And is that a common thing, too? Writers being asked to compare themselves with other writers? What is the point of that? I don't understand the dynamics of the literary world - I have been a writer and voracious reader all my life, but have assiduously avoided the stage and the platforms for "serious" writers. When it comes to art and the imagination, there is no merit to competing or comparing. We each have a unique gift.
I think it's pretentious - or downright silly - to suggest that only books that are hard or difficult can be regarded as 'literary', and it's an attitude that only the self-consciously 'literary', a delicate species sheltered within the safe premises of creative writing schools, can afford to promote. The rest of us have to try to survive as best we can in what passes for reality, grim, grubby and uncomfortable though it may be on these mean streets.
I agree. As I say, don't like the attitude I took here. But I'm posting these as they were at the time, with the smallest changes possible. I think very often it's the idea that someone is writing literary fiction that holds them back. Ballard's writing took place in the space opened up by genre fiction. He was recuperated later on. But it was SF magazines that were some of his best work was done. So, yes, I think you're right and - here, in 2007 - I'm wrong.
And is that a common thing, too? Writers being asked to compare themselves with other writers? What is the point of that? I don't understand the dynamics of the literary world - I have been a writer and voracious reader all my life, but have assiduously avoided the stage and the platforms for "serious" writers. When it comes to art and the imagination, there is no merit to competing or comparing. We each have a unique gift.
A year might be a long time in politics, but seventeen years remains like yesterday in publishing.
I think it's pretentious - or downright silly - to suggest that only books that are hard or difficult can be regarded as 'literary', and it's an attitude that only the self-consciously 'literary', a delicate species sheltered within the safe premises of creative writing schools, can afford to promote. The rest of us have to try to survive as best we can in what passes for reality, grim, grubby and uncomfortable though it may be on these mean streets.
I agree. As I say, don't like the attitude I took here. But I'm posting these as they were at the time, with the smallest changes possible. I think very often it's the idea that someone is writing literary fiction that holds them back. Ballard's writing took place in the space opened up by genre fiction. He was recuperated later on. But it was SF magazines that were some of his best work was done. So, yes, I think you're right and - here, in 2007 - I'm wrong.
Understood, and a gracious response, for which thanks.