Shouting Trump Card

TrumpCard_Front_250wOne of the things I really did not understand about writing when I finally managed to get a book published back in 2009 is that writing the book is the easy part. Marketing the book is the real challenge. I recently read an interview with an author who was asked for tips on marketing books, and not one of their responses was even marginally useful. The recommendations were all basically “make the story as good as you can,” which doesn’t help you at all if you can’t get your book in front of people in the first place.

Don’t get me wrong, whenever you write you do want to make the story as good as you possibly can. But aren’t we already working on this? Maybe the author interviewed was talking about a strategy that I’ve seen some ebook authors use of cranking out as many books as possible without much editing or revision on the grounds that it gives them that many more chances for readers to happen upon their work. I will grant, that strategy can produce some really bad writing, and when people do come upon it they are less likely to be captivated by it – even if the bad stuff does get popular sometimes.

But still, all of that is on the writing side. I’m convinced there has to be some sort of trick to cracking book marketing – some people seem to be good at it and others not so much. Part of it seems to be surprisingly old-school, as I wrote about awhile back – you need to get your book mentioned on the largest media platform possible for it to get traction. That’s old-school in that it’s less of a change to the market than a lot of people think. Twenty or thirty years ago publishers were the gatekeepers, and now it seems that media companies serve the same role.

Over the next couple of months I’m going to be experimenting with some of the book marketing services out there, and I’ll let you know what my results are. The first one I’m trying out is free promotion from Shout My Book. They have paid plans that are not that expensive, and if the free promotion gets results I’ll go ahead a likely do one of those as well. I just submitted Trump Card for promotion, and it should go out sometime in the next week.

Instead of linking directly to Amazon or any other retailer, I’ve retooled the links here and over on Augoeides to point to my book landing pages so I can analyze the traffic more easily. One of my first takeaways is that I get basically zero click-throughs on my fiction from my magick blog, even though it racks up something like twenty thousands hits a month. I do get some click-throughs on my non-fiction magick books, but it seems that Augoeides is totally the wrong market for fiction. That’s one of the reasons I’m trying to do more blogging about writing over here.

But I don’t really know if that’s the answer, either. This author site gets nowhere near the traffic that Augoeides does, and it has to become more popular before I get a good sense of all that. That’s another reason I used the landing page link for my Shout My Book submission rather than Amazon. Hopefully some of the folks who click on Trump Card – which, by the way, is just terrific, will find themselves on this site and like more of what they see.

So the whole point is to find out. If I keep getting a good sense of the traffic from my various promotional efforts, I can focus on keeping what works and not wasting my time on stuff that doesn’t. Not only that, I hope that by sharing those results I can help other authors understand the game of marketing better as I learn about it myself.

Second-Guessing Doesn’t Help

martin_and_kingFor those of my writer friends currently doing NaNoWriMo, here’s a piece of advice from Stephen King himself. King is famous for writing books very quickly. For years and years he kept up a pace of writing 2,000 words per day, every day, no matter what. Basically, he did NaNoWriMo full-time, as his job, for all those years. So one could perhaps argue that King is the greatest NaNoWriMo-er of all time – and he certainly has a lot more experience with it at this point than any writer I know of.

His advice comes in the context of a conversation with Game of Thrones author George R. R. Martin, whose writing speed has become a bit of joke in the fan community over the years. Martin’s books are long, intricate, and well-written – but he produces them quite slowly. So when Martin got a chance to sit down with Stephen King, he asked how King managed to write books so quickly. King’s advice is pretty simple.

This entire nearly hour-long conversation between writing luminaries George R. R. Martin and Stephen King is well worth listening to in its entirety, but before that: skip to around 50:08 and hear Martin ask the one question he’s always wanted to put to King. It’s worth it.

The interview comes from a recent event in Albuquerque, New Mexico that’s been recently made available online, and Martin’s demand to know how King writes “so many books, so fast” isn’t just cute—especially considering Martin’s own infamous writing pace when it comes to A Song of Ice and Fire—but a really interesting insight into how the two writers approach their work ethic. King just writes and writes and writes, regardless of if it’ll end up being cut or not. Martin, on the other hand, prefers to take his time.

Bottom line? When you’re writing, don’t second-guess yourself. Just write, and worry about the editing later. In On Writing, King explains that he expects to edit out about ten percent of everything he writes and rework some of the rest. But that’s okay. Getting all the words on the page is important, even if not all of it winds up in the finished piece. If you try to basically edit as you go, like Martin does, your books will take a lot longer to finish. So just go for it, and trust that your writing can always be cleaned up when you go back to edit it.

