The Future of Literature in The Age of Information - Three Pound Brain

// TheFutureofLiteratureintheAgeofInformation|ThreePoundBrain
ThreePoundBrain
Nobells,justwhistlinginthedark
TheFutureofLiteratureintheAgeofInformation
Information technology made Plato anxious. Writing, he feared, would lead people to abandon their
memory,totrustinexternalcharacterswhicharenopartofthemselves.Nowwendourselvesliving
throughanewrevolutionininformationtechnology,onewithconsequenceseverybitasdramaticand
likelyevenmoreprofound.Howcouldwenotbeanxious?Ouroldwaysofcommunicatingareeither
becomingobsoleteorndingthemselvesdramaticallyrepurposedbeforeourveryeyes.
Includingthegrandestoneofall:literature.
Literatureisoneofthosecategoriesthathavevexedthehumanintellectforcenturies.Typically
we think of the classics Shakespeare, Melville, Joyce, and so on when we think of literature. If we
dont know exactly what it is, we like to think we know what it looks like. In other words, we use
resemblanceasourprimarycriterion.Andindeedwhenyoulookattheoutputofcontemporaryliterary
authors you nd no shortage of family resemblances: lyricism of prose, thematic sophistication,
quotidiansubjectmaers,andofcoursetheallimportantyenforexperimentation.
Themorphologyofwhatweliketocallliteraturehasremainedfairlystablesinceatleastthe
beginningofthetwentiethcentury.Thenormsofrepresentationhavebeensmashedandgratuitously
rearranged; the protagonist has been subjected to endless sessions of existential water torture; the
language has been stripped pornographically bare and heaped with gaudy ornamentation, again and
again and again. All the paerns have become easily recognizable, so much so that you can typically
identifyaliterarypiecewithintherstfewsentencesofreading.Literature,asitistypicallyunderstood,
isaverydistinctculturalanimal.Mostofuscansmellitevenbeforeitcomesintoview.
The problem, I would like to argue, is one of habitat. The fact is, the baroque morphology of
literature belongs to a far dierent social and technological environment than our own. We are
presently witnessing what is already the most profound transformation of human communication in
history(shortofthewrienword,maybe).Theinternet,thesmartphone,thetablet,satelliteandcableon
demandtelevision,marketsegmentation,algorithmicmarketing:thelistofgamechangersgoesonand
on.Makenomistake,wearetalkingaboutsocialandsemantichabitatdestructionwithoutcompare.The
old rainforests of culture have been cleared away, and literature, with its prehensile hands and
brachiating arms, now reaches for heights it can no longer climb and stares into distances it can no
longersee.
Nogenerationhaswitnessedsuchasuddenchangeinculturalenvironment,period.Andyet,if
anything, the health of the literary animal seems entirely unaected. When Professor John Mullan of
University College was recently asked by The Guardian to provide an overview of the state of British
literaryction,hecalleditoneofthemostextraordinarypublishingphenomenaofrecentdecades.
Mullanpaintshisownpictureofsocialtransformation,onewheretheslowtrickleofwritersand
https://rsbakker.wordpress.com/essayarchive/thefutureofliteratureintheageofinformation/ 1/16
Mullanpaintshisownpictureofsocialtransformation,onewheretheslowtrickleofwritersand
readers through the postsecondary boleneck has managed to rewrite the culture of reading. On the
composition side, he notes the explosion in creative writing programs, and how almost all writers of
literaryctionhavesomesortofuniversitybackground.Onthereceptionside,henotesthatthereare
moregraduatesfromliterature,especiallyEnglishliterature,degreesthanever.
ThesituationispreciselyoppositewhatAlvinKernanpredictedinTheDeathofLiteraturesome
twentyyearsago:farfromkillingliterature(byadoptingpostmoderncritiquesofitsrationaleinatime
profound social change), academia has transformed it into a cultural juggernaut. In the course of
teaching theory and the classics, universities have inadvertently produced both the suppliers and the
consumers of literary ction, to the point where work that was once the province of intellectual avant
gardemovementsnowenjoysmassconsumptionandprideofplaceinmanymedia.Theresultsareso
profound that Mullan dares imagine the unthinkable: that far from retreating before the forces of
electronicmediaandconsumeridiotism,higherliteracyiscarryingtheday.
AssumingthatthisaccountappliestothewholeEnglishspeakingworldasmuchasBritain,you
might say that the literary animal is ourishing. Somehow, the implication seems to be, the ongoing
communicationrevolutionhasallbutpassedliteratureover,allowinganoldinstitution,theuniversity,
tobringaboutahappyrevolutionallitsown.Farfromthreatenedwithextinction,literatureisthrivingin
theageofinformationtechnology
Sowhydoesitallfeelso,well,dusty?
To be sure, not everyone in the literary world shares Mullans triumphal outlook. The sales
guresmaybediculttoarguewith,butformanythisismorecauseforworrythancelebration.Inhis
notoriousWhereHaveAlltheMailersGone?LeeSiegeldeclaresthatctionhasbecomeamuseum
piecegenre,thatreaderswantingtobechallengedandilluminatedhadbeerturntononction.Inhis
mostrecentinterviewinTheGuardian, Gabriel Josipovici, author of What Ever Happened to Modernism?
claimsthattherecenteorescencesoextolledbyMullanislilemorethanprepschoolboysshowing
o.
Akindofshadowyconsensushasgrownamongcertaincriticsandacademicsthatsomethinghas
gonedrasticallywrongintheworldofliterature,thatfarfromhealthy,theliteraryanimalisinfactdead
or on deaths door. Everyone has their own diagnosis: for Siegel it is the professionalization of what
should be a vocation; for Josipovici it is a failure of nerve and imagination in the face of market
temptation. But for most all of them, the problem is that literature, despite all the ways it resembles
literary works from days gone by, no longer does what it once did. Wheres the scandal? Wheres the
daring?Therevelation?
