Fiction

The confessions of a semi-successful author

I've published several books, won adoring reviews, and even sold a few copies. But I've made almost no money and had my heart broken. Here's everything you don't want to know about how publishing really works.

“A midlist author is one whose books are well received but have failed to make a commercial breakthrough; whose work sells solidly but unspectacularly, who’s well known within the writing community but the majority of book buyers have never heard his name.”

– David Armstrong, “How Not to Write a Novel: Confessions of a Midlist Author,” 2003

Reader Advisory: By the end of this story I will have broken the most sacred rules of modern authordom. I’ll tell you how much my publishers have paid me for the books I’ve written. I’ll tell you how many copies each of those books has sold. I’ll share with you some of the secrets, lies and euphemisms told to me by my publishers, editors, publicists and agents in their efforts to comfort, pacify and motivate me, and I’ll share some of the salient facts that make those secrets, lies and euphemisms such common industry currency.

If you don’t want to hear about the noir underside of publishing — if you’re a writer longing for a literary career, or a reader who’s happier not knowing that producing and marketing a book these days involves about as much moral purity as producing and marketing a pair of Nikes — I suggest you stop reading now.

Still with me? Great. But who, exactly, might I be? I’m not saying. Because although I’ve published books and articles about things most people won’t talk about, let alone publish — my sex life and marriage counseling, my quirky predilections and unpopular politics, my worst mistakes and no-longer-secret yearnings — I’m using a pseudonym to write this story, because telling the truth about my life as a writer is one risk I can’t afford to take.

Thinking you’ll put the clues together, figure out who I am? Give it your best shot. If you could identify me based on the story I’m about to tell you, I wouldn’t have it to tell.

Here’s a Clue: You might know me by my number: 40,137. That’s today’s sales ranking of my latest book on Amazon.

Sadly, this is also how I rate myself: Not bad, not nearly good enough.

Interlude: A Midlist Author Friend Writes

“Tales of the midlist author: When [my latest book] came out a few weeks ago, it bounced around the Amazon rankings in the 25,000 to 30,000 range, supported there by the radio shows I’m doing and my buddy who runs [a Web] bulletin board. Then last Thursday, I mailed a 450-piece promotion to my personal list, pitching Amazon that’s selling the book for 30 percent off list. This morning, [my latest book] is No. 1,665. Now, we all know that the Amazon rankings are a distorted mirror and can’t be taken too, too seriously. On the other hand, they’re the only instant sales data midlist authors have. So I’m encouraged. My mailing to 750 members of the [organization presumably interested in my latest book] goes out this weekend. Fingers crossed that I see at least one day in three figures.”

The Story

Being the author of several critically acclaimed, moderately successful books has given me an extraordinary, exciting, occasionally lucrative, quite public life. It has also broken my heart.

Nothing makes me happier than writing. And, thanks to the rules that govern publishing today, nothing I’ve ever done for a living — housecleaning, data entry, creating campaigns for big-name, cutthroat ad agencies, full-time motherhood — has been as hard on me as being a writer.

Being an author is the culmination of a lifelong dream. And — because the sales of each book I write determine my ability to remain one — being an author has ruined many of my greatest lifelong pleasures. Reading a book that’s poorly written I pace the floor, beseeching the Muses, God and the editors of Publishers Weekly to explain why trash like this sells so much better than serious books like mine. Reading a book that’s well written, I writhe, instead, with envy.

Relax with a glossy magazine on a sun-splashed beach? Not me, not anymore. The magazine doesn’t exist that hasn’t either published or rejected my work, and there’s a trail of tears behind every story. Sunday morning in bed with a steaming cup of French roast, a well-schmeared bagel, the book review section of the New York Times? Sounds great — if only I could sip, chew and gnash my teeth all at once. Veg out in front of the tube? Impossible. Playboy is nearly the only channel that hasn’t scheduled, then cancelled me — each booking raising hopes of thousands of copies sold; each cancellation a stake driven through the heart of my career.

Never an enthusiastic employee, I quit my job at age 35 to become a full-time writer, to live life on my own terms. After publishing four books — each of them critically acclaimed, several of them award-winners, none of them big enough sellers to ensure my next book contract, let alone the lifetime of book contracts I crave — I feel less in control of my finances, my schedule, my priorities and my well-being than I did when I had bosses and employees to answer to.

Acknowledgment Of Good Fortune

Believe me, I know I’m lucky to be published at all. I’ve read enough talented unpublished writers to realize just how arbitrary that privilege is. I’m more fortunate still to have had publishers who made significant investments in my books, editors who have gone to the mat for me, an agent I admire and trust. For more than a decade I’ve earned a reasonable living as a writer, raised a child as a writer, had a mostly great time being one.

You know that bumper sticker, “I love humanity — it’s people I can’t stand”? Well, I love writing. It’s publishing I can’t stand.

Statement of the Problem

In the 10 years since I signed my first book contract, the publishing industry has changed in ways that are devastating — emotionally, financially, professionally, spiritually, and creatively — to midlist authors like me. You’ve read about it in your morning paper: Once-genteel “houses” gobbled up by slavering conglomerates; independent bookstores cannibalized by chain and online retailers; book sales sinking as the number of TV channels soars. What once was about literature is now about return on investment. What once was hand-sold one by one by well-read, book-loving booksellers now moves by the pallet-load at Wal-Mart and Borders — or doesn’t move at all.

Interlude: Publishing Today Is a Business

“Publishing today is a business, dominated by stockholders and profit margins, run entirely according to the hard, cold numbers. Investors in the major megacorporations that own nearly all of the New York majors want profit, and lots of it. In a business that traditionally makes maybe 4-6 percent profit in a good year, today’s stockholders are demanding 15-18 percent. Gone are the days when a publisher could nurture a writer with potential through several lackluster efforts. Today’s editors can’t afford a single flop.”