After years of being an “edit-as-you-go” type, I think I finally am to the point where I can relax enough to edit later – and it’s kind of a liberating experience, to tell you the truth. I have thrown out some large sections, too – the original Pathless Void was going to be a longer piece, but I decided I didn’t like the direction I went in at about the 40,000 word mark. So I published the good part as a novella, and figure I’ll get back to doing a second section that is more to my liking later on.

So that’s my advice, which is the same as King’s – just go for it. A lot of the time when you edit later, you wind up realizing that some of the stuff you had doubts about really does work after all in context. And if it doesn’t, you can always fix in post so to speak.

Literary Writers on Stephen King

Stephen King is one of the most popular American writers of the modern era. For much of his career he was dogged by literary writers, who considered his work genre fiction that was not on the same level as literary works. As I’ve mentioned here before, the “literary” versus “non-literary” debate is ongoing and likely will never be resolved. As I see it, some people are just closed-minded about the whole thing, like one of my high school teachers who insisted that science fiction could never be literary, by definition.

I think that’s just silly. I certainly consider myself a Stephen King fan. I think his writing is great. I always like to remind people that “dysfunctional family,” the subject of many so-called literary works, is just as much of a genre as horror or fantasy or science fiction. The only difference is that it supposedly better represents “real life” – but as a reader, I already have one of those. Why would I want to bother reading about somebody else’s?

At any rate, in his groundbreaking work On Writing, which I am convinced that every aspiring writer should read, it’s clear that what King does is very deliberate. He models his work on the style of Ernest Hemingway, and frankly I like King’s work better. Hemingway is important in American literature because the popular writing style when he was getting started was florid and convoluted, and his sparse prose and short sentences cut through it all like a buzz-saw and felt like something truly new and different.

My dislike of Hemingway mostly has to do with his choice of material. The power of his style is that it allows a story to acquire speed. So instead of just sitting there on the page for the reader, the narrative basically comes right at you. But how many stories about subjects like “the manliness of bullfighting” do you really need? As I see it – and it may be an unpopular opinion – Hemingway came up with a real innovation in prose, but didn’t know what to do with it. At the very least, he chose subjects that did not take full advantage of it.

King’s big innovation was to take the sparse Hemingway style and apply it to the horror genre, where its power can be leveraged to great effect. A story about bullfighting coming right at you? So what? But a story that plays on existential fears and is already designed to provoke a strong emotional reaction becomes even more frightening as it acquires that speed. I’m convinced that this is why King became such a star in horror fiction. Speed makes his stories fundamentally scarier, and a more complex conventional literary style is going to fall short of that every time.

So that’s a long introduction to this article from LitHub, which I’m happy to see give King some of the credit he deserves for his influence on American literature. His work inspired a whole generation of writers, both literary and otherwise. As the article mentions, back in 2003 King won the National Book Foundation’s Medal for Distinguished Contribution to American Letters Award, a prize that in my opinion he richly deserved.

Even though King’s work contains fantastical elements, you really can’t make the case that his work has nothing to do with real life. His work clearly fits how science fiction writers who objected to scorn from literary authors always explain that their stories really are not about new technology, but how people react to it. The same is true of horror. It’s an old truism that you see the truth of people when they are confronted with extreme situations, and King is a master at drawing that out of his characters. Really, how do you know who you are if you’ve never been stalked by a supernatural monster?

My natural writing style is not nearly as sparse as King’s but I have worked at making it more similar. I put a lot of work into simplifying the prose in Trump Card, since it’s written as a parody of Young Adult fiction. Maybe once I write a few more books that way and get good enough to write the kind of sped-up horror that King does so well, I’ll give it a shot. It certainly makes no sense to me to write horror any other way. As I see it florid prose, even skillfully employed, always slows down the story. Sometimes that can be appropriate. But with a horror story, fast is almost always better.

Twin Cities Book Festival This Saturday!

tc_book_festivalThis Saturday, October 14th, I will be appearing with Moonfire Publishing at the Twin Cities Book Festival brought to you by Rain Taxi. Click the link for more information about the festival, including directions, maps of the site, and the event’s programming schedule.

The festival will be held at the Minnesota State Fairgrounds and runs from 10 AM to 5 PM. Moonfire Publishing will be at table #205, with information about upcoming titles, current titles, submission guidelines, and more. If you are local to the Twin Cities area, or for that matter just passing through, I hope to see you there!

