I know I asked you this already, but don't remember the answer, and in light of your section about Faye, I very much want to know the answer.
Have you read Gideon the Ninth?
I would level the same criticisms you do at the Netflix Faye at the main character in Gideon. The difference is, Gideon the Ninth has been critically acclaimed-- specifically as an empowering novel-- and is written by a woman. I'd be super curious to hear your take (though I think I remember you hadn't read it).
Yeah, own it but haven't read it, so I can't really say anything specific about it.
I may write an essay about something related to this later, since I have a lot of thoughts about this specifically. I'm not sure what it is with books of the last ten years, but I often get the sense that editors and critics haven't read many books published before 1980.
I've read various acclaimed novels written by women of color from the last few years that, to me, felt like someone rewriting Henry Miller or Charles Bukowski or John Fante but from the perspective of a woman or queer person. Which, I mean, is fine. But it's hard for me to think of these books as groundbreaking or anything like that when they're just doing the same thing that Miller did in the 1920s. Or, like, Djuna Barnes did this stuff a century ago, too. Anais Nim, too. Then there are people like Joanna Russ and Kathy Acker who did this same thing in the 1980s and 1990s.
I fundamentally don't think that things need to be new to be creative and good, but I find a lot of books have very inflated praise. Especially because so many of them are about wealthy young women (or men) working in publishing or in the university system. So you have these driftless young women narrating a type of life, where they don't need to worry about money or housing or medical or student debt, because they're rich. But--get this--they kind of hate themselves! And they have sex with terrible men they don't like very much, but this makes them feel nothing instead of a whole lot. Instead of being alcoholics like Miller or Fante or Bukowski, they swallow prescription drugs like Dr House from 2004. When men write these books, they are rightly criticized for writing banal stories about young wealthy people living a disaffected life in a big city that is so foreign to 99% of people.
This is a long way of saying that I don't know why people like these things or why critics love them so much. Part of it surely has to do with the fetishization of debut authors, which has to do with the corporate pressures put on publishers and authors (maybe another essay could be about this!). The midlist author has largely disappeared over the last 20 years, due to a lot of different factors, but market consolidation is a big one driving it. Publishers are primarily only looking for blockbuster titles by authors already known for blockbusters or for debut authors. Where authors could gradually grow their career steadily over the course of a few books, then hitting big with maybe book 3 or 8 or 15, now authors need to hit big right away. It's easier to market a debut author as the Next Big Thing than it is to say that this lady with 7 books finally wrote one everyone wants to read. And if they identify you as the Next Big Thing, give you a 6 or 7 figure advance, and you don't earn out that advance? Well, you'll be lucky to get another shot at it.
Publishers are basically demanding that new authors immediately become Stephen King or JK Rowling level of bestsellerdom. And if they don't, well, that sucks for that author, but there are always new debuts that might be the next Harry Potter or Game of Thrones or The Hunger Games.
To bring it all the way back to Gideon the Ninth - she was a debut author who wrote an idiosyncratic novel that had just the right mash-up of elements that Tor saw big potential for her. And she succeeded commercially! And her next book succeeded too!
I also think, right now, many reviewers and editors are in a different industry environment than they were even five years ago. I think because of the inequities baked into the publishing industry for a hundred years, more publishers and reviewers are trying to elevate certain kind of voices. Whether this is good or bad, conscious or not, is maybe a secondary question. And I may be wrong about this, but I think that the political realities of the last five years has led to different kinds of pressures in the creative industries.
Anyway, I think many of the best novels of the last decade have been written by women. Or at least many of my favorite fiction books since 2010 have been written by women. But I think there are a lot of debut authors who are given big critical boosts that I don't really think is merited.
I think much of my frustration comes from the idea of "well this author is opening the door for other voices and ideas" and the idea that that's enough for some people.
I think it's really important, and it's really good. The world is a better place because Gideon the Ninth and Ancillary Justice are out there. However, they're just not very good books, and I'll never understand the appeal of claiming they are when it's simply not true.
This is especially true when we have all the diverse voices coming from the likes of N.K. Jemisin, or S.A. Chakraborty, or Becky Chambers. It's time to start judging by the merit of the text again, rather than just giving poor writing a pass.
I think for many people, they're not able to dissociate the political moment from most aspects of culture and life. Which makes sense, but maybe isn't the most useful critical hat to where when evaluating art.
