Re antisemitism and the literary world, I wonder how much of this is just literary people generally sucking these days rather than something particular to antisemitism. Elias Khoury, for instance, the author of probably the quintessential novel of the Nakba, frequently participated in panels/discussions with the Israeli author David Grossman. So color me skeptical when some random Anglo writer refuses to participate in a literary event because a (((zionist))) author will be there too.
My mum used to work for Nicola Beauman, who founded Persephone, so we had loads of their books in our house growing up. Cool to see the imprint get some love!
I love Persephone too, and Virago, so pleased to see that here. Do you know 'The Tortoise and the Hare' by Elizabeth Jenkins? Really a splendid novel from a very under appreciated author.
OMG but looking up Elizabeth Jenkins I realized I've read one of her books! Harriet! Have you ever read this book? It's basically I think a Victorian true-crime book about that mistreats this disabled heiress. So gripping and horrifying. https://a.co/d/cni0wh4
I wrote my MA dissertation on EJ a few years ago and read all of her books (most are sadly out of print). It is exactly a true crime book written as a novel. She even kept the real names. By the end, EJ had gone a little mad. And no wonder! I thought it was excellent but **too grim** and I cannot read it again. Glad you thought she was good. She deserves more readers!
But but , if you look at most long and short lists of awards for books written in English, more and more you find that a majority of the books were published in by the indie presses. So whatever they’re doing , they’re doing something right, no? Take firzcarraldo press for eg. Nobels aside even, I think jacques testsard publishes incredible work. Agree, majority are translated but many in English . But with the distribution fiasco for small presses I don’t know what happens in publishing now. I try not to be too keyed in despite coming from a publishing family.
"Ironically, antisemitism in the literary world is a huge problem.”
Do you think this is related to anti-white animus at all? I’ve seen several members of the literary establishment say things about white people that would easily be considered racist if they were said about any other group and it has the same tone as a lot of the antisemitism you mentioned.
I thought the NYRB review of the Paula Modersohn-Becker exhibit was weirdly sexist too! And also contextually lacking. For example, the Paula Modersohn-Becker Museum in Germany claims to be the first museum dedicated to the work of a female painter in the world. It was established in 1927, just twenty years after her death by a collector of her work. So within two decades, even with her limited output (limited being a relative term: she created 700+ paintings and over 1,000 drawings in her short lifetime) and her status as a young woman in a male dominated world, her work was being recognized. According to a Guardian piece (cited in her Wikipedia entry) 70 paintings were purged from German museums by the Nazis -- which means 70 paintings were collected in German museums within decades of her death! She is generally accepted as the first woman to paint nude self-portraits. There's a collection of her letters translated into English and at least two works of fiction about her. I saw the show in NY on its last weekend and thought it was wonderful for a variety of reasons. In the end, I feel like that NYRB piece was very narrow in it's scope, as if the author was looking for an angle in that had nothing legitimate to do with the work or the artist.
Yes, I noticed that same thing! Like, girl, how can we have this framing that this artist is just now being recognized _when_ she's had a museum dedicated to her for a hundred years!!! It was so perplexing!
I enjoyed this article and the incisive perspective. Two comments:
1) The business model of KKR and of Private Equity is not to destroy companies. S&S may end up being a failed investment, but that will just prove that in this instance KKR did not understand fully the industry they were buying into. The article you linked to highlighted Toys R Us. It was a failed investment from KKR's POV. They wish they had never made it. It's not indicative at all of a successful or typical private equity investment.
2) I'm Jewish and I'm not at all offended by your statements on Judaism. It is a religion where many of us wrestle with the very idea of god. And it's also a religion that historically has been a difficult religion to join. A rabbi is supposed to discourage a convert from joining. Judaism gets an "F" for marketing., But I wouldn't give up my Jewish identity for anything.
RE KKR, that's definitely a perspective. I dunno...let's see what happens. I'm willing to be convinced that private equity knows what they're doing. I do think...not many people really wanted S&S (other than Penguin Random House). So I would not be surprised if it fails, or if it's hard to make the company work.
I'm glad you weren't offended! Yeah, I dunno. Just felt bad about it.