Blurb-Tuning is a Thing

Stop-Writing-a-Synopsis-SmallWhenever you write a book, you need a book blurb if you want to sell it. Blurbs are short, but word-for-word a lot more work has to go into them than into any other part of your story, except maybe the title. Your title, your blurb, and your cover are often the only things your readers have to go on, especially before you’ve managed to rack up a bunch of reviews.

Ipswich, my long-awaited sequel to Arcana, is just about ready to go. We need to finish proofing the interior and proof the final version of the cover, and I’ll be ready to order copies. One of the last sticking points on the cover has been the blurb, which I have been working on with the folks at Moonfire, and I think we finally have it. Here it is:

Wealthy heiress and party girl Sara Winchester’s eyes are opened to a hidden world of spirits and paranormal occult forces when an experimental psychoactive drug unlocks her dormant mystical powers and senses. With the help of the centuries-old order of magicians known as the Guild, she uses her new abilities to solve the mystery of her mother’s untimely death.

Sara’s investigation leads her to the little town of Ipswich, Massachusetts. There she must face a ruthless killer who can control the spirits of the dead — and the remnants of an order of dark magicians who seek to destroy both her and the Guild. Will her fledgling powers prove equal to the task, or will her soul be trapped forever along with the restless dead of Ipswich?

I’ll be updating the Ipswich page here on the blog with the new version, but I thought it might helpful to share the old one for comparison since it will no longer be posted here. This is what I started with:

Party girl Sara Winchester becomes one of the world’s wealthiest people following her mother’s untimely passing. When an experimental psychoactive drug unlocks her family’s long-dormant mystical powers and senses, her eyes are opened to a whole new world of spirits and paranormal forces. With the help of the magical order known as the Guild, she employs her newfound abilities to investigate the mystery of her mother’s death.

Her investigation leads her to the little town of Ipswich, Massachusetts. There she must confront a killer who can control the spirits of the dead, and the remnants of a rival order that seeks to destroy both her family and the Guild. Will her fledgling powers prove equal to the task, or will her soul be trapped in Ipswich along with the spirits of the town?

I’m not a big “word guy.” I don’t naturally think in language, so to me those two paragraphs basically say the same thing. However, my editor is a published poet who is much better at paying attention to those details than I am. Even if you’re not working with a publisher, it’s very helpful to find somebody who can do this for you. Another pair of eyes is good, and another pair of eyes who is good with the language is priceless.

Taking apart the original blurb: The first sentence is awkward for a couple of reasons. First off, I used “mother’s untimely passing” there because I use “mother’s death” at the end of the paragraph and it would be too repetitive to use “death” in that first sentence. Second, it doesn’t actually communicate that much information. In the new blurb, I just say “wealthy heiress and party girl” which tells you what you need to know without a whole sentence dedicated to it.

I need to keep “psychoactive” because I want it to be clear that we’re talking about some sort of party drug and not a structured medical experiment. But in the new blurb, I turn the sentence around to make it a more active construction. There still is a bit of passive voice in “eyes are opened” but that’s deliberate – I want to make it clear that this is something that happens to Sara, not something that she actively does. Which, by the way, is one of the few correct usages of passive voice.

“Hidden world” and “paranormal occult forces” are mostly used to provide additional clarity and subvert the “whole new world” cliche which is not needed here. And yes, “hidden” and “occult” do literally mean the same thing – but the connotation is dramatically different. Using “paranormal” and “occult” together clearly identifies for the reader what kind of book Ipswich is. It’s paranormal in the general sense, but more “occult” than, say, a paranormal romance.

The new blurb makes it clearer that these are Sara’s dormant mystical powers and senses, not “her family’s.” The point about her family is significant in the story, but it’s not that relevant here. All the reader really needs to know is that her mystical powers and senses used to be dormant, and now they aren’t. The new blurb also changes “magical order” to “order of magicians,” on the grounds that not everyone knows what a magical order is. Adding “centuries-old” reinforces that the Guild is a magical tradition with a long history, which does become relevant in the story.

At the end of the first paragraph, the new blurb changes “investigate” to “solve.” This simplifies the language and prevents “investigate” and “investigation” from being used together. And at the end of the sentence, I can mention “her mother’s untimely death” without it being repetitive.

The second paragraph doesn’t change as much. I replaced “Her” with “Sara” on the grounds that this is a new paragraph, but otherwise the first sentence is unchanged. In the second sentence, I added “ruthless” to “killer” for emphasizing the danger of the situation, and changed “confront” to “face” to simplify the language. The em-dash in the new blurb is also for emphasis.

