January - June 2005

April 22/05: And Mother Wants You!

In an open letter signed by hundreds of American literary figures, Word of Mouth ("an Association of Women Authors") is pleading with day-time talk show host Oprah Winfrey to consider again focusing on contemporary authors on her popular televised Book Club.

When Oprah left I wasn't very impressed (for what I said at the time, see here). I didn't think anybody would be able to fill her shoes (and apparently nobody has, which is part of the problem), but I didn't think this was a bad thing. I thought her selections, while not without merit, had become predictable, leading to a lot of "Oprah titles" crowding the bookshelves. (The Word of Mouth letter admits as much, telling of how "First novelists and literary authors felt emboldened to write because of the outside chance that an editor would see their work as potential Book Club material." Is that supposed to be a good thing? That first novelists were trying to write Oprah material? All the more reason for her to stay away, I'd say.) I also thought her parting shot at contemporary lit, that she didn't find enough of it sufficiently compelling to recommend, was just plain ignorant.

In short, I wasn't sad to see her go.

Not Word of Mouth. According to the open letter, when Book Club members stopped buying new titles it "changed the face of American publishing." How so? Fewer sales? Well I guess so, but how is that "changing the face"? Has American fiction been in decline since Oprah's departure? Or is that something anybody even cares about?

But it gets more plaintive:

"The American literary landscape is in distress. Sales of contemporary fiction are still falling, and so are the numbers of people who are reading. Readers complain that, although daunting numbers of new books are published, too few of them are brought to the public's attention in a meaningful way. Readers have trouble finding contemporary books they'll like. They, the readers, need you. And we, the writers, need you."

Right. The authors need her to be their shill, while the readers need her . . . because they're just too stupid to know what they want? Because it's too much work to read the review section of the newspaper or book reviews online? Because Amazon recommendations aren't as much fun as seeing the book you're reading being talked about on TV by a celebrity? This isn't about building word of mouth, but an attempt to reinstate word of Mouth. It's not a Book Club, it's a personality cult. How does it help contemporary fiction to have a bunch of dittoheads robotically going out and buying what they're told? Is it turning them into readers, turning them on to reading? Obviously not. When Oprah stopped recommending contemporary fiction her loyal followers simply stopped reading contemporary fiction. Some influence.

Can't read without Oprah? Get a life. Think about it: If you don't care enough, or aren't interested enough, to freely pick out a book you want to read and enjoy, then you might as well not be reading at all. Go do something else. You're obviously not that interested in books anyway.

On a related note, and since I've got a full head of steam going, it appears some lit bloggers (the Literary Co-op) are coming out with their own "Read This!" campaign. It's a nice idea, though I'm a little concerned by the extent to which it is being described as an exercise in measuring the (commercial) "power" and "influence" of the blogs. I wish them well, but the recent history of such efforts to bring wider attention to under-appreciated novels and writers hasn't been good. After a big launch, prepped by extensive media coverage and even a televised award ceremony, the ReLit Awards don't seem to get noticed much these days (though they are still going). And after all the fuss died down, whatever happened to the "five [unknown and unappreciated] women from New York" who were shortlisted for the National Book Award? One assumes Oprah-viewers don't pay much attention to these things.

Most great writing that is unknown and unappreciated stays that way not because of a lack of media exposure but simply because it doesn't appeal to a mass audience. And that's something that's pretty hard to change.

March 12/05: On TV

The TVO book show Imprint is being cancelled as the latest rounds of budget cuts take effect at the public broadcasting station.

Imprint, which is now in its sixteenth season, began as the brainchild of Daniel Richler. He brought a combination of engagement, coolness and intellectual focus to the show that it was never able to recapture. That is not, of course, the reason for it being cancelled (Tina Srebotnjak, the current host, has been the best since Richler's departure). But it does make one wonder what it is that that makes a good book show.

Television is not the enemy of the written word. They are such very different things they never really compete. But a television show about books is first of all a television show. Which means it has to be fairly snappy and play to personality. And here is the biggest problem: Authors are not always snappy and tend not to have telegenic personalities. When you see authors being interviewed on television it's almost always disappointing. This is so even when the format allows for a long discussion. I have seen Douglas Coupland interviewed on TV, at length, twice and both times he struck me as - what used to be called - retarded. This isn't to blame the authors (though in Coupland's case I might make an exception). Their job isn't to be interesting or even articulate in person. But we're talking about making a book show.

