This isn’t the weekly post, but I was just curious if anyone had opinions:
Both Gallagher and B&R bring up Adam Smith and compare his theories, in one way or another, to literature and literary theory. Gallagher references Smith to make the (somewhat satirical) claim that “only in the context of the economy does homo appetitus turn into homo economicus” and that in a potato economy, the market is irrelevant to the self-sufficient, self-reliant homo apetitus species (131). Bennett and Royle quote Smith directly, saying “Before the invention of the art of printing [which obviously gave way to the 'literature' we have today], a scholar and a beggar seem to have been terms very nearly synonymous” (119). The economy is a major factor in people’s lives and undoubtedly plays a role in people’s writings. So, taking into consideration the different viewpoints of the role of the author, what would you say is the appropriate relationship between the economy and literature today?
8 responses so far ↓
zzzzz // 21 October 2008 at 8.20 pm
I actually think that the economy has much to do with the prevalence of writing today in general. If you compare the purpose of publication in the past and its purpose in the modern era, you can see a vast difference as far as the reasons people write. To me, it seems like writing in the past was almost solely based on the desire to provide information and opinion to the general community without much of a monetary gain from doing so. Now, however, I feel that the motivation that drives writers to publish is far more skewed towards monetary purpose rather than the flow of ideas to the public. I don’t necessarily think that writers have developed this great focus on money on their own; rather, I think that the great economic change that occurred in publishing as an industry has contributed greatly to the change in writers’ motivations to write.
mercurylanes // 21 October 2008 at 8.50 pm
Good point, zzzzz. Although now in the age of blogging, Wikipedia, and the Internet in general, you might say that an opposing trend is emerging, one that more closely resembles the more “purely” communicative, public-spirited form that writing had before the rise of the publishing industry. Writing no longer need be packaged as a product in order to proliferate and reach a wider audience. While digital publishing (especially self-publishing) is still pretty marginal in comparison to the established publishing industry, both economically and in terms of its more general social cachet/”literary” acceptability, it’s gaining ground.
spotofbother // 21 October 2008 at 9.11 pm
This question reminds me of the controversy that surrounded A Million Little Pieces because it claimed to be autobiographical and was in fact fiction. Someone said that the publishers wanted the book to be autobiographical in genre because it would sell better (it sold over 5 million world wide).
I also remember reading an article in the New York Times Book Review by an author complaining about publishers who wanted her book to be “young adult fiction” when she had intended it to be for adults. In both cases, the audiences’ perceptions and expectations were changed by the profit-driven publishing companies.
sparkling_bears47 // 22 October 2008 at 12.30 am
I’d also want to point out fanfiction as a form of moving literature beyond the economy. A point that is interesting and supports zzzzz’s response is that many writers dabble in fanfiction in order to improve their writing ability. As soon as they feel comfortable, they begin ‘real’ writing and create their own books and novels. The real writing is the one you get paid for.
That idea also ties into mercurylanes’ point about blogging being a form of writing that’s freed from the economy. I agree that it is, but the top blogging sites, the ones that get millions of unique hits per post, make a lot of money off of advertising. and more and more often, those same bloggers are being offered book deals because of their popularity. so it’s an interesting mix.
one last comment is that books are becoming easier to ‘pirate’ so to speak. to be more precise, ebooks are becoming easier to pirate. a lot of publishers are releasing their books in ebook form as well (amazon has that well known ebook reader) and like any form of digital media, ebooks are being pirated. freed again, in a sense. just food for thought.
roark48 // 22 October 2008 at 1.11 am
These posts have been interesting to read and to think about, but I still find myself confused/frustrated after reading the essays for tomorrow. I don’t really understand the ties between the B&R and Gallagher. And what should I be taking away (mainly) from Gallagher’s essay? I’m sure it’ll all be cleared up tomorrow in class–but for now, I’m just not sure I know what everything means or how it’s supposed to fit together…
campusm79 // 22 October 2008 at 10.36 am
According to B&R, “new historicists argue that the production of literary texts is a cultural practice different only in its specific mode or formulation from other practices—from furniture-making to teaching to warfare to printing…Literary texts are embedded within the social and economic circumstances in which they are produced and consumed†(115). In general, I think writing has had, and will always have, an economic aspect. Although one can write solely with the intention of communicating or expressing feelings and/or ideas, writing is always tied to the economy. It is tied to the economy like any other practice. Also, I don’t think that economic/monetary motivation necessarily need to considered as unique or separate from any other motivation. A writer can be influenced by several motivations and does not need to hold one motivation in a higher esteem than the other.
bbug8 // 22 October 2008 at 10.48 am
The idea that all these posts evoked for me was one that we’ve considered and discussed a lot in class. After reading what everyone had to say, I was reminded of the point that once an author writes a text, it is independent of him or her, and instead belongs to the public. I think that has a lot to do with this discussion because regardless of an author’s motivation, the public sees text and literature as another thing to be purchased. I think this is largely a result of societal values. I guess what I’m trying to say is that I think it’s less about why the author wrote, because once they write, that’s the end. Instead, I feel like the people who receive the writing, the public, are the ones who have made literature into a commodity that must be purchased. However, I don’t think that is to say that the value of literature as mere communication has been decreased, it is merely the world in which we live that ties writing to the economy.
2southgreen // 26 October 2008 at 7.12 pm
I think I was the one who originally brought up WHY authors write weeks ago. Frankly, I’m still not satisfied. Originally, stories didn’t have any owner, they were the mythologies passed down from generation to generation. It’s easy to say why someone would tell such a story. The actual written literature is a bit more tricky, however.
I think it must have started as a self-validating exercise, a look, I exist, I was someone, I’m leaving a record. In this vein, it seems to me that there is always some mingling of “autobiography” with any piece of “fiction.” The assumptions, characterizations, voice, etc. are all inherently telling at least vaguely of the author’s experiences. The author’s personal story is entwined with the fictional story intimately. Perhaps in this way the movement to fiction writing was an embellishing, a series of what-ifs, a flight of imagination that is inherently grounded in some sort of personal experience belonging to the author.
Today, of course, money is a motive for some authors, maybe even most authors. I would not say, however, that it is anywhere near a primary motive. The vast majority of writers don’t get rich from what they publish. For many, it’s not even their “day job.” I can think of lots of exceptions (pulp fiction authors who literally use a formula, professors who feel the pressure to “publish or perish,” etc.), but for the most part, I think of literature as an art with potential financial benefit, but not real financial motivation. I’m a little sleep deprived at the moment, and not certain I’m making perfect sense. I’m also wondering to what extent I just WANT writing to be pure, so I’m trying to filter all these economics comments through the lens of the result I’m hoping for.
Here’s the point I meant to get to eventually: it depends. If I were to assign a theme to the wisdom I’ve taken from all the class discussions we’ve had, it would be that it depends. There is no black and white motivation or role of economics. It effects different authors differently. Likewise, the author is neither the ultimate authority nor dead, nor are any of our black and white interpretations accurate to any but a very few works. What’s wrong with taking the middle road, admitting that we can’t really know exactly what drives literature in all situations, and taking writing on a case-by-case basis? To me, it just seems logical to put “theory” aside and look at some actual works, discuss them for their own merits, and stop trying to extract some underlying truth of all literature.
Trying to do so is just missing the point.
You must log in to post a comment.