For the second half of the sentence, I got rid of “rival” because it was confusing (rival to whom?) and put in “order of dark magicians.” “Order of magicians” goes in place of “order” for clarity, and “dark” once more emphasizes the danger. I also have made it clearer that the dark magicians are seeking to destroy Sara herself rather than the blander “her family.”

The first half of the last sentence is unchanged. The second half is revised a bit for clarity. “Trapped forever” emphasizes the danger one more time, and finally, “spirits of the town” are replaced with “restless dead of Ipswich.” That makes it clear that we’re talking about spirits of the dead, not land-spirits or something else, and naming Ipswich once more is good because that’s the title of the book. “Restless dead” also alludes to my back cover tagline, “These Restless Dead.”

So there you have it. If you write book blurbs yourself, I hope that you find this breakdown useful. Clarity is good, short and direct prose is good, and enough buzzwords to identify the genre of what you are writing is good. The more direct and informative you can make your blurb, the better.

Mortals, Immortals, and an Internet Mystery

ebony_my_immortal_handbookThis month an enduring Internet mystery has finally been solved. For many years now, a piece of Harry Potter fanfiction called My Immortal has been circulating on the Internet. My Immortal is considered the worst piece of fanfiction ever, and many have wondered whether it was an intentional parody or just plain awful. Up until now, all attempts to track down the author had proved fruitless.

But Vox reports that as revealed in a new memoir Under the Same Stars, Rose Christo, the author of many serious young adult novels, was the author of this notorious tale. And yes, it turns out that My Immortal was an entirely intentional parody by a skilled writer trying to produce the worst possible thing that she could imagine.

Out of an endless sea of bad fanfiction typically found on FF.net in the mid-aughts — there’s a reason fans refer to the site as “the pit of voles” — My Immortal stood out because it contained every hallmark of terrible fanfic, but ratcheted up to 11: a main character who was a blatant Mary Sue, a hilariously defensive author who liked to alternately explain things and argue with readers in author notes, amusing misspellings, and, as the owner of the current My Immortal archive puts it, “extreme gothic attitude.” (“I ate some Count Chocula cereal with blood instead of milk.”)

When the story first appeared, many readers thought it was an intentional parody, but no one was quite certain. This essential question — was My Immortal trolling fanfiction or not? — would come to define the story’s cultural reception.

At 22,000 words, it offered what Harry Potter fans instantly recognized as the typical Mary Sue Goes to Hogwarts trope. Ebony, often spelled Enoby in the story, instantly wins friends and enemies thanks to her unapologetically goth — or “goff” in My Immortal speak — lifestyle and innate sex appeal. Clad in her signature black corset bra and Hot Topic fishnet leggings, she has romantic flings with all the wizard hotties. (The fic also features a past relationship between Draco Malfoy, who has sexy red eyes, and Harry, who’s a vampire.) She ultimately fights Voldemort using the power of sex appeal — with a constant background soundtrack of her favorite goff bands: Good Charlotte, My Chemical Romance, Linkin Park, and so on.

Having only heard of My Immortal in passing as the worst fanfiction ever, I finally read the opening excerpt in the Vox article – and to me, it looks like it has to be a parody. Just the main character’s name alone – “Ebony Dark’ness Dementia Raven Way” – is so over the top that I find it hard to believe anybody took it seriously. A bad fanfiction character might have one or two of those in their name, but five in a row? That had to be a joke.

Christo was outed by a scandal that came to light this last August. The scandal itself had nothing to do with her, but in the ensuing discussion the existence of Under the Same Stars was revealed. Christo would be outing herself as the author of My Immortal in her memoir anyway, but because of the scandal, her book’s contents were leaked ahead of its publication.

On August 27, 2017, the publishing industry’s online community began whispering about a book that had sprung out of nowhere to overtake the long-dominant No. 1 best-selling young-adult novel The Hate U Give at the top of the New York Times best-seller list. The Times is notoriously secretive about its methodology for calculating its list, so it’s possible for a book to come out of nowhere and debut at No. 1. The problem was that this particular book, a YA fantasy called Handbook for Mortals, was by an author no one had ever heard of. And while normally books are marketed for months leading up to their release, with advance copies circulated to generate buzz, no one had seen any previews for this one.

