posted
That was interesting. I can see how an argument could be made that the news media has a "liberal" bias, but does anyone here think there is a bias in the publishing industry?
I haven't run along much fiction that spouts political dogma, either right or left. I suspect that if you weren't an amazing writer, you couldn't make a good story including these elements.
I suppose you could say Orwell's "1984" has a political message, but which side would he be on in today's world? The left-wing wants cameras monitoring children in schools "for their safety" and the right-wing wants cameras in the streets "to prevent crimes." Both positions, taken to the extreme, lead to a possible Orwellian future.
Most protagonists seem to be "moral" heros, in my opinion. By that, I mean that achieving goals is only accomplished by following a personal code of ethics (regardless of what those ethics are) and failure is a direct result of compromising those ethics. I think this kind of stuff makes stories that are compelling and likely to interest a publishing house. Good stories sell books. Personal politics are irrelevant.
posted
Nexus, I completely agree. That's what I was thinking as I read the article. Although I will say that if a story does have a political bias, it is more likely to be liberal. The truth is, liberal biases make for better stories. The story of the underdog who makes good despite the pressures of a society that tries to oppress them makes for good reading. I'm not sure if this is liberal thinking, though.
As I read, I looked for a definition of liberal vs. conservative thinking in fiction. Not finding such a definition, I am left at a loss as to what to think. I might just have to go to the wbsite sometime and find out what they mean.
posted
The classic defination of each is that liberal pertains to ideas that suggest change is needed or prefered, while conservative suggests that things are fine just the way they are. So a conservation story would either say "I am happy" (a rather boring plot) or "change is bad". I would agree that liberal stories are a little more common, just because there are more options in making one.
[This message has been edited by Jsteg1210 (edited April 19, 2004).]
posted
That's sort of what I thought, in which case, there is even more good reason for liberal thinking to overwhelm the publishing industry in ficttion. Many writers wish to be instruments of change.
Posts: 3567 | Registered: May 2003
|
posted
> The truth is, liberal biases make for > better stories. The story of the underdog > who makes good despite the pressures of a > society that tries to oppress them makes > for good reading. I'm not sure if this is > liberal thinking, though.
That might be refered to as "classical" liberalism, which does not necessarily correspond with the term "liberal" as used today in America.
Classical liberalism may make for better stories because of its focus on the importance of the individual, and stories tend to be about individuals.
But I would definitely dispute the contention that contemporary liberal bias makes for better stories.
I also think that the problem of politically biased book publishers is probably less important in fiction than in non-fiction, and even less important in speculative fiction. The market for military SF ensures that there a publishers out there willing to look at manuscripts that have a decidedly non-liberal political orientation.
posted
Actually, that view of social security is quite conservative by classic definition because it represents a reversion to the way things were. Well, not exactly, but modern conservatives know that some things can go back and some things can't. In terms of social security, the average conservative would be happier if it went away entirely, but they throw out the possibility you mentioned as a compromise that gets us at least partly back to the individual using his or her own money as they see fit rather than the governmnet doing so. It is really the first step in removing the system entirely.
[This message has been edited by Christine (edited April 19, 2004).]
posted
All right, maybe that wasn't the best example, although I think at this point conservatives have accepted the existence of Social Security and would rather reform it based on market principles instead of eliminating it altogether.
But it still shows that just focusing on change vs. keeping things how they are isn't the best way of defining liberal vs. conservative in contemporary American politics. Just because something was a certain way in the past doesn't mean conservatives favor it. I'm conservative, and I have no desire to see the return of slavery in the Southern U.S. I don't long for a return of the colonies to the British monarchy. I don't wish that all the land of the U.S. be returned to the Native American tribes that lived here before Columbus.
On the other hand, just because something is a change that has never been done before doesn't mean liberals must favor it. Establishing Islamic Sharia law in the United States would be a change, but I don't assume liberals are in favor of it. Mandatory abortion of male fetuses would be a change, but I don't think most liberal would favor that.