The tendency among these critics is to gloss the communications revolution and blame the
practitioners,tothinktheproblemisprimarilyoneofexecution.Literatureisntdoingwhatitssupposed
todobecausecontemporaryliterarywritersandeditorsaretooinstitutionalized,tootimidortooinept.
Butwhatiftheoldmorphologyistoblame?
What if information technology has so transformed the social and economic conditions of
literature,thattheoldformsaresimplynolongercapableofreliablyproducingliteraryeects?
Inordertobestable,communicationmustmutuallybenetboththesenderandthereceiver,
otherwise the incentive to communicate evaporates. Receivers typically assess the value of any
communication through what is called trust calibration, where we evaluate the motives of the sender,
andcoherencechecking,whereweevaluatethetbetweenthemessageandourbackgroundbeliefs.If
andcoherencechecking,whereweevaluatethetbetweenthemessageandourbackgroundbeliefs.If
acoldcallingsalespersonmakesapitch,weclosethedoorbecausewedonttrusttheirmotives.Ifan
otherwisetrustedfriendtellsussomethingwethinkoutlandish,wechangethetopictoavoidarguingat
thedinnertable.Allcommunicationisbiasedtowardingroupidenticationandasharedbackgroundof
beliefsandassumptions.
Wehaveastronginclination,inotherwords,totalkamongstourselves.
Asantitheticaltounfeeredcreativeexpressionasthissocialpsychologicalapproachsounds,it
actuallyprovidesaclearwaytounderstandsomethingessentialtoliterarycommunication.Literature,
you could say, is the kind of narrative message that challenges rather than reinforces our background
assumptions.Ifagivenformofnarrativereinforcesassumptions,thenitisquitesimplynotliterature,no
maerwhatitresembles.Thisiswhywethinkliteraturehasaspecialrelationshipwithrisk:aliterary
communication is one where the sender actively works against the coherence of his or her message
relativetosomereader.Itisinherentlyunstable.
Orshouldbe.
ThisisthereasonweshouldbesuspiciousofthestabilityofthehappypictureoeredbyMullan.
In Mullans account, literary ction has evolved into what could only be called a spectacular ingroup
exercise:thousandsofuniversitytrainedwriterswritingformillionsofuniversitytrainedreaders.Asa
productofthesameinstitution,thesendercanbetrustedtoprovidecontentthatwillreadilyconformto
thereceiversbackgroundbeliefs.Nomaerwhatpurporteddicultytheyencounter,theycanbesure
that it will t. In Mullans account, the literary animal is so healthy simply because it lives in a
communicative zoo, a place where no one need fear that the animal does anything really unexpected
becauseeveryonehasbeentrainedtoanticipateitswiles.
Humanbeingsareparochial,blinkeredcreatures,loathetorelinquishanynumberofinjurious
viewsnomaerwhattheirpoliticalstripe.Thesocialvalueofliteraturehasalwaysturnedonitsability
to reveal and mitigate these shortcomings, to shake things up, and so, bit by corrosive bit, eect
culturalreform.Butdoingthisrequiresformingstablecommunicativerelationshipsdespitetheabsence
of t between the senders and receivers default assumptions. Not an easy thing to do. This is why
ndingthereaderhasalwaysbeenthegreatproblemfacedbyliteraryction,somuchsothatposterity
is ritually called upon to redeem its insularity: as a form of communication antagonistic to existing
conditionsofcommunication,itoftenhastowaitfortherestoftheworldtocatchup.
Andthis,Iwanttoargue,iswheretheinformationrevolutionbecomesafundamentalgame
changer.
Time and place have always been the great communicative constraints. Before the advent of
writing,sendersandreceiversalwayshadtocommunicatefacetoface.Writingmoreorlessbanished
timefromtheequation,andminimizedtheimportanceofgeographytoacertaindegree.Theprinting
pressrevolutionizedtheeconomics,andthereforetheecienciesofthisrstgreattransformation.And
now,withinformationtechnology,bothtimeandplacehavebeenrenderedmoot,moreorless.Wecan
receivecommuniquesfromPlatoanywhereatanytime.
The great communication constraint of today has to do with sorting, nding those
communicationsthatyouwantinanoceanofshoutingpixels.Wholeindustrieshavesprunguparound
the problem of nding in the internet age. And with them, the old world of connecting suppliers and
buyershasbeenuerlysweptaway.
Armedwithevermoresophisticatedwaysofgatheringconsumerinformation,andevermore
Armedwithevermoresophisticatedwaysofgatheringconsumerinformation,andevermore
powerfulmathematicaltoolsforminingandinterpretingthatinformation,suppliershavebeenableto
segmentmarketsandtargetbuyersinwaystheirbusinessforebearscouldscarceimagine.Thetoolshave
becomesopowerful,infact,thatmanycommentators,likeStephanBaker,authorofTheNumerati,worry
weareturningourselvesintodataserfs,slavestotheverysystemsthatanticipateourmerestdesires.
For the bulk of human history, need has driven the economic connection of supplier and buyer. The
industrialrevolutionusheredintheadventofwantasthemaineconomicdriver.Wearenowentering
whatmightbecalledtheAgeofWhimsy.
Asaluxurygood,theliterarynovelisanartifactoftheAgeofWant,atimewhensupplierscould
onlyconnectwithbuyersinbulk,lumpinglargepopulationstogetherinthehopeofhiingtargetsthey
couldneverdenitivelydene.Relyingonhunchesratherthanharddata,suppliershadtotakeashot
gun approach. The result was a far more amorphous marketplace, one where the chances of forming
lessthanoptimalsupplierbuyerconnectionswererelativelyhigh.
