Failed Writer's Journey: No, "MFA Novels" Are Not Ruining Publishing.

This is pretty niche, but it is a sign, I think, of how a lot of people reason from a conclusion. Todd Gioia wrote a post about how he think s that the publishing industry is failing to take risks, that books no longer sell for a variety of reason related to that lack of risk taking. In Gioia’s telling (and its a good piece, so you should probably go read it), publishing houses do not try to build authors and they do not try to sell moderate amounts of books because they are relatively small parts of larger media empires and have to have numbers that look attractive to their ultimate bosses. And mid-range sales, say around 10k, do not look to the bosses like good deals.

So far, so good. But a non-trivial number of people have fallen back on the idea that publishing sucks because they are publishing only MFA novels — novels written by and for Masters of Fine Arts students. The argument goes that publishing is run by MFA students and/or teachers, and so the books that they purchase are all MFA books. Books, that is, that are formulaic and lack depth, dependent upon plot mechanics above all else. Or they are discursive, navel gazing self-indulgent bores. Either seems to work, and either seems to be somehow focused on the idea that the publishing elites are out of touch with real Americans. It is all nonsense, of course, but it is kind of interesting nonsense.

And no, I am not going to link to specific articles. I am not here to pick fights, and I understand the frustration inherent in this industry. I am a failed writer — says so right on the door. And I got another rejection today, so I am not in the most charitable of moods towards gatekeepers. But I got rejected not because I don’t write stuff that MFA students want to read but because I didn’t write something that someone thinks they can sell. Now, this is probably because I suck (again: failed writer’s journey) but it might also because I don’t have something that fits the categories they think can make numbers. Looking any deeper than that — you suck, or your book isn’t easy to market — is unsupported by any evidence. And no, it your book being rejected is not evidence.

It is interesting to me that a significant number of people took a rather commonsense description of publishing choices and rushed to blaming whatever their version of an MFA novel was. You have to want to get to that place from Gioia’s piece. It was a reasoned discussion, based on his experience in the industry and knowledge of the people who work in it, focused on how publishers fit into their larger world and how that affects their choices. It talked about business and fear and sales numbers. It barely used the letters M, F, or A and had nothing to even hint that MFA graduates were drivers of any of the issues he sees. You have to, in other words, work backwards to your preferred conclusion to reach it starting from his article. And while this hardly matters in such an inconsequential discussion, its not an uncommon event in more meaningful topics.

This is in part because basic heuristics do have some value. At this point, given how DHS has lied about events, for example, I default to not believing them absent proof to the contrary. Heuristics are often a good defense in a complex world. But motivated reasoning essentially assumes you are correct, and that is a terrible, terrible way to go through life. We don’t value expertise and the truth much in this society, so motivated reasoning seems more acceptable than it should. The push for imitative AI will likely exacerbate that that tendency — we know that they are good at persuading people misinformation is true.

I don’t have a grand conclusion here, or a pithy wrap up. I just find it interesting how we fall back on this kind of reasoning so easily. It is obviously something that has to be taught out of us, and just as obviously something we don’t, as a society, teach out of ourselves very well. Banal, I am sure, but we often needs reminders of the banal.

Weekly Word Count

The next book is plotted out, and I am working on the scene breakouts now. Yes, I do plot moderately extensively.

I like how writing it as a play helped refine the work quickly, so I may do that again. Regardless, should be putting words down relatively soon. This one is about a judge who sells kids to a juvenile center, the AI that allows him to do so, and the people who risk everything to stop him. And, yes, it is loosely based on the Kids for Cash scandal.

Have a great weekend, everyone.