As I said, the classical liberal idea about the importance of the individual may be helpful in writing fiction, but I don't see the contemporary American liberal as being inherently able to write better stories than the contemporary American conservative.
posted
I'm confused: that article didn't seem to be about liberal vs. conservative writing at all, but rather about PC versus non-PC. That isn't the same thing. It sounds like a pulisher taking a libertarian stance, promoting quirkier, free-thought material.
posted
Yes and no. You missed that everyone else tends to demarcate liberal/conservative rather than PC/non-PC.
quote:I suspect that if you weren't an amazing writer, you couldn't make a good story including these elements.
That's kinda the point. If it were only really great writers that got thinly disguised political tracts published, that would show no bias. But lots of really crappy work gets published sheerly on its political credentials.
I personally think that there is simply no cure for that...as long as anybody is willing to publish crap because they agree with it, then literature will suffer. As long as the best works can still find publication, I don't see any pressing need to do anything about it.
Of course, the evidence is mounting that PC drivel is starting to seriously impact the space available for works that have serious merit. I think the best solution is for a publisher to publish only those works with real literary merit, without regard to their political leanings.
posted
I believe that that publishers will publish good writing, political slant notwithstanding. The only possible exceptions are those publishers which have an innate political stance (ironically, Fox News fits this mold).
My experience is that when a writer complains that their writing was rejected because it was too politically incorrect, too shocking, or too edgy, or too free-thinking, that writer is just making excuses to save his/her own ego. The plain truth is that lousy writing gets rejected, and good writing gets bought.
posted
Political correctness is generally associated with liberals, the university scene with its leftist-leaning professors and correspondingly heavy-handed campus PC a case in point.
As to the publishing scene, I'll ever regret I never responded to an answer to a letter to the editor in Writer's Digest many years ago. A reader was bemoaning the liberal bent of the publishing industry and WD's answer was to the effect that since that was the case, it would be better to take it into account when submitting. I was stunned that WD felt the bias of the industry no cause for concern, even though it was a clear hampering of a free exchange of ideas in the marketplace if writers were supposed to cater to the liberal bent of publishers.
quote:Classical liberalism may make for better stories because of its focus on the importance of the individual, and stories tend to be about individuals.
Far from it. Liberalism, which is a feed-source for socialism, decries the individual in actuality, and elevates a false equality. According to liberalism, everything is fair game for equal distribution, regardless of individual achievement and effort.
quote:The only possible exceptions are those publishers which have an innate political stance (ironically, Fox News fits this mold).
Fox News isn't a publisher. Although it's quite telling that presenting the conservative view in addition to the liberal is considered biased -- just goes to show how unusual it is to see the conservative side presented in today's media.
Posts: 1810 | Registered: Jun 2002
|
posted
Alright, I've been resisting the temptation to get off topic, but I gotta.
quote: ...just goes to show how unusual it is to see the conservative side presented in today's media.
The arguement can be made for a liberal news media before the current administration, not after. Since Bush's election and especially since 9/11 there has been a frustrating stranglehold on the news networks. I remember seeing balloons and streamers in the newsroom when Iraq was invaded, I remember the Iraqi's UN ambassador being cut off by CNN a minute into his rebutle speech for a routine briefing by Colin Powel. For further proof, both Osama Bin Laden and North Korea completely disappeared from the news map, from all networks, the minute the US started to look bad.
I will admit that in the last month, that holds seems to have started to break. Bush is taking a lot of flak about national security and foriegn policy lately. More often than not, republicans accuse the news media of being liberal when the news does it's job and accurately reports what is happening in the world (including the mistakes made by the powers that be).
posted
Kolona, I was specifically talking about classical liberalism. Classical liberalism was very much concerned with individual liberty. Classical liberalism would include the philosophies of John Locke, Adam Smith, Thomas Jefferson. More recent "classical liberals" would include Friedrich Hayek and Milton Friedman. In the U.S. political context, the word liberal has changed meanings, but in much of the world the liberal parties are the opponents of the socialists, not their "feed-source." For example, it seems like an oxymoron to us Americans, but the Liberal Party is Australia's main conservative party.