My Immortal and Handbook for Mortals have nothing to do with each other, but they converged online in an astonishing way. Speculation ensued that Handbook for Mortals and its mysterious author, Lani Sarem, had bought their way onto the Times best-seller list. (The book was ultimately pulled from the list.) In the middle of the intense scrutiny of Handbook for Mortals, Bookriot writer Preeti Chhibber offered up a wild guess: What if Lani Sarem was the author of My Immortal?

I covered the Handbook for Mortals scandal back in August, noting that if I had over three hundred thousand dollars available to promote one of my books, I probably could have come up with something better than calling up a bunch of bookstores, asking if they reported sales to the New York Times, and then if they did, ordering hundreds of copies at a time. The methodology was so transparent it amazed me that it took as long as it did for anyone to notice.

Basically, what was going on here is that there was some speculation, based on similarities in the writing, that Handbook for Mortals might have been written by the author of one of the worst pieces of fanfiction of all time. Ouch. No wonder they had to buy their way onto the New York Times bestseller list in order to scam investors on a movie deal. My novels may not sell that well, but nobody’s ever told me that they read like monumentally terrible fanfiction.

At the same time, an editorial assistant at Macmillan Publishers, attempting to interject amid the speculation over Handbook for Mortals, blurted out the news no one was expecting, in a pair of since-deleted tweets: that Sarem couldn’t be the author of My Immortal because the real author of My Immortal was publishing a memoir with Macmillan.

UPDATE: SHE IS NOT THE AUTHOR OF MY IMMORTAL BC THE AUTHOR ALREADY HAS A BOOK OUT??? IT’S NONFICTION??? pic.twitter.com/3gERmLLT8f
— tori (2017) (@grinchhands) August 25, 2017

Christo, as it turns out, has already self-published numerous young adult novels. But her memoir, Under the Same Stars, forthcoming from the Macmillan imprint Wednesday Books, is all about her secret identity and her most famous creation.

So, in fact, the mystery of My Immortal is now solved. It was an intentional parody by an author with some actual writing talent deliberately trying to write something terrible. For those folks who made fun of the story on the grounds that it was serious and the author was really that terrible, this has to be a pretty big letdown. Also – this means that there are enough similarities in Handbook for Mortals to suggest the serious author of that book writes like a parody by another author trying to write the most awful thing she could come up with. Double ouch.

Stephen King complained in On Writing that he finds it pretty annoying that so many people tell him that The Stand is the best thing he’s ever written, because he wrote it back in the late 1970’s and had written a lot more books by the time On Writing came out in 1999. One of the odd things about writing is that with your early books, you use your best ideas but your writing has yet to mature. As you write more and more, your ideas tend to get repetitive. So there’s a sort of “sweet spot” where your writing has gotten good enough and your ideas are still fresh. That might explain why The Stand turned out the way it did.

For Christo, though, it seems like she finally has embraced what will likely remain her most famous creation in her new memoir. I can only imagine what it must have been like seeing the thing become an Internet sensation, and then feeling ambivalent enough about being known for it that she hid her identity for so many years. I suppose I’ll have to read Under the Same Stars if I want to find out what she went through for myself.

Postmodern Novel Bingo

postmodern_novel_bingoThe “literary versus genre” debate rages on. This article from Current Affairs discusses the universal acclaim received by Nathan Hill’s 2016 debut novel The Nix. It’s a postmodern novel about… well, what are postmodern novels about, anyway? To me, that’s part of the problem, and that always makes them a hard sell in my world. I may never be a great prose stylist just because I seem to lack the “love of language” that characterizes the best of them, and that means I always have been much more interested in what an author is saying than in how he or she is saying it.

Critics from major publications were united in their praise. They agreed not merely that The Nix was good, but that it was breathtakingly good. Said The Independent: “Reading The Nix—all 620 pages of it—is an experience of complete unadulterated pleasure.” Said The New York Times: “Hill has so much talent to burn that he can pull off just about any style, imagine himself into any person and convincingly portray any place or time… the author seems incapable of writing a pedestrian sentence or spinning a boring story.” Said The Guardian: “Hill is an assiduous selector of words whose artistic concentration seldom lapses. He is also a very musical stylist—the book is full of long, beautifully counterweighted sentences and subtle cadences that change from voice to voice as different characters take up the narrative.” Booklist compared Nathan Hill to John Irving. John Irving compared Nathan Hill to Charles Dickens.

So what I can get out of that is according to critics, Hill is a very good writer. There’s not much at all in there telling you what the novel is actually about, so I suppose the point is that if you’re the sort of person who values prose styling over the actual story, this is the book for you. On the other hand, if you’re actually looking for a good story, the article points out that this might not be the book for you at all.

