This is great commentary but I still sense you have a specific definition of courage based on your particular political beliefs. The literary world is an oligarchy led by the center left. Isn’t a more conservative novelist who is to the right of the center left also courageous?
I think the problem is audience: literary fiction is speaking to a fundamentally reactionary (liberal) audience—readers are older, educated, more female, more invested in the paradoxical status quo of left-liberal “rebellion” against oppression that isn’t actually dangerous. I think there are fierce and sincere regime critics out there—but they are on platforms filled with lunatics and obsessives: Unz, Rumble, etc. Linh Dinh comes to mind.
I can’t believe people get upset over fiction. Fiction! It’s not real. It’s a story. You can’t assume you know what the author’s view is on what happens in their story. They might not even know, that’s why they’re writing about it. A lot of this has to do with the fact that the reading public can’t actually read or interpret a text beyond a basic, superficial level.
Years ago I read an editorial in the Irish Times (Ireland's newspaper of record) in which a woman argued that Ireland was an institutionally sexist country, followed up by "it's taboo to say it, but it's true". The rest of the article was a list of laughably petty grievances delivered with a perfectly straight face.
All I could think was "lady - at any point during the composition of this article, did you have second thoughts about writing it? Were you worried you might get into trouble for writing it? Were you legitimately worried that one or more of your friends would read it and stop talking to you as a result? If the answer to all of these questions is 'no' (and I'm very confident it is) then nothing you're saying is 'taboo'."
I agree. Write fiction at all costs! Sacrifice yourself for your art. No one will know how much you have given up to write, and no one (except other writers) will understand the intense amount of work you have had to do to do what you do, but there are no half-measures. Go for fucking broke.
Interesting. I read 'The Feminist,' the mag version, to see what all the buzz was about. It was hard to get through it, as the POV character is so constipated with society imposed feminist guilt that he simply can not get angry, let alone stand up for himself. I'm not a bad ass, but like a rat, if cornered, I'll fight.
The other thing about the book that is right on point, the way extreme feminism, enhanced by tech, has taken the ball away from men. (Especially in the arts). Men now sit in the stands and the womyn run the court. I've been pushing my latest book, The Fake Memoir of a Mid-List Writer, for the last 14 months, to no avail. It's good, not great, but fatally honest in certain things, notably the battle of the sexes. Since it's set in the years 1969 to 1975, the battle is not yet over; men have not yet been conquered. That, I believe, is why I'll likely end up self-publishing it on Kindle.
And, getting back to The Feminist, the fact that the author does not allow his POV character to ever score (in bed, or just points on the board) is why the mag and the house published it. To me it's like during the Vietnam war when the NVA or Viet Cong paraded captured American soldiers and pilots before the cameras, rubbing the country's face in the mud. That's what the feminist Stasi have done.
I say, a pox on them and all their Publishing (whore) Houses.
I would try to find where disgruntled middle-aged guys hang out and market hard to that demo. Even if you don't get a bestseller you may make some new friends and a literary community.
It's been more difficult to overcome my fear of writing than it was going to war. No, I'm not being metaphorical or hyperbolic. It wasen't until I realized that I needed to apply the same level of commitment that I was able to finally write.
I do slightly disagree with your assessment of Tony's book. He's undoubtedly an excellent technical writer who's trained within the academy but he never actually says anything risky. The "psuedo-transgressive idc if you cancel me" vibe appears to be his meticulously curated brand. His characters are all safe to make fun of, "male feminist", entitled white girl etc. Sure he'll piss off a few clowns on the fringes but his choice of targets seem intentionally selected in order look controversial without actually crossing the line. It appears as if he's been wildly successful in presenting the image of a transgressive author while taking no real risks.
To reiterate however, I do enjoy his work but the attempt to brand himself as envelope pushing comes off corny. Rarely, is forced transgression interesting.
My brother once wrote something for an undergrad fiction writing course that got a lot of pushback, but not because of its content really. It was only because of the language used to describe an abject scenario involving the last dysfunctional American family, like “femoid”. It was very exaggerated and libidinally charged horror, so words like that fit.