Posts: 1517 | Registered: Jul 2003
|
posted
That is true. Liberal used to be applied to free-market, right-to-bear-arms, freedom-of-religion, and all that other freedom stuff. That's why they were called "liberals".
As I said, the bias of the publishing industry mostly shows up in a greater willingness to publish crap as long as it has the right political slant. But hey, there isn't anything anyone can do about that. Whatshername who's starting up this little publishing house is a free-speech nut who used to read prohibited novels back when she was growing up in the Old Soviet Union.
So sure, she likes to get bent out of shape and call the bias in our publishing industry "censorship" and all that. More to the point, she's clearly got a point, some of the works she would like to see published doesn't get published because it has the wrong politics. But I bet at least some of what she likes is crap...that time traveling lesbians story sounded pretty lame...not too lame to be published if it had the right slant, but lame nonetheless.
But hey, if they like Civil War stories and unknown authors, I might send them something (later, though...not today).
posted
<smile> Actually, Eric, I know that classic liberalism is a thing of beauty, as you pointed out so well. I learned it when the Soviet Union was still intact. I read an article that I had to keep rereading because it made no sense till I caught a passing comment in a companion article that explained that 'right' and 'left' had opposite meanings in the USSR and on other foreign soil compared to our understanding of the terms. My comments were part scanning rush and part desire to drum home the point, since there is this cauldron of conflicting terms being used interchangeably: PC/nonPC vs liberal/conservative vs current liberalism/classic liberalism vs left/right, and all of them pretty much politically charged. Case in point:
quote:You missed that everyone else tends to demarcate liberal/conservative rather than PC/non-PC.
and
quote:I will say that if a story does have a political bias, it is more likely to be liberal.
The change/non-change thing as a defining tendency can also be misleading as the Social Security example shows. I'd be more inclined to say conservatives are less inclined toward change for change's sake alone, whereas liberals are often eager for change with impossible Utopian views in mind.
quote:Most protagonists seem to be "moral" heros...achieving goals is only accomplished by following a personal code of ethics (regardless of what those ethics are) and failure is a direct result of compromising those ethics. I think this kind of stuff makes stories that are compelling and likely to interest a publishing house. Good stories sell books. Personal politics are irrelevant.
My italics, to which I can only say, "If only." Even Gavin's Emperor's New Clothes Press, though nonPC libertarian, is the libertarian side of the right. Will she nix anything nonPC but libertarian left? Survivor's point about possible crap comes into play, especially in view of Hildy's mention of the 'quirkier' aspects of what Gavin seems to be going for.
quote:the classical liberal idea about the importance of the individual may be helpful in writing fiction, but I don't see the contemporary American liberal as being inherently able to write better stories than the contemporary American conservative.
Amen. Although in nonfiction, conservative writers seem to be doing better, so much so that I understand that some of the bigger pubishing houses are opening conservative imprints of their own. (Move over Regenery, I guess is their motto.)
Jsteg, if an "argument can be made for a liberal news media before the current administration, not after," that means we're on the right track if we broke that liberal 'stranglehold.' What's been going on since 9/11 hasn't been right-wing heaven by a long shot, though -- nor should it be -- and the industry has far to go yet to earn the trust it's lost.
posted
I don't think anyone ever said that a liberal was better able to write than a conservative. I do think, however, that writers tend to write to a purpose, whether explicit or not, and that a plea to change the way things are is often more dramatic than a plea to keep things just as they are. Keep in mind, as Eric's example showed (sort of ), that contemporary conservative may be just as eager to bring about a change as a contemporary liberal. So in a sense, a conservative (defined based on current policital meaning) may write liberally (based on the adjective).
quote:I'd be more inclined to say conservatives are less inclined toward change for change's sake alone, whereas liberals are often eager for change with impossible Utopian views in mind.