In the interests of sparing you the trouble of reading the whole thing yourself, I’ll summarize the plot briefly for you here. The Nix is the story of a sexually frustrated academic who despises his students. Most of the first part of the book is an extended flashback to the time in his childhood when his mother abandoned him. Cut to his mother. She has an extended flashback to the time in her college days when she was peripherally involved in some anti-Vietnam protesting. There is a longish interlude about a kinky affair between a police officer and the mother’s college roommate, who enjoys being choked. The mom and the son have some cursory present-day interactions for the purposes of linking the two storylines together. There is a shocking twist at the end where you find out that one minor character is actually a different minor character. The end.

Oh, wait, there was also another plotline where the academic is in love with a violinist but her soldier brother sends the academic a deathbed letter from Iraq telling him not to have sex with his sister, so he doesn’t. Also a malnourished recluse named Pwnage nearly dies of a blood clot after playing a video game for too long. This is described at considerable length and has more or less nothing to do with any other part of the plot. The end.

Wow, that sure sounds like a story I want to read – NOT. Seriously, though, I haven’t read this novel and I have no idea whether it’s really any good. A lot of critics loved it, and Brianna Rennix, the author of the linked article, hated it. From the description here what I can say is that no matter how well-written it is, it’s not something I’m ever likely to read. To me, the story sounds boring and pointless, and no amount of prose styling, no matter how skillful, can fix that.

So why has this dreary novel received so much adulatory attention from the critical establishment? Well, aside from the possibility of a highly concerted behind-the-scenes wining-and-dining campaign by Nathan Hill’s agent, my only explanation is that literary critics are trained to respond to certain cues that signal to the reader that a given book is A Serious Work Of Postmodern Literature. Over recent decades there has been a hiving-off of books into lowbrow “genre novels”—mysteries, thrillers, science fiction, romance, and the like—and “literary novels,” which are all self-consciously vying for an immortal place in the Great Books canon.

But just as mystery novels have their locked rooms and romance novels their kilted Scotsmen, the literary novel is a genre like any other, with predictable tropes and a predetermined range of narrative possibilities. Postmodern writing has a very strong focus on literary style: it prioritizes conveying a mood rather than telling a story, and writing a “striking” descriptive sentence over presenting a fully-realized three-dimensional character. The art of the short story, being easier to read and grade, is more highly-prized by MFA instructors, and consequently the novels produced by MFA-trained writers have a cobbled-together feel of multiple short stories mashed into something of a novel-length. So-called experimental elements, such as unusual text formatting, have long since ceased to be experimental: they are now well-established formulas.

Here Rennix absolutely nails it. When people go about how the genres I write in, science fiction and fantasy, are not “literary,” I just roll my eyes. While it’s true that much genre fiction is not well-written enough to qualify, the subject matter itself should not be disqualifying. After all, “dysfunctional family” is a genre too, and we all know how much “literary” writing employs the same old tropes of abusive parenting and the like.

Now I’m not trying to argue that I’m necessarily a good enough writer for my fantasy or science fiction to be considered literary, I just think the idea of dismissing entire classes of subject matter out of hand is profoundly misguided. If you think fantasy can’t be literary, read Susanna Clarke’s Jonathan Strange & Mr Norrell. Anybody who tells me that’s not a literary-quality novel is absolutely full of it. Prose in science fiction tends to be more sparse and minimalistic, but what about pieces with massive and intricate world-building, like Frank Herbert’s Dune?

My point is this – evaluating novels as “literary” or “not literary” should depend not on their genre, which might be “dysfunctional family” or “post-modern” or “science fiction” or “fantasy.” It should be based on their overall quality as novels, regardless of their subject matter. Personally, I read very little of the “literary” stuff under the current definition just because I’m not that interested in reading about regular life. I already have one of those.

And as I see it, magical powers and advanced technology are interesting. A bunch of characters who waste their time agonizing about a bunch of stupid crap, or whining about what assholes their parents were, are not. Likewise, all too often “experimental” is just another word for “garbage.” I know there are people out there who feel completely differently, which is good. I find it particularly sad when authors can’t find an audience. I’m just not going start reading this stuff myself any time soon.

Now is it just me, or does that “postmodern novel bingo” card up there look like a writing prompt? Maybe I can figure out a way to work every single one of those into a novel that is simultaneously postmodern, dysfunctional family, science fiction, and fantasy. That would show them!