Well I think David’s right given the purpose of private equity is to invest and make money for the shareholders— they’re not trying to fail. But it’s also a bit beside Naomi’s point, which has to do with the literary mission of the company. I don’t think we can expect KKR to care much about that. S&S is just a spreadsheet to them and probably just a drop into the ocean of their portfolio over all.
Yes! Came in here to say that -- as a Jew, I found the comments on "why would anyone want to convert to Judaism, that sounds like a bad deal" hilarious, because it's intentionally difficult to join. We don't recruit. Of course it is a bad deal!
I appreciate you calling out the nuance, though, as well as the weird wave of anti-Jewish targeting (which I am less involved with in publishing, but seeing in other similar circles, including against people who are anti-war but caught in the middle in some way, etc).
I’m an Irish writer. A few years ago a guy wrote an article in The Irish Times saying he wasn’t a fan of Sally Rooney’s books. He gave his reasons why he thought they weren’t as good as people were making out. He was dismissed as an old crank, a bitter old man picking on a young woman writer. Other writers went online dismissing him like this. Instead of just saying well that’s his opinion, we don’t agree with him, or counter his points, he as a person was seen as wrong. As somehow a bad person. this had nothing to do with Rooney herself, she didn’t respond and I doubt she even read the piece. But it did seem strange to me that one bad review among tons of great ones was jumped on.
When my own novel was published a few years back by a small indie press, it was getting lots of good reviews in the press and on blogs etc and then one guy on good reads called me a pretentious ego maniac, I just thought he might have a point. 😂. But the thing is he paid for the book read it it wasn’t to his taste. Big deal. Almost all my other readers had a different opinion that his. No need to burn him at the stake for it.
Great article! I'm so happy I found this substack.
This relates to a problem I have with choosing to read fiction. I'm sure phenomenal work is being written. But because so much of the popularity of new books is generated by corporate cash as you describe, I don't know how to reliably identify the good stuff.
Plenty of major writers--Hume in On the Standard of Taste and Schopenhauer in On Reading and Books, for example--opine that since momentary reputation is influenced by competition for money and status, long established reputation is actually the only way to know in advance if a book is worth reading. So, if you don't want to waste your time reading mediocre literature, the best advice is to read classics by dead people. If cultural production stopped today--I don't know that my own reading life would be any worse for it.
Since there is already more classic literature than one can read in a lifetime, this makes me wonder if generating interest and funding for new artists doesn't depend on a certain amount of falsehood, a willingness to forget what already exists and to hype what has a small yet tantalizing possibility of being great but is probably bad.
But I also want this argument to not be correct. I'm posting it here in the hopes that someone will suggest a persuasive counterargument.
I think contemporary books are just…very pleasurable to read, for me at least. There's something nice about the comparative effortlessness of reading something made FOR me. So even when a contemporary book is kind of mediocre, I often enjoy it.
I solve this problem by just relying on word of mouth recommendations from people I trust. Not perfect, but it goes a long way. And sometimes I read hype machine books just so I can write about them ;)
Thanks for the thoughtful piece, Naomi. The main reason I don't read many reviews of contemporary fiction—especially prior to something we're discussing on our radio bookclub—is that it allow me to discuss how I really feel about the book. I, for example, didn't understand all the fuss over Trust, which I found interesting structurally but lacking from a story standpoint. It felt like a trick that wouldn't hold up on a second read. It didn't.
I've heard of a few people not liking Trust! I do think...we're heading into an age of greater honesty about books, maybe because so many writers have (like me) kinda given up. I'm finding it a lot more fun to read contemporary stuff now that I feel less constrained to praise it
Re antisemitism and the literary world, I wonder how much of this is just literary people generally sucking these days rather than something particular to antisemitism. Elias Khoury, for instance, the author of probably the quintessential novel of the Nakba, frequently participated in panels/discussions with the Israeli author David Grossman. So color me skeptical when some random Anglo writer refuses to participate in a literary event because a (((zionist))) author will be there too.
My mum used to work for Nicola Beauman, who founded Persephone, so we had loads of their books in our house growing up. Cool to see the imprint get some love!
