Topic 2: Enough Already!

Robert: The overexposed/"enough already" question is about two faces of literary journalism's hydra. I don't know that I read widely or consistently enough to know what is being over-reported though I suspect that given today's rampant pack journalism in other areas one may be able to extrapolate safely and know what is being reported.

Anyway, I think the story I am sick of and unfortunately it won't go away soon - Harry Potter and its phenomenal sales blah blah blah.

Secondly, the Snark issue which has given way to secondary and tertiary (like a STD) or meta-snarkery.

And last but not least the nattering flocks perched on window ledges twittering about Al Franken and the Fox law suit and category of books of various political stripes that are supposedly part of public (political) discourse. Other than Ivins and Conason, these aren't really books at all, I think. They are stand-up monologue scripts or the shrieking of carny barkers.

Though I think we haven't seen the apex yet I am already sick of articles as in the Washington Post about that wretched verb, dare I say it, "blogging."

Maud: All signs point to The Believer anti-Snark manifesto. And since so much discussion has been devoted to the debate, both online and in print, I don't feel compelled to try to shed new light on the issue here. 

Even though I believe the story is played out, a friend recently raised a good counter-argument. He pointed out that the proprietors of weblogs and online magazines tend to grow weary of a debate before the terms of the debate are communicated to the wider public. While the number of people turning to weblogs for literary and other news is on the rise, many continue to rely on their local newspapers and favorite magazines to summarize major developments.

It's understandable that the discussion would seem stale to us before it even appeared in the major magazines and newspapers and then trickled down to the pages of alternative weeklies distributed in colleges around the country. Still, as my friend said, the question of the proper tone of reviews is one worthy of consideration by intelligent people who do not devote their lives to the online discussion of literary developments.

Michael: Enough already of: Harry Potter and it's phenomenal sales, books of various political stripes that are supposedly part of public (political) discourse, and articles about "blogging"? I am not sure. These are all phenomena worthy of some discussion. One of the things that surprised me about the reaction to Jennifer Howard's Washington Post article was how many other bloggers claimed never to have even heard of those mentioned in the article (as well as her own admission that she wasn't familiar with Identity Theory) - i.e. how very isolated the literary blogging community seems to be, not only from mainstream USA but even active bloggers. (Are we really this marginal?) So I actually think there needs to be more coverage of literary weblogging specifically - and probably blogging in general.

As to Harry Potter and the bestselling so-called political books, I do admit to a certain fascination with the incredible success of both. Though I wish some of the coverage was more serious.

As to snarkery: that I am - sort of - tired of. But it's the incessant squealing of that horrible word - "Snark! snark! snark!" - in any and every book-review related piece that's driving me nuts. The issue itself, and the broader question of how books should be reviewed, is one of enough interest to me that I'm almost willing to put up with the continued (over)use of the s-word.

My own opinions on "Enough already!", or a story or person we heard too much about in 2003:

Most of the time I'm so grateful for any literary coverage that it wouldn't occur to me to complain that there's too much of any of it. I was somewhat annoyed by a few figures and books - Hillary Clinton's memoir, Lauren Weisberger's The Devil Wears Prada (surely utterly ignorable books both), Michael Moore (now an international superstar!), etc. - and certainly I feel that space devoted to them could have been put to better use, but I'll admit that their incredible success warranted some coverage. All the to-do about The Believer crowd has also gotten to be a bit much - but since it has also resulted in some worthwhile coverage (a lot of reactions, especially to the essay that started it all, I found quite interesting) I can accept that too.

So for my choice I'll fall back on a favorite stand-by: the excessive coverage of personality over content, writer over book. I don't want to hear about the writers, I want the discussions to be about the works. Yes, yes, a bit of writer-information is useful - but most coverage is limited to superficialities, and I think that does more damage than good.

Jessa: I would also like a moratorium on discussing what a female author is wearing in an interview with her. It's insulting. Every article on Jhumpa Lahiri began with a paragraph or two discussing how pretty she is, what clothes she likes, calling her an "exotic beauty" at least once. She won the Pulitzer. Perhaps she has a few interesting things to say.

And in regards to the Great Snark Debate, I want more literary feuds. Real ones, though. The Frey/Eggers thing didn't last long enough. Frey apologized much too quickly. It's silly and it's nonsense, but I love it.