It seems like courage is only required in order to offset the contemporary neuroticism. If someone, especially someone not raised in a tightly regulated literary community, wrote something purely from the heart, it could easily be called “courageous” without necessarily trying to be.
Yes - the style is pretty maximalist and is going to be denser than most books. That was part of the fun of writing it, but I hope it’s also an interesting challenge for the motivated reader.
You mention that you're reluctant to talk about the white male Asian female romantic pairing for fear of coming off as petty, so perhaps you won't want to answer this question for the same reason. Nevertheless - what WOULD you like to say about this topic, if you felt confident people wouldn't accuse you of being petty? (I respect Adrian Tomine's comic 'Shortcomings' for broaching an adjacent issue.)
To answer that question artfully, I’d need to write a novel where it’s organically incorporated as a theme. I did that to a minor extent with my debut book, but it’s not the primary focus of the story. I know a writer working on a book about this which I think will do very well, however.
I know this question was not asked of me, but let me answer it anyway since this is a public forum. I have long thought Asian females attractive. Not sure how that started, maybe it was watching The World of Suzie Wong when I was a young teen. Seriously, there was an expression back when people could express themselves. It went like this, 'Gentlemen prefer blondes.' Why there seem to be many white male/Asian female pairings likely comes down to attraction, and culture. Attraction for obvious reasons and cultural because that/those cultures are attractive to some American males, or were. Men were/are respected in Asian cultures, but that respect is steadily being rubbed out in America by Gay men and liberal women in culture (TV, movies, music, and especially in novels and fiction) and also in advertising --we've all noticed how husbands and straight white males are portrayed in advertisements.
Some will hate me for typing such heresy, but I can't help myself.
There isn't a shared cultural ethos (or moral epistemology in your usage) in the West. Liberalism is predicated in part on pluralism. When liberalism is hegemonic, more viewpoints are tolerable than can be disrupted by any single piece of art. Cancellation is usually a function of trying to live at the periphery of your tribe inside the liberal system.
And this is all before we get to the challenge that the art of the past present to the artists of today.
I struggle with the notion of truth here. I generally don’t believe narrative contains truth, I think it presents a model, which we can adopt or shun. It’s more like sincerity I think. When I can believe an author without necessarily adhering to their model presentation, perhaps?
How does the New Wave express courage? I kind of see it as an expression of carelessness, though not as a pejorative and not structurally. More like radical leisure.
Emotional truth. You can talk about the way people see, think, and feel about things in fiction more affectingly than you can by just describing the phenomenon. I don't know why but it seems to be the case. I can talk about how awful life is but not killing yourself on account of not knowing what comes after death in a purely theoretical sense, but if you're Shakespeare you can write poetry about it people will be quoting for 400 years.
Hm. And here I was thinking that the world was full of courageous writers, and the literary agents, the publishing houses, and their marketing teams didn’t have the guts to put them forward…
I find this to be a problem in my own rather limited substacking (the only novel I've written is so completely unoffensive as to be a total non-issue). It's not just the Neo-liberal consensus that I'm afraid of, but also offending/critiquing other communities that I'm a part of. I fear saying what I really think about the Catholic Church, about vegan edge cases, or even giving my honest opinions of certain books. I do my best to fight against this tendency, but we live in a society extremely low in openness that would not be receptive to these messages even if I overcame myself and said what I really thought.
"Sublimation of white nationalism and manifest destiny into militarized techno-accelerationist nationalism" and "WMAF culture" are such rich deposits of narrative material. Both our blessing and curse that so few have been willing to mine them. More for us.
This is great commentary but I still sense you have a specific definition of courage based on your particular political beliefs. The literary world is an oligarchy led by the center left. Isn’t a more conservative novelist who is to the right of the center left also courageous?
Yes, of course!