What a biased thing to say. I've heard this before, at least, the first part. I would like to think, though, that not all liberal changes strive for an "impossible Utopia". Perhaps a few extremists feel this way, but I think many liberals have ideas just as rational as conservatives. People actually tend to not like change, as a general rule, it causes stress. Therefore, I find it hard to believe that anyone wants change just for change's sake.
quote:I'd be more inclined to say conservatives are less inclined toward change for change's sake alone, whereas liberals are often eager for change with impossible Utopian views in mind.
What you're describing here is the Legacy of Edison.
Change = Progress
Liberals don't have a lock on this concept. It's been the "American Way" of thinking since Thomas Edison's successful laboratory showed us that everything in the past is useless and new innovations should replace them without a thought to consequence.
If you've ever worked for a big corporation, you know that's still standard operating procedure. The only limitation is cost.
Change is also action. Action is work. If you're changing things, you are working, thus you're justifying your job.
posted
Regardless of my own political leanings, I actually support what this publisher is doing. She's publishing pieces whose ideas might not be politically popular at the time. I think this is important and outbreaks of such writers has changed our very perception of history. Anyone ever heard of Mark Twain? I think in modern times he might need a publisher like this one. I just hope that these people are open minded enough to start publishing liberal stuff when the pendulum swings the other way.
Posts: 66 | Registered: Apr 2004
|
posted
How exactly would you do that? Ultimately there has to be a group of people who decide what to publish and what not to. The whole problem that the article is suggesting is that in their attempt to predict what the "market" will like, they aren't giving certain writings a fair chance. So to balance things a publisher is popping up who intends to ignore market favor and see what happens.
Posts: 66 | Registered: Apr 2004
|
posted
Kolona, are there any links you have offhand that provide explicit examples of a liberal-bent news story? I'm trying to give the argument a fair shake, but I guess because of my own leanings I need to see an actual living example of what the commentators are talking about. All I can seem to find are vague, blanket accusations.
Posts: 66 | Registered: Apr 2004
|
posted
How about Mike Wallace's interview with Bob Woodward last Sunday on "60 Minutes"? Oozed with bias.
OSC is politically and socially conservative, and he's being published. I have no idea of the political beliefs of Stephen King or John Grisham or Nora Roberts or any other best-selling novelists. Unless it was something really extreme, I doubt if readers would care.
The titles above are the names of the links from the main webpage.
In the CNN article, the first four paragraphs are about Kerry's claims that Bush is bad on the environment. After that, it goes on to talk about Bush's proposal.
In the Foxnews article, Bush's proposal is at the start. Kerry's critism comes later.
The bias is of the author is demonstrated in the positioning of the facts.
If I wrote a story called, "Scientists Suggest Sugar is Good for Teeth" and start it with several paragraphs about dentists disagreeing with the findings before presenting the scientist's data, I would be showing a pro-dentist stance.
The articles above aren't extreme examples, but you can see the slant if you're looking.
[This message has been edited by Nexus Capacitor (edited April 22, 2004).]
posted
If you're looking specifically online, Jsteg, I'd suggest the Media Research Center. Here are some excerpts from a couple of their articles:
quote:An MRC study of every weekday morning and evening broadcast news show since Iowa found ABC, CBS and NBC reporters presented the “Kerry is a liberal” concept as a GOP charge 27 times, compared with just three occasions when reporters stated Kerry’s ideology as a matter of fact. (Five other stories discussed Kerry’s liberal bent, but didn’t cite Republicans or present the idea as beyond dispute.)
quote:In the last few weeks, almost all of the TV news scrutiny has flowed in Bush's direction. Nothing Kerry has said or done – unless it figures into the media attack on Bush – gains any traction. Take, for example, Kerry's Sunday appearance on NBC's Meet the Press. This could have been a high-profile news story which resulted in much pundit evaluation, as President Bush’s grilling from Russert was in February. But only NBC found the interview worth a whole story, with a summarizing story on Sunday's Nightly News and a shorter piece on Monday's Today.