— Jeff Kirvin, “What’s Wrong With Publishing,” January 2002.

Mine is what editors call “the human story behind the headlines.” But it’s not just about me; not just about the many wonderful, once-revered writers I know, who — loving the craft of writing, hating the damage that being a writer has done to them — aren’t writers any more.

It’s about the narrowing of the breadth and depth and diversity of our culture: the quieting of all but the blandest voices, the elimination of all but the safest choices. It’s about what it will mean to you if the blunt force of commerce succeeds in silencing midlist authors like me.

Interlude: Excerpt From the Unacknowledged, Unpublished Publishing Glossary of Terms

When they say: “Americans read trash, not meaningful books like yours. You’d need to worry if your books were commercially successful.”

What that means: “Your next advance — if there is one — will be half the size of your last.”

When they say: “Your book will have a long life in paperback.”

What that means: “We’ll be forced to throw good money after bad to recoup our losses on the hardcover.”

When they say: “Your career is building slowly but steadily.”

What that means: “Time to look for a day job.”

As Promised: The Unexpurgated, Possibly Unfinished History of One Midlist Author’s Life

Book 1: Contract signed 1994. Book published 1996. Advance: $150,000.

Book takes one year, no research, pure joy to write.

I love my editor; my editor loves me.

Several publishers vying to buy book means book sells at auction for big advance. Big advance means big publicity budget. Big publicity budget means promotion handled by publicity director, which means reviews in top newspapers, excerpts in top magazines, TV and radio appearances, four weeks on two bestseller lists, seven-city tour. Publisher (Mr. Big) sends handwritten note, thanking me for “writing the great book we all knew you had it in you to write.”

Question to agent: “Is there a downside to an unknown author getting such a big advance for a first book?”

Agent’s answer: “What are you gonna do, turn it down?”

Pitch line: “Welcome a fresh new voice!”

Sales: I don’t ask. No one seems to care. Final tally: Hardcover/paperback sales combined are 10,000 copies.

Current status: Out of print. Small but loyal cult following; 10 years later adoring fans still show up at readings, clutching well-worn copies, eager to tell me how book changed their lives.

Conclusion drawn then: Being an author, working with the best editor and the best publisher on earth is a dream come true.

Conclusion drawn now: There is a downside to getting a big advance for a first book.

The Desperate Years: 1996-98

“A small number of major houses account for the lion’s share of publishing’s annual revenues of about $20 billion … In 1996 [in the U.S.] an astounding 140,000 new or revised titles were issued.”

– Phil Mattera, vice president, National Writers Union
“Crisis of the Midlist Author in American Book Publishing”
Revue Française d’Études Américaines, October 1998

1997: Agent submits new manuscript to Editor Who Still Loves Me (despite disappointing sales of first book). EWSLM, enthused, takes manuscript to pub board. Sales director rejects new book, citing losses incurred by first one. EWSLM acknowledges to agent: It’s not the book being rejected; it’s the author.

Question to agent: “Is my career as a writer over?”

Agent’s answer: “I’m going to need to try something unheard of to get you back in the game.”

Agent offers EWSLM unprecedented deal: If publisher will buy new book, we’ll forgo advance to help defray losses from first one. EWSLM gently advises agent to “pursue other avenues.” Agent gently advises me to “pursue other genres.”

To keep daughter in Nikes while writing short-story collection, I write Web copy for dot-coms, ghostwrite celebrity bio (Book 2). Agent sends out collection; collection rejected by 10 editors. Agent suggests I “take a break.” I start pursuing other agents.

Celebrity bio becomes national bestseller. It doesn’t go on my permanent record, though, since it doesn’t have my name on it.

Question to potential new agent: “Do you think changing agents will help my career?”

New agent’s answer (in so many words): “It sure can’t hurt.”

Conclusion Drawn Then: Even most loyal, powerful editor employed by best publisher on earth can’t override power of profit & loss statement.

Conclusion Drawn Now: Even most loyal, powerful editor employed by best publisher on earth can’t override power of profit & loss statement.

Interlude: It’s Nothing Personal

“Hardcover publishers lose money on most of their titles and depend greatly on a few bestsellers … the large publishers are increasingly inclined to concentrate their resources on books that have the greatest potential to become bestsellers. Like Hollywood, book publishing has become a business driven by the quest for blockbusters.”

— Phil Mattera, op. cit.

Book 3: Contract signed 1998. Book published 2001. Advance: $10,000.

Book takes two years, intensive research, mostly joy to write.

Book rejected by 10 publishers; lone editor making offer promises to “make up for the modest advance with great publicity on the back end.” Desperate to “get back in the game,” I accept advance that’s less than 10 percent of first one from editor who never returns my calls, continues to misspell my name.

Minuscule advance means no publicity budget. No publicity would mean this Second Chance Book will, instead, be Last Book. I hire freelance publicist at $1,500 per city, $5,000 to pitch to national media. I hand over half of advance, sign contract with publicist acknowledging no guarantee of outcome. Spend six months working full-time on own publicity in key cities; publicist focuses on nationals. Publicist books me on 55 radio shows, some local and B-list national TV.

Book hits local bestseller lists on pub date, stays there six months. Book wins awards. Glowing review in Time magazine nets calls from Hollywood producers. Screenwriter spends weekends at my house “to get inside my head,” talks incessantly about her ongoing extramarital affair. One year later, screenwriter tells my agent she’s too busy to pursue our project. Now too late to pursue once-interested producers. Neither agent nor I have received compensation for year spent working/negotiating with screenwriter.

Pitch line: None. Whose job was that?

Sales: Publisher announces print run of 20,000; prints 7,000, then four more printings over next year.

