The Sword and Laser discussion

I read this book a couple of years ago and I have to say that I just did not think it was this great book that the literati were raving about. It was a clever exercise in nesting the stories, but that was it.

I am starting to reach the point where I think that the literary circle of people occupy some closed world and just praise each other for writing books. It doesn't matter that no one else reads them. Although I suspect the profits from the bestsellers pays for them. Many of the prize-winning books sell comparatively small volumes.

That is not to say I am a fan of bestsellers either. Hats off to E.L.James for doing it herself, but I shall not read it.

I suspect I have just tied my thoughts in a knot.

Such a cynic, I am.
Phil

There's a whole lot more going on than just a clever way of nesting the stories. He's obviously well read and used his knowledge in this book.

Besides, if it worked that the literary circle can create a huge success for themselves, we wouldn't be having successful junk like The Hunger Games overtaking the world, while writers of thoughtful books like Women and Men have to support themselves by teaching or other jobs.

Aldenoneil, there will be an eBook out by another publisher. I need to go back to the Women and Men forum to track down the convo. to find out which publisher. Here's an interesting interview with Joseph McElroy regarding the publishing world.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CBeC7D...

As you can see, it's not that easy for the literal circle to make themselves rich. In fact, it's pretty darn hard. Remember the recent bonanzas Twilight and Fifty Shades of Grey? I'm sure if the literal world had their way, those books would not being seeing the light of day.

There is a Kindle version. I read it on Kindle on August, bought in the US store. And I noticed last night that there was an update for it (cover I think).

I quite enjoyed the book. I enjoyed being confused at first by the jump in the stories. I enjoyed references to other literature. I really enjoyed the red thread linking the stories. I am constantly amazed that one author wrote all the stories, arching styles and voices. I don't think many authors could do that.

I do feel that the detective story was the weakest. And the first and middle stories were hard to read, thanks to the language and dialect, respectively. But I really loved the book. Sadly, I can see a ton of pele Lem'ing this one.

Never Lem a book. Always see it though. At least you can comment on it with authority :-)

I think the vast majority of mainstream press for books comes from people with an educational background that heavily favors post modernism and experimental literature. Since most of the critics were taught their trade by deconstructing those sorts of books, it makes sense that they would focus on the same in their work.

In other words; if someone goes from Harvard straight to the New York Time, they don't know any better.

But don't think it's confined to the "literary genre." Genre writers have been forming cabals (they call them groups) to help and promote each other for decades. The Turkey City and Milford workshops turned several sf writers into mainstream successes by bringing them to the attention of established writers and editors.

The Black Masks advanced the careers of Raymond Chandler, Dashiell Hammett and other detective writers.

Then there's whatever has been going on in Utah.

I think if you want serious attention paid to genre fiction by print publication, it's never going to be as much as you like because of the relationship the "literati," and the critics.

However, if you look at Mitchell's background he grew up outside they system. He didn't go to Harvard or Cambridge. And unlike some of the other people that the "establishment" chooses, the man can write.

Daran wrote: "I think the vast majority of mainstream press for books comes from people with an educational background that heavily favors post modernism and experimental literature. Since most of the critics w..."

I don't think so. I am currently listening to an audio that I am having to go through a long spiel from Stephen King, Lee Childs, etc., about how great this book is. I've listened to this audio before but abandoned it from boredom, fuming that I was lured into picking it because of these great blurbs. Cloud Atlas did not have that, nor any other "literary" or experimental literature.

I do agree about genre writers forming a cabal. That goes for romance, thrillers, etc. The romance, YA and thriller people are the worst. I have not seen the "literary" people doing that, such as blasting an audio with sales gimmick before you even listen to it, or popping into forums with blurbs, or threatening reviewers for bad reviews. I think they have too much taste and intelligence to do that.

Guess what the beginning of my review will say about this audio?

Sorry, but I am very grumpy right now because I was listening to this audio that has all this advertising in the beginning from these popular authors promoting this author, making him practically a genius. The least they could do is make it at the end so that you don't have to forward or listen to this crap if your hand is not free to forward it (as in driving). Can you sue an audio company for causing an accident as you crazily try to push the forward button while driving on the highway?

I have not encountered one incident of this from novels such as Cloud Atlas or House of Leaves or Women and Men. The worst I ever got was a list of other works the author has done, not a splashing of blurbs from Stephen King, et. al, about what a genius this author is. But I imagine since Cloud Atlas has a movie out and is in the hands of people with huge investments in it, it would start having that, if not already.

Daran.....What has been going on in Utah?

