Friday, April 19, 2024

Does a Ph.d in Literature Make You a Better Novelist?

It seems fair to say that a Ph.d in Literature does not help one much in getting a novel published.

However, is it likely to make one a better novelist--if only by artistic standards?

That question seems to me trickier.

I can certainly say that graduate work in Literature exposed me to a great deal of literature I might otherwise never have read, and a great many ways of looking at literature to which I might never otherwise have been exposed. It also required me to think a great deal about those works and those ideas.

In the process I can say that it trained me as a reader in some ways--not least, to find interest even in works that were not "entertaining" in the conventional sense, and to read systematically.

None of that is negative, per se. Yet I also think that, especially given the worship of Modernism and postmodernism, and my increasingly dim view of that, it was less helpful than it might have been.

There is, too, the fact that textbooks and professors generally tend to be better at retailing the conventional wisdom of the field than furnishing a deep understanding of the kind that can only come with a really detailed knowledge and critical perspective--the more in as so many devote their energies to more specialized work. Indeed, I would say that the student who has an instructor who can offer an intelligent answer to a question like "What is literature?" is exceptionally fortunate in their education. And for my part getting a handle on the major movements, the various standards, that have defined modern Western literature (the stuff at the heart of my book about it), was a lengthy process that only seriously got underway well after the completion of my formal training.

Still, I suspect that that process would never have begun without that prior preparation, for all its failings--a reminder of just how preliminary and preparatory a thing college course work tends to be.

What Do You Get Out of a Ph.d?

People talk a great deal about college degrees--and say very little of value about them.

Certainly one misconception evident in thinking about the whole range of fields of study is that having a doctorate entails mastery of an entire subject area.

In reality it is a preliminary--a preparation to begin the work that is likely to be the main source of learning the actual practice of their profession.

In his Capital in the Twenty-First Century Thomas Piketty, recounting his educational experience, remarked that at the end of his formal training, in which he completed a thesis "consist[ing] of several abstract mathematical theorems," he still "knew nothing about the world's economic problems."

Such self-awareness is likely to lead to a search after more substantial knowledge--as it did in his case, leading up to that particular book. Unfortunately such self-awareness and such searches are all too rare, especially in an intellectual and political culture so prone to seize on any badge of authority to elevate "experts" into a priesthood, which then sets about strangling any real discussion.

Does a Ph.d in Literature Help You Get a Novel Published?

Before going any further in discussing the question that is the title of this post I would like to be clear that I am concerned here with publishing, not writing--a very different endeavor that often has nothing whatsoever to do with the ability of an author to write (as the hyperabundance of celebrity-associated sludge on the bestseller lists indicates).

My experience is that while the "You Can Be a Bestselling Author Too!" industry tells those whose money it wants that they can acquire credentials that will help their blind submissions to the slush pile get something other than more form rejection letters this is merely another piece of aspirationalist dishonesty on their part--making their target audience think they have more control over their careers than they really do, and so more willing to spend on their proffered service. Certainly I found that mentioning such credentials made no difference whatsoever in the way agents and editors replied to me. There seem to me to be two reasons for that.

1. A Ph.d in Literature is no proof of being able to write a novel, let alone the kind of novel that a commercial publisher is likely to be looking for. After all, it is a training for teaching literature, and producing literary scholarship--very different activities. Of course, acquiring that training one reads a great deal of literature, is exposed to a great deal of literature, does a lot of thinking and writing about literature, and it may seem that this could be helpful in preparing a writer to produce a work of fiction, enough so to count for something in their favor. Still, the claim is more ambiguous, and given the ever-narrower interests of commercial publishing, it may be that they will even see such a preparation as irrelevant or even a disadvantage someone who has given much of their life to