Current tally: Hardcover/paperback sales combined are 25,000 copies.

Question to agent: “How can we capitalize on these solid sales?”

Agent’s answer: “Write a new book — quick.”

Current status: Three years later book still yields $600 royalty checks (after agent’s 15 percent commission) every six months. Total earnings to me, after agent commission and publicist fee, are $21,000.

Conclusion Drawn Then: A $10,000 book advance is only worth taking out of pure desperation.

Conclusion Drawn Now: Sometimes it’s worth taking out a loan to write a book. The trick is knowing when.

Interlude: Publishing Used To Be

“Publishing used to be almost a family business. Often a publisher would see talent in a new young writer and support that writer for many years, printing book after book that didn’t sell, trusting that eventually the writer would ‘break through’ and make it big. The publisher was the friend and champion of the writer, willing to risk again and again for a writer [the house] believed in. Those days are long past.”

– Jeff Kirvin, op. cit.

Book 4: Contract signed 2002. Book published 2004. Advance: $80,000

Book takes two years, hellish research, difficult and delightful to write.

Love my editor at third publishing house; editor loves me. Medium-sized advance based on previous bestseller means medium-sized publicity budget. Book assigned to Sharp Young Publicist, so I don’t hire freelance publicist. Six months before pub date SYP initiates meetings with major media outlets; tells me to choose between “Good Morning America” and “Today,” Redbook and O, advises me to buy “great TV clothes.” One month before pub date, publisher (“Mr. Big II”) calls with bad news: SYP is MIA.

Mr. Big II assigns Junior Assistant Publicist to “lock down” Major Media Bookings made by SYP. After calling several “confirmed” producers, JAP concludes that SYP fabricated bookings while secretly preparing to “pursue other opportunities.”

JAP makes heroic effort, books local media (I wear “Good Morning America” outfit for three-minute interview on local cable news show), is unable to book promised national media. Book wins awards; sales flat, even in areas saturated by local media coverage.

Pitch line: “The much-anticipated new book from the best-selling author of ‘Y Marks the Spot’!”

Sales: Based on major media bookings promised by SYP, publisher announces print run of 35,000; based on lack of national media, publisher prints 10,000. Sales figures not in yet; projections not pretty.

Question to agent: “Is my career as a writer over?”

Agent’s answer: “Write a new book proposal now, before the bookstores start shipping returns.”

Current status: One hardcover copy (or less) available, spine-out, on a shelf hidden deep in the bowels of your local bookstore.

Conclusion Drawn Then: National media undoubtedly would have helped. But — no matter how painstakingly written, no matter how enthusiastically promoted, no matter how glowingly reviewed, for reasons beyond mortal knowing, some books Just Don’t Sell.

Conclusion Drawn Now: Maybe my career as a writer is over.

Just Ask Any Midlist Author — This Happens All the Time

Stranger on a plane, at a party, on a date: “Wow — you’re a writer! Have I heard of you?”

Midlist Author: “Probably not.”

Stranger: “Wow — you’re a writer! Have I read anything you’ve written?”

Midlist: “Probably not.”

Stranger: “Wow — you’re a writer! Will I see your books at Barnes & Noble?”

Midlist: “Only if you look really hard.”

Stranger: “I can’t wait to tell my wife I met a real author! What’s your name again?”

Book 5

New book proposal written overnight, submitted to editor of Book 4. Editor loves idea, pitches to pub board. Pub board loves idea, agrees to make offer. Editor/agent have celebratory lunch: Despite Book 4′s lackluster sales, publisher is certain Book 5 will be my Biggest Book Yet. Editor No. 2 Who Still Loves Me (despite dismal sales of Book 4) says, “We want you to be a house author. We believe in you.”

Despite eerie echoes of E#1WSLM, my Midlist Author’s heart sings. At last I’ve found what every author wants: loyal publisher for life. Editor leaks terms of forthcoming offer: $80,000, since Book 5 is “so much more commercial” than my previous books.

Editor reassures agent daily that offer is forthcoming. Offer does not forthcome.

Three weeks after celebratory lunch, normally overly optimistic agent calls, sounding near tears. “It’s bad, Jane. They’re not going to make an offer.” Mr. Big III overrode pub board. Citing lackluster sales of Book 4, wants to avoid “throwing good money after bad.”

Comment to agent: “My career as a writer is over.”

Agent’s answer: “They’re not the only publisher in town.”

Comment to agent: “They’re one imprint of the biggest publisher in town, which means we can’t sell the book to any of that publisher’s other 15 imprints. And I’m already banned from Publisher No. 1 and its 15 imprints. How many publishers does that leave?”

Current status: Rewritten Book 5 rejected by nine editors. Most love book; all say it’s “not commercial enough.” Three-times-rewritten manuscript currently under consideration by four — oops, just received rejection e-mail from editor whose boss says it’s not commercial enough — three “interested editors,” two in same Manhattan high-rise as editors who have already rejected it.

Conveying news of latest rejection, agent mentions we’ll be lucky to get $50,000; explains, “Publishers aren’t overpaying anymore. They know they’ll just break even if they pay $50,000 and sell 20,000 copies in hardcover, which few books ever do.”

I realize if I’m “overpaid” I’ll earn $50,000 minus $7,500 agent commission. That’s $42,500 for three years’ work. Agent, who’s now spent five months doing back flips to sell book, will earn $3,000 less than she would have if book had sold to Book 4 publisher as planned.

Despite estimated 20 cents per hour pay earned while in my employ, agent tells me, “Just because publishers define success by the numbers, you don’t have to. You write important books. You should feel proud of yourself. And you must keep writing.”

Sales: Interested editor tells me during phone interview, “Ten years ago, a book that sold 20,000 copies was considered a dud. Now we pray for that.”