Inthepublishingindustry,theconnectionofsuppliersandbuyersisatoncetheconnectionof
senders and receivers, simply because this laer, communicative connection is the very commodity
supplied. The misses of the former actually facilitated the possibility of lessthanstable connections
between senders and receivers. The literary writer could, as the truism goes, write for themselves,
according to their own want and whimsy, condent that the ineciencies of the system would allow
themtondtheirreader,receiverswithincompatiblebackgroundbeliefs.Atthesametime,youmight
imagine that buyerreceivers, who were accustomed to misses, would be more prone to forgive
discrepancies,toseleforlessthanstablecommunicativerelationshipsandsobemoreopentoliterary
experiences.
Thelasttwodecadeshaveallbutsweptthissocialandeconomicenvironmentaway.Thekindsof
preference parsing algorithms behind Amazons ubiquitous, You might also like feature allow
suppliers to target buyers with uncanny accuracy and provide us with exactly what we want. The
problem is that we want to be right. Even though challenging background beliefs typically benets
everyone,humanbeingsareaversetocriticism.Weareliterallyhardwiredtoseekoutconrmationand
tooverlookordismissincompatibleinformation.Asaconsequencemarketingalgorithmssuchasthose
employed by Amazon typically connect readers with novels that accord with their aitudes and
assumptions.
Theatworld,itturnsout,isanincreasinglysycophanticone.
IntheAgeofWhimsy,theeverincreasingeciencywithwhichsuppliersconnectwithbuyers
assuresthatwritingforyourselfamountstowritingtopeoplelikeyourself,topeoplewho(thanksto
theindoctrinatingpoweroftheuniversitysystem)sharethebulkofyourvaluesandaitudes.Writing
for yourself now means writing books entirely amenable to trust calibration and coherence checking,
andsoforgingcommunicativerelationshipsasstableasanyotherformofcommercialction.
To write for yourself, you might say, is in the process of becoming indistinguishable from
selling out. Literary ction is becoming precisely what you might expect given the way information
technologyistransformingmarkets:axedformwithadedicatedaudience.
Onegenreamongmany.
Inotherwords,writingliteraryctiontodayamountstowritingentertainment in the guise4/16

https://rsbakker.wordpress.com/essayarchive/thefutureofliteratureintheageofinformation/ of
Inotherwords,writingliteraryctiontodayamountstowritingentertainment in the guise of

writingliterature.Someauthors,suchasJonathanFranzen,haveretreatedfromtheloftyconceptsofour
recent literary past, realizing that things have changed. Others, like Tom McCarthy, persist in making
thesameoldclaimsandpronouncements,andtalkofdisruptingacultureofreceiverswithwhichthey
have lile or no connection. More and more, you nd references to what might be called the Ideal
Philistine in literary culture, to people with dissenting beliefs who would be challenged by literary
works,weretheytoreadthem.
Wheresomehavegivenuptheliteraryghost,otherssimplypretendthatnothinghaschanged.
Does this mean the information revolution has rendered genuine literary communication
impossible?Notatall.Justasdramaticenvironmentalchangebegetsevolutionaryinnovations(likeus),
literarywritersactuallyndthemselvesinatimeofprofoundopportunity.Evenastechnologythreatens
the old literary animal with extinction, it has provided powerful tools for the evolution of something
new,andperhapsevenbeer.
Theprimarydilemmaforthecontemporaryliteraryauthorissimplythis:howdoyounda
readerwhodoesntnecessarilywanttondyou?
Theluxuryofwritingforyourselfissimplynolongeranoption.Asshouldbeclearbythis
point,theworstpossiblethingonecoulddoiswriteliteraryction,serveamarketwherealmostnoone
ischallengedandnearlyeveryoneisgratied.Youneedtobebothmoreexpansiveandmoresavvy.
Sohowdoyoundreaderswhodontnecessarilywanttondyou?Intheabsenceofalltheold
ineciencies, the literary author has to exploit the ecienciesof the new marketplace. Despite the dire
pronouncements of recent years, the reading public exists the same as before: according to the
American Association of Publishers, 2010 book sales actually rose 3.6% over the 2009 calendar year.
What has changed is all the socioeconomic machinery between the author and the reader, machinery
that the former can no longer aord to ignore. Since a work only produces literary eects relative to
some audience of readers, literary authors need to know their readers. They need to identify audiences
possessing dissenting values and aitudes. Then they need to either hijack or embrace the narrative
formsmostcommonlymarketedtothem.
Thismeansalltheoldandlargelyunfoundedprejudicesagainstgenrectionmustbesetaside.
Genre only seems antithetical to literature because the literary have turned it into a aering foil,
abandoned it, in eect, leaving a rhetorical fog of selfcongratulation in their wake. In my own case, I
choseepicfantasybecauseIknewthebestwaytoprovokereaderswithanarrativemeditationonthe
nature and consequences of belief was to reach actual believers. And provoke I did. Other writers, like
China Mieville, M. John Harrison, Gene Wolfe, John Crowley, to name just a few, are doing the same
thing,producingworkthatisobviouslyliterary,openlyprovocative,yetunheardofinliterarycirclesfor
thesimplesinofwearingwronggenericskin.Thesearethewriterswhoaregenuinelyshakingthings
up,asopposedtohawkingintellectualandaestheticbuzzesinsidetheliteraryechochamber.
Commercialgenresmustbeseenforwhattheyare,relativelyxedchannelsofcommunicationto
relativelydedicatedaudiences,notascagespreventingsomemythicfreeexpression.Allchannelsof
communication force senders to play the game to reach a given group of receivers. English is such a
game. The rules only seem coercive, like work, when you dont enjoy the game or if you think its
stupidorbeneathyou.Theliteraryauthorhastomovepasttheseoldandembarrassingconceits.The
idea is to play the margins, to play the game well enough to be identied as a trusted sender by the
receiver,allthewhileexploringwaystochallengetheirbackgroundassumptions.