I was thinking about the lose association of fantasy and science fiction writers that studied English at BYU. Orson Scott Card, Dave Wolverton, Brandon Sanderson, and others. Many of them share similar --if not styles-- characteristics in their writing. There's no formal organization, it just seems like they help and promote each other. They are not all from Utah either. You can see a lot of the same themes and characteristics from writers all over the country on Orson Scott Card's Intergalactic Medicine Show.

I've even taken to looking for new f/sf authors from BYU because it's a style of writing that I enjoy. (notable exception to this, Stephanie Meyer) The only drawback is that the deliberate nature of the writing can sometimes become pedantic.

Going to take Phil's advice and not Lem the book, but I am bored almost to the point of tears thus far.

I've written elsewhere and at length about the degree to which "high literature" itself is merely another genre categorization, a development of the 19th-century fear of the literati that the lower and middle classes were impinging on their territory by, you know, reading. Popular fiction was derided as automatically inferior not so much as a matter of objective critical superiority but as a way to make sure that people could maintain the distinctions between economic classes in the aesthetic fields where some barriers between 'art' and 'not art' were starting to weaken.

That said, I'm finding each individual bit of Cloud Atlas readable. I'm having a harder time with the structure as a whole. My understanding is that there will be some form of return to these stories as the...novel?...goes on, but I'm wondering whether I can look for real closure. There are lots of distinctions between "high" literature and "lowbrow" popular genre fiction, and one of those is the degree to which the latter deliver narrative catharsis. I'm not sure who is responsible for the association between open-ended, inconclusive ending and "art," but I'd like to find them some day and kick them, hard, right where it hurts. There's no virtue in incomplete plotting. Catharsis is good value for a reader's money, and I better get some by book's end.

If so much value were not placed on beingan author of the elusive "literature" in our culture, I suspect authors like Margaret Atwood wouldn't try so hard to claim "literary" and reject any genre association.

I read heavily in both categories, and think there are some literary sci-fi authors, and some literary authors that tend to use tricks.

To me, I call something literary in any genre that has GOOD WRITING. How could you read Valente or MacDonald and leave them out (among others)?

Phil wrote: "Never Lem a book. Always see it though. At least you can comment on it with authority :-)"

I couldn't Lem a book if I wanted. I'd go crazy knowing I hadn't finished it.

I think the most impressive part of Cloud Atlas from a writing standpoint is how the writing style changes. It's very believable for the first several parts (past and present day) and then does some different things for the futuristic sections.

That being said, I guess the thoughts of literary critics don't have much of an impact on me. I have books that I love and I don't expect a lot of other people to fully understand why.

Chris wrote: "Going to take Phil's advice and not Lem the book, but I am bored almost to the point of tears thus far."

I'm right there with you. I've only gotten to the 4th story, and the last one had me in fits. I get the impression that Mitchel doesn't understand how a mystery is supposed to be written. The fact that none of these stories really seem to connect in any meaningful way doesn't help either.

I had this issue with a book Neil Gammon praised as the most influential book he ever read. The Swords of Lankhmar... needless to say I found it full of neat story ideas but poorly written and hard to finish.

Have to agree with your theme, that I felt underwhelmed. I was almost ready to put it down after the second story,but since I hate to not finish anything I don't detest I went on and found the middle three stories the most interesting.

I believe a big issue was the Hyde I went into this book with. It didn't stand up to what I expected

Hate to say it, but I'm throwing in the towel. The first story bored me. I couldn't get into the second story. I gave it a go. Perhaps, like Hyperion, I'll come back to the book in a year or two and be more ready for it. It took me 3 attempts to get through Hyperion.

Chris wrote: "Hate to say it, but I'm throwing in the towel. The first story bored me. I couldn't get into the second story. I gave it a go. Perhaps, like Hyperion, I'll come back to the book in a year or two an..."

I barely made it out of those two stories without lemming it. In my personal opinion that the rest of the stories are better in the first half than the first two. I'd try the third and if you still can't stand it stop. But, of course, the decision is up to you.

Phil wrote: "I read this book a couple of years ago and I have to say that I just did not think it was this great book that the literati were raving about. It was a clever exercise in nesting the stories, but t..."

I just finished the book, and here are my two cents. This author is a skillful stylist and the plot lines are well crafted. What impressed me is how he's using the nesting narrative format to make an interesting claim about the malleability of human nature. Neither the format nor the idea are unique, but the execution is excellent, so my vote is yes, Cloud Atlas is a very solid and successful literary undertaking.

You guys are doing way better than me.
I bought the book last year, read a page, then passed it onto a charity shop.

Jenny wrote: "If so much value were not placed on being an author of the elusive "literature" in our culture, I suspect authors like Margaret Atwood wouldn't try so hard to claim "literary" and reject any genre a..."