Pray, and, apparently, pay accordingly.

Conclusion Drawn Now: When a book “fails to meet expectations,” many are candidates for blame. But whether commercial failure results from market conditions, moon in Mercury retrograde, or publisher/editor/publicist/sales force/author malfeasance, the consequences are the same. Those with jobs keep them. Only the author’s livelihood is threatened. Only the author is punished.

Interlude: A Midlist Author Friend Writes

“‘Celeste’ [my editor of several previous books] offered a measly rotten $25K again. I countered with $35 plus foreign and it looks like I’ll get that. I mean, I didn’t earn out even at the pittance I am advanced so I didn’t expect much. But, perhaps, perhaps, to keep my morale up, you could hint to [publishing people you know] that I have been offered a ludicrous amount of money? Please? If we could start a rumor like that it would be helpful all around. I am sort of relieved that it will just be a one-book deal this time. Even though that makes me insecure, it also means that when I turn [interesting character] into my next book, I will be free to attempt to actually get six figures.”

There Was a Time

“There was a time when writers of serious books not destined to become bestsellers could expect to get contracts from publishers that included decent terms and large enough advances to survive until the next book. Today such expectations are rarely met … While publishers lavish large sums of money and lots of attention on a few high-profile authors, conditions have grown increasingly bad for those writers known as midlist authors.”

— Phil Mattera, vice president, National Writers Union, op. cit.

There was a time, just a decade ago, when my life as a writer brimmed with hope and promise; when the world of work and words seemed open to endless possibility; when the music my editors and I made together — the appreciation and, yes, the love they felt for me, the appreciation and love I felt for them — made my heart sing in my chest and my words sing on the page.

There was a time when my life as a writer overrode my innate cynicism and doubt, moved me to tell my young daughter, cornball as it seemed even then, that dreams do come true, if you really want them to. Because what is a book made of, if not the spun sugar of a writer’s wildest dreams?

“Does it ever get better?” I asked Patty, my most successful writer friend, recounting my midlist author’s tale of woe.

“Not substantially,” she answered. “My books sell well now, but I never stop wondering what’ll happen to me when they don’t.”

“So why do we bother?” I moaned.

“Because this is the thing we do best,” she said simply. “What else would we do?”

That question came home to me last week when, for the first time in 15 years, someone offered me a job. Without hesitation — I’m a writer! — I turned it down. Then I went home to another editor’s rejection e-mail and called my agent, who advised me to take it. Of all the bad news you’ve given me, I said, this might be the worst. Have you given up on me as a writer?

“You’ll always be a writer,” she said. “But you won’t be able to write if you’re as worried about money and feeling as rejected as you’ve been. Maybe the thing that feels like it would strangle you will actually give you some room to breathe. When we sell the next book you can always quit the job.”

My husband, greatest fan on earth of my writing, said the same thing. So did my best friend, and my father, and everyone else I asked. Clearly I hadn’t been suffering in as much silence as I’d thought. Clearly, everyone who loves me had been worried about me. “Taking the job would feel like admitting failure,” I told my now 19-year-old daughter, the girl I raised to believe that dreams do come true.

“You already succeeded as a writer, Mom,” she said. “So what if you didn’t make the All-Star team? You made the NBA.”

I called my new — gulp — employer and accepted the job.

Interlude: A Midlist Author Friend Writes

“I’m having the worst publishing experience ever here. Every day it gets worse. It’s like some kind of out-of-control nightmare that won’t stop until this book has been completely killed and buried. Yesterday, I was debating whether or not to borrow some money to hire an independent publicist, but today I don’t know if I can afford to risk it. At this point, it all seems like gambling. The book went on sale Tuesday (well, supposedly — you can’t find it here in [my hometown], even though this was the only place a review ran) — one of the most depressing launches ever.”

I Count Among the Losses

Looking back on my writing career I count among the losses the relationships — indescribably intimate, more like marriages than friendships — with the editors I counted on, and spoke to nearly every day for all the years of our contractual agreements, and loved and still love, who love me too but will never publish me again.

I count among the losses my conviction that mixing love and art and business is a risk worth taking, and that doing without any of these things isn’t.

I count among the losses the hundreds of thousands of dollars that my books cost the publishers who believed in me enough to treat me respectfully and pay me well, and I count among the losses the profits I continue to generate for the one publisher who didn’t.

I count as my greatest loss of all: hope, the most toxic, precious thing any writer has. Without a writer’s foolish fantasies — envisioning Book 5 piled in stacks of 50 in every airport bookstore, its carefully chosen title appearing on the Times bestseller list, my agent calling with breathtakingly, indisputably, non-euphemistically good news — how can I face the otherwise overwhelming prospect of a book waiting to be written?

If I can’t bring myself to hope that I’ll have the chance to write Book 5, so my heart can be filled and emptied and broken again; if the privilege of being published hurts too much to be the thing I hope for, what will pull me — and the multitudes of other midlist authors, who are, after all, the vast majority of published writers in this country — through the long, unlit tunnel of writing another one?

What will we lose if writers like me stop writing? What are we losing now?

The End?

I ran into Patty the day her ninth book became her first to hit the Times bestseller list. She grabbed me by the shoulders, looked deep into my eyes. “It doesn’t change anything,” she said grimly. “My mother still doesn’t approve of me. I still don’t have a boyfriend. I still can’t sleep at night. Don’t let this be what you’re waiting for.”

And yet I wait for my agent’s call, telling me there’s another chance that it could happen for me.

And so I wait. And I wait.

“Frankenstein” remixed

This masterful new adaptation of Mary Shelley's classic novel may be the best interactive fiction yet

This originally appeared on The Chimerist, a site devoted to the intersection of art, stories, and technology.