Thisisnoeasytask.Luckily,informationtechnologyhasbroughtaboutacuriousandpotentially
Thisisnoeasytask.Luckily,informationtechnologyhasbroughtaboutacuriousandpotentially
revolutionary reversal of the roles traditionally assigned to writers and readers. Before the internet,
writers were almost exclusively senders and readers were almost exclusively receivers. The eort
requiredtocontactanauthoreectivelyrestrictedcommunicationtofanmailandkaeeklatches.This
assured that most of the feedback a writer received would be complimentary, something useful for
motivationperhaps,butnotsousefulforcalibratingcommunicativetactics.Now,everyauthorlivingis
simplyonevanitygoogleawayfromallstripesofunlteredfeedbackfromblogs,messageboards,and
specialinterestsites(suchasGoodreads).
Theinternetallowsthecontemporaryauthortounderstandtheirreadersbeerthanatanytimein
modernhistory,simplybecauseitallowsthemtoliterallyseetheconsequencesoftheirartisticdecisions.
This can become something of a masochistic exercise, to be sure, but if you are serious about writing
somethingthatactuallychallengesactualreaderswithoutscaringthemaway,thenaccesstothiskindof
informationisinvaluable.Sendersnolongerhavetorelyonblindguesswork.InmyownnovelsIhave
usedtheinternettocrafteverythingfromstorylinesthatcollapsepulpintophilosophy,toprotagonists
designed to simultaneously gratify and deny the kinds of wishfullment that underwrite character
identicationthingsthatnoEnglishdepartmentintheworldteaches,letaloneconsiders.
Theinternet,inotherwords,allowsthecontemporaryliteraryauthortorungenuineexperiments.
Theoldliteraryuseofthetermexperimentwaslargelyspecious:formalinnovationsintheabsenceof
consequence testing can only be for their own sake, or the sake of readers who have been trained to
expectthem.Thankstotheinternet,Ihavebeenabletodevelopafairlydetailedunderstandingofwhich
experimentshavefailedandwhichhavesucceeded.Onceyouadoptagenreasavehicleforexpression,
everythingbecomesamaerofgiveandtake.Somepointsaresimplynotworthscoringbecausethey
crashyourcommunicativerelationshipwithtoomanyreaders.Sometacticsallowyoutogetawaywith
ideologicalmurder,ifexecutedwithenougheleganceandmomentum.Othersenduphavingtheexact
oppositeeectyouintended!
If theres one thing the internet shows you as a writer, its that there is no such thing as the
Reader. As a writer you are communicating to populations of readers. And as a genre writer, youre
communicating to populations of readers with a far more eclectic set of background beliefs than you
couldeverhopetondintheliterarymainstream.Genre,infact,iswhereyoundmostallthepeople
whodisagree.
TheresareasonwhyonlyHarryPoergetsburnedanymore.
My argument is simple: To thrive in the uid, multifarious information habitat of today, the
literaryanimalmust become achameleon. Authors who want to be part of the cultural solution can no
longer trust in posterity or the power of their art; they have to game the new social, economic, and
technologicalconditionsoftheirpractice.Eitheryoustickwithliteraryresemblance,gratifyyourtastes
andsenseofsuperiority,andsimplyentertain(whichisquitealright,solongasyourrhetoricreectsas
much),oryougetseriousaboutliteraryeectsandbegincreatingthenew,manycolouredliteratureof
theinformationage.
Even if you disagree with my analysis, there can be no doubt that the consequences of
information technology imperil literature in a multitude of ways, only a few of which have been
consideredhere.Thethreatisexistential.Literaryculturemustreinventitselforriskextinction:therecan
benoquestionaboutthis.
Butwillit?
IfMullanisright,anduniversitiesaretheprimaryengineofcontemporaryliteraryculture,then
IfMullanisright,anduniversitiesaretheprimaryengineofcontemporaryliteraryculture,then
the prospects are dim simply because of the way academia is entrenched outside the demands of
mainstream society. Short of some sweeping, generational change in ideological fashion, it has the
demonstratedcapacitytoclingtoitsvalues,nomaerhowmaladapted,inperpetuity.
Thefactthatthesevaluesaresoaering,thatreadersandwritersofliteraryctionaresoprone
to identify themselves (despite their complicity) against consumer idiocy, will only make them that
muchmorediculttodislodge.Conceptsarebigots:ifyouidentifyyourselfasliterary,thenyouwill
automaticallyandunconsciouslysorttheseriousfromthesillyinwaysthatconservetheliterarystatus
quo. Thanks to the psychological mechanisms of value aribution, we pass judgement with our every
breath,nomaerhowselfcriticalwepretendtobe.
Ourbrainshavepreferenceparsingalgorithmsoftheirown!
Andperhapsworstofall,thesevaluesallowthesocalledliterarywritertobelazy,toindulgetheir
owntastesandassumptionsundertheguiseofmakingtheworldabeerplace.Whereveryounda
highopinion,hypocrisyisneverfar.
Thesethreethings,institutionalinertia,valuearibution,andgoodoldfashionedlazinessallbut
guarantee years, if not decades, of denial and rationalization from literary culture. Defectors will be
dismissed,lampooned,andignored,thesameasdefectorsfromanyothervestedinstitution.Thisiswhy
thepathImadvocatingissuretoremainthelessertravelledone:Itinvolvesrealprofessionalriskand
realcreativetoil.
Somethingweonceexpectedfromourliteraryauthors.
30CommentstoTheFutureofLiteratureintheAgeofInformation
Murphysays:
October5,2011at12:11pm
Somuchthatcouldbesaidinresponsetothis!Averyprovocativeessay.Someunprovableassertions
(but as youve said, theres a limit to the critique of certainty, sometimes we have to just muddle
through) and theres the threepoundbrain objection (since you liked fantasy before you came up
withthisargument,itmustberationalization)butIwanttostartwiththis:
Itcantbetheworstthingtowriteliteraryction.Becauserst,youresayingwritersshouldwrite
genreANDyouresayingliteraryctionisagenre.Thisisrightyourargumentdoes,andshould,
extendtoreaderswhosechosengenreisliteraryction(theresanargumentnottowriteit,butthere
can hardly be an argument not to read it if you want to). So to that extent, Siegel is right the
problemisalackofchallengingwritersintheliteraryeld,asfarasthatspeciceldgoes.Itwould
equallybetheproblemwithfantasyifyouandtheothersyoumentioneddidntexistitwouldonly
beanargumentforthepotentialoffantasy.Nowweneedthepotentialofliteraturetoberealisedin
literary ction once again that is, in addition to and not, as I think this essay unwisely suggests,
insteadofalltheothergenres.ToputitcutelyIwanttoreadLightTime&Gravity.Thereisaplace
forit,andmanymorelikeit.Agree?
