Literature, In Trouble?

"...I don't mean that literature has to always have a meditative and philosophical slant, but when writing descends to levels of serving only the senses and not the spirit, it becomes debauched and demeaning, "goes an op-ed in Khaleej Times. When people write cookie-cut books with the sole intention of adding the suffix of 'author' to their names to fuel their professional lives or to boost their egos, literature falls from grace."

While I agree with this op-ed somewhat, I don't know how writers alone can shift the needle in this when I feel publishers and audiences play a bigger role in what comes out. Is the writer taking aim at books by celebrities or influencers?

The piece seems to exhibit a longing for a time that may not have existed and a dread of an encroaching literary apocalypse that may not be. I recognise bits of my old self in some of these outpourings. Going into writing, one has – and will develop – certain ideas about what the craft is and what purposes it serves, which will be worn down by time and exposure to all sorts of material.

My early takes on certain genres and writing styles have been whittled down in this manner over the years, which is why nowadays I wince when I read takes like this:

I wonder what significance modern writing (I hesitate to categorise today's frivolous bookly endeavours as literature) will have for mankind and its future. Is the era of writing for change, to positively influence societies, to impart courage, to reflect the good and denounce the bad and to comfort a deeply wounded global civilisation over? Is literature now turning into mere candy floss with little gains for the reader except satisfying the senses?

I wonder what kind of "candy floss" literature is the writer referring to. No examples are provided. However, Rabindranath Tagore's Gitanjali, Anne Frank's The Diary of a Young Girl, and Victor Frankl's Man's Search for Meaning were cited as examples of works that "shine a torch on the resilient nature of human beings in the face of hardships" and offer readers hope that they too can prevail, with "the will and mindset."

While there is acknowledgement of the need for chick lit and the like, "but as along as the written word does not bring perspective to our everyday struggles and give us an opportunity for emotional catharsis and empathetic considerations, no writer has done justice to this glorious craft."

It's 2024 and this sort of thinking still exists, steady as a rock in rough seas. I shouldn't be amazed. Silos are meant to be impervious. Either that or it's a slow op-ed day and they're fishing for engagement.


Lit is lit
I doubt there was ever a golden age of literature. Then and now, publishing has been a free-for-all since the masses were taught to write. Institutions can gatekeep but it's futile. Bawdy rhymes, gory horror, spicy smut and the like were the rage back then as they are today, and not all of it polished. Ever heard of the penny dreadful?

Now, it's Fifty Shades of Grey. The Secret. Partisan political punditry. Steamy yet toxic Wattpad romances. All existing side by side with the classics, scholarly works, investigative journalism, memoirs, and other bestsellers. And does "cookie-cut" refer to the slew of Instapoetry tomes in the wake of successes by the likes of Rupi Kaur and Lang Leav?

Authorship carries a certain cachet, so of course some would find it appealing. That aside, writing unserious stuff can be as fun as reading it, so it wouldn't surprise me if the genesis of some "serious" writers involved forays in spheres of mass-consumption such as fan fiction. And if more people are seeking escapes in such stuff, why? If more are writing material that serve "only the senses and not the spirit", why?

And who's to say that "fluff" doesn't "bring perspective to our everyday struggles and give us an opportunity for emotional catharsis and empathetic considerations"? Maybe the authors wrote it into the "fluff", or it's what readers feel after spending an afternoon with some. Surely there are other reasons for their popularity other than the nature of the contents.

For every score of "fluffy" titles that come out, there could be a handful of painstakingly crafted, well-thought-out works of some literary merit. Just about every writer writes for some degree of personal gratification – the most vital being able to eat – regardless of aim or what they tell themselves and interviewers. That their works somehow achieve an altruistic goal is at best happenstance.


Right words, right time
Les mots justes, to paraphrase Gustave Flaubert. When a reader chances upon a title, they could be in some sort of pickle. So if reading that title happens to open a door towards the solution to their woes or solve it outright, all well and good. The merits of such titles or whether they should be written can be discussed, but why toll the bell for something that isn't dying but thriving?

Writing "for change, to positively influence societies, to impart courage, to reflect the good and denounce the bad and to comfort a deeply wounded global civilisation" is a pursuit for the privileged. Who can think big if one is worried about food, shelter, and healthcare? If the highbrow goals of the craft need to be carried, that responsibility should fall to writers who can – noblesse oblige and all that.

In literature, fluff has always co-existed with serious. One does not have to thrive at the expense of another. The amount of fluff doesn't cancel the existence of other works, so they'll always be available. All one has to do is seek.

Book Marks: Power Readers, Being Happy, Middle-Grade Books

"A few weeks back, The Washington Post ran a piece spotlighting 'super readers,' a self-selecting class of book nerds who pride themselves on reading very, very fast. ... Why, I asked the author, who could not hear me in Washington—Why pedestal the reader who goes to books like a buffet, craving quantity? Why is our culture so intent on praising folks for reading not wider or more deeply, but faster and more?"

A Washington Post article about power readers, which I also bookmarked, prompted some questions and a bit of soul-searching. While some books take a long time to create and consume, titles that could have been designed for mass-consumption, like pulp novels, have been produced for a long time and seem to be popular among a chunk of readers.

But what the LitHub piece rails against is the need to devour books by the ton to establish some kind of identity or fulfil a certain life metric, because that's not what books and reading are about. Why do you read? Answer that question – AFTER some thought, please – and your approach to books may change.


Also:

• "Happiness is not something grand. Aren't you happy when you do what you want to do? But people are creating this mirage by making happiness too grandiose. Happiness is when something small that you want comes true." Eighty-eight-year-old Rhee Kun-hoo, author of "If You Live To 100, You Might As Well Be Happy", has advice on attaining happiness for everyone. The book is shceduled for release this month.
• "...there's one sector of publishing that is in free fall. At least among one audience, books are dying. Alarmingly, it's the exact audience whose departure from reading might actually presage a catastrophe for the publishing industry—and for the entire concept of pleasure reading as a common pursuit." Sales of middle-grade books are declining in the US, along with the number of children aged eight to 12 who are reading for fun. How to get kids back to books?
• "Beyond selling books and dabbling in freelance editing jobs, [Ahmad Luqman Zahari] also runs Pipit Press, which translates and publishes classics in Bahasa Malaysia." An indie publisher and bookseller operating out of an old kampung house in Melaka is bringing classic works in English to local audiences.
• "I think it's important for them to know they can have a book of their own, and it not to be a used book because we're all used to hand-me-downs," Jesse Marez, owner of the Libros Lincoln Heights bookstore in Los Angeles, tells the LA Times. "I think in a neighborhood like this, people need to know that they can get a new book, especially at an early age." Not just a neighbourhood bookstore, Libros is also publishing local stories besides selling books that aren't considered mainstream.
• "I felt a great sense of duty and responsibility to be able to talk about a fictional version of my own lived experience as a Tongan Australian because there are no fiction books written by Tongans in this country." Winnie Dunn, the Tongan Australian author of Dirt Poor Islanders, on her "unapologetically", "fearlessly" autobiographical book, writing, and being an Australian-born Tongan.
• In light of the revelations coming out of South Dakota governor Kristi Noem's book, No Going Back, a reminder that even the big publishers do not fact-check their non-fiction releases. Why not? "From the publisher's perspective, hiring a team of checkers is 'a huge expense,' [journalist Jane] Friedman said—it would 'destroy the profitability' of some books. And there are logistical challenges: Fact-checking memoirs, for example, can be difficult, because you're dealing with people's memories."
• If nine-year-old Lashika Poneswaran, who wrote The Waffle Truffle Adventure, is not Malaysia's youngest book author, then she is one of the youngest. The self-published book "is about a group of friends who enter a waffle competition. The protagonist, Rose, wants to seek out the old woman in the forest, rumoured to make the best waffles," reports Free Malaysia Today.
• "Writing advice is always a little funny because everyone's journey is different and there are really no right or wrong answers. For every piece of advice someone gives, you can find someone who did the opposite and thrived. So below I'm just going to include some subjective tidbits that have worked for me during my four years and three books as a mid-list author." Author Anna Dorn shares some writing advice in Literary Hub.
• Publishing books in Egypt can be like navigating a minefield because you never know what might set the authorities off. This report by the Tahrir Institute for Middle East Policy is a harrowing read. "Book publishing is a very dangerous profession in this country. Publishers can find themselves at the wrong side of the equation at any given moment because nobody knows for a fact what would anger the censoring and security bodies."