Besides MRC, I'd suggest Bernard Goldberg's books, Bias and Arrogance. In fact, the cold reception of those books by the press only showcases the bias of the protesting press. Usually the media delights in corporate whistleblowers, but not with Goldberg's expose of them, even though he's a liberal himself.
One continuous example is the persistence of the press to label right-to-life groups as 'anti-abortion' instead of by their chosen designation of 'pro-life.' Compare that to the willingness of the press to accommodate the black population by calling them first 'black' and then 'African-American' as they wished.
In The Washington Times, April 12-18 edition, a fellow from Cincinnati wrote that the AP reported an eight percent Bush lead in a Florida poll as "Bush slightly ahead of Kerry." (my italics)
In that same issue, there's an AP story about abortion that calls, as is the habit of the mainstream press, partial birth abortion "a type of banned abortion." My word, that's a euphemism on a par with "the artist formerly known as Prince," but without the humor.
quote:"That's exactly right. Let the market decide...not the marketers."
How exactly would you do that? Ultimately there has to be a group of people who decide what to publish and what not to. The whole problem that the article is suggesting is that in their attempt to predict what the "market" will like, they aren't giving certain writings a fair chance. So to balance things a publisher is popping up who intends to ignore market favor and see what happens.
How did you like my little quote within a quote trick? Okay, back to the topic.
Anyone notice that bizarre assertion? "Ultimately there has to be a group of people who decide what to publish and what not to." Okay, I'm not pointing out style deficiencies...check it again.
Oh, the assumption that genuine freedom of the press is inherently impossible. You can't just let everyone publish what they think is good and let the public pick out the winners...NOOOOOO! We have to pick the winners ahead of time and suppress anyone that wants to do something different.
Does it actually stop people from publishing really worthwhile material? No. Even the Commies couldn't keep good literature down. These clowns simply don't have the tools to stop us from getting our hands on what we darn well want, we're smarter than them.
But I still find the whole attitude annoying, "there has to be a group of people..." there has to be all of us, deciding what we're willing to publish. There shouldn't be some kind of special little club of "official" publishers any more than there should be an "official" press. All publishing should be Samizdat.
What part of the term "freedom of the press" do these people not understand?
posted
In a sense, the market is deciding. We buy the books that the publishers put out, thus giving the publishers the power to make the decisions about what we like to read. It's all guesswork and any publisher that consistently fails to sell books goes out of business.
If you believe the publisher isn't giving you a fair shake because of your politics, you're free to publish your work through a vanity press or even a webpage. The press has never been more free.
I can write any damn thing I want and instantly put in front of billions of people. No one has to visit my site to read it, but they are free to do so.
So, what's this all about? Getting paid for your work. If you want to get paid, you have to write something that people want to read AND convince a publisher to put his money and reputation on the line over your work.
That isn't an easy thing to do! If you think you're a victim of a controlled press, I've got some news for you. You're out of your mind. It simply isn't true.
I recommend that you take a good, long look at your writing skills, because that's where the problem is, not your politics. Stop wasting time lying to yourself and get back to the hard work of becoming a better writer.
The sooner you come to grips with that reality, the sooner you'll be able to learn the things you need to be doing to sell your writing.
posted
The Internet is the great "freedom to publish" machine. Anyone can say anything they want to say. That's why it's so full of worthless whining. It would be a waste of time to read all that poor writing, incoherent reasoning, and opinion-filed bluster.
When I actually pay for the written word, I want to be confident of its quality before George Washinton slips into the register. I get that confidence by trusting someone else's quality assurance techniques. I professional editor determined that Ender's Game and The Hunt for Red October and The Diamond Age were good before I paid for them.
Without editors I would still do a lot of reading. I just wouldn't be willing to pay for it.
posted
Survivor, in your vehement attack on my "style deficiencies" you failed to answer my question. How physically would you change the current system of publishing? If I had a piece of writing and existed in your ideal world, who would I give it to to be published? Who would pay for it? Distribute it? Advertise it?
