Typing Without a Clue: NYT Op-Ed

[FloridaJudy]

By TIMOTHY EGAN
Published: December 6, 2008

The unlicensed pipe fitter known as Joe the Plumber is out with a book this month, just as the last seconds on his 15 minutes are slipping away. I have a question for Joe: Do you want me to fix your leaky toilet?

I didn’t think so. And I don’t want you writing books. Not when too many good novelists remain unpublished. Not when too many extraordinary histories remain unread. Not when too many riveting memoirs are kicked back at authors after 10 years of toil. Not when voices in Iran, North Korea or China struggle to get past a censor’s gate.

{snip}

Next up may be Sarah Palin, who is said to be worth nearly $7 million if she can place her thoughts between covers. Publishers: with all the grim news of layoffs and staff cuts at the venerable houses of American letters, can we set some ground rules for these hard times? Anyone who abuses the English language on such a regular basis should not be paid to put words in print.

more here: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/07/opinion/07egan.html?em

**************************************************************************************************************************

I wish that aggravated assault upon the English language by publicity seekers really was a crime.

[BrklynLiberal]

1. If abusing the English Language was a crime prez shit-for-brains would get life without parole.

[Speck Tater]

2. That long line of "*****" breaks line wrap for people who don't have wide-screen monitors. nt

[FloridaJudy]

3. Oops. Fixed.

Thank you.

[Dogmudgeon]

4. Best quote of the piece:

"Maureen Dowd is off today."

Actually, I enjoyed the whole thing. But J-the-P's book will be hitting the discount bin post-haste.

Flush, baby, flush!

--p!

[Igel]

5. I found this hilarious when I read it this morning.

I mean, I see the same thing in Russian, in French, in other languages' literatures and publishing.

It's not something I saw in Soviet and Soviet client states' literatures.


They, the publishing industry as a whole, publish a combination of things in a market-based economy--what sells and what they think is necessary for burnishing their credentials with critics. Sometimes what they think they need to publish for other reasons. Sometimes just to satisfy a contract. Lots of great books are published and sit on shelves, unsold, only to be pulped, and more, no doubt, never get to be pulped; lots of crappy books are published and fly off the shelves. Of course, "great" and "crappy" are relative, and based on my judgment.

Sad to say, not everybody agrees with my judgment. Happily, I can live with that, and even appreciate it: If they published what I thought was great, lots of people would probably give up reading, or have little choice but to read what I like.

Soviet literature was rather grey. It was edifying. It was what the critics, such as they were, judged to be good. Some of it was fine, and reads well. The stuff that Western literary experts extol saw little volume, however. Classics were printed and read widely--they were both reasonably entertaining and not too political. But as soon as the strictures were removed, Russian literature started looking at lot like American literature, with differences based in culture and outlook.

E. European literatures were more entertaining. People like Hrabal, in Czech, could get published. Interesting, aesthetically pleasing, and moderately popular. But again, when confronted with stuff appealing to popular tastes, it doesn't sell well.

This op-ed writer is apparently pissed that things that he thinks are well written and of artistic merit don't sell well. There's not the demand for them. And yet he assumes it's the publishing houses' fault. Now, in some cases they capitalize on momentary fads. But, by and large, they make money only by printing things that people want to read; or, more precisely, by printing things that their editors think people want to read (remember that the Harry Potter books were rejected by more than a couple publishing houses; obviously, they make mistakes). Perhaps if somebody forced them, Soviet-style, to only publish things the writer thinks are worthwhile, they'd sell more. But that would be a sad state of affairs.

He's bitter against the wrong folk, and essentially complains that people don't think his taste is the end-all of what publishing should be. Heck, at least I'm wiser than that.