JacketFlap connects you to the work of more than 200,000 authors, illustrators, publishers and other creators of books for Children and Young Adults. The site is updated daily with information about every book, author, illustrator, and publisher in the children's / young adult book industry. Members include published authors and illustrators, librarians, agents, editors, publicists, booksellers, publishers and fans. Join now (it's free).
Login or Register for free to create your own customized page of blog posts from your favorite blogs. You can also add blogs by clicking the "Add to MyJacketFlap" links next to the blog name in each post.
Blog Posts by Tag
In the past 7 days
Blog Posts by Date
Click days in this calendar to see posts by day or month
Viewing: Blog Posts Tagged with: Zadie Smith, Most Recent at Top [Help]
Results 1 - 17 of 17
How to use this Page
You are viewing the most recent posts tagged with the words: Zadie Smith in the JacketFlap blog reader. What is a tag? Think of a tag as a keyword or category label. Tags can both help you find posts on JacketFlap.com as well as provide an easy way for you to "remember" and classify posts for later recall. Try adding a tag yourself by clicking "Add a tag" below a post's header. Scroll down through the list of Recent Posts in the left column and click on a post title that sounds interesting. You can view all posts from a specific blog by clicking the Blog name in the right column, or you can click a 'More Posts from this Blog' link in any individual post.
Just as there were no real women on Shakespeare's stage, there were no Jews, Africans, Muslims, or Hispanics either. Even Harold Bloom, who praises Shakespeare as 'the greatest Western poet' in The Western Canon, and who rages against academic political correctness, regards The Merchant of Venice as antisemitic. In 2014 the satirist Jon Stewart responded to Shakespeare's 'stereotypically, grotesquely greedy Jewish money lender' more bluntly.
Author Sita Brahmachari‘s latest book is Car Wash Wish, her second novella for Barrington Stoke, a UK publisher who specialise in making books accessible to struggling readers, with a special emphasis on dyslexia. It’s an inter-generational story … Continue reading ... →
BBC Culture conducted a critics’ poll to select the “21st Century’s 12 greatest novels.” Junot Díaz’sThe Brief Wondrous Life of Oscar Wao captured the top spot.
The participating critics reviewed 156 books for this venture. Most of them named Díaz’s Pulitzer Prize-winning book as their number one pick.
The other eleven titles that made it include Middlesex by Jeffrey Eugenides, White Teeth by Zadie Smith, Half of a Yellow Sun by Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie, Atonement by Ian McEwan, Billy Lynn’s Long Halftime Walk by Ben Fountain, A Visit from the Goon Squad by Jennifer Egan, The Amazing Adventures of Kavalier & Clay by Michael Chabon, The Corrections by Jonathan Franzen, Gilead by Marilynne Robinson, Wolf Hall by Hilary Mantel, and The Known World by Edward P. Jones. Did one of your favorites make it onto the list? (via The Guardian)
Just like Will Ferrell’s character in “Stranger Than Fiction,” you might find “yourself”—or your namesake, your avatar—spinning through a tale told by Ian McEwan, Margaret Atwood, Julian Barnes, Ken Follett, Hanif Kureishi, Will Self, Alan Hollinghurst, Zadie Smith, Tracy Chevalier, Joanna Trollope, or another of the 17 authors participating in a fundraising event for the UK medical charity Freedom From Torture.
In this Literary Immortality Auction, participating authors have donated a character in a forthcoming work that will be named after auction winners.
Tracy Chevalier, author of the international bestseller The Girl with the Pearl Earring, said:
“I am holding open a place in my new novel for Mrs. (ideally a Mrs.) [your surname], a tough-talking landlady of a boarding house in 1850s Gold Rush-era San Francisco. The first thing she says to the hero is ‘No sick on my stairs. You vomit on my floors, you’re out.’ Is your name up to that?”
According the New York Times, Margaret Atwood is “offering the possibility of appearing either in the novel she is currently writing or in her retelling of Shakespeare’s ‘The Tempest,’ to be published as a Vintage Books series in 2016.”
Bestselling author Ian McEwan (Atonement) said:
“Forget the promises of the world’s religions. This auction offers the genuine opportunity of an afterlife. More importantly, bidding in the Freedom from Torture auction will help support a crucial and noble cause. The rehabilitation of torture survivors cannot be accomplished without expertise, compassion, time—and your money.”
Freedom from Torture notes on its site: “Seekers of a literary afterlife can place their bids online from 6pm this evening,” so get going.
OR Books will publish an anthology focusing on income inequality within New York City called Tales of Two Cities: The Best & Worst of Times in New York. A portion of the proceeds will be donated to Housing Works.
How to Read a Novelist author John Freeman served as the editor for this book and wrote one of the pieces. Some of the other contributors include Pulitzer Prize winner Junot Díaz, The Circle author Dave Eggers, and White Teeth author Zadie Smith.
Author Zadie Smithinterviewed author Ian McEwan in the current issue of The Believer. In the interview, the two authors talk about everything from time to falling out of bedroom windows.
McEwan also shared some advice for young authors. He advised writers to get practice through writing short stories, which he compared to “trying on your parents’ clothes.”
Here is more from The Believer:
When people ask, “Is there any advice you’d give a young writer?,” I say write short stories. They afford lots of failure. Pastiche is a great way to start. But I was never really a great one for that kind of extreme Angela Carter magic realist stuff… although actually I got to know her and admire her and was kind of a neighbor in Clapham.
This claims to be a video but only the audio is working for me. However either way you slice it acclaimed novelist Zadie Smith and cartoonist Chris Ware talking about story at the New York Public Library is a fascinating team up. For those who cannot absorb audio, there's a write up of their December chat here.
2 Comments on Zadie Smith and Chris Ware talk about stories, last added: 2/2/2013
I got to hear Chris Ware talk on stage with Daniel Clowes at the Oakland Museum of modern art. They were both hilarious and inspiring. After that I decided to get one of Ware’s book and I picked up “Lint.” It was one of the best comics I have ever read. I really want to get his other works as soon as possible.
Matthew Southworth said, on 2/2/2013 1:07:00 PM
LINT is one of the most amazing things I’ve ever read, too. And the only reason it hasn’t gotten more attention is that every book Chris Ware makes is equally astonishing.