These activities require an amazing amount of time and resources, and most people in a real world would be hesitant to help me unless they think they'll be compensated. For better or worse we live in a capitalist society. Unless we feel like leading a revolution, we'd best get used to it.
The internet is a great thing and in theory makes all these tasks infinitely easier, but I don't think that in it's current form it'll be the answer. Even sites that actively spend thousands of dollars a month advertising get surprisingly few hits in reality. That's one of the reasons the dot-coms failed. So even if you didn't write a best seller, you'd likely reach more people with a book. Much for the reasons that Doc Brown suggested, people just don't look to unmitigated media sources for quality literature.
posted
<I>If you believe the publisher isn't giving you a fair shake because of your politics, you're free to publish your work through a vanity press or even a webpage. The press has never been more free. </i>
Unless someone's politics are <i>way</i> out there, I doubt if it has any impact on editorial choices. OSC's conservative politics hasn't seemed to hurt his sales.
If Stephen King publicized his political POV, do you think it would make him less popular among his readers?
posted
As I said, I feel that the main problem with the current publishing situation is that too much crap gets published. As NC says, if you think that you can't get published because of your politics, you're full of crap, and it probably shows in your writing. The real problem is that so many people are getting published based on nothing but their politics.
Frankly, I don't put out cash for a book until I've read a pretty fair sample of it. I simply don't trust the marketeers to do a through job of screening out the crap.
Anyone that thinks the average writer on the internet is far below the standard of what gets published by the "official" industry isn't paying much attention. Sure, the average writer on the internet is a subliterate maggot with delusions of godhood, but so is the typical writer for the established press.
My point is that we need to get away from the idea that there is an "official" and "legitimate" publication industry which upholds the standards of literature. We're the ones that uphold or fail to uphold the standards of literature. We as writers, as readers, and yes, as people that participate in publication.
You, each of you, are responsible for what you write, what you read, and what you publish or cause to be published. This responsibility cannot be evaded by saying that "professional editors" and "the publisher" will make sure that good work is published.
It is not only about selling your work. If I wanted to make money...okay, stupid hypothesis. But nobody intelligent enough to write anything worth reading does it for the money. If you're smart enough to be a good writer, you could make a heck of a lot of money in most any other profession with a lot less work.
Sure, any really great book has a preface in the 10th anniversery addition saying how all the conventional publishers refused to publish it. Sometimes that's even true. But the great books still get published.
Just, for the love of all that's good and uplifting about literature, couldn't publishers every once and a while refrain from publishing obvious crap?
And why the heck doesn't somebody check my posts before they go online?
[This message has been edited by Survivor (edited April 25, 2004).]
posted
Survivor, what in the world are you trying to say?
Are you saying that some publishers put out material that is below your personal standard of excellence? If so, then why should anyone care? There are plenty of publishers out there.
Or are you saying that all publishers put out some material that is below your standard? If this is the case, perhaps you could cite some example so we could better understand your point.
Or are you trying to say something else that has completely escaped me?
Perhaps you owe it to the world to start your own publishing company, so the rest of us can benefit from your demanding specifications for quality.
posted
I'm saying that each and every person that really cares about literature must take personal responsibility for it.
You can't shrug and say "well, the professionals will make sure only good work is published", nor can you shrug and say, "well, the professionals will make sure that every good work gets published."
There aren't any "professionals" dedicated to literature. The very idea of such people is a crock. The professionals are all looking out for themselves, they don't give a good damn about whether literature is any good. They care about money, or influence, or outright power.
That's why they're professionals!
I'm very glad that I live in a country that has the idea of a free press. But that doesn't mean I wouldn't be a hell of a lot happier if more people understood what the term means. It means that power to determine what gets published is vested in the hands of everyone that really cares about reading and writing...and you are the one that decides whether you care.
I reject absolutely the idea that power to decide what can or should be published resides in some annointed cabal. In practical terms, that has never worked and never will. But in philosophic terms, it should be utterly repugnant to every person that really cares about literature, or art, or freedom.