REPLY
rsbakkersays:
rsbakkersays:
October6,2011at10:14am
Weneedthepotentialofliteraturetoberealizedeverywhere,butmorewhereitsneededmost,
and least where its needed least, wouldnt you say? What privileges commercial genre is the
heterogenietyofitsaudiences.IappreciatethatyouandIbelongtothesametribe,Murph!But
therespreciouslileIsuspectIcoulddobeyondentertainingyou!
Notthattheresanythingwrongwiththat.Thepointistohaveitallways.
REPLY
Murphysays:
This is such a tangled web. I do keep thinking about it. Its a bit like, to take a genre
example,thedilemmaofhorrorhowcouldyouevercreateahorrorstorythatissohorric,
horrorfansdontlikeit?Itsimpossibleitwillonlybethemostacclaimedhorrorstory,and
sothegenrehasabuiltinselfdefeatingcircle(horrorsmymaingenrelove,soIcansaythis
valuearibution,ifIveunderstoodthetermcorrectly).Similarly,howdoyouwriteaworkof
literaturethatchallengesthecomplacencyofliteraryreaders,whenwelcomingachallengeto
their complacency is exactly what theyre complacent about? And youre saying, cant be
done,moveon.
But I wonder if it starts to hinge on what is involved in being entertained versus being
challenged.Whatdoeschallengedlooklike?Becausesurely,themajorityofreaders,faced
withaculturalentryistbombinbookform,willeithergetitandloveit(valuesconrmed)
ornotgetitandrejectit(valuesstillconrmed,surely?LookatfeministsdislikingGameOf
Thrones their values are conrmed, not challenged this proves what were saying
(maybeitdoes)).Sothatleavesonlyatinyminoritywhoaregenuinelyconfusedandthink,
Ivegottositdownandworkthisout.AndIamwillingtoguess,tobehonest,thatthisis
goingtoberoughlythesameproportionofreaderswhohavethatreactiontoaliterarynovel,
anyway.
This is the other thing, though. Willing to guess. All guesswork. Like the heterogeneity of
genrereaders.Howdoweknowthis?Thehivemindclonecharacterizationofliteraryreaders
is not very plausible to me. Tens of millions of readers, all over the world all much of a
muchness? All with the same values, compared to the range and richness of genre fans,
individualseverylastoneofthemdoubtful,MrBakker,verydoubtful!
rsbakkersays:
ImnotsureIseethedilemmayouretalkingabout.Peopleaddnutstochocolateallthetime.
Imalsonotsurewhychallengedneedlooklikeanyonethingatall.Forme,theprimarygift
ofLiteratureiswisdom,whichistosay,epistemichumility.
Personally, after decades of asking readers pointed questions and following thousands of
readersonmessageboards,Ihaveliledoubtthatgenrereadersarefar,farmoreideologically
heterogenous. How many evangelicals read experimental ction? How many literary books
can you nd reviewed on right wing blogs? How many Toni Morrison readers vote
Republican?JuststartaskingpeopleIdo.
Therealinterestingquestion,though,iswhynoonehaseverempiricallystudiedthisquestion.
Therealinterestingquestion,though,iswhynoonehaseverempiricallystudiedthisquestion.
How, when this question has huge implications for so much cultural production, has it
managedtoslipthenetsofinquiry?Theobviousansweristhatitbelongstoadomainthat
belongstoaninstitutionthathasnointerestwhatsoeverinposingthesequestions,letalone
answeringthem.
And this means were actually trodding virgin intellectual ground herewhich is, like, way
cool.
Murphysays:
ThisismoreorlesswhatIwastryingtogetatbutdidntsucceed.Tomakethemeasureofanovelits
social consequences is a very, very good idea to me, and very underinvestigated, and genuinely
radical (including politically, whether or not thats a good thing). But its going to hinge on being
abletoquantifythoseresults,andtomeanecdotalevidencewontdo,becauseweknowthequality
ofanecdotalevidence.Asithappens,forexample,IndUpdikelovedbyquiteafewconservatives
Ive talked to (thats not surprising to me. He was very conservative). So my concern is, youve
allowedyourselftoomuchroomwhenyousaymyguysaretheonesreallyshakingthingsup.All
we can say so far is, when this is studied, I predict, based on messageboards and personal
conversations,thatmyguyswillturnouttobetheonesshakingthingsup.Untilthen,Ithinkwe
havetoconcedethatyouliketheideaitwillbeyour/ourguys,butitstoosoontobeabletostateit
categorically,asyoudohere.
AndIstilldontknowhowtogetpastthelike/rejectissue.Yourchocolate/nutsthingisabitcryptic
formeLetmeputitthisway.IlovedNeuropath.Butitsaterriblybleak,disturbingnovel.AfterI
readit,Iwassiingtherebroodingaboutit,andmysisteraskedwhatwasup.Iexplaineditandshe
said,Isee.Yourehavinganexistentialcrisisbecauseofathriller.Icouldntlendittoherbecause
therearesomebitsinitthat,letssay,shewouldntreadpast.ButIlovedit.Now,tome,inaway,
thatsanappalling response. Its the obnoxious machismo of the horrorfan,wherealltragedyand
despair gets a high ve and the word nihilistic has become a coy thumbs up in lm and book
reviews,asortofcodewordfornoneofthatgirlyhappyendingorboringmoralstu.Sonomaer
howghastlythevisionofabook,horrorreaderssayBravo!Encore!Straightinatnumber3onmy
top 10 Most Super Disturbing Ever list. Isnt my enthusiasm for Neuropath a teethgratingly
ippant assimilation of something which, if I took it seriously, I wouldnt recommend to people?