I don’t know why I’m having such a hard time writing this review. It’s taking me longer to write about than to read, and it took FOREVER to read this book.
We start with Leah, who falls for a scam, who doesn’t want the kids her husband is desperate for, who thinks that if she still acts like she’s 18 (because she still feels like she’s 18) then she won’t have to grow up. Leah’s section of the book is choppy, much like Leah’s mind. Part is in poetry.
Felix’s section is next, told in more traditional narrative style, covering a day in his life as he visits his dad, buys a car, and attempts to finally end things with an old girlfriend (because things have gotten that serious with his current girlfriend.) And then it goes horribly wrong.
The final section is Natalie’s, Leah’s best friend from childhood. Natalie is the most successful, having left behind the council estate and gone to college and law school and now leads an upper middle class life. But she leads her life the way she thinks she’s supposed to, and can’t find herself in there anymore, and starts looking for ways to feel something. Natalie’s section is mostly told in very brief vignettes, covering most of her life until the present.
All three stories overlap, timeline-wise. There isn’t much of a plot, it’s more like three character sketches, where most things are shown, rather than told.
I say this book took me forever to read, and it did. Part of that had to do with my discovery of a certain game called Tower Madness. Part of it had to do with the fact it wasn’t a rush-through-breathlessly-to-see-what-happens next type book. I did, however, like it. I liked it a lot. I enjoyed the shifting narrative styles. As they changed with character, it didn’t seem too much like “uh-oh, your craft is showing!” It’s also a refreshing challenge to read something where so much is left unexplained, left for the reader to figure out by reading closely. As someone who reads a lot of fiction, where this isn’t done as much, it took a while for me to get used to that. It was a difficult book for me, and I enjoy a challenge. Most of the stuff I read tends to make sure you know what's going on. Sometimes a little too much. I read a lot of plot-heavy books (and nonfiction, where everything should be spelled out.) I'm hoping with my Outstanding Books for the College Bound, I'm going to step out of what I normally read. This book reminded me that I like being challenged in my reading by craft/form. (I don't enjoy as much when I'm challenged by content.)
Book Provided by... my local library
Links to Amazon are an affiliate link. You can help support Biblio File by purchasing any item (not just the one linked to!) through these links. Read my full disclosure statement.
It’s the night before Christmas and all through the house not a creature was stirring, except the writer throwing her manuscript across the room. What words will Santa give her? Gifts of ‘stillicide’ or ‘ectoplasm’ for her National Book Award — or lumps of coal for failing NaNoWriMo. We’d like to share a few reflections on terrible words from writers such as David Foster Wallace, Zadie Smith, and Michael Dirda in the Oxford American Writer’s Thesaurus below.
Joshua Ferris says “Bah, humbug” to… ACTUALLY
Actually is a fashionable word circa 2011, especially in colloquial, voice-driven contemporary writing, and it’s all over the place in everyday speech. It’s used wrongly and excessively, even speciously, and is one of the worst tics of tendentious writing. As a qualifier, it’s fine (Jack is actually eleven, not twelve). As an intensifier (like its brothers literally, really, utterly, and totally), it attempts to replace subjective opinion for objective fact (the play was actually a lot better than Jack thought it was). One can’t use a word that means ‘existing in fact, real’ in the context of something debatable or contentious. I’d suggest a basic usage rule that says whenever you can replace actually with in my opinion, the actually should be avoided.
Zadie Smith says “Bah, humbug” to… BARREN
Nullipara. A woman who has never given birth to a child. One of the few nouns referring to the sexual/reproductive/aging status of a woman that is not in any way pejorative, simply because it is almost never used. Should be printed on T-shirts.
Michael Dirda says “Bah, humbug” to… BRAVE
Excepting the few who boldly confront oppressive laws or governments (Émile Zola, Anna Akhmatova), or those who join fighting brigades where they risk being killed in battle (Ernst Junger, Andre Malraux), no writer should be referred to as brave. Too often modern poets are called brave—or daring or fearless—simply because they write openly about being lonely, sexually frustrated, or drug-dependent. Worse yet, critics sometime present the verbal equivalent of the Silver Star to some assistant professor attempting an unfashionable verse form in his latest contribution to the Powhatan Review. That’s not quite what placing your life on the line means. Save all those courageous adjectives for coal miners, firefighters, and the truly heroic.
David Foster Wallace says “Bah, humbug” to… INDIVIDUAL
As a noun, this word has one legitimate use, which is to distinguish a single person from some larger group: one of the enduring oppositions of British literature is that between the individual and society; or boy, she’s a real individual. I don’t like it as a synonym for person despite the fact that much legal, bureaucratic, and public-statement prose uses it that way—it looms large in turgid writing like law-enforcement personnel apprehended the individual as he was attempting to exit the premises. Individual for person and an individual for someone are pretentious, deadening puff-words; eschew them.
David Auburn says “Bah, humbug” to… QUIRKY
Just as the British use clever as a backhanded insult, meaning ‘merely clever, not actually intelligent or thoughtful,’ quirky is often used to mean ‘mildly and harmlessly peculiar’ with ‘and totally uninteresting’ implied. I hate quirky and hate having it applied to my own writing. I would rather receive a negative review that didn’t use this word than a rave that did.
Francine Prose says “Bah, humbug” to… SCUD
Once I heard a teacher tell a seventh-grade class that this was precisely the sort of verb they should use to make their writing livelier and more interesting. The example she gave was: The storm clouds scudded over the horizon. In fact, this is precisely the sort of word—words that call unnecessary attention to themselves, that sound artificial and stop the reader in mid-sentence—that should not be used for that reason. Or for any reason. When in doubt, use a simpler and more everyday word, and try to make the content of the sentence livelier and more interesting, which is always a better idea. If you don’t have anything fresh to report about the rapidly moving clouds, writing that they scudded won’t help.