I think the problem is audience: literary fiction is speaking to a fundamentally reactionary (liberal) audience—readers are older, educated, more female, more invested in the paradoxical status quo of left-liberal “rebellion” against oppression that isn’t actually dangerous. I think there are fierce and sincere regime critics out there—but they are on platforms filled with lunatics and obsessives: Unz, Rumble, etc. Linh Dinh comes to mind.
I can’t believe people get upset over fiction. Fiction! It’s not real. It’s a story. You can’t assume you know what the author’s view is on what happens in their story. They might not even know, that’s why they’re writing about it. A lot of this has to do with the fact that the reading public can’t actually read or interpret a text beyond a basic, superficial level.
Years ago I read an editorial in the Irish Times (Ireland's newspaper of record) in which a woman argued that Ireland was an institutionally sexist country, followed up by "it's taboo to say it, but it's true". The rest of the article was a list of laughably petty grievances delivered with a perfectly straight face.
All I could think was "lady - at any point during the composition of this article, did you have second thoughts about writing it? Were you worried you might get into trouble for writing it? Were you legitimately worried that one or more of your friends would read it and stop talking to you as a result? If the answer to all of these questions is 'no' (and I'm very confident it is) then nothing you're saying is 'taboo'."
Or as 2014-era Reddit would say "sobrave.jpeg".
I agree. Write fiction at all costs! Sacrifice yourself for your art. No one will know how much you have given up to write, and no one (except other writers) will understand the intense amount of work you have had to do to do what you do, but there are no half-measures. Go for fucking broke.
Interesting. I read 'The Feminist,' the mag version, to see what all the buzz was about. It was hard to get through it, as the POV character is so constipated with society imposed feminist guilt that he simply can not get angry, let alone stand up for himself. I'm not a bad ass, but like a rat, if cornered, I'll fight.
The other thing about the book that is right on point, the way extreme feminism, enhanced by tech, has taken the ball away from men. (Especially in the arts). Men now sit in the stands and the womyn run the court. I've been pushing my latest book, The Fake Memoir of a Mid-List Writer, for the last 14 months, to no avail. It's good, not great, but fatally honest in certain things, notably the battle of the sexes. Since it's set in the years 1969 to 1975, the battle is not yet over; men have not yet been conquered. That, I believe, is why I'll likely end up self-publishing it on Kindle.
And, getting back to The Feminist, the fact that the author does not allow his POV character to ever score (in bed, or just points on the board) is why the mag and the house published it. To me it's like during the Vietnam war when the NVA or Viet Cong paraded captured American soldiers and pilots before the cameras, rubbing the country's face in the mud. That's what the feminist Stasi have done.
I say, a pox on them and all their Publishing (whore) Houses.
I would try to find where disgruntled middle-aged guys hang out and market hard to that demo. Even if you don't get a bestseller you may make some new friends and a literary community.
It's been more difficult to overcome my fear of writing than it was going to war. No, I'm not being metaphorical or hyperbolic. It wasen't until I realized that I needed to apply the same level of commitment that I was able to finally write.
I do slightly disagree with your assessment of Tony's book. He's undoubtedly an excellent technical writer who's trained within the academy but he never actually says anything risky. The "psuedo-transgressive idc if you cancel me" vibe appears to be his meticulously curated brand. His characters are all safe to make fun of, "male feminist", entitled white girl etc. Sure he'll piss off a few clowns on the fringes but his choice of targets seem intentionally selected in order look controversial without actually crossing the line. It appears as if he's been wildly successful in presenting the image of a transgressive author while taking no real risks.
To reiterate however, I do enjoy his work but the attempt to brand himself as envelope pushing comes off corny. Rarely, is forced transgression interesting.
Thanks for your comment - broadly agree with these points.
My brother once wrote something for an undergrad fiction writing course that got a lot of pushback, but not because of its content really. It was only because of the language used to describe an abject scenario involving the last dysfunctional American family, like “femoid”. It was very exaggerated and libidinally charged horror, so words like that fit.