Isntthisabarriertochallenginggenrereaders?Themoredisturbingitis,themorewepatourselves
ontheback.ButthenifIdidntlikeit,thatsnotchallengingme,either.Oh,Idontknow.
REPLY
rsbakkersays:
Im not sure the doublebind you describe is any dierent than the one described in the paper.
Havingitbothwaysisthetrick,andwhatelevatesliteratureabovemerection.
IfeelpreciselythesamewayaboutNP,btw.Ioftenndmyselftellingpeoplecuriousaboutmy
worktonotreadit.
REPLY
Murphysays:
Fair enough. Well have to hope that there emerges

https://rsbakker.wordpress.com/essayarchive/thefutureofliteratureintheageofinformation/ some way of recording a measurable
9/16
Fair enough. Well have to hope that there emerges some way of recording a measurable
increase in epistemic humility among genre readers and no comparable change in literature
readers.Idontseeawayofgroundingtheargumentwithoutthat.Ifwemeasureanovelor
group of novels by their social consequences, and we cant prove any, then its not a useful
measure.
rsbakkersays:
Nowayofempirically grounding the argument. But all this goes without saying for me, so I
guess Im confused about your missapprehension. Most all the practical commitments we
make we make absent empirical groundingwere trapped in a best guess world. And so?
Youshrugyourshouldersandthrowyourselfinthedirectionthatseemsmostpromising.
Does literary academia generally devalue spectacle and convention? Certainly. Do most
baselinereaders(thosewithoutpostsecondaryliterarytraining)generallyvaluespectacleand
convention? Certainly. Has literary academia had a substantial impact on literary ction?
Mostcertainly.Isliteraryctiongenerallydirectedtowardbaselinereaders?Ofcoursenot.Is
this a problem? Denitely, if you think the point of literature is to challenge and transform
existingcultureratherthanjustifyandconserveit.
Sothen,whatisthecontraryargumentjustifyingthestatusquo?
Theissueisntoneoftrueorfalse,butoneofbeerorworse.Itscomparative.Thatswhereyou
needtolooktoassessitspower.
Murphysays:
Ok I think I get it. From a practical point of view, I still like the argument as I understand it.
Regardlessofwherethelikingforspectacleoriginatesfrom,theresstillacaseforturningittoones
ownpurposes.Andthatsmorelikelyinnovelform,whereauthorsstillhavemorecontrolovertheir
message,thanitisinlmform,whichislteredthroughtoomanyproducersandstudioexecsand
nanciers.Ilikethatbit.
So in that case my impression is that literary readers devalue spectacle and convention because
theydontacceptthatwerebornlikingthem;theirsuccessisnotbecausethatswhatpeoplewant,
but because thats mostly what theyre given. Hence the dumbing down argument. So to resist
spectacle (whatever that may be in the context of wrien ction, but certainly in the case of
TV/cinema) is to resist the status quo their version of smartening up the populace. I think
actually,inthatrespect,bothsideswantexactlythesamethingtoincreasethewisdomofreaders(I
disagree with you that its a plan to keep some readers out I think that is a result, but not an
intentionalone).
But you tend to say given that we naturally like those things but perhaps that bit needs more
arguing?Isthatagivenyet?Or,likeIsay,evenifitsnotagiven,nowthatpeopledolikeit,useit.
Imjusttryingtospotwheretheargumentcouldgomoresmoothly.
REPLY
rsbakkersays:
Iactuallyhopetospendsometimeresearchingandpuingapapertogetheronspectaclesome
Iactuallyhopetospendsometimeresearchingandpuingapapertogetheronspectaclesome
day. Evolutionary anthropologists Sco Aran and Pascal Boyer have many, very interesting
arguments to make about the supernatural in religions theories as to its universality and its
conceptualstructurethatIthinkapplywonderfullytofantasyction.
As to literary ingroup identication and exclusion, the mechanisms are no dierent than those
behindanyotherinstanceofhumangroupishness.Rarelyisanyofthisstuconscious,andits
souniversalthattherealmiraclewouldbea(nonsocialpsychologicallysavvy)literaryculture
thatdidntplaythisgame.Forme,oneofthemostembarrassingironiesofliterarysubcultureis
itspresumptionofcriticality,thewayitpresumesthatawarenessofoneshistoricalandcultural
contingencygivesthemacriticallegupontherestoftheoutgroupworldwhilenotknowinga
bloodythingaboutcognition.Beingobliviousisneverquitesoperniciousaswhencoupledwith
intellectualpiety.
REPLY
Murphysays:
Intellectualpietyinterestingterm.Alsoaparticularlydicultthingtodislodge,because
the value of being intellectual is entwined for them with their moral values, so that to
challenge their obliviousness comes to seem like a challenge to their deeper virtues, and is
treatedthatway.
So,anotherthing.Imnotsureabouttheidealphilistine.LetmeseeifIveunderstoodthe
idea:Heorsheisapointlessconstruct,becauseinpractice(forthesakeofargument)nobody
reads those novels who is going to be discombobulated by them in the way it pleases the
authortoimagineright?Butthenwhoareyouwritingfor?Realreaders.Asin,Im
writing for actual philistines?? I mean, thanks a bunch! Now following this through, you
couldaskme,well,ifyoudontwantyourvalueschallenged,whatdoyoureadfor?Which
isfairenough.Butitmeansthatyourdenitionofliteraturecouldbedescribedasthis:a)has
tobereadbyalargecrosssectionofsociety,b)hastotellthemsomethingtheydontwantto
hear, c) in a way they cant easily reject. (C is essential to avoid the Turner Diaries is
literature argument.) So my question is: where does that leave all the classic works of
literaturewhicharelargelyunreadand,whentheyareread,byandlargedontmakepeople
questiontheirviewsbutdomovethemdeeply?Inshort:Istragedynotliteratureanymore?