David Lehman says “Bah, humbug” to… SYNERGY
Some words don’t work. Synergy is one of them. Theoretically it makes sense. Synergy is a business term, corporate-speak for the advantages of amalgamating the operations of several different but related companies. When, for example, a book publisher merges with a movie studio, one reason given is that there are bound to be significant synergies: ways one branch of the new structure can feed the other. It turns out, however, that the concept is flawed; these mergers seldom go according to plan. And that is surely why you hear the word only in the business news, among executives and mouthpieces for whom hope springs eternal.
Suleiman Osman says “Bah, humbug” to… TECHNICALLY
When someone starts a phrase with the word technically, he or she almost always follows with a statement that is useless or wrong. This is particularly true when a person is using the term as a way to correct someone gently. “Technically, the city is called Par-ee.” Who has not been enjoying a view of a lovely body of water and muttered to oneself “what a beautiful bay,” only to be interrupted by someone who points out that “technically it’s a sound.” Feel free to tell him or her that “technically” there is no difference between a sound, bay, firth, gulf, cove, bight, or fjord. There are only different local conventions. Or if you aren’t sure, you can always ask “technically, according to whom?”
Tell us the words you say “Bah, humbug” to in the comments below.
Much more than a word list, the Oxford American Writer’s Thesaurus is a browsable source of inspiration as well as an authoritative guide to selecting and using vocabulary. This essential guide for writers provides real-life example sentences and a careful selection of the most relevant synonyms, as well as new usage notes, hints for choosing between similar words, a Word Finder section organized by subject, and a comprehensive language guide. The text is also peppered with thought-provoking reflections on favorite (and not-so-favorite) words by noted contemporary writers, including Joshua Ferris, Francine Prose, David Foster Wallace, Zadie Smith, and Simon Winchester, many newly commissioned for this edition.
Subscribe to the OUPblog via email or RSS.
Subscribe to only lexicography and language articles on the OUPblog via email or RSS.
Here are some literary events to jump-start your week. To get your event posted on our calendar, visit our Facebook Your Literary Event page. Please post your event at least one week prior to its date.
The Franklin Park Reading Series will feature five authors at tonight’s events. Check it out at the Franklin Park Bar & Beer Garden starting 8:00 p.m. (Brooklyn, NY)
This year’s final two conversation events of NYPL Live! will star Yes, Chef author Marcus Samuelsson and legendary writer Zadie Smith. See them at the New York Public Library’s Stephen A. Schwarzman Building on December 10th and December 11th. (New York, NY)
Penguin has put together a visual and audio tour of the locations in Zadie Smith‘s new novel NW.
The tour includes four locations from the book. Users can click on these locations, which are pinpointed on a map, to launch a video that contains photos of those real life locations. An audio reading of the book plays as the text that is being read appears on the photos. Follow this link to check it out.
Here is an excerpt from the new book:
From there to here, a journey longer than it looks. For a second, this local detail holds Shar’s interest. Then she looks away, ashing her cigarette on the kitchen floor, though the door is open and the grass only a foot away. She is slow, maybe, and possibly clumsy; or she is traumatized, or distracted.
How do you choose the right word? Some just don’t fit what you’re trying to convey, either in the labor of love prose for your creative writing class, or the rogue auto-correct function on your phone.
Can you shed lacerations instead of tears? How is the word barren an attack on women? How do writers such as Joshua Ferris, Francine Prose, David Foster Wallace, Zadie Smith, and Simon Winchester weigh and inveigh against words?
We sat down with Katherine Martin and Allison Wright, editors of the Oxford American Writer’s Thesaurus, to discuss what makes a word distinctive from others and what writers can teach you about language.
Writing Today, the Choice of Words, and the Oxford American Writer’s Thesaurus
Katherine Martin is Head of US Dictionaries at Oxford University Press. Allison Wright is Editor, US Dictionaries at Oxford University Press.
Much more than a word list, the Oxford American Writer’s Thesaurus is a browsable source of inspiration as well as an authoritative guide to selecting and using vocabulary. This essential guide for writers provides real-life example sentences and a careful selection of the most relevant synonyms, as well as new usage notes, hints for choosing between similar words, a Word Finder section organized by subject, and a comprehensive language guide. The third edition revises and updates this innovative reference, adding hundreds of new words, senses, and phrases to its more than 300,000 synonyms and 10,000 antonyms. New features in this edition include over 200 literary and humorous quotations highlighting notable usages of words, and a revised graphical word toolkit feature showing common word combinations based on evidence in the Oxford Corpus. There is also a new introduction by noted language commentator Ben Zimmer.
Subscribe to the OUPblog via email or RSS.
Subscribe to only language, lexicography, word, etymology, and dictionary articles on the OUPblog via email or RSS.
View more about this book on the
0 Comments on Finding the right word as of 1/1/1900
You can get some free writing advice from the great David Foster Wallace while working on your computer.
Every Mac computer contains a copy of the Oxford American Writer’s Thesaurus, a powerful tool for writers that features extra “word notes” from Wallace and a number of other authors, including Rae Armantrout, Joshua Ferris, Francine Prose, Zadie Smith and Simon Winchester.
Author Dave Maddenexplained how to access the extra material in a post: “It’s part of the built-in dictionary. Type in a word, click on ‘Thesaurus’ in the little bar above, and you’ll get the word-for-word entry from this book I paid money for … Here, as a public service, is the list of words with notes by DFW: as, all of, beg, bland, critique, dialogue, dysphesia, effete, feckless, fervent, focus, hairy, if, impossibly, individual, loan, mucous, myriad, noma (at canker), privilege, pulchritude (at beauty), that, toward, unique, utilize.”
It seems like hardly a week goes by without one literary writer or another hyperbolically decrying the way we're all going to hell in an electronic handbasket.
First Jonathan Franzen argued that e-books are damaging society and suggested that all "serious" readers read print.
Last week Pulitzer Prize winner Jennifer Egan complained of social networking, "Who cares that we can connect? What’s the big deal? I think Facebook is colossally dull. I think it’s like everyone coming to live in a huge Soviet apartment block, [in] which everyone’s cell looks exactly the same."
Zadie Smith has written of Facebook: "When a human being becomes a set of data on a website like Facebook, he or she is reduced. Everything shrinks. Individual character. Friendships. Language. Sensibility. In a way it’s a transcendent experience: we lose our bodies, our messy feelings, our desires, our fears. It reminds me that those of us who turn in disgust from what we consider an overinflated liberal-bourgeois sense of self should be careful what we wish for: our denuded networked selves don’t look more free, they just look more owned."