Whatever interactive fiction is (and we’re still figuring that out) it suffers from all the problems of traditional fiction and then some. The vast majority of novels and short stories aren’t much good, but when a branching fiction — along the lines of the old “Choose Your Own Adventure” children’s books — fails to engage, the first impulse is to blame the form rather than the content. Let “Frankenstein,” just released by Inkle Studios and Profile Books, serve as a reproach to that reflex. The app is a creative, subtle and sensitive adaptation of Mary Shelley’s classic novella, and it has singlehandedly renewed this critic’s hopes for interactive fiction.

What this “Frankenstein” isn’t is a replication of the source text with the addition of a lot of digital doohickeys like sound effects and illustrations that animate when tapped. The app is all about the text, even if it is beautifully framed by period art and anatomical illustrations. The reader is presented with a screenful of narration and then offered one or more responses to it. The preferred response, when tapped, delivers up another screen of text. (In an absurdly pleasing visual touch, these appear as sheets of paper fasted together by straight pins.) According to the press materials, the reader’s responses will shape the way the narrative is presented, although not to the degree of substantively changing the plot.

This is an important point. The pleasure of storytelling lies in the dynamic between the surprising and the inevitable. The reader wants to feel the story is going somewhere, that its events follow from each other in meaningful, but not too obvious ways. When a story can go anywhere, it feels meaningless. In Mary Shelley’s novella, which is saturated with the Western tradition of the tragedy, Viktor Frankenstein’s character is such that he must create a monster, and the monster’s body is such that he can never belong among human beings however much he yearns to. A “Frankenstein” that ended with either misfit finding a comfortable place in the world would be a travesty.

But that doesn’t mean the reader doesn’t long for the story to unfold otherwise; that’s the nature of tragedy. The great insight that writer Dave Morris brings to this adaptation of the novel is that while a reader cannot significantly change the outcome of the story, the interactive element can change the shading and flavor of the tale. It can be mournful and reflective or action-packed. The creature and his creator can show greater or lesser ambivalence about their own behaviors. The ambiguity of both figures is baked into Mary Shelley’s novella, and while Morris has nearly doubled the word count of the original, this mostly amounts to playing up or down what’s already there.

Morris — a novelist who has written graphic novels, games and, yes, Choose-Your-Own-Adventure stories for kids — has changed the original text in other ways, as well. (Let’s take a moment here to point out to all future narrative app developers that hiring a real writer who actually knows what he or she is doing is totally worth it.) He’s moved the setting to revolutionary France, a choice that shows shrewd understanding of the idealistic political climate that affected Shelley’s thinking; the new Republic is its own kind of Frankenstein’s monster. He’s also eliminated much of the 19th-century framing of the tale and converted it into two present-tense narrations. One is Frankenstein’s dialogue with either himself or a (possibly imaginary) companion. The other is a second-person account of the monster’s first weeks of life as it spies on a family of dispossessed French nobility and has the chance to observe the loving relationships it can never enjoy itself.

Morris presents the reader with choices I’ve not encountered in other interactive fictions. Is humanity mostly good, or mostly evil? Does the most recent development make you (the monster) feel hope or despair? Is the revolution the dawn of a brave new world or a descent into chaos and barbarity? While I’m usually skeptical that present-tense narration increases the “immediacy” of a story, in this case, it really does work, particularly in the sections concerning the monster. Depending on your own outlook, you may urge him to keep trying to connect with humanity, or promptly forward him on to homicidal rage.

In either case, the narrative is shaped not by the reader deciding to turn left or right, to go down into the cellar or to get out of the house — the usual actions offered on the choose-your-own menu. Instead, the options have more to do with personality and interpretation, beliefs and ideas. As a result of the reader’s choices, the characters seem more like him- or herself, with a concurrent ratcheting up of emotional investment. To my surprise, I found myself more moved by this adaptation of the Shelley novel than I have been by the source text. (Although the app does include the original if you want to compare and contrast.) This is the only interactive fiction I’ve ever read with that quintessential, old-fashioned readerly avidity: the hunger to know what happens next. Of course, I already knew, but that didn’t matter at all.

Continue Reading Close
Laura Miller

Laura Miller is a senior writer for Salon. She is the author of "The Magician's Book: A Skeptic's Adventures in Narnia" and has a Web site, magiciansbook.com.

“The Cove”: A mysterious skull

A new novel begins with a shocking discovery that takes us back to love and life in the South during World War I

This article appears courtesy of The Barnes & Noble Review.

Ron Rash’s atmospheric, strangely uncomplicated novel, “The Cove,” begins with a scene of melancholy and abandonment, the promise of obliteration, and a shocking discovery. It is 1953 and a man called Parton, a scout for the Tennessee Valley Authority, is investigating a remote parcel of land in North Carolina’s Appalachia for inhabitants who will have to be evicted in advance of the valley’s inundation. In a small notch — from which the book takes its title — over which looms a light-exterminating, anvil-shaped cliff, he finds a deserted farm. Pasture fenced by sagging barbed wire, a collapsed barn, a cabin and two wells are the desolate relicts of past life and labor. The general doominess of the setting is further enhanced by an ash tree decked in charms against evil forces, dead American chestnut trees (victims of the plague that wiped them out across the land), and the memory of the now extinct Carolina parakeet. Parton, thirsty, manages to winch up a bucket of water from one of the wells — and with it a human skull.

Barnes & Noble Review
I give little away in revealing this, as it occurs on page 4; it takes another 243 pages and a step back to the late summer and autumn of 1918 to discover the skull’s owner. It is then, during the last months of World War I, that the story takes place. At its heart is Laurel, a young woman afflicted with a large birthmark. She is shunned by the residents of the nearest town, Mars Hill, who believe that the cove is cursed and that she herself is a witch. Both her parents are dead, and with occasional help from a neighbor, she survived the previous summer alone on the farm while her brother, Hank, was away fighting in France. He has returned, absent a hand but resolutely capable and preparing for marriage.