In practical terms, we live in a society where anyone determined to publish can scrape together the means to do it. But we also live in a society where far to many people believe that only those approved by the "authorities" have any legitimacy as writers, publishers, and, heaven help us, readers. And the worst part of that is that we also happen to live in a democracy. If enough people start believing that a "free press" means the official, "legitimate", established press...then that's all we'll have.
It's like the idea of an "unbiased" media. Exactly how is such an animal maintained? By excluding "biased" views. Not be letting people decide which views they find plausible...but by powerful people setting up a standard point of view and systematically denigrating or excluding all others. I don't care how often I disagree or agree with the particulars of such a creature, I detest the creature itself.
Someone once said, "I seek not for power, but to pull it down." Another said, "God is not a respecter of persons."
Understand what you're saying? Not so much. But that's nothing new. I see no relationship between plausibility and bias. I see no other point in the rest of your message which I can comprehend well enough to fashion a response.
Ah well. We've all got to go with our talents in life.
quote:I see little of more importance to the future of our country and of civilization than full recognition of the place of the artist. If art is to nourish the roots of our culture, society must set the artist free to follow his vision wherever it takes him.
quote:I see no relationship between plausibility and bias.
Actually, I believe there's a direct relationship. The bias in a news story, probably, isn't injected coldly as part of a vast conspiracy. More likely the author is adding his slant because he believes his opinion is the TRUTH. He really believes he's fighting the good fight and revealing the evil machinations of the bad guys (anyone who disagrees with him.)
Maybe the hiring process in the major news media companies is more favorable to people with certain politics, because the people doing the hiring also believe the same TRUTH.
But, I still don't think this has anything to do with getting fiction published. Your politics are going to take a back seat to a good story, unless you're writing something truly obnoxious.
posted
See, the funny thing is that I'm completely off topic, so Nexus is ignoring me and answering the original topic...over and over again. But nobody else is talking about the original topic, we all agree that anyone that really wants to publish can publish.
Doc is, as usual, resorting to the "I don't get it" argument. He apparently believes that everyone else here is stupid enough that if he asserts that my ideas are incomprehensible, then nobody will try to understand me.
But nobody else is bothering to reply anymore. So what is the point?
posted
I'm not sure what you expect me to respond to, Survivor. You've got a lot of generalization in your posts and in my search for a context, I fell back on the original topic.
If you're trying to say there is no cabal that decides what gets published, I agree.
If you think there should be some system in place to decide what is crap and what isn't, I say there already is one. It's slow and ineffective, but what's your alternative? The very cabal we all (I assume) agree is repugnant?
What are you defining as "crap" anyway?
Every movie on the Sci-fi channel certainly, but published books tend to be quite a bit more careful.
Non-fiction books with famous celebrities as authors? Just what book, regardless of quality, written by Hillary Clinton would not make millions of dollars. Madonna is writing childrens books for God's sake!
So what action would you have us take?
Not buy the books that ARE obvious crap? I'm already doing that, but Madonna's books are still selling.
Hold myself to a higher standard? I have that one covered too. But, I'm not getting published yet, so the revolution is stymied. Maybe I should use "George Foreman" as a pen name. Do you think that would help?
If I'm completely off the mark, perhaps you could give some context or perhaps an example or two. I'm not trying to be dim. Your individual ideas seem reasonable, but I just don't see where your trying to go with them.
posted
All I'm saying is that people shouldn't cling to the idea that there is an established, legitimate, "authorized" press that will make sure good books get published and crap books don't get published.
There isn't and never has been such a creature.
Not because it hasn't been tried, but because it cannot ever exist.
And yet, there are still people that continue to promote the idea that there are "legitimate" publications and "illegitimate" publications. That if one of the "legitimate" publishers puts out a text, then it is therefore less crappy than if some "illegitimate" publisher were to put out the exact same text.