Another reason author interviews so rarely work on TV stems from the almost pathological sensitivity writers have. Anyone who has had any dealing with writers, however slight, knows this. You have to be nice. But once you combine a nice-by-nature host (Tina Srebotnjak) with an interview format that looks more and more like a staged Hollywood junket (that is, pure promotion), and an interviewee with less than nothing to say, the results can be (and often were) painfully banal.

Most authors on TV are simply out of their element, and the focus of attention, whether we like it or not, naturally turns toward the host. Richler, the CBCs Mary Walsh, and the positively demented "Commander Rick" from the terrific SF TVO show Prisoners of Gravity, can carry a show. And they don't talk down to their audience. Imprint, in later years, often seemed to be trying for too gracious, even book-club-ish, a tone. But a book club isn't good TV either (unless you're Oprah).

Imprint is still a fine show, and it will be a terrible shame if we lose it. I'm not a big television-watcher, but I've always tried to catch it when I can. I think book shows do play an important part in promoting and disseminating a literary culture. But books are books, TV is TV, and the Internet is . . .  

January 19/05: Signing Off

A movement is afoot to get famous writers out of signing books.

The first I heard of this was a couple of weeks ago in a story about Margaret Atwood's "invention" for signing books from remote locations. All tuckered out after her most recent book tour, she decided there "had to be a better way of doing this":

"I am now an old-age pensioner, I cannot keep doing this. I can't keep eating Pringles [from the hotel minibar] and keep getting on the plane at 4 in the morning."

Life is hard. Why she was only allowed to eat Pringles, and why she had to "keep" getting 4 AM flights was not explained in any of the stories I read. It seems that even famous authors don't get very much respect.

Or perhaps she was embellishing, just a bit.

As described, the invention consists of a TV screen that allows you to talk to the author in real time (no offence to Ms. Atwood, but I think that may have already been invented), and a mechanical arm and pen that will somehow copy the author's signature onto the customer's book. As the Globe and Mail goes on to report:

"The system will allow the inscription to be edited or spell-checked before being committed to paper and the quality of the signature should be identical to one done in person, Atwood says. The book reader will also be able to keep a record of the on-screen interaction with the author for posterity."

Well, having the DVD would be kind of nice. I can imagine a lot of people wanting a video of themselves interacting with a favourite author. But I can't see how the signing itself is any better than getting a fax. It's just a mechanical reproduction.

But according to Doug Pepper, president and publisher of McClelland & Stewart, the idea has potential: "It certainly would be easier on the authors, and in terms of saving money, I would hope so - we're always into saving money. One of the most costly things in any marketing budget is touring."

OK. So Margaret Atwood doesn't like touring. And Doug Pepper doesn't like touring either. It's expensive and it's hard on the authors. And now Robert McCrum, writing in the Guardian, is jumping on the bandwagon. Here he is decrying the "publicity circus" today's authors are forced to endure:

" . . . a McEwan or an Ishiguro will devote almost as many months promoting his latest work as he spent writing it. This is the condition of the writer today, as itinerant as a medieval troubadour, with air miles. If, for example, you are fortunate enough to win a big prize - Booker, say, or Whitbread - you can easily spend as much as a year on the grey brick road of book promotion.

"This has absolutely nothing to do with good writing and almost certainly inhibits its free, mature expression. Now, more than ever, the book-promotion machine is working against the interests of the writers it has been set up to promote. Now, as never before, the marketplace is devouring the hand, the arm and the head that feed it.

"Authors of all shapes and sizes have become either the dupes or accomplices of a publishing industry that is exploiting its writers as its unpaid representatives. A publishing house that sends an author to a 'book event' is selling books of course. It is also bolstering its place in a cut-throat market at virtually no cost."

Life is very hard! As soon as a writer gets famous and people start buying his or her books, they are doomed! The good fortune of a major literary prize is the kiss of death. Pity the success of an Atwood or a McEwan. They are really being exploited, eaten alive. And they are unpaid dupes!

No really, they don't make a cent off of their writing. They all have day jobs.

This is too much to stomach. If any of these writers don't like signing books they can simply refuse to tour. They can have it put in their contract. If not, they can go elsewhere. They are still going to be published. They don't have a gun to their heads. There are less well-known authors who would gladly trade places and eat the Pringles.

I don't like the cult of celebrity either, but what else can publishers do in the current media environment to get attention? Movie stars have to do it. Sports players have to do it. Why not writers? If you're going to profit from the publicity (and let's not forget these people are promoting themselves, not just "the industry") there are some things that can fairly be expected of you. And if you don't like it, don't do it. Sign off. The "free, mature expression" that is good writing will continue, with or without the publicity circus. They are different worlds.