This of course comes on the heels of Ray Bradbury complaining in 2009: "They wanted to put a book of mine on Yahoo! You know what I told them? ‘To hell with you. To hell with you and to hell with the Internet.’ It’s distracting. It’s meaningless; it’s not real. It’s in the air somewhere."
And of course there's a long and storied history of writers eschewing technology and returning to nature, such as Henry David Thoreau and Ralph Waldo Emerson.
But doesn't it seem like there's some nexus between literary writers and technophobia? Are literary writers more likely to fear our coming robot overlords and proudly choose an old cell phone accordingly (if they have one at all)? Do they know something we don't?
Even when a writer really does use tech as either an artistic mode of expression or as a relentless self-promotion engine (or both), like Tao Lin, he's derided (or praised, depending on one's POV) as "a world-class perpetrator of gimmickry."
Have lit writers become our resident curmudgeons? Or are they just like any other cross-section of the population? Is it tied to deeper fear of the transition in the book business? Is it just not interesting to think new stuff is cool?
69 Comments on Why Are So Many Literary Writers Technophobic?, last added: 2/19/2012
Great blog, Nathan. To answer your question, I think they are a tad cranky and will probably come around to the tech side of things. After all, I'm sure they all have cell phones, remote controls instead of antennas on their TV and probably even listen to I-tunes. LOL
Ray Bradbury has since changed his mind. http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2011/nov/30/fahrenheit-451-ebook-ray-bradbury People are always suspicious of the new thing. Just give them some time.
I think age might have something to do with it. A lot of the younger writers have embraced the technology, while some of the older ones used to doing things in a certain way or manner of writing for years are more averse to change - until someone gets around to explaining the benefits to them.
For me, in person socializing is much better than "chatting" on Facebook and so is holding a bound book in my hand better than reading an e-book. Being on the computer feels more like work - interacting with a person or a book is relaxing at least for me.
I still hold that college professors are the ones who are pushing back at technology. Refusing to use anything besides powerpoint, not sending out emails, etc.
But on the writer front, I'd say we're in transition. it's not that literary writers are completely averse to the idea of an online book world, but rather they are trying to get used to the idea. I mean, even the publishing world is still trying to adapt to the e-book. It'll just take some time for things to settle down again.
I don't completely disagree with the notion that there is some evil in technology. Or at least that technology makes it easier for people to do evil things.
On the other hand, I completely disagree about Facebook. I mean sure, the company and some of its policies aren't perfect, but it allows me to stay in touch with friends who live across the country with more ease than any other tool in history.
What do you think of Google's new Word Verification, Nathan? Have you had to use it yet?
As a grad student in literature who is also an aspiring science fiction/fantasy author, as well as a high school English teacher and a technophile, I have often thought that the majority of "literary" writers have tremendous sticks up their rear ends. I rarely read the sort of self-important pedantry from "genre" writers that I do from the so-called "important literary figures," with the obvious exceptions Bradbury and Harlan Ellison, who still eschews the Internet and types his stories, last I heard, on a manual typewriter.
I think it comes from their need to think their work is something more than storytelling. If they don't convince themselves that they're doing something important, they might realize they're no better than TV writers, and then what would they do with their smug sense of superiority?
This also ties into our society's need to seperate stories between "Important Work" and "Entertainment," as if the two can't be the same. People who buy into this forget that Shakespeare was the pop culture of his time, and would doubtless be writing (brilliant) television today.
They're just chicken because they can see the end coming. Rather than dodge the knife coming for their neck like everyone else, they choose to stand firm and say "To hell with dodging. That's not real. Dodging isn't standing." Good riddance to all those dinosaurs.
Anonymous said, on 2/16/2012 8:26:00 AM
I love Franzen, but he writes a book a decade and laughs all the way to the bank. Who on earth has that kind of a sweet deal? If I were him, or John Iriving, or any other authors who've found a great thing and have milked it for years, I'd be against technology, too.
When telephones first came out, there was a time that the boss did not dare use one. That was the work of his secretary. Twenty-five years ago I worked at a company where the CEO didn't have a computer, but everyone else did. Not his job.
With the evolution of each technology, the same comments were made. But there is an entire population out there that has never grown up without a cell phone or the internet. All of the books on my e-reader have saved at least one tree. I'd say that some say we're all going to have to wake up and small the Kindle, but by that time we'll probably start having books transmitted to the thought centers of our brain.
Bradbury sounds like a delightful grumpy old man in the quote you provided. "[The internet]'s not real. It's in the air somewhere." That's just brilliant.
I don't know... I feel like things are always going to change. It seems a bit pretentious to state that serious readers read print. I prefer print books to ebooks right now, but I know I'm still reading the same story as someone with a Kindle. I think.
I'm not sure the writers you've quoted here are all technophobes. They are specific in their comments and it is difficult to dismiss them out of hand even when one does embrace social networking as a medium for writers.
Facebook can be dull. And I found myself thinking about "looking owned" as Smith puts it. As for Franzen's comment about e-books, it is a larger question that he raises: taking the time to let work inhabit us as we read it. E-books don't necessarily preclude that but the idea that you have a battery life on the device you are using does, in fact, change the reading experience.
I see the same thing that these writers and that many commenters seem to acknowledge: when we embrace what is next, we have to consider if, when, and how to let go of what is. It may take a little time (as it did for Bradbury) or we may find ourselves looking at new kinds of writing that use the social media even as they use us. I think "420 Characters" by Lou Beach is a fine example of this, as is Margaret Atwood's use of Twitter.
I suspect that the real difference between "serious" writers who reject electronic media or appear to do so, is simply that they are more private people to begin with. And they have limited time. It helps all writers to consider how best to use that time and how best to connect.
The internet is the home of mass consumption and mass culture - the common denominator (sometimes the lowest common denominator) is what makes it big on the internet.
And that is not (typically) literary fiction. It's more of a niche market, these days, and is somewhat reliant on traditional forums that support it as important culture.
