If You Can’t Say Something Unpleasant…
This is an interesting article about the epidemic of niceness among writers, specifically in regards to twitter and tumblr, but I think it applies to all sorts of places online. It is worth a read, but it is basically getting at the point that there are problems with writers getting all chummy and networky online.
Not to share in the lit world’s online slumber party can seem strange and mark a person as unlikable or (a worse offense in this age) unfollowable. This kind of rationalization might mostly take place in our lizard brains, but I’d argue that it’s the reason why the literary world—a famously insular community to begin with—has become mired in clubbiness and glad-handing.
And why not, you might say. Why shouldn’t writers and lovers of literature construct an environment that’s wholly comfortable and safe? When your time comes, when your book is published or you finally land that big feature, don’t you want some applause too? But that constant applause is making it harder and harder to hear the voices of dissent—the skeptical, cranky criticisms that may be painful for writers to experience but that make for a vibrant, useful literary culture.
There’s something to this, I think. Those who want to be writers these days are told that they need to do a lot of marketing themselves, whether they are publishing themselves or going the traditional route, and of course these days that involves websites and facebookery and so on. All of that leads to a lot of networking, and who better to network with than your peers, whether those are fellow established authors or fellow wanna-be writers?
Unfortunately, that seems to lead to corners of the web that are basically just mutual admiration societies, with writers giving each other sparkling reviews. That isn’t terribly informative, of course. But the other problem, as far as I’m concerned, is that it might naturally make folks suspicious of my genuinely-tendered admiration of other writers. Because after all, it is natural to run across other writers out there on the web, and I really do like a lot of them and their work.
It’s hard out there for a writer, is what I’m saying. We’ve got to have a social media presence, and one hates to be unpleasant. Especially since one wrong word or slip of the keyboard out here can ruin your reputation with editors and agents (to any editors and agents who happen to be reading this – I don’t mean you’d be so hasty in your judgement, I’m talking about those other editors and agents). But being too nice contributes to the dumbing down of the literary scene. Sigh. It sure was easier when we could just hole up in cabins or third-floor garrets.
Well, sign me up, baby! Where can I get me some applause?
I must be pissing folks off left and right because I’m not hearing it.
I agree that there is a lot of back-thumping going on, and where I think it is deserved, I join in. But it I don’t, well, one thing I promise everyone I read: I offer an *honest* review/critique. Unfortunately, sometimes being honest isn’t so nice. (shrugs)
I did not like this article. The prose was weak, the author rambled, and there were vague hints of cat sacrifice. Nowhere was Edward Bulwer-Lytton cited. The author refused to use iambic pentameter in his dissent of the new tendency to “be excellent to each other.” Colon usage was minimal. The article failed to make me cry. No super-heroes, either DC or Marvel, were thanked for their support and mentorship. The author failed to reveal which is his favorite Care Bear, Pony from My Little Pony, or Brady from the Brady Bunch. The “Yo mama” joke was old and hackneyed. No mathematical proof was included. The corporate logo was not visible. When read backwards, the article failed to reveal any living members of the Illuminati. The worst, of course, was the split infinitive.
You’re supposed to make this kind of comment on twitter, so we can get in a massive public brawl