Re: Number 64
Camille Scaysbrook (verona_beach@geocities.com)
Sun, 26 Jul 1998 13:07:37 +1000
> >>I heard a wonderful quote about this phenomena the other day but
> >>foolishly neglected to write it down - something like `It's the critics
> >>that tell you how to paint but we're the ones who have to look at it' -
> >>i.e. I think ultimately I'd rather have 1 enraptured reader than 5
> >>enraptured critics.
>
> Well, this highlights an area of thought that I think is hard to
explain,
> harder to define, and certainly one I could expound one forever. Critics
> have their jobs, and while I agree with fewer than 2% of them as a whole,
> their opinions *do* have some merit.
Certainly. But I don't think it's entirely fair to value one over the other
- indeed, it's sometimes difficult to even compare the laden response of a
critic to a piece of work to the impassioned, instinctive response of the
amateur reader. I guess it all comes back to the theory that we all read a
book differently - I read My TCIR and you read yours, and although we are
reading the same book our responses to it are irrevocably different - as
are that of a Doctor of Philosophy to the guy who picked it up for two
dollars at the secondhand store because it looked interesting. It doesn't
necessarily mean one's interpretation is more valid than the others'
> Otherwise, the Grishams or Steels of the world would be lauded as the
next
> Shakespeare and send the masses to the bookstores with cash or credit
cards
> eagerly to be handed over
Now, that's reducing the argument to a pretty facile level. Like I said
earlier, when we talk about our Grishams and our Wilbur Smiths and, in
Australia, our Bryce Courtenays, we're talking not about authors but
corporations set up to produce novels simply figureheaded by the author. My
uncle used to work with Bryce Courtenay in advertising, and in his pursuit
of writing Courtenay's taken about 90% of his old proffession on board with
him. In some ways I like his ideas of getting books out of the bookstores
and into the hands of your average supermarket shopper (he gave copies of
the first chapter of his latest novel out at trainstations and supermarkets
to this purpose) but as for turning the novel into another mass marketed
cookie cutter comestible like the movies I find strains credibility a
little more. What I'm trying to establish though is a division between
those writing with an ear to their heart and those with an ear to their
bank account. Two very, very different and virtually incomparable breeds.
> I don't care
> about 5 enraptured critics and 5,000 enraptured readers doesn't move me
> either.
I was saying this from the point of view of a writer myself - thus firmly
placing myself in the Heart variety of writer I think.
> For myself, I am notoriously skeptical of those
> books that are "popular" as well as those that are "critically accepted".
Oh, me too - in fact I very rarely read anything produced in the last
twenty or so years, let alone the last ten (the last contemporary book I
read was `Alias Grace' by Margaret Atwood, which I thought was good but not
great) I've found that in Australia at least there's a trend towards very
well written fiction that has absolutely nothing interesting to say -
hugely well received and purchased, but of no interest to me whatsoever.
With the success of people like Frank McCourt (a rare blend of integrity
and critical acclaim) I'm hoping there will be a return to the Story - the
good, solid foundation of any novel which is all too often neglected. That
doesn't disinclude non - linear stories, either - by `story' I simply mean
an effective skeleton over which to form the flesh.
Camille
verona_beach@geocities.com
@ THE ARTS HOLE
www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Theater/6442
THE INVERTED FOREST
www.angelfire.com/pa/invertedforest