It seems like courage is only required in order to offset the contemporary neuroticism. If someone, especially someone not raised in a tightly regulated literary community, wrote something purely from the heart, it could easily be called “courageous” without necessarily trying to be.
Workshops are tough, man. I think it's just too much social pressure.
It could have been so much worse.
I’m eight chapters into Incel and even though it’s a bit out of my reading level I still enjoy it. The raw content is refreshing.
Glad you’re liking it -
Yes - the style is pretty maximalist and is going to be denser than most books. That was part of the fun of writing it, but I hope it’s also an interesting challenge for the motivated reader.
Amazon/Goodreads reviews help a lot BTW!
You mention that you're reluctant to talk about the white male Asian female romantic pairing for fear of coming off as petty, so perhaps you won't want to answer this question for the same reason. Nevertheless - what WOULD you like to say about this topic, if you felt confident people wouldn't accuse you of being petty? (I respect Adrian Tomine's comic 'Shortcomings' for broaching an adjacent issue.)
To answer that question artfully, I’d need to write a novel where it’s organically incorporated as a theme. I did that to a minor extent with my debut book, but it’s not the primary focus of the story. I know a writer working on a book about this which I think will do very well, however.
I know this question was not asked of me, but let me answer it anyway since this is a public forum. I have long thought Asian females attractive. Not sure how that started, maybe it was watching The World of Suzie Wong when I was a young teen. Seriously, there was an expression back when people could express themselves. It went like this, 'Gentlemen prefer blondes.' Why there seem to be many white male/Asian female pairings likely comes down to attraction, and culture. Attraction for obvious reasons and cultural because that/those cultures are attractive to some American males, or were. Men were/are respected in Asian cultures, but that respect is steadily being rubbed out in America by Gay men and liberal women in culture (TV, movies, music, and especially in novels and fiction) and also in advertising --we've all noticed how husbands and straight white males are portrayed in advertisements.
Some will hate me for typing such heresy, but I can't help myself.
I don’t see being anti-liberal as possible for an artist, you need an open mind to be anti-liberal and therefore you’re still liberal
There isn't a shared cultural ethos (or moral epistemology in your usage) in the West. Liberalism is predicated in part on pluralism. When liberalism is hegemonic, more viewpoints are tolerable than can be disrupted by any single piece of art. Cancellation is usually a function of trying to live at the periphery of your tribe inside the liberal system.
And this is all before we get to the challenge that the art of the past present to the artists of today.
I struggle with the notion of truth here. I generally don’t believe narrative contains truth, I think it presents a model, which we can adopt or shun. It’s more like sincerity I think. When I can believe an author without necessarily adhering to their model presentation, perhaps?
How does the New Wave express courage? I kind of see it as an expression of carelessness, though not as a pejorative and not structurally. More like radical leisure.
Stoked to read Incel btw.
Emotional truth. You can talk about the way people see, think, and feel about things in fiction more affectingly than you can by just describing the phenomenon. I don't know why but it seems to be the case. I can talk about how awful life is but not killing yourself on account of not knowing what comes after death in a purely theoretical sense, but if you're Shakespeare you can write poetry about it people will be quoting for 400 years.
Speaking metaphorically in that regard!
Hm. And here I was thinking that the world was full of courageous writers, and the literary agents, the publishing houses, and their marketing teams didn’t have the guts to put them forward…
I find this to be a problem in my own rather limited substacking (the only novel I've written is so completely unoffensive as to be a total non-issue). It's not just the Neo-liberal consensus that I'm afraid of, but also offending/critiquing other communities that I'm a part of. I fear saying what I really think about the Catholic Church, about vegan edge cases, or even giving my honest opinions of certain books. I do my best to fight against this tendency, but we live in a society extremely low in openness that would not be receptive to these messages even if I overcame myself and said what I really thought.
"Sublimation of white nationalism and manifest destiny into militarized techno-accelerationist nationalism" and "WMAF culture" are such rich deposits of narrative material. Both our blessing and curse that so few have been willing to mine them. More for us.
Indeed!