In passage after passage, Rash describes life and work on the farm in its dailiness — the preparation of meals, tending to chores, mending clothes, setting fence poles, pulling wire — creating a sense of order and industry that would seem to promise future happiness and prosperity. But as the initial scene of desolation and death promises the reverse, an air of menace and foreboding pervades the story. And, indeed, like the waters that will inundate the farm decades later, powerful, destructive forces are gathering outside the cove.

On one of her forays to do her laundry in a stream away from the farm, Laurel hears and secretly observes a young man resting in a makeshift camp, playing a flute; days later she finds him near death, stung by a swarm of wasps. She brings him home; he recovers and produces a piece of paper saying that his name is Walter and that he cannot speak or read or write. As we — unlike Laurel or Hank — have already learned that a man has escaped from what turns out to be an internment camp for Germans, we get the picture. Walter won’t speak, but he will help with the farm, and this he does handily, capturing Hank’s admiration and gratitude — and Laurel’s heart.

All the while, anti-German hysteria is escalating in Mars Hill, a volatile temper encouraged by one Sgt. Chauncey Feith, a preposterous character ripped from a handbook of one-dimensional villains. Vainglorious, opportunistic and cowardly, he is a jingo, a sneak and a bully. The son of a politically connected banker, he has been deployed as the town’s recruitment officer, thus avoiding the perils of the battlefield. He has gone about this zealously, congratulating himself at every turn for sending young men off to the war and priding himself on being an “unsung hero, because you couldn’t go around telling people that any man can hold a rifle and stand in a trench but only a select few could do what a general or commodore or recruiter did.” That’s Chauncey Feith for you — believe it or not.

If Walter were to show up at Mars Hill and be recognized, there is no question that he would be strung up as a Hun. Meanwhile life and love go on at the farm. Walter helps Hank in sinking a second well, and the description of digging and lining it deep, deep in the earth is wonderfully potent. Indeed, Rash’s material detail, depiction of work and evocation of place — of nature, woods and stream, the play of light and the oppressive dark of the monstrous cliff — are truly splendid. Still, between the threat of a lynching and scenes from the cove, a vacuum yawns, and into it flows one simple question stripped of complexity: Whose skull? Or, put another way, happy ending or sad? The answer, when it comes, seems perfectly arbitrary.

Continue Reading Close

“Kingdom Come”: Terror in the London suburbs

A new novel traces an advertising executive's search for his father's murderer in a menacingly bland town

This article appears courtesy of The Barnes & Noble Review.

J.G. Ballard was born in 1930 in Shanghai, China, and returned to England in 1946, having been interned with his family in a Japanese prison camp, an experience that inspired his most popular novel, “Empire of the Sun.” Ballard’s astonishing fiction ranges across continents and galaxies, but a quiet London suburb was his home until his death in 2009, and it is to the suburbs that he returned in his last novel, “Kingdom Come.” In its opening pages, the narrator, a London advertising executive named Richard Pearson, travels to one of the “perimeter towns dozing against the protective shoulder of the M25″ to find out who murdered his father.  It sounds like the setup for a cosy English mystery.  But this is Ballard.  It will not be cosy.

Barnes & Noble Review“The suburbs dream of violence,” Ballard declares as we enter the blandly menacing town of Brooklands. Among this “placid sea of brickly gables” Richard searches his father’s flat for clues to the life — and violent death — of a parent he barely knew, a pilot who had “flown millions of miles … and then died in a bizarre shooting incident in a suburban shopping mall.” Three others died, and the suspected gunman, a mentally unstable local, is arrested but then released. The police, the family lawyer, the doctor who treated Richard’s father — all appear to be hiding something, while many respectable Brooklands residents seem to have formed a fascist militia.

When Richard first witnesses a racist attack, he concludes that “a new kind of hate had emerged”; its hub is the Metro-Centre, the mega-mall in which his father was killed. During one visit, Richard sits beside the mall’s manmade beach, where Julia Goodwin, his father’s doctor, has arranged to meet him. “The wave machine had been turned to its lowest setting,” he notices, “and a vaguely gastric swell, like a suppressed vomit reflex, flowed across the colorized water.” This languid, sickly image could only be Ballard’s. No other writer so effectively alienates his readers — and his protagonists — from an everyday reality that he reveals to be shifting, often nightmarish terrain.

At the same time, he soothes us. In “Kingdom Come,” as in Ballard’s short stories and in novels like “Crash,” the rhythmical balance of the sentences has a tranquilizing effect, like the shushing roar of the ceaseless traffic on the motorway outside Brooklands. Richard, too, seems oddly numbed as he probes his father’s involvement with local thugs, falls in love with Julia Goodwin, and is increasingly drawn to the Metro-Centre and to the figure of David Cruise, the mall’s TV celebrity.

The novel’s pace quickens as violence spreads and the Metro-Centre comes under attack. “Fights broke out, fists flailing through the workmanlike rise and fall of police truncheons” as screams are drowned out “by the blades of army helicopters cuffing the night air.” Soon the mall becomes a fortress, hostages are taken, and the wave machine churns up a corpse. Emerging from the wreckage, Richard predicts that “In time … an even fiercer republic would open the doors and spin the turnstiles of its beckoning paradise.” In his final, elegiac vision of suburban apocalypse, Ballard once again allows us to imagine the unthinkable.

Continue Reading Close

Gay literature’s new wrinkle

Nobel-winner Herta Müller has written a dazzling new gay novel. Does it matter that she's heterosexual?

