The Lost Magic of Books

This blog entry is about to take a sudden and immediate digression, a sharp turn somewhat jarring to the innocent bystander, so I feel as though I should preface it with the fact that I was reading Kelly Link's book Stranger Things Happen, and I was finding myself tremendously entertained and delighted by the writing, when suddenly I found myself unavoidably distracted by the cover, which reminded me of one of my old Nancy Drew novels as a kid, and so I started flipping around from the front to the back, reading about the author, checking out the information about the publisher, then looking online to learn more about Small Beer Press, which eventually, in turn, led me to write the following entry:

I can honestly say that I never used to judge a book by its cover. I never used to look at the reviews or the blurbs or the writer's bio. I didn't pay too much attention to size or font or page layout. I never even used to look at the publisher's information at the front of the book. Sure, maybe I noticed one or two of these things accidentally here and there, but that was all it ever was: an accident. I would pick up a book, usually at random, by an author I may or may not have recognized, and I would immediately flip to that very first chapter or story, often skipping right on by any extensive introductions or author's notes, and I would read the first few pages like the greedy, selfish reader that I was, simply hungry for words and wherever it was those words might lead me.

What can I say? All I really wanted to do was to read because reading made me a better writer. That I knew for sure. And I thought that reading and writing was enough. But, alas, I realize now, at long last, that I am, in fact, an idiot. Reading is just one piece of the puzzle. I understand that now. I have come to realize that there are many various parts necessary to becoming a good writer, or not just a good writer, but rather a professional writer.

So lately, more and more, I can't help but to look at every single detail that goes into the making of a book. For example, take some of the novels from writers right here in Chicago (all of which you're probably familiar with or at least should be). Like Zach Dodson's book (or I should say Zach Plague's book) Boring Boring Boring Boring Boring Boring Boring, which doesn't really even deserve the one boring in the title, let alone the seven. I have never seen a book like this before. It's more like a piece of art than anything else. Or Jonathan Messinger’s book Hiding Out, which pairs his "decoys" with the perfect amount of illustrations and design. Or even Joe Meno’s book Demons in the Spring, which is exactly how I remember books being as a kid. You would open up this thick cloth cover and the words would instantly come to life with colorful illustrations. Reading these books, or even just flipping through them when I was still too young to read, was always, well, kind of magical. And it wasn't just the writing that was inside. It was everything. It was the whole package. Books were an experience, or an adventure, maybe.

But somewhere along the way, from being a kid and reading books for the very first time to reading them now as an adult, something changed for me. Or maybe it wasn't just me, but with books in general. I reached a point where I found myself suddenly surrounded by shelves and shelves of like-sized paperbacks and hardcover books, which all at once looked exactly the same. And it was then that I realized the importance of the details, of finding the right publisher for your book, and of taking the time to research and study what it is that is going on in the publishing industry and with books as a whole.

Recently, in the books that I mentioned earlier and a handful of others, I'm noticing a shift in the way books are being constructed, especially by independent publishers looking to stand out from the crowd, paying special attention to detail and design. It makes me excited to think about all of the new possibilities that are out there now for writers. And so, no, I'm not necessarily worried about things like Kindles and other digital book readers ever being able to fully replace books, especially when I see an increasing amount of independent publishers reinvigorating the idea of books as pieces of art, as something to collect and to cherish and to display on a bookshelf with pride. And maybe, one day, little by little, they will even be able to restore that same magical feeling that I remember experiencing as a kid sitting on the library floor with a really good book and thinking: I wish they would let me keep it.

Spring Break break

Hey guys,

So I know that it's Thursday, and you're all wondering why you haven't felt right for a couple of days now. Just to set you back on your axis, I figured I'd post so you can all stop missing me.