OrWordsworth?
MichaelMurdensays:
June23,2014at10:49pm
TheIliadandTheOdysseyarepreyspectacularandpreyGenre,andpreyliterary.
REPLY
CallanS.says:
November10,2011at5:21pm
Isupposeaquestionis,whatifyoudontknowhowtowritegenretobeginwith?Letalonetothen
goandgameit?
Doesonetrytogoforgoodgenre,orjustwritewhatever,evenifitsdescribingabathtubforten
pages? And hope with practice ones writing adapts to the goal? Slowly reducing the bathtub page
countheh!Imeanitwiththebathtubthoughfrommyendinthismarket,itslikeyoursupposed
toonlyimaginestuthatwouldexciteotherpeople.Thebathtubistheimaginativefreedomtobe
boring, even if one then goes and imagines something
https://rsbakker.wordpress.com/essayarchive/thefutureofliteratureintheageofinformation/ other than describing one. I guess
11/16
boring, even if one then goes and imagines something other than describing one. I guess
intellectually I try to do what works all the time, and in terms of the market, it seems belief
conrmationworks(andIdonteventhinkImverygoodatthat,either!).Theonlywaytoturno
thatinclinationisthefreedomtobeboring,ascounterintuitiveasitstrikesmetoletmyselfbeableto
writeaboutbathtubsfortenpages(able,evenifnotactuallygoinganddoingitintheend).Iguess
Imlookingforarmationonthat,thatonedoesntceasetobehumanifonedoesso.
Well, thats where Im knoed up? Tips? Dont think about it as much wont work. Like a song
stuckinoneshead,itdoesntstop.
REPLY
rsbakkersays:
November11,2011at10:42am
Imnotsureyouredoingmuchmorethandescribingthedilemmafacedbyeveryliterarywriter,
andaskingquestionsthatcantbeansweredinadvance.Whatyoudoistakeyourchances.And
alwaysrememberthatEVERYTHINGisinteresting,ifyouasktherightquestions.
REPLY
CallanS.says:
AndalwaysrememberthatEVERYTHINGisinteresting,ifyouasktherightquestions.
Thatisagoodonerightquestionsasindiggingatsomething.Thanks,Sco!Cheersforthat
mellamphyDansays:
February23,2012at12:10pm
hp://www.thewhitereview.org/features/nudeinyourhottubfacingtheabyssaliterarymanifesto
aftertheendofliteratureandmanifestos
REPLY
Themarketingofaliteraryction|Novel
Telegraphy says:
May6,2012at6:27pm
[]Hereisaveryinterestingblogpostaboutthefutureofliteratureinthisenvironment.Ofmost
interesttomewastheauthorsideathat:[]
Reply
TheAnxietyofIrrelevance(anOpenLeerto
ArthurKrystal)ThreePoundBrain says:
[]TheFutureofLiteratureintheAgeofInformation[]
Reply
RussellSmithShrugged|ThreePoundBrainsays:
July4,2013at1:22pm
[]TheFutureofLiteratureintheAgeofInformation[]
Reply
TheDeathofLiteratureortheBirthofaNew
TheDeathofLiteratureortheBirthofaNew
Age?| says:
December20,2013at2:17pm
[] hps://rsbakker.wordpress.com/essayarchive/thefutureofliteratureintheageofinformation/
[]
Reply
dharmakirtisays:
May22,2014at9:04am
Thefutureofliteratureisperhapstriggerwarnings?
IcameacrossthisNYTimesarticleyesterdayandthoughtIwouldshare.
hp://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/18/us/warningtheliterarycanoncouldmakestudents
squirm.html?_r=0
REPLY
S.C.Hickmansays:
June24,2014at11:29am
What bothers me about such things as triggerwarnings is just like political correctness: its a
way of shaping people according to some kind of normativity stance or belief system that
enforcesandregulatesbehaviorforaminoritynotionofaectiverelationswhenwehavelileto
go on yet from neurosciences to validate whether it is in fact of use are not and, this is a
utilitarianquestion.Becausethenotionthatonemusttriggerawarningresponsesystemisavery
fascistnotion:oneusedbythedemocraticsocialistsystemsofthe20sand30swhyshouldwe
beginregulatingourliterature?Arewordssuddenlysopowerfulandharmfulafterthousandsof
yearsthatweneedtoregulatethem,controlthemthisisjustasbadfrombeingimposedonby
the Left, as it is when the Right tries to ban the books oensive to their normative values
altogether.itsjustasofterapproachbutthesameoutcomewithasmileyface.
Whats beer is to actually teach children early own to read and challenge them to think for
themselves.todecideforthemselvesifsomethingisworthreadingarenot.WhyhavetheState
impose such things as regulatory mechanisms? This would lead to all of life slowly being
regulated by some minority groups interests wed end up on straightjackets sooner or later
withthat.preysoonyoudbeatthepointthateventolooksomeoneintheeyeisforbidden,to
talktosomeoneisforbidden,totouchsomeoneisforbidden,towalkdownthisspecicstreetis
forbidden.i.e.,thetencommandmentsonsteroids
REPLY
meddsays:
December27,2014at11:24pm
Your comment The luxury of writing for yourself is simply no longer an option Reminded me
aboutanauthorwhosaysIwriteformyself,anduploadittotheworld.
Ifyoureinterestedsearcheyeofadventure.Itfeelsnicetoreadit.
REPLY
dharmakirtisays:
January27,2015at1:41pm
I recently nished reading The Luminaries by Elanor Caon. I enjoyed the novel for its historical
I recently nished reading The Luminaries by Elanor Caon. I enjoyed the novel for its historical
seing (1860s New Zealand during a gold rush), the plot, the structure of the novel as well as the
styleofwriting(apasticheofthe19thcenturynovel).Therewasamurder,apossiblyhauntedship,
anopiumaddictedprostituteandevenaseance.ItwasmorefuntoreadthantheotherBookerprize
winnersIveread(notthatIvereadmany).