I know I asked you this already, but don't remember the answer, and in light of your section about Faye, I very much want to know the answer.
Have you read Gideon the Ninth?
I would level the same criticisms you do at the Netflix Faye at the main character in Gideon. The difference is, Gideon the Ninth has been critically acclaimed-- specifically as an empowering novel-- and is written by a woman. I'd be super curious to hear your take (though I think I remember you hadn't read it).
Yeah, own it but haven't read it, so I can't really say anything specific about it.
I may write an essay about something related to this later, since I have a lot of thoughts about this specifically. I'm not sure what it is with books of the last ten years, but I often get the sense that editors and critics haven't read many books published before 1980.
I've read various acclaimed novels written by women of color from the last few years that, to me, felt like someone rewriting Henry Miller or Charles Bukowski or John Fante but from the perspective of a woman or queer person. Which, I mean, is fine. But it's hard for me to think of these books as groundbreaking or anything like that when they're just doing the same thing that Miller did in the 1920s. Or, like, Djuna Barnes did this stuff a century ago, too. Anais Nim, too. Then there are people like Joanna Russ and Kathy Acker who did this same thing in the 1980s and 1990s.
I fundamentally don't think that things need to be new to be creative and good, but I find a lot of books have very inflated praise. Especially because so many of them are about wealthy young women (or men) working in publishing or in the university system. So you have these driftless young women narrating a type of life, where they don't need to worry about money or housing or medical or student debt, because they're rich. But--get this--they kind of hate themselves! And they have sex with terrible men they don't like very much, but this makes them feel nothing instead of a whole lot. Instead of being alcoholics like Miller or Fante or Bukowski, they swallow prescription drugs like Dr House from 2004. When men write these books, they are rightly criticized for writing banal stories about young wealthy people living a disaffected life in a big city that is so foreign to 99% of people.
This is a long way of saying that I don't know why people like these things or why critics love them so much. Part of it surely has to do with the fetishization of debut authors, which has to do with the corporate pressures put on publishers and authors (maybe another essay could be about this!). The midlist author has largely disappeared over the last 20 years, due to a lot of different factors, but market consolidation is a big one driving it. Publishers are primarily only looking for blockbuster titles by authors already known for blockbusters or for debut authors. Where authors could gradually grow their career steadily over the course of a few books, then hitting big with maybe book 3 or 8 or 15, now authors need to hit big right away. It's easier to market a debut author as the Next Big Thing than it is to say that this lady with 7 books finally wrote one everyone wants to read. And if they identify you as the Next Big Thing, give you a 6 or 7 figure advance, and you don't earn out that advance? Well, you'll be lucky to get another shot at it.
Publishers are basically demanding that new authors immediately become Stephen King or JK Rowling level of bestsellerdom. And if they don't, well, that sucks for that author, but there are always new debuts that might be the next Harry Potter or Game of Thrones or The Hunger Games.
To bring it all the way back to Gideon the Ninth - she was a debut author who wrote an idiosyncratic novel that had just the right mash-up of elements that Tor saw big potential for her. And she succeeded commercially! And her next book succeeded too!
I also think, right now, many reviewers and editors are in a different industry environment than they were even five years ago. I think because of the inequities baked into the publishing industry for a hundred years, more publishers and reviewers are trying to elevate certain kind of voices. Whether this is good or bad, conscious or not, is maybe a secondary question. And I may be wrong about this, but I think that the political realities of the last five years has led to different kinds of pressures in the creative industries.
Anyway, I think many of the best novels of the last decade have been written by women. Or at least many of my favorite fiction books since 2010 have been written by women. But I think there are a lot of debut authors who are given big critical boosts that I don't really think is merited.
I think much of my frustration comes from the idea of "well this author is opening the door for other voices and ideas" and the idea that that's enough for some people.
I think it's really important, and it's really good. The world is a better place because Gideon the Ninth and Ancillary Justice are out there. However, they're just not very good books, and I'll never understand the appeal of claiming they are when it's simply not true.
This is especially true when we have all the diverse voices coming from the likes of N.K. Jemisin, or S.A. Chakraborty, or Becky Chambers. It's time to start judging by the merit of the text again, rather than just giving poor writing a pass.
No argument from me there!
I think for many people, they're not able to dissociate the political moment from most aspects of culture and life. Which makes sense, but maybe isn't the most useful critical hat to where when evaluating art.