(Credit: iStockphoto/RapidEye)

This week sees the publication of “The Hunger Angel,” by the Romanian-born German author Herta Müller. It’s her first novel to appear in English since she won the Nobel Prize three years ago, and the book, set in a Soviet labor camp in the years after World War II, arrives in America trailing behind it a passel of rave reviews in the European press: a masterpiece, they say, to be put next to Solzhenitsyn or Primo Levi.

But, more quietly, “The Hunger Angel” is something else – a major addition to the tradition of gay literature, and a rare evocation of gay life in the war years and after. Leo, the narrator, is just a teenager when he’s deported from Romania to the Ukraine, but he has already had his first “strange, filthy, shameless and beautiful” assignations in the town park and the local bathhouse. At first he sees his deportation as a welcome escape from his Nazi-supporting father, and a mercy for the mother he truly loves, for in his own eyes he is a double disgrace: not just gay, but an ethnic German who sleeps with Romanians. In the camp, hunger becomes all-consuming, and he longs for home, but he also watches fellow skin-and-bones detainees sneak off to an industrial wreck for sex and knows, “If I’d been caught in the camp I’d be dead.” “The Hunger Angel” lets a gay man embody universal themes of suffering and endurance but also captures the unique contradictions of gay desire – a substantial accomplishment, and one that’s even more impressive because Herta Müller is a straight woman.

Müller is part of a small but growing number of heterosexual writers publishing novels that not only include gay characters as central parts of their narrative, but are largely about gayness itself. It’s a trend that suggests that homosexuality may no longer be the taboo it once was, for writers — and for readers.

These days, in American and British fiction, at least, it’s no longer uncommon for straight writers to feature gay characters in a novel. Think of Claire Messud, whose “The Emperor’s Children” examines a young gay writer’s friendship with his two best friends, both straight women. Or read Jennifer Egan’s “A Visit From the Goon Squad,” which features a young gay kid experimenting first with drugs, then with sex. More recently, Chad Harbach in “The Art of Fielding” didn’t just feature a gay and decidedly not butch baseball player, but a 60-something, theretofore straight college president who falls in love with him. (These examples all feature gay men, obviously: Straight writers’ interest in lesbians is usually less edifying, as any gay person who endured Philip Roth’s “The Humbling” will remind you.)

Yet while straight writers now include gay characters as a matter of course, putting gay people at the center of a book remains all too rare. Gay characters can help straight writers write a book of larger scope, but a novel that concentrates on gay characters is automatically “gay fiction” – and that, sadly, still puts readers off. Gay novelists know all too well that without the right promotion, their books can end up relegated to the “LGBT interest” section of the bookshop, somewhere between the Spartacus travel guide and “Homosex: 60 Years of Gay Erotica.” (If, that is, the bookshop even stocks gay books; if, moreover, the bookshop hasn’t gone out of business.)

For straight writers, taking on gay subjects isn’t just an imaginative risk, it’s a commercial one. And therefore the list of examples is brief, but even so, they suggest that reader opposition to gay-themed books is on the wane. Although fantasy and science-fiction writers may have taken earlier steps, it wasn’t until the 1990s, with Pat Barker’s Regeneration trilogy, that a straight writer saw major success with gay literary fiction on both commercial and critical terms. The Regeneration trilogy,  with its cast of both real and fictional characters during World War I, had a built-in audience among British readers who grew up reading poets like Siegfried Sassoon or Wilfred Owen. Yet on the first pages of “The Eye in the Door,” the middle book, they were plunged into a rough (and fantastically hot) sex scene between two officers of different class backgrounds, complete with war wounds from Passchendaele and bedside Vaseline. “The Eye in the Door” goes on to detail the horrible persecution of gays in the British civil service, sometimes even by closeted gay men themselves, while in “The Ghost Road,” the last novel of the series and the one for which Barker won the Booker Prize, Sassoon, Owen and fictitious soldiers spend page after page thinking about their desire for men, and about the gaps between the military’s sometimes surprising tolerance and the cruelties of civilian life.

You see similar contrasts of confidence and doubt, narcissism and self-loathing, in Annie Proulx’s short stories, most famously “Brokeback Mountain.” The subsequent film was anxiously promoted as a “universal” love story, but Proulx insists that her two ranchers aren’t any old star-crossed lovers, and that gay desire has a special character. Ennis and Jack aren’t just incapable of having their love accepted by society; much more fundamentally, they hate themselves for loving who they love. Proulx told the Paris Review that she now gets fan mail from readers who have rewritten “Brokeback Mountain” with a happy ending, like the stale 18th-century tradition of letting a victorious Hamlet marry a not-drowned Ophelia. “They can’t understand that the story isn’t about Jack and Ennis,” Proulx lamented. “It’s about homophobia; it’s about a social situation.”

Homophobia is naturally a major theme in straight-written gay fiction, but it’s not all about tears and the law. In “Call Me By Your Name,” from 2007, the straight writer André Aciman looked at the enduring power of first love through a teenager’s overwhelming desire for another man, complete with lashings of sex in the forest, at the sea, and in the streets of Rome. (You will never eat a peach again without thinking about what those two guys do to a piece of fruit.) Straight novelists are even beginning to write about gay history, and in particular HIV/AIDS. Tristan Garcia’s “Hate: A Romance,” co-translated by the Paris Review editor Lorin Stein, examined not only the devastation of the first years of the disease, but the virulent debates between proponents of safe sex and more radical gay activists who see barebacking as a political act. That is the sort of thing even many gay writers are not yet ready to discuss.