Lately,Ivebeenreadingvariousreviewsofthenovel.
In my Google searches I came across this November 2013 blog post from the New York Review of
BookswebsitebyTimParksandIthoughtIwouldshareithere.LiteratureWithoutStyle
Theauthorofthepiecestartsbyasking,Whatisliterarystyleandwhyisitboundtochangeasthe
novelgoesglobal?HequotespassagesfromHenryGreenandF.ScoFigerald,talksaboutdeixis
andgoesontosay:
Style,then,involvesameetingbetweenarrangementsinsidetheproseandexpectationsoutside
Style,then,involvesameetingbetweenarrangementsinsidetheproseandexpectationsoutside
it.Youcanthaveastrongstylewithoutacommunityofreadersabletorecognizeandappreciate
itsdeparturesfromthecommonusagestheyknow.MuchofwhatissurprisinginGreenstextis
inevitablylostintranslation,inalanguage,forexample,withdierentrulesofdeixis;someislost
simplybyshiftingthebookacrosstheAtlantic.Greensworknevertravelledwell.
AswithHenryGreen,muchislostwhenFigeraldstextleavesthecultureitwaswrienin
andtravelsaroundtheworldinotherlanguagesAndastheseparatestylisticdevicesdisappear
intranslation,sodoesthepaernthattheycombinedtosustain;losingthepaernoneinevitably
loses the peculiar position the text created for itself within its culture of origin and hence its
specialrelationshipwithreaders.Intranslation,strippedofitsstyle,Gatsbyreallydoesntseema
veryremarkableperformance.
WhatImgeingatisthatstyleispredicatedonastrictrelationtoaspecicreadershipandthe
morethatreadershipisdilutedorextended,particularlyifitincludesforeignlanguagereaders,
themoredicultitisforatextofanystylisticdensitytobesuccessful.
Afterdeningliterarystyle,hegoesontosaythisaboutEleanorCaonsnovel:
Removingusfromthepresent,pastichingwhatthemodernearassumestheeloquenceof
thepasttohavebeen,thewritercanappearstylishwithoutappealingtoanythinginhis
readershipsimmediateexperienceCaonsprosehasbeenlikenedtothatofDickensin
The Pickwick Papers. But for readers who followed Pickwick in the 1830s, the book was
drenched in references to the world they shared and the language itself was not so far
awayfromwhatcouldbeheardandreadeveryday.IfonetranslatesDickensintoanother
language,anenormousamountislost;evenfortheLondonerreadinghimtoday,halfthe
referencesmeannothing.ButCaonsnovelha[s]dispensedinadvancewiththisintense
engagement with a local or national readership and seem set to lose very lile as they
movearoundtheworldindierentlanguages.
Hethenendsthepiecewiththis(thesectionedthatinuencemyposthere):
Suchisthefutureofliteratureandliterarystyleinaglobalage:historicalnovels,fantasy,
vastinternationalconspiracies,worksthatvisitandrevisittheplacesaworldculturehas
madeusallfamiliarwith;inshortanideaofliteraturethatmaygivepleasurebutrarely
excitesatthelinguisticlevel,rarelythreatens,electries,remindsusof,andsimultaneously
undermines the way we make up the world in our own language. Perhaps it is this
developmentthathasmademewearywithsomuchcontemporaryction.InparticularI
havestartedreadingpoetryagain.Thereindeedthingscanstillhappenwiththelanguage,
andwritersarestillallowedtoproducetextsthatareuntranslatableandforthemostpart
unprotable.
REPLY
dharmakirtisays:
January27,2015at1:51pm
Sorry the formaing in the above posts is o. I used blockquote tags but the end result doesnt
appearsasIexpected(thequotedpassagesindented).
REPLY
HugosWeaving|ThreePoundBrainsays:
April27,2015at7:39am
[] communicative habitat of the human being is changing more radically than at any time in
history,period.Theoldmodesofliterarydisseminationaredeadordying,andwiththemallthe[]
Reply
TheDemolishedPuppy4/27|File770says:
[] communicative habitat of the human being is changing more radically than at any time in
history,period.Theoldmodesofliterarydisseminationaredeadordying,andwiththemallthe[]
Reply
TheDeathofWilson:HowtheAcademicLeft
CreatedDonaldTrump|ThreePoundBrain says:
July21,2016at10:56am
[]thewheelhouseofwhathasbeenanoldconcernofmine.Formorethanadecadenow,Ivebeen
arguingthatthesocialhabitatofintellectualcultureiscollapsing,andthatthepersistenceoftheold
[]
Reply
Tothriveintheuid,multifariousinformation
habitatoftoday,theliteraryanimalmust
becomeachameleon.LEditie says:
August30,2016at2:38pm
[]S.Bakkeronthefutureofliteratureintheageofinformation,howtowriteliteratureattheend
oftheworld,andwritingafterthe[]
Reply
DonaldTrumpandtheFailureof20thCentury
ProgressiveCulture|ThreePoundBrain says:
November10,2016at11:34am
[] been telling literary writers that literature that challenges no one real is quite simply not
literature,butgenre.ForyearsnowIvebeenwarningaboutthewaytheacceleratingpaceofchange
[]
Reply
CreateafreewebsiteorblogatWordPress.com.

The Future of Literature in The Age of Information - Three Pound Brain

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

The Future of Literature in The Age of Information - Three Pound Brain

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

// TheFutureofLiteratureintheAgeofInformation|ThreePoundBrain

Inotherwords,writingliteraryctiontodayamountstowritingentertainment in the guise4/16

Inotherwords,writingliteraryctiontodayamountstowritingentertainment in the guise of

Fair enough. Well have to hope that there emerges

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi