Thursday I saw ZZ Packer read. Packer's introducer (is that a word?) mentioned a January 21st
TIME Magazine article about contemporary book publishing and the novel. The introducer said that it was great that writers of Packer's talent were around when publishing is tanking. To quote the TIME article:
the publishing industry is in distress. Publishing houses--among them Simon & Schuster, Macmillan, HarperCollins, Doubleday and Houghton Mifflin Harcourt--are laying off staff left and right. Random House is in the midst of a drastic reorganization. Salaries are frozen across the industry. Whispers of bankruptcy are fluttering around Borders; Barnes & Noble just cut 100 jobs at its headquarters, a measure unprecedented in the company's history. Publishers Weekly (PW) predicts that 2009 will be "the worst year for publishing in decades."
The introducer lamented the state of publishing and the novel, and disagreed (in light of Packer's work) with the article's author that the novel is evolving, and is "about to renew itself again, into something cheaper, wilder, trashier, more democratic and more deliriously fertile than ever."
The article goes on to talk about self-publishing, the keitai shosetsu (Japan's cell phone novel), and fan fiction that makes up "the wide bottom of the [literary] pyramid," the top of which is the traditional "Old Publishing" model of big New York houses filtering through work to select only the "best" for publication.
I can't disagree with Packer's talent. She read her famous story "Brownies," which, of course, won the audience. But the common denominator in both the TIME article and this introduction was the
kind of fiction discussed.
I'm talking about the difference between what Annie Dillard refers to (in
Living by Fiction) those contemporary fiction writers intending to "achieve traditional kinds of excellence," and those who write in what she calls "the dreadful mouthful 'contemporary modernist'" vein.
For the most part, it's obvious that the New York publishing industry has long been the stronghold of "traditional" fiction since traditional fiction in the US began, while many "contemporary modernist" writers have been relegated to university and independent presses, and self-publishing. And I haven't even mentioned poetry. Ultimately, what it seems to come down to in the case of the "old" publishing model--and the TIME author's view of the "new"--be da money. But is money what determines the outcome of a literary artist's work? Good god.
Clearly, there are "traditional" writers out there who are producing great work, and who challenge readers' ideas of what a story can do. But often, because of money, and especially because of what everyone today keeps annoyingly calling "this economy," the "old" publishing model isn't taking any chances, and these writers are having a time getting their work out.
But both the TIME article and the introducer to Packer seemed oblivious to what's going on outside of this "old" model that is not the Harry Potter fan fiction or the disgruntled amateur who sighs and goes to iUniverse to publish his psycho-sci-fi-sex-thriller that no literary agent will touch with a raybeam/dildo. While everyone's suffering in "this economy" (fuck!), there are great and innovative books coming out from small and university presses. While money is a factor for anyone, these presses seem to fly in the face of it (well, the UP is usually institutionally supported) and continue to publish work they believe in despite the probability against it being a financial success. Small presses are the literary equivalent to the off-off-off Broadway show, or the tiny art gallery that sometimes sells a single piece to help pay that month's rent.
If the TIME author argues that literature is "about to renew itself again, into something cheaper, wilder, trashier, more democratic and more deliriously fertile than ever," I agree. But it's not necessarily happening in fan fiction, in self-publishing, or on cell phones (all venues that the author argues is where the money's gonna go)--at least in the US. It's happening in small presses like
Featherproof Books,
Starcherone Books,
The Dalkey Archive,
Calamari Press,
Dzanc Books (there are too many to mention), and in lit mags like
Thieves Jargon,
elimae,
3:AM,
Avery,
Tarpaulin Sky (granted, most of these are magazines I've been in, but still, there are too many to talk about). Literature has been evolving, continues to, and is thriving. "Traditional" lit has never been the
only lit, and it's too bad more people in the "lit biz" don't recognize that.