It can only be a good thing that the terms of gay fiction are expanding to include not only more readers but more writers. Yet gays have been writing about straight people for hundreds of years, and while straight writers who write gay fiction are celebrated for taking a risk and for imagining something beyond their own experience, gay and lesbian writers who do the opposite, such as Colm Tóibín in “Brooklyn” or Sarah Waters in “The Little Stranger,” don’t really get the same credit. Perhaps this is because straight love and desire is omnipresent; perhaps, more homophobically, it’s because we still think gay writers “naturally” have such powers of imagination. Either way, while the situation has improved, gay fiction still suffers from ghettoization, and while straight writers may be mindful of the risks they take in depicting a minority to which they don’t belong, gays who turn to straight subjects can find the new, larger audience for their books bewildering. Michael Cunningham observed as much back in 2000, when he was asked about the success of “The Hours.” “I can’t help but notice,” said Cunningham, “that when I finally write a book in which there are no men sucking each other’s dicks, I suddenly win the Pulitzer Prize.”

Continue Reading Close

Jason Farago is a regular contributor to the Guardian and writes criticism for the London Review of Books, n+1, Frieze and other publications. He is also editor of Art in Common, a blog on art and urban life.

Pulitzers snub fiction

No novel won the coveted prize this year, but does that mean nothing good was published?

Details from the covers of "Train Dreams," "Swamplandia!" and "The Pale King"

The news that no Pulitzer Prize for fiction would be awarded this year came like a slap across the face to a book world still reeling from a Department of Justice suit filed against publishers trying to forestall an Amazon e-book monopoly. Double ouch! But does the Pulitzer snub mean that no good fiction was published in America last year?

I would (and have) argued otherwise, most strenuously; 2011 was an exceptional year for fiction, American and otherwise. I also suspect that the Pulitzer Board itself has not turned up its collective nose at every book produced by American novelists and short story writers in 2011. The Pulitzer Prize may wield far more clout with book buyers than any other American prize for fiction. It can turn an obscure title into a success and a modestly successful title into a bestseller. Readers take it seriously and snap up the books it honors by the thousands. But that doesn’t mean that the Pulitzer Prize for fiction doesn’t suffer from the same problems that afflict every literary prize, no matter its size or influence.

I have some insight into those problems because I served on the Pulitzer fiction jury two years ago. I can’t talk about my jury’s deliberations, however — that was part of the deal. I can tell you that choosing the winner of the Pulitzer Prize for fiction is a two-tier process, a fact that even people well-versed in the literary world tend to forget.

The first tier is the jury’s selection. Three jurors (usually an academic, a critic and a fiction writer) are responsible for wading through huge boxfuls of books. Anyone can submit his or her book to the Pulitzer competition for a small fee, and believe me: anyone does. We got hundreds and hundreds of them, including many self-published novels with titles like “The Bikinis of Alpha Centauri,” most of which read as if they’d been run through Google Translate into Farsi and then run back again into English before being committed to print.

From the many submissions, the jury picks three titles to recommend to the Pulitzer Board, and the board picks the actual winner, as well as selecting the winners of all the other Pulitzer Prizes. The board does have the option to select a title not on the jury’s list, but it rarely does so nowadays.

The heyday for picking no book at all was the 1970s, a time of considerable cultural upheaval and conflict. In 1971, the board rejected titles from Eudora Welty, Saul Bellow and Joyce Carol Oates. In 1974, a stellar jury consisting of Benjamin DeMott, Elizabeth Hardwick and Alfred Kazin (three titans of literary criticism) unanimously recommended that the prize go to Thomas Pynchon’s “Gravity’s Rainbow.” The Pulitzer Board dug in its heels and said no. In 1977, the last time the prize was not awarded, the jury favored ”A River Runs Through It” by Norman Maclean and the board shut them down.

Why? According to the critic and experimental novelist William Gass, who wrote a notorious diatribe on the subject, the Pulitzer Board’s taste is hopelessly mainstream, middlebrow and unadventurous. (In 1941, most of the board did pick Ernest Hemingway’s “For Whom the Bell Tolls,” but one member — who happened to be the president of Columbia University — put the kibosh on that because he considered the book immoral.) However, Gass’ complaint seems an absurd cavil to level against an institution whose power and influence resides precisely in the fact that it speaks to a broad audience.

The Pulitzer Board consists of working journalists and journalism professors, most with a deep respect for literature but relatively little familiarity with the literary world. This can be a strength and a weakness. The Pulitzer’s excellent record at singling out literary works that also appeal to a lot of readers is one reason why it has so much more influence than “insider” prizes like the National Book Award.

However, because the Pulitzer Board is fairly representative of educated Americans, it surely includes a lot of people who don’t really have time to read fiction — or, at least, literary fiction — anymore. Past boards might have been able to settle on a title that most of them had read even if it wasn’t offered as a finalist by the jury; reading at least a few of the “big” novels published during the year was something a lot more people did before the Internet and cable TV came along. In 21st-century America, the novel has become a marginalized and Balkanized art form, and even when avid fiction fans compare notes, they often find they’ve read nothing in common.

Chances are good that the three novels recommended by this year’s Pulitzer jury — “Swamplandia!” by Karen Russell, “Train Dreams” by Denis Johnson, and “The Pale King” by David Foster Wallace — are the only three serious new novels many of the board members read last year, apart, perhaps, from one or two others. These people are, after all, pretty busy doing things like editing the Denver Post and running the Columbia Graduate School of Journalism, jobs that are a lot more time-consuming than they used to be, as well as selecting the winners in the other Pulitzer categories.

By all accounts, the group could not reach a majority on any of the three titles recommended by the jury. It’s certainly unlikely that enough of them read fiction widely enough to agree on an alternate choice. In that, they truly are representative of American readers, and that bodes worse for our national literature than a year without a Pulitzer winner.

Continue Reading Close
Laura Miller

Laura Miller is a senior writer for Salon. She is the author of "The Magician's Book: A Skeptic's Adventures in Narnia" and has a Web site, magiciansbook.com.

Page 1 of 129 in Fiction