A quick note about the McEggers Tang Clan piece: I really appreciated everyone's responses. This was by far the most controversial reading we've had in this class, which I think is exciting, definitely. Some of you are probably still wondering why I assigned it, and Richard noted that I said something about "what happens when your voice takes over your publication," and that's a lot of it: How sometimes we (and when I say "we" I mean me, and maybe you, with your project) can get so deep into how we're doing something that we get away from the what we're doing. This is a major criticism of McSweeney's, that its style has overcome its substance. Another point: The small press world, particularly as navigated by your guileless instructor, tends to be fairly chummy. "We're all pals doing it for the love," that sort of thing. But it's important to remember that, even when you're working on a smaller scale, there'll be critics out there. Thick skins can come in handy.

Hope everyone is enjoying their break. And in case you are, here's a nice succinct explanation of how corporations have destroyed the industry nearest to all of our hearts. Have fun!

Aaaand I'll jump in right here.
So I don't read McSweeney's or the Believer. And believe it or not, I've never had the desire to pick up A Heartbreaking Work of Staggering Genuis. This is not because I have something against Eggers. I just haven't gotten around to it. I know the magazines and have read a little bit of them but not enough to qualify me as "one of them." That being said, this article was nothing but cheap laughs to me. Obviously it was satire. I got that much, but not being on the inside with the McSweeney subscribers it was hard for me to appreciate it as satire. I felt like I was on the outside of an inside joke most of the time and although the footnotes were pretty funny, they did nothing to involve us outsiders.
I do have to agree with Casey in the fact that satire is supposed to poke fun at things that have grown too big for their own good. The fact that McSweeney's is a zine that was probably never meant to get this big and most likely started out making fun of others who have "sold out" (like most indie things), is funny and ironic.
On a random note (because it just popped into my head) I may have found a slight error in Lanham's tiny tangent about Stephen King and plot. In King's "On Writing," he talks about how he does not worry about plot much:
"...You may wonder where plot is in all of this. The answer-my answer, anyway- is nowhere. i won't try to convince you that I've never plotted any more than I'd try to convince you that I've never told a lie, but I do both as infrequently as possible. I distrust plot for two reasons..."
Anyway, you get the point. It might not change much in Mr. Lanham's self-indulgent satire but it makes me happy to know that there is a tiny error in one of his footnotes.
Or maybe I'm wrong and this was a side note of satire as well. That's what I don't like about satire. It can get sticky and confusing and if you're just going to confuse your readers, then there's no sense in writing.
I feel like this "debate" going on right now in this very blog is exactly what Lanham wanted to evoke and I can't help but imagine him sitting alone in front of his computer, googling his name and reading this blog.
On an ending note, those writer trading cards are a pretty sweet idea.

McWhat now (part2)

so ive read people's comments on the mceggers article and dont get me wrong i understand its satire and supposed to be like a parody and whatever but i guess what i didnt get was a conscience to it. i dont know, maybe i was asking too much but it just seemed like a shooting insults, stereotypes, labels, generalities, with a mess of racism, sexism, etc-isms. it didnt have any context, or any meat to it, for me. it just just line after line of inside jokes that didnt seem to really point out how elitist and pretentious mcsweeny's can be. i dont know. but i compared it to dennis miller comedy and here is why...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TBeD8LmnSJw

also, i googled lanham but didnt get much info on his background aside from beign born in virginia, that doesnt exactly ring hardcore, part of the minority, and with limited means.

refreshingly sincere

I don't spend so much time in fiction these days. I read fiction voraciously up until a year or two ago, and then I discovered, or rather re-discovered, a passionate love of works of science. I've spent the last couple years pursuing this love affair while pitifully neglecting my relationship with made-up stories. As a result, I had forgotten that writing can lack sincerity, honesty, modesty, subtlety, etc. Say what you will about science writing but the right writer can turn cold hard facts in to a profound and entertaining piece of literature without irony, without sarcasm, without snark.

I don't appreciate the humor in McEggers Tang Clan. That is, I'm not offended; I'm just not amused. I'm not in on the joke, I'm not a part of the fan club so trying to follow any of that piece was just exhausting and tedious.

so would Dave Eggers be ODB?