Yay, cool!
I love Persephone too, and Virago, so pleased to see that here. Do you know 'The Tortoise and the Hare' by Elizabeth Jenkins? Really a splendid novel from a very under appreciated author.
OMG but looking up Elizabeth Jenkins I realized I've read one of her books! Harriet! Have you ever read this book? It's basically I think a Victorian true-crime book about that mistreats this disabled heiress. So gripping and horrifying. https://a.co/d/cni0wh4
I wrote my MA dissertation on EJ a few years ago and read all of her books (most are sadly out of print). It is exactly a true crime book written as a novel. She even kept the real names. By the end, EJ had gone a little mad. And no wonder! I thought it was excellent but **too grim** and I cannot read it again. Glad you thought she was good. She deserves more readers!
I haven't read that one! I'll have to check it out.
"...and then all the other straight guy literati will get told to shut up because, look, you’ve got Manny BigDick here to represent you."
Am seriously considering writing fanfic about Manny BigDick's journey to award consideration
But but , if you look at most long and short lists of awards for books written in English, more and more you find that a majority of the books were published in by the indie presses. So whatever they’re doing , they’re doing something right, no? Take firzcarraldo press for eg. Nobels aside even, I think jacques testsard publishes incredible work. Agree, majority are translated but many in English . But with the distribution fiasco for small presses I don’t know what happens in publishing now. I try not to be too keyed in despite coming from a publishing family.
"Ironically, antisemitism in the literary world is a huge problem.”
Do you think this is related to anti-white animus at all? I’ve seen several members of the literary establishment say things about white people that would easily be considered racist if they were said about any other group and it has the same tone as a lot of the antisemitism you mentioned.
I think there is a connection, yes, but I can't totally articulate it. Haven't really put the thought into it yet.
I thought the NYRB review of the Paula Modersohn-Becker exhibit was weirdly sexist too! And also contextually lacking. For example, the Paula Modersohn-Becker Museum in Germany claims to be the first museum dedicated to the work of a female painter in the world. It was established in 1927, just twenty years after her death by a collector of her work. So within two decades, even with her limited output (limited being a relative term: she created 700+ paintings and over 1,000 drawings in her short lifetime) and her status as a young woman in a male dominated world, her work was being recognized. According to a Guardian piece (cited in her Wikipedia entry) 70 paintings were purged from German museums by the Nazis -- which means 70 paintings were collected in German museums within decades of her death! She is generally accepted as the first woman to paint nude self-portraits. There's a collection of her letters translated into English and at least two works of fiction about her. I saw the show in NY on its last weekend and thought it was wonderful for a variety of reasons. In the end, I feel like that NYRB piece was very narrow in it's scope, as if the author was looking for an angle in that had nothing legitimate to do with the work or the artist.
Yes, I noticed that same thing! Like, girl, how can we have this framing that this artist is just now being recognized _when_ she's had a museum dedicated to her for a hundred years!!! It was so perplexing!
I enjoyed this article and the incisive perspective. Two comments:
1) The business model of KKR and of Private Equity is not to destroy companies. S&S may end up being a failed investment, but that will just prove that in this instance KKR did not understand fully the industry they were buying into. The article you linked to highlighted Toys R Us. It was a failed investment from KKR's POV. They wish they had never made it. It's not indicative at all of a successful or typical private equity investment.
2) I'm Jewish and I'm not at all offended by your statements on Judaism. It is a religion where many of us wrestle with the very idea of god. And it's also a religion that historically has been a difficult religion to join. A rabbi is supposed to discourage a convert from joining. Judaism gets an "F" for marketing., But I wouldn't give up my Jewish identity for anything.
RE KKR, that's definitely a perspective. I dunno...let's see what happens. I'm willing to be convinced that private equity knows what they're doing. I do think...not many people really wanted S&S (other than Penguin Random House). So I would not be surprised if it fails, or if it's hard to make the company work.
I'm glad you weren't offended! Yeah, I dunno. Just felt bad about it.
