is the market is liberal in the fiction world, the readers are liberal, so why would a publisher put out a book that isn't gonna make them money from their readers. Plus, honestly if a lot of yall were in the traditional media, you would see it's a humiliation routine that doesn't even treat the people it lets inside well. A lot of people with the big five get screwed. As far as writers going rogue, we also need diversity in thought even in that moment. The rogue writers all sound the same, have the same pet peeves, and get sensitive AF when someone who has their same grievances but different takes, engage them in good faith. So the rogue writers gonna have to toughen up and build a wide coalition if yall actually wanna change something.
What you said, but longer and with many more words which I'm too tired to type.
I wouldn't say nothing has changed. Publishing today is much more myopic, ideological, political and elitist. Writing honestly with true grit is much tougher today.
Man come on....you know how long artists being whining about some force being unfair to them???? Yes, the force against them changes, but the reality is that a force being against you as an artist is part of making art. The only answer is to make great art and find a way. That's it. Nothing else. its the cold logic of the jungle. Im telling you its not myopic, or any of the other stuff you are blaming. Its the same rich forces holding art back that have always existed. you acting like there's something unique to your time is trying to find a reason to whine. Im telling you, it won't work. It won't matter. Whining never changes anything. It just creates a small community of likeminded whiners. I can tell you without looking too far, that not much has ever been really sacred.
Two problems: (1) attention, (2) coordination.
Getting writers attention from audiences? And coordinating amongst a community of writers, publishers, etc?
The new and emerging structures that grant alternative art more viability also degrade the audience's ability to receive it. It isn't enough to end-around legacy gates, the art has to adapt to the new attention landscape (even if it is adapt in order to recalibrate the audience).
Re coordination: basically yes.
Your diagnosis is good, it's just not the hard part.
> degrade the audience's ability to receive it
Why does it degrade the ability to receive it? Bc it's all on phones, emails, etc. where there isn't real attention given to the art?
> the art has to adapt to the new attention landscape (even if it is adapt in order to recalibrate the audience)
How do you imagine this working?
Your second question is what we all have to figure out. I have my ideas about it but nothing proven, obv. What do you think?
Think we gotta get off the screens bc great art demands attention and the right mediums and these things are killing our minds
Right. So we need art that (a) reaches people on the screens, and (b) compels them to put them down. Somehow.
Pretty much. You can have a novel between two covers or you can have it on demand as a potential aspect of a user experience along with every other thing. The form wasn't meant for the new frame it has to live in and doesn't really survive the transition to it.
True, Jason, true.
What are your thoughts, Michael?
This is what I needed to read today. Thank you.
Thank you!
Great essay on the responsibilities and hardships of truly being an artist and behaving with conviction — thank you. I remember the Hobart scandal with @Alex Perez, remember wondering why so many editors and contributors would resign. The comments section was sooo long, but everything boiled down to criticism of his language and bland, broad ad hominem kinds of stuff. No one effectively refuted his central points. Cultural currents are so strong and deep, and Alex (and so many others, but at least he had the guts to open his mouth) had been subsumed.
Thank you!!
I'm really optimistic that there's going to be a shift coming soon. And thankful to Alex Perez for starting that conversation.
Loved the Perez piece.
"Revolution in literature is now a necessity. Literature stopped breathing years ago. The enemy of innovation in fiction is the Modern Literary Establishment. Guerrilla writers are the antidote. If literature is to have a renaissance, we must arm the rebels. The Establishment won’t."
Amen. Preach it, my friend. Absolutely true. That's why my new essay collection is crucial: Controversial: The Substack Essays, Polemics 2022-2024: https://michaelmohr.substack.com/p/new-essay-collection-out-now-in-print
We need to unite and fight. This is what the Free Press is doing, Persuasion, and many other outlets.
~
Michael Mohr
"Sincere American Writing"
https://michaelmohr.substack.com/
So, Bret Easton Ellis is an unfairly maligned avant-garde enfant terrible? Jfc. The real take here was obvious from the fact that the only “rebels” you invoke were all mid-20thC sleazy men, not a sleazy woman among them. Have you ever read a book by a woman? Or do you only read bros in solidarity?
To talk about “political correctness” unironically is is to do the work of social control and conformity that Newt Gingrich bade you and spread the reactionary word that white men are the ones in charge always and forever and don’t you fucking forget it. If you are doing Newt’s work you are not -EVER- a rebel, you are a courtier and a boot-licker, begging for scraps of authority and power from those who hold it in exchange for being an ideological enforcer. You are the baddie.
Lol