The McEggers Tang Clan seems to strike a pretty equal balance between flattery and mockery. It's so carefully constructed and precise that you know Lanham is well-versed in a lot of McSweeney's stuff, not just a random guy making fun of it because he resents it. Though, he does seem kind of resentful and a little jealous. It was tiresome to read after awhile, until I got to the mention of McGriddle breakfast sandwiches and the reader discussion question section, because, seriously, ARE Vin Diesel and the Rock the same person? I've wondered this before, for at least ten troublesome minutes.

It is interesting to consider the place McSweeney's holds in publishing nowadays, whether or not it's really any kind of literary revolution. It does have that whole success-and-backlash thing going that tends to happen when things make an impact. And, undeniably, McSweeney's has made an impact. They are "tastemakers" of sorts, though at this point I think what they're putting out in all its forms has become a little incestuous-- it's repetitive and their style hasn't changed much over the years, so I feel they're reaching the same audience (both of readers and writers) and not necessarily re-inventing or evolving, just writing for other members of the Clan. But I think they have really expanded the possibilities of independent or small-press publishers, sort of proving the fact that if you invest in a solid enough product and create it meticulously enough, you will make a name for yourself. I don't often feel very drawn to the writing in McSweeney's books or even in the Believer, but I can recognize that they put a lot of care and thought into what they're doing. The books themselves are beautiful, and as a publisher, they seem to have a pretty unshakeable sense of self: what they want to put out there, what they want it to look like. How their writing sounds and what their books and magazines look like are both almost unmistakable, while still managing to be at least a little diverse. They are a presence in publishing that is so hard to find, even for larger presses, in that they are so distinctive, that they have such a loyal following, a subculture almost. When someone can write an entire essay making fun of your style, you know you've done something right. I'm reminded of that saying, and I can't remember who said it now, but it's something about not knowing who you are until someone hates you.

As I type this in the Fiction Writing computer lab, there's this huge Believer poster staring over me and I feel like all these McSweeney's writers are watching over me. I don't like a lot of them, and I have my own biases against the McEggers Tang Clan (how I will now refer to McSweeney's writers and hangers-on) but I do respect what they've done. How could you not? And to me it seems obvious Lanham does too. I can't speak to his feelings on Wiccans, however.

McEggars Response

I feel that Casey summarized it well. I wasn't familiar with Lanham, so I was having trouble understanding his position regarding McSweeney's. At first I couldn't tell if he was making fun of McSweeney's or making fun of making fun of McSweeney's, though I definitely didn't think he was serious (um, talk about over-the-top). Also, I recall John mentioning this essay in regard to what could happen if you let your press be dominated too much by a certain voice. By the end, I felt like this essay was attempting to address annoying things about McSweeney's to kind of blow off some steam, so that this idiosyncratic literary super-star press could be viewed more impartially, or, less obscured by the hype. Does that make sense?
I think the problem with it could be that in making fun of something seen as pretentious you might have to necessarily come off as a little pretentious, as some of the people you are making fun of it to don't know what you're talking about. Really I don't think it's much of a problem, because this essay is pretty clearly written for the appreciation of those more familiar with McSweeney's than it is an attempt to warn newcomers away.
It does remind me of the critiques of the blogging world in the "Amazing Paper Weblog" article. One thing I like about McSweeney's is that it actually is pretty accessible to people who aren't on the way to getting MFA's in creative writing. Back in high school I knew kids who read and talked about McSweeney's, none of which went into writing, and that's pretty cool. However, these kids did tend to have a sense of humor that was very much aligned with what the article was satirizing, very much the McSweeney's style. Yet, that's a pretty fine balance to strike. Most small presses that I know of that get a lot of attention do have some kind of defining character or style--people like that. Without it you can seem pretty obscure, inhuman. The problem is that whatever you do, someone's not going to like it just as much as others do. I'm not sure if Lanham was telling McSweeney's to tone it down, or just giving the rest of us a good laugh and allowing us to cool down.

-Richard