Well I think David’s right given the purpose of private equity is to invest and make money for the shareholders— they’re not trying to fail. But it’s also a bit beside Naomi’s point, which has to do with the literary mission of the company. I don’t think we can expect KKR to care much about that. S&S is just a spreadsheet to them and probably just a drop into the ocean of their portfolio over all.
Abra, I agree that KKR is likely far from the ideal owner for S&S.
Yes! Came in here to say that -- as a Jew, I found the comments on "why would anyone want to convert to Judaism, that sounds like a bad deal" hilarious, because it's intentionally difficult to join. We don't recruit. Of course it is a bad deal!
I appreciate you calling out the nuance, though, as well as the weird wave of anti-Jewish targeting (which I am less involved with in publishing, but seeing in other similar circles, including against people who are anti-war but caught in the middle in some way, etc).
I'm glad not everyone was offended! But I'll still probably be more careful w my driveby jabs in the future ;)
I’m an Irish writer. A few years ago a guy wrote an article in The Irish Times saying he wasn’t a fan of Sally Rooney’s books. He gave his reasons why he thought they weren’t as good as people were making out. He was dismissed as an old crank, a bitter old man picking on a young woman writer. Other writers went online dismissing him like this. Instead of just saying well that’s his opinion, we don’t agree with him, or counter his points, he as a person was seen as wrong. As somehow a bad person. this had nothing to do with Rooney herself, she didn’t respond and I doubt she even read the piece. But it did seem strange to me that one bad review among tons of great ones was jumped on.
When my own novel was published a few years back by a small indie press, it was getting lots of good reviews in the press and on blogs etc and then one guy on good reads called me a pretentious ego maniac, I just thought he might have a point. 😂. But the thing is he paid for the book read it it wasn’t to his taste. Big deal. Almost all my other readers had a different opinion that his. No need to burn him at the stake for it.
It’s interesting how we assume nefarious intent when more often than not it’s simple incompetence or people not knowing what they’re doing.
Great article! I'm so happy I found this substack.
This relates to a problem I have with choosing to read fiction. I'm sure phenomenal work is being written. But because so much of the popularity of new books is generated by corporate cash as you describe, I don't know how to reliably identify the good stuff.
Plenty of major writers--Hume in On the Standard of Taste and Schopenhauer in On Reading and Books, for example--opine that since momentary reputation is influenced by competition for money and status, long established reputation is actually the only way to know in advance if a book is worth reading. So, if you don't want to waste your time reading mediocre literature, the best advice is to read classics by dead people. If cultural production stopped today--I don't know that my own reading life would be any worse for it.
Since there is already more classic literature than one can read in a lifetime, this makes me wonder if generating interest and funding for new artists doesn't depend on a certain amount of falsehood, a willingness to forget what already exists and to hype what has a small yet tantalizing possibility of being great but is probably bad.
But I also want this argument to not be correct. I'm posting it here in the hopes that someone will suggest a persuasive counterargument.
I think contemporary books are just…very pleasurable to read, for me at least. There's something nice about the comparative effortlessness of reading something made FOR me. So even when a contemporary book is kind of mediocre, I often enjoy it.
I solve this problem by just relying on word of mouth recommendations from people I trust. Not perfect, but it goes a long way. And sometimes I read hype machine books just so I can write about them ;)
Thanks for the answer! I should probably work on expanding on expanding my “knows good contemporary books” networks.
Thanks for the thoughtful piece, Naomi. The main reason I don't read many reviews of contemporary fiction—especially prior to something we're discussing on our radio bookclub—is that it allow me to discuss how I really feel about the book. I, for example, didn't understand all the fuss over Trust, which I found interesting structurally but lacking from a story standpoint. It felt like a trick that wouldn't hold up on a second read. It didn't.
I've heard of a few people not liking Trust! I do think...we're heading into an age of greater honesty about books, maybe because so many writers have (like me) kinda given up. I'm finding it a lot more fun to read contemporary stuff now that I feel less constrained to praise it
Couldn’t agree more. Promised much. Squibbed damply. Breach of trust, you might almost say.
Such a good post. I gotta check out your fiction. I started a sub genre and my shit you gotta make money. But by creating real readers and real sales.