I think literary writers are probably a little fearful of the literary free-for-all of the internet, of being a small fish in a really big media pond. There's no Amanda Hocking self-pub success stories among literary writers, at least that I've heard of (though I'm sure there's a few doing well in this new market).
I think the old system supported literary fiction, both in terms of exposure and financial support. It was assured a place at the table. The new system? Nothing is guaranteed. And that's probably pretty scare at a time when mass culture seems to be moving ever further away from literary fiction (at least in North America).
Spot on. I don't presume ever to rank among the likes of the literary authors you quote here, but my manuscript is getting a healthy bunch of rejections from editors for being "too literary." As a result, I'm starting to consider the ebook route, although making sure to get proper editing along the way. But then folks make me doubt my idea, like the well-established and straight-talking agent I ran into the other day who, having read a couple of chapters from said manuscript, said: "Don't do an ebook. Only as a last resort. Your book is too good." That's flattering and all, but I wonder, how long are "literary" and "e", or technology, going to continue to look at each other askance from across some divide?
In 50 years it won't be an argument at all, the ones arguing will mostly be dead or too old to argue or care. Times change whether we want it to or not. Arguing about the lack of merit in it isn't going to make it go away. Embrace it or don't, but it's going to thrive and grow and someday we'll have computers in contact lenses and data pumped directly into our brains. And in 50 years, they'll be talking about how it was so much better when we were on Facebook.
Elizabeth, you bring up the point of battery life. Have you ever used an e-reader? Even with active reading and a lot of syncing, you will find it takes at least two weeks to drain their batteries. Normally the battery lifespan can be a month or more.
Heck, you'll usually change the batteries in your reading light far more often than that!
The batteries on e-readers don't in themselves mess with the reading experience.
What do I make of this? Facebook sucks. Smart people, some of whom are writers, recognize that. Twitter is much better, and smart people, some of whom are writers, recognize that. And as an unrelated note, some writers are iffy about ebooks.
I don't think I would lump all of this under "technophobic."
But seriously, Facebook is terrible. A terrible software, a terrible system.
I think there needs to be a balance. Sure, I love the convenience of e-books, but I still relish the smell and feel of a book in my hands.
And though some part of me agrees with with the comments made about social networking, I also have to note that if it weren't for Facebook and Twitter and the fact that everyone and their grandmother (literally) has quick access to publicly speak their mind, it has forced those of us who fancy ourselves clever to be that much cleverer.
As far as Colson Whitehead's comment about the internet keeping us from finishing our novels... I'm sorry, but I can find any numerous ways to distract myself from getting any writing done. But the internet did give me http://writeordie.com/ so I consider that a win.
Of course lumping them all together is dangerous and unfair, but I'm going to go with fear. And I can only say that because as a new author with my very first book hitting shelves in May, I am slightly terrified of the e-book business myself. Not that I haven't embraced it. I love my Kindle, but I do wonder just where we authors will be when the cookie does crumble.
I think, for a lot of people, there comes a point in life where "New" becomes synonymous with "Bad." You get comfortable enough in life and suddenly those things that come along and change it are no longer opportunities but threats. The status quo is more important when you have somethign to lose. This is why older generations look back on the younger generations and say "Those Damn Kids!" even though their parent's generations said the same thing of them.
I don't think it has as much to do with the culture of literary writers, especially since most of the writers you included are exactly young. Franzen and Egan are in their 50s. Zadie Smith is almost 40 (old enough to remember life before the Internet). David Foster Wallace would turn 50 in a few days if he were still around (how's that make you feel?).
I think it has more to do with finding comfort, which often leads to complacency which, in turn, can lead to a protectionist mindset.
How many up-and-coming literary writers are anti-tech? Phillip Roth will continue to get his checks with or without Twitter. The unknowns...they're more likely to see the benefits.
Technology, the Internet, Social Media and other New Fangled Things(tm) are just tools. They aren't good. They aren't bad. They just are. It's how we use these tools that give birth to good and bad outcomes. Like anything else in life, its where we choose to put our efforts and our time that make the difference.
I'd love to hear the literary crowd talk about THAT.
Great post, Nathan! Appreciated that you talked about this. And loved that you pointed out that "new stuff is cool".
Because it is!! :)
I think Bryan Russell nailed it. It's anxiety.
The changes in the book world are probably scary for some Lit writers.
I think they may fear that the democratization of books will push literary fiction into a very small corner or make it disappear altogether.
I would argue that literary fiction is already in a very small corner.
E-books will expand the book world tremendously, but there will still be a place for literary fiction, with it's artistry and innovation. Those who love it and award prizes, like the Nobel prize, as a small example, will keep it alive and thriving.
Literary fiction writers may also reach new audiences with the e-book, and they might make more money, too, so, they may find that they like the new book world once they get used to it.
I agree with F.T. Bradley. Writers are introverts, most of us, and certainly the older ones among us have a fondness for the touch and feel and smell of paper, a love of bookbinding and design, a sense of connection to history through the books we handle. So even if we are willing, out of need or desire, to publish our book in ebook form (guilty), we still feel guilty about it, as if we have cheated on our old friend, the book made of paper.
I haven’t read the articles you link to yet, but in response to this post I would point out that people who see themselves as intellectuals are often critical of what they see as popular--especially when, as in this case, the field from which they draw their identity is heading down a wildly popular but unpredictable path. All cultural shifts meet with derision, and even those of us who embrace certain changes might benefit from considering them with doubt as well as hopefulness. (After all, as things change, we always gain and lose.) But, when it comes down to it, the future happens no matter how comfortable we are in the present, and I believe those who choose to meet it with enthusiasm and cleverness despite their misgivings will be happier as it comes.
I work in a public library. Right now, at my branch, we’re seeing more patrons than ever, but I have no delusions about how the future decrease in the printing of both popular and literary books will challenge our library system. As long as librarians and library users value the role of the public library, though, I keep faith that it can live up to its value. It’s up to the public library community to figure out how to do so, even if we find ourselves uncomfortable.