As you pointed out, there is also the issue of getting paid...but whether the author got paid or not isn't a valid data point in determining whether the text is a serious contribution to literature. People get paid for naked pictures too, after all. Whether or not you actively disapprove of such a thing, it isn't serious literature.
Defending the core ideals of "freedom of the press" just happens to be one of my (many) hobby horses. That's all.
posted
I share that hobby horse, but I'm not so convinced there is no cabal operating in the publishing industry, though not necessarily a formal go-to-meetings sort of thing. I suspect it's more in tune with the perceived truth issue of Nexus' plausibility/bias argument. I'll return to part of my first post on this thread:
quote:As to the publishing scene, I'll ever regret I never responded to an answer to a letter to the editor in Writer's Digest many years ago. A reader was bemoaning the liberal bent of the publishing industry and WD's answer was to the effect that since that was the case, it would be better to take it into account when submitting. I was stunned that WD felt the bias of the industry no cause for concern, even though it was a clear hampering of a free exchange of ideas in the marketplace if writers were supposed to cater to the liberal bent of publishers.
When a stalwart of the writing scene, Writer's Digest magazine, suggests slanting submissions to a liberal-leaning publishing bias, if not in order to be published at least to make it more likely to get published, that tells me it is at least a little less likely that a conservatively bent submission will be accepted.
If this is the topic here,
quote:I can see how an argument could be made that the news media has a "liberal" bias, but does anyone here think there is a bias in the publishing industry?
my answer is 'yes.' Is the bias impossible to surmount? No, of course not. But should it be there in the first place?
For instance, I gave up reading the six (or is it seven?) sisters of women's magazines long ago, they are so chock-full of liberal pap. However, in a doctor's office or somewhere I had occasion a while back to leaf through one, and came upon a short story about Christian missionaries in Africa or somewhere -- a strange topic for the magazine, I thought, and started reading simply out of curiosity. The writing was superb, very engaging, the story intriguing -- all the more so because I couldn't figure out how it got in that particular magazine.
Then the ending, and it all became clear. The missionaries failed, no one was saved, the jungle grew back, removing all traces of the missionaries' work there. Slam dunk. <sigh of disappointment>
I submit that that story, no matter how well written, would not have been published in that particular magazine had the missionaries succeeded. I'll even go so far as to say the story was published because it was decidedly conservative-unfriendly. Would it have been published had it been badly written? No. But had it been passably written, probably.
quote:we live in a society where anyone determined to publish can scrape together the means to do it.
As true as that is, there is still that nagging reality that a book with a well-recognized publisher's name on the spine is looked at differently than a self-published book. And in a sense, rightly so. One assumes the book from the major publisher has had to jump through a lot of qualifying hoops. But that, to me, lays a heavier burden on the big-time publishers not to make one or more of those hoops ideology.
[This message has been edited by Kolona (edited April 28, 2004).]
quote:As true as that is, there is still that nagging reality that a book with a well-recognized publisher's name on the spine is looked at differently than a self-published book. And in a sense, rightly so. One assumes the book from the major publisher has had to jump through a lot of qualifying hoops. But that, to me, lays a heavier burden on the big-time publishers not to make one or more of those hoops ideology.
See, this is my problem. There is nothing you or anyone can do about what some other person (in this case, the muckity mucks of big publishing houses) decides to do. I'm against the "reality" that people assume that books published by the big publishing houses are better than books they don't publish.
Those publishing houses didn't get big by upholding the highest standards of literature. They got big by putting out what would sell, and then marketing their own products aggressively. Where in that equation is there any reason to believe they've made some commitment to literature as art?
The only reason to believe they care about literature is because they say so...because that's part of their marketing program, duh! Just like GM would have you believe that the H2 is built like a rock when in reality it's built more like a pile of gravel...expensive gravel, but still gravel.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
), that contemporary conservative may be just as eager to bring about a change as a contemporary liberal. So in a sense, a conservative (defined based on current policital meaning) may write liberally (based on the adjective). 