The topic of conversation I would like to die: chick lit. I don't fucking care if sales are up or down. If it's a fad or "here to stay." I just want it all to go away.

Alex: Chick lit will never die! Romance novels make up one-third of all the fiction bought in the United States. That’s not a niche. It’s the mainstream.

The whole Harry Potter thing is becoming a bore. Call it Star Wars syndrome. I think this is one fad that is just about played out. Because it’s such a powerful media franchise it’s going to stay in the news (and of course make hundreds of millions of dollars), but you can already see a public weariness. The selling patterns indicate this. Huge pre-orders (everybody wants to be the first on their block to read the new Harry Potter) followed by weaker sales over time. What I find disturbing is that more adults than kids are reading this stuff. Publishers have even started talking about the "kidult" market. I think anyone over the age of 12 reading Harry Potter in public should have to wear a paper bag over their head. Grow up people. I’d rather read pornography. At least its fantasies are post-pubescent.

I think the most over-reported stories have all been mentioned. And I take Michael’s point that they were worthy of (some) discussion.

Except in one case, which is the "Snark" business.

I think everyone can see through the McSweeney’s crowd now. This juvenile circle-jerk has gone on long enough, and why anyone continues to pay attention to the Book Brats is beyond me. You want excessive coverage of personality over content? The last time I checked Peter Pan (David Eggers) and his self-worshipping Island of Lost Children were responsible for the world’s largest library of books that nobody has finished reading. As marketers discovered several decades ago, if you can brand something new as cool and "hip" (the preferred adjective in this case), then what you’re actually selling becomes irrelevant. Buzz and hype feeds on itself, leaving unfortunate reviewers (what used to be the front line) to scratch their heads.

The Snark essay was typical. It went on forever and said absolutely nothing. I defy anyone - defy anyone - to explain to me what Julavits’s point was. She believes in literature and wants critics to be fair. Gee lambchop, that’s swell. Such a vapid manifesto would never have been published outside of a house organ like The Believer, and even if it had it would have been justifiably ignored. But no, there has to be a big non-debate over whether critics are too nasty - which is not the point.

Instead of squawking over who’s the biggest bitch on the block, a more interesting line of inquiry would be in assessing how so little talent has managed to pass itself off as some kind of important or even significant "movement". Writers of good ad-copy are dime a dozen. I give Eggers and company credit for being adept (if cynical) players of the fame game, but Britney Spears has more substance and integrity.

Michael: I wasn't overly impressed by the original Snark-essay either (and still don't know exactly what the term means) - but I do like the fact that it led to discussions about book reviewing. I was particularly impressed by the number (and, often, quality) of the responses printed on the Internet: it was one of the few times I thought an actual literary debate of sorts took place.

Robert: It is a characteristic of media coverage on so called major stories that it goes on past the point of adding new information or understanding to a story. I am not tired of Harry Potter because I have a feeling (mild disinterest doesn't qualify as feeling in my calculus of emotion) one way or another about Harry Potter. My HP fatigue comes from hearing the same basic story over and over. As for the Snark snipping I thought everything after Clive James (interestingly, another very controversial writer was scheduled to write that piece) was redundant.

I would stand by my earlier choices of "Please, no more" choices but I have a feeling that well before the pre-Trial of Century even takes place I'll be wishing for Harry Potter coverage or rehashes of the snarky Snark debate. I do like Barry Crimmins take on this latest giga story:

"I don't like the inanity of media priorities that allowed Michael Jackson's arrest on child molestation charges to garner more airtime than the Turkish terrorist attacks, the massive British protests, the latest Wall Street scandal, the Quagmire in Iraq and the Republican energy and Medicare scams put together . . . we mustn't downgrade the seriousness of the case against Jackson because of our disgust with the media swarm. We must let the media know that we understand that Jackson's story won't be told until a judge or jury speaks and that we can wait for that result. We've got to hold the media accountable for covering the larger story of the court-appointed Bush administration's molestation of human rights, the environment and our very way of life. Such editorial scrutiny will only help kids. Goodness knows that cutbacks in human services necessitated by Bush giveaways to the ultra-wealthy have made the USA a more dangerous place for children."