And on an aside--If Franzen really means to assert that serious readers only read print, all I would say is that he seems to be great at sticking his foot in his mouth. Maybe he likes it that way, and I doubt it will lose him any readers. I still hope to read him one day, and I might even do it on my Kindle. :)
I think people who write about how much they hate facebook are far more ruined & time-wasting than those of us who check in real quick (oh, look! my SIL had a baby!) and MOVE ON with our very real, very fulfilling LIVES :)
Nathan, I suspect there's several reasons for the criticism of social networking sites. One may have to do with the fact that it's something new, and authors are used to doing things their own way, so having to change how they market their books is difficult for them and requires their taking time to learn all about it. Second, authors are frequently solitary people, used to working alone most of the time, and now here they are, having to take time to interact with others which they may find difficult to do, and may take time from their writing. Third, it may stem from the fact that publishing houses are abandoning authors more and more and putting marketing and promotion duties on the author, and well-established authors like Franzen react angrily by denigrating the social networking sites, even though those aren't the real cause of their anger. As a new writer myself and not published in fiction, I'm appalled and disgusted at the way writers are treated by publishers. It's getting harder and harder to get published these days, but the social networking sites are not to blame. I'm probably older than any of the writers you mentioned, but I use and embrace Facebook (though not Twitter, I do think that's for the birds). After all, Facebook is how I get to your blog through the updates that come through my Facebook page. Enough said.
Much, I suspect, is due to people insisting that, say, print is dead and the books that they love are on their way out. No one likes to hear that something he or she loves is obsolete and needs to be thrown away, especially if he or she still sees value in it. I think that a lot would come around to the idea of "E-books/Kindles/social networking aren't THAT bad" if the technophiles would stop insisting that e-books and Kindles and such are not only valuable but the only possible future...indeed, the only future worth having.
No one likes to hear that the things that they love will cease to exist in a few years, and good riddance. Of course they're resistant to that attitude! It's human nature to cling to what you love and to fight to preserve it, especially if you feel that it's being threatened.
And, to be honest, social networking on places like Facebook, Tumblr and Twitter is not very social. People post comments on Facebook (and on Blogger)--but there are no threads of comments; you can't have a conversation in writing with someone. I have seen no conversations on Tumblr; people post, people like the post and people re-blog the post. Twitter is limited to 150 characters. I think that a lot of writers see social networking, in many cases, not as promoting communication and thought but as curtailing both.
I am a debut author who is published in both print and e-book. When I first saw my debut title up on Amazon it was great thrill. I e-mailed all my friends and told them they could pre-order!!!
Then my release date came and I immediately made the rounds of all the local B&Ns. Discovered my book was on the New Releases shelf! Equally thrilling! I took a jpg of my book with my iPhone and posted it to my blog page on my website!
I think I love both high and low tech. Not sure that one without the other would be as wonderful.
The music and sound industries already went through this.
In 1994 a tape transfer house my production was using had a sign on their counter that read "The Future of Digital is Analogue".
Needless to say they are out of business.
Anonymous said, on 2/16/2012 4:25:00 PM
Well, lit writers do tend to be big on tradition - paper over word processors,plots with cerebral rather than visceral entertainment (if it's meant to entertain at all)... but the Internet is about laughing at silly stuff, learning highly interesting but completely useless facts... we DON'T worry about the human condition. We have fun, and a great deal of it involves zero intelligence. Zero personality too, maybe, and lit writers fear that. Their issue is that so many of them completely dismiss the web - they refuse to wait around for the benefits. And I think that hurts their readership.
Anonymous said, on 2/16/2012 6:28:00 PM
Hi,
I've completed a manuscript, and I just wanted to know whether it would be okay to walk into a literary agent's office and query in person. I live in manhattan.
I'm an aspiring lit author and I'm on twitter. So are Lauren Groff (author of the gorgeous forthcoming Arcadia), Jami Attenberg, and the much-anthologized Sherman Alexie. It becomes more difficult to market yourself as a lit writer using online tools such as twitter and blogs because your audience isn't necessarily online, unlike, perhaps, YA, which has an established online community. Most of my preferred agents aren't on twitter, they don't have blogs. It's just a different community that has different expectations as to how to market your writing. For me, publication in a little mag will mean more than cultivating a following of thousands as far as my career goes. Do I think that lit writers should ignore the internet? No. But I don't think that Zadie Smith is entirely wrong in her assessment.
Anonymous said, on 2/16/2012 6:47:00 PM
Thank you Nathan. I'll go the conventional query route. It was tempting to walk in since these agents' offices are mere blocks from me haha. Thanks again. It's a great resource you have here for would-be writers. Yours,
In a slightly different vein, it also brings to mind the question as to whether established literary writers are willing or would be able to write convincingly about technology. We can't imagine 19th century literature without the epistolary device, but it's hard (for me) to imagine serious literary works involving social media sites, text messaging, or any reference to technology which might be dated in another two years.
Odo said, on 2/16/2012 8:03:00 PM
On the matter of Facebook. Sorry, I don't make friends that easily. If Facebook allowed me to indicate "acquaintances", I'd be just fine with it.
On the matter of E-books. Battery life and readability of the screen have been solved. What hasn't been solved is how to do the equivalent of flipping the pages until you see something interesting and then reading from there. I just did that with a book. Started in the middle of a paragraph that caught my eye and an hour later I was still reading. That's really hard to do with any of the e-readers that I've seen. That's also how I determine if I'm going to buy a book at a bookstore, and again, you can't do that with an e-book. (Of course that plays merry hob with the author's intent, but that's just too bad.)
Funny that when I read your title I thought the blog was going to be about writers being afraid of technology, as in still using typewriters instead of the computer. It took me years to learn how to double space. But afraid of technological advances -- considering the number of writers tweeting, blogging, publishing e-books, putting out there trailers of their books, and altogether using every ounce of technology that seems (to my amateur eyes at least) available today -- I don't know if I'd agree with that. But I liked your quotes of the grumpy anti-tech writers anyways. www.lilcornerofjoy.blogspot.com
Nathan, Nathan, just when I have a blog post all planned, you write something that makes me want to blog my response instead. Why do you keep doing this to me? ;-) Kidding.
Okay, seriously.