It's such an English-speaking-world hang-up too. Other cultures don't seem to have as many problems mixing "genre" into their literature. There's the old joke:

Q: What's "magical realism"?
A: Fantasy written by Latin American authors.

It's why I have the utmost respect for a writer like Michael Chabon, an acclaimed literary writer who openly acknowledges and embraces his genre influences.

In another time and place Michael Chabon would have been vying with H.P. Lovecraft and Robert E. Howard for space in Weird Tales. Or trying to crank out monthly issues at DC Comics. I've always gotten that impression anyway.

I'm always amazed that foreign fantasy markets are ignored as much as they are by English publishers. If works like Solaris, and Blood of Elves have taught us anything, it's that there's a diverse fantasy and sci fi genre outside English. I wish more translations were available.

Daran wrote: " If works like Solaris, and Blood of Elves have taught us anything, it's that there's a diverse fantasy and sci fi genre outside English. I wish more translations were available."


I have to agree. Somewhere there is a great pile of books in many languages waiting to be shared.

I think a book can be classified as literature based on the effect it has on it's audience. If the book provokes, challenges, forces the reader to confront their own sense of certainty, then its literature.

Fantasy author R. Scott Bakker is a critic of contemporary literary culture and has some good posts on his blog dealing with this topic.

I recommend checking out the following:

The Post-Posterity Writer (or, How to Write Literature at the End of the World)

If my aesthetic inclinations tend toward Harold Bloom, you might ask–as some have–why I would bother rubbing ink shoulders with Stephen King. Why would I, as an English professor friend of mine once asked, “waste my time writing that fantasy crap?”

Because I am a socially conscientious writer. Because I want to argue with my readers, not entertain them with aesthetic and intellectual buzzes. Because, as much as I crave the respect of my literary peers, I have no interest in pandering to their values. Because I believe in the social value of literature. Because I believe writers have responsibilities.

Because I’m convinced that genre is the only place where literature reliably happens... If you want to do more than simply entertain, then you have to reach out with your fiction, communicate to readers whose values and beliefs are substantially different from your own. And I would argue that pound for pound there’s no better vehicle for doing this than writing genre fiction.

Dancing Bears and Wild Ones

We live in an e-Harmony world, one bent on eradicating the ‘bad date,’ the risky encounter with a stranger who forces us to reconsider who we are. The contemporary literary writer can no longer ‘experiment with form’ in isolation from its actual social conditions. He or she can no longer hide behind appeals to the Ideal Philistine, the person who would be challenged by their work were they to read it. If you wish to transgress, in ways crass or subtle, you now need to seek your audience. You need to stop ‘writing for yourself,’ or worse, looking at your reader as a friend. You must muster the courage to argue with strangers…So let me be blunt: Forget the academic priests. The God of Things as They Are is dead. If social conscience in any way motivates your writing, then you have an obligation to reach out, to begin gaming channels. You risk hypocrisy and irrelevance otherwise.

The curse of the English professor is to ponder Literature until they lose the ability to experience it. Tyrannized by past successes in long dead social environments, they come to conflate the literary with the reliable production of aesthetic and intellectual ‘buzzes,’ and so confuse their rarified entertainment with something more difficult and unruly.

The Future of Literature in the Age of Information

Since a work only produces literary effects relative to some audience of readers, literary authors need to know their readers. They need to identify audiences possessing dissenting values and attitudes. Then they need to either hijack or embrace the narrative forms most commonly marketed to them.

This means all the old and largely unfounded prejudices against genre fiction must be set aside. Genre only seems antithetical to ‘literature’ because the literary have turned it into a flattering foil, abandoned it, in effect, leaving a rhetorical fog of self-congratulation in their wake. In my own case, I chose epic fantasy because I knew the best way to provoke readers with a narrative meditation on the nature and consequences of belief was to reach actual believers. And provoke I did. Other writers, like China Mieville, M. John Harrison, Gene Wolfe, John Crowley, to name just a few, are doing the same thing, producing work that is obviously literary, openly provocative, yet unheard of in literary circles for the simple sin of wearing wrong generic skin. These are the writers who are genuinely shaking things up, as opposed to hawking intellectual and aesthetic buzzes inside the literary echo chamber.

Commercial genres must be seen for what they are, relatively fixed channels of communication to relatively dedicated audiences, not as ‘cages’ preventing some mythic ‘free expression.’ All channels of communication force senders to ‘play the game’ to reach a given group of receivers. English is such a game. The rules only seem coercive, ‘like work,’ when you don’t enjoy the game or if you think it’s ‘stupid’ or ‘beneath’ you. The literary author has to move past these old and embarrassing conceits. The idea is to play the margins, to play the game well enough to be identified as a ‘trusted sender’ by the receiver, all the while exploring ways to challenge their background assumptions.