First, I really hate that everyone here seems to think that young people have embraced the digital world and it's only old curmudgeons who aren't really that into it. I'm 33, I've had a computer since I was eight, and I'm in the paper and ink camp. Just sayin'.
Part of it is time. We only have so much, and learning how to use all this stuff and use it effectively takes a whack of time. And I don't think I'm the only one who feels like just when I get the hang of something, everyone has moved on to something else. (Pinterest? REALLY? Come ON.) I'd rather be writing.
Plus, there's the fact that Twitter and Facebook and the Blogosphere are basically just electronic versions of High School, where the cool and witty kids have bazillions of followers and the rest of us struggle to rack up more than five. A lot of us chose writing so we could get away from those uber-cool people and feel successful at our own thing.
And I think there's something to Zadie Smith's comment. Sure, I can read your witty posts on Twitter. I can read and "Like" your Facebook page and comment on your blogs. But if I met you on the street and acted like I know you, you'd call the cops and take out a restraining order, because the fact is that I DON'T know you. I just know what you choose to post about. I only know about a tiny, tiny piece of the man named Nathan Bransford. And you only know about a teeny, tiny piece of me, the writer named Ishta Mercurio-Wentworth.
When I meet my writer friends in person, I get the whole person: the facial expressions that say that even though they're putting on a brave face, the waiting is really getting to them; the stories about kids and spouses that are too private for the Twitterverse; the banter and fast exchanges that stimulate ideas; the look of their notebook as they scribble in it. And they get the whole me.
I love email: it helps me keep in touch with my close friends in Seattle and Connecticut and Australia and England. I use Twitter: it lets me chat briefly with other writers about specific topics at pre-arranged times. And I blog, regularly. And I read blogs.
But whenever I leave my office and meet with other writers in person, I am reminded of this: the internet, for all its wonders, is less. The internet me is a lesser me. And I only want to spend a very limited time being a lesser me.
Thank you for the very interesting article. Our writing world has changed so much with technology and will continue to change. http://www.amberlykclowe.blogspot.com
I don't think that's necessarily technophobia, that's critical thinking. What social media is doing to you, either good or bad, is something worth thinking about.
I think if they're not accustomed to using things like Facebook and e-books, then they're more likely to be wary about it. On the other hand, like you said, there are people from older generations who have embraced technological advances. I'm kind of divided on this issue. I don't use Facebook or Twitter because I think both would take up too much time; they seem like a lot of work. But I like blogging because I think it's good writing practice and it's a good way to meet other writers.
Franzen is (in effect) telling poor writers not to shop at Walmart. He can afford to be snippy about ebooks. Without estories (short, not books) I might not be published at all. Without Facebook and Twitter, I'd have to grab strangers on the street and beg them to read my stuff.
Honestly? I think it's because most of these quoted writers are bad at social media so they disparage it. "You don't see me on Facebook or Twitter not because, god forbid, a genius like me doesn't *get* it, but because I *reject* it." I feel justified in saying this because I am bad at social media--at least in terms of connecting with potential readers. I'm not an extrovert, and I bet most lit writers aren't either. I've met plenty of writers (many YA writers) who are extroverts or otherwise self-promotion gifted, and they're *awesome* with social media. I appreciate that plenty of writers feel that way--but am self-aware enough to see that it's only the well-esatblished writers who can afford to reject social media in its entirety offhand--and that, in that old maxim "It's not you, social media--it's me."
I'd much rather connect with friends in person and save Facebook for stalking people to see who's gotten fat since high school...but I also recognize that the world is moving in different directions.
I am an aspiring literary novelist but I have to agree with what someone said above me- the professors, the MFA writers-in-residence, aren't helping the peaceful merger of lit writers and technology. I am a creative writing student and my prof is a self-proclaimed luddite- he has a feature cell phone and has just signed up for Facebook two years ago. He is 36 going on 37, so age isn't really a factor, I don't believe. I am 33 and have always embraced technology, am pushing my way through promoting my literary YA novel, etc. I'm not sure where the disconnect is for these writers, though they are the only ones, it seems making any money from their literary works. My professor is not.
As a lit writer I can tell you I don't think I am going to devote all my work to a strict literary formula. I want to make money at this. I want to do this for as long as I can. Twitter, Facebook, G+, LinkedIn, etc is a step I must take to ensure, or at least tilt the odds .85 degrees in my favor.
I wonder if it has something to do with what they view the role of the writer is. With the advent of media, many commercial authors have embraced it as a tool to connect with fans, and they consider connecting with fans and creating communities for their writing an important part of their job. But literary authors are probably more likely to consider their job solely "writing"; why should they reach out to the people who read their writing?
The 2 F's. Fear and frustration. Afraid of new things. Afraid to leave the classic ways behind. Afraid we can't learn new ways.
Frustration at the amount of time taken away from writing to master and use new media. Frustration that the brain changes (it's documented)caused by using the shortcuts available via new media will mean beautiful writing no longer has a place in society.
What is a book but a box of many characters? And what is a computer/the internet but a box of many more characters? I don't understand how it can even be considered limiting or superficial, especially in comparison to a traditional book.
I think the technophobia derives from feeling slightly threatened... well-established authors around before the digital age may be feeling a bit overwhelmed by the access people now have to fictional works - it ups the competition!
Anonymous said, on 2/17/2012 8:05:00 AM
I say, "To each their own." I love holding printed books, and I love getting an e-book in 30 seconds. My book is available in both formats, and the printed version is selling better, because people still visit bookstores. So yay! But friends who are on my Facebook, who didn't know I'd written a book until they saw a post, enjoyed downloading right away. So I'm for all of it--whatever works best for the book! ♥ K. L. Burrell
I believe what we're hearing is the fear of established writers that their exclusivity is disappearing with the power of the big publishers who have supported them, and whose power is vested in print.
This attitude reminds me much of Aesop's fable "The Sour Grapes"- which because the fox could not reach them dismissed the grapes as being sour. Likewise, those who haven't a clue how to master Internet say the same thing.
I can see both sides. How's that for straddling the fence? My next gig will be politics. This conundrum reminds me of the setting of Fahrenheit 451. Yes, I will be that lady who goes up in flames for her books. I love to caress the pages, admire the art and care it took to create the actual book. Going deeper, I appreciate the actual experiences that lead to the stories I've enjoyed. A virtual adventure is never the equal of the real thing. How to describe the smells and sounds are tempered by what we've known in our past. Your past is not mine and vice versa. I appreciate technology for opening new worlds to me that I cannot afford or physically manage to visit. I appreciate the ease with which the internet makes possible for me to send my words out into the world. Like all things in life, there needs to be moderation. A melding of technology and experience, the virtual and the actual, is the best we can strive for. Afterall, the quill was once new technology.
Sorry to disappoint, but I agree with them. How can anyone who loves words and the richness of the English language read Twitter without a sense of revulsion?
"How can anyone who loves words and the richness of the English language read Twitter without a sense of revulsion? "
Well if that's your standard, how can you go anywhere without ear plugs or talking to anyone when the majority of the population butchers the language just by speaking daily without a sense of revulsion? Are you a hermit?
Twitter is not a genre of literature. It's social media. That means it's people talking. If you choose to avoid the global chit chat, that's a valid choice. Trying to compare it to literature, not so much.
*No offense to anyone writing their WIPs one status update at a time. There's no way to account for the artists. :)
I'm late to this discussion, but I wanted to chime in because I'm a literary writer, I'm 25, and I don't think I could ever read a book on an e-reader.
I've tried. Many of my friends have e-readers, and I've attempted to read books on both Kindles and Nooks, but there was something about reading on a screen that made my mind wander, and I generally gave up after only 15 pages. In comparison, I can read print books for hours without falling prey to any distraction. I love the feeling of pages under my fingers.
So why the attention deficit? I think I'm enough of a digital native that my mind subconsciously links words on screens with reads that are supposed to be quick and easy -- I can't read a long article online; that's not what the Internet is for. When friends send me manuscripts over 5 or 10 pages long, I have to print them out.
This is not to say that I'm a technophobe; I use Facebook, Twitter, and WordPress, and I'm the social media specialist at my day job. But I can see why established literary writers are leery of the advance of e-books and other technology. The "death" of the print book is something that brings me great sadness, too. When I chose to become a writer, I did so partly because of the desire to one day see my name on the front of a print book, and I knew that getting my name on the front of said book would take years and years of effort and rejection and, ultimately, validation. While I know that e-books take hard work, too, seeing my name on a screen seems like a much easier job: all I have to do is open Microsoft Word and type my name. The concept of having a novel released only as an e-book isn't satisfactory; it doesn't connote effort to me in the same way that a print book would.
I have no idea if any of this made sense, but the transition from print books to e-books -- the general dissolution of physical connection in general -- bothers me a lot.
"Great catch by @sullydish reader that Dr. George's objections to HHS regs =rejection of Cath principle of double effect http://bit.ly/AeGnrS"
is a strange and beautiful language. A language with hidden meaning, that requires great effort; one must read it many times before it even begins to make sense.
However, regarding Twitter, I think you underrate it.
I'm late arriving to this conversation, but I thank you for posting about this. I see this all the time among both literary fiction writers and serious nonfiction writers. They're very resistant to social media. They see it as a time waster (maybe they're right). It's difficult to convince them of the benefits. I think Mieke was right in saying that literary fiction writers don't see people reading blogs as their target market. I say the more ways you can reach readers, the better. It can't hurt to try.
More than 80 Harper’s Magazine writers and friends signed an open letter to publisher John “Rick” MacArthur supporting the unionization of the magazine’s staff and urging publisher not to cut two editors. The publisher has since defended his actions in another letter.
The 84 signatures on the original letter included: Tom Bissell, Heidi Julavits, Naomi Klein, Jonathan Lethem, and Zadie Smith. The letter asked MacArthur seek alternative ways to reshape the magazine’s financial budget, suggesting the publisher to study the models of other not-for-profit magazines.
Here’s a quote from the original letter: “Editorial costs can only be cut so far without damaging the quality of the publication … At a time when there is much chatter about the death of print, publishing a magazine as brave and creative as Harper’s Magazine verges on a sacred trust.” (Via New York Magazine & Sarah Weinman)
On Saturday, Joan Acocella (author of the vampire essay, “In the Blood”) moderated the Vampires Revival panel. On board to speak were philosophy professor Noel Carroll, horror novelist Stephen King, vampire film director Matt Reeves, and Twilight screenwriter Melissa Rosenberg. A video preview of the panel discussion is embedded above.
Several dozen King fans waited outside the venue only to be disappointed by King’s unwillingness to sign books. As he walked away with his arms in the air, he told the crowd: “I can’t sign guys, I got to get something to eat.” Alas, just because he’s a “king” doesn’t mean he isn’t human.
Author Sita Brahmachari‘s latest book is Car Wash Wish, her second novella for 
Just like Will Ferrell’s character in “Stranger Than Fiction,” you might find “yourself”—or your namesake, your avatar—spinning through a tale told by Ian McEwan, Margaret Atwood, Julian Barnes, Ken Follett, Hanif Kureishi, Will Self, Alan Hollinghurst, Zadie Smith, Tracy Chevalier, Joanna Trollope, or another of the 17 authors participating in a fundraising event for the UK medical charity 
OR Books will publish an anthology focusing on income inequality within New York City called Tales of Two Cities: The Best & Worst of Times in New York. A portion of the proceeds will be donated to Housing Works.
Author 
Here are some literary events to jump-start your week. To get your event posted on our calendar, visit our 
Penguin has put together a visual and audio tour of the locations in 
You can get some free writing advice from the great David Foster Wallace while working on your computer.
More than 80 Harper’s Magazine writers and friends signed an open letter to publisher John “Rick” MacArthur supporting the unionization of the magazine’s staff and urging publisher not to 
I got to hear Chris Ware talk on stage with Daniel Clowes at the Oakland Museum of modern art. They were both hilarious and inspiring. After that I decided to get one of Ware’s book and I picked up “Lint.” It was one of the best comics I have ever read. I really want to get his other works as soon as possible.
LINT is one of the most amazing things I’ve ever read, too. And the only reason it hasn’t gotten more attention is that every book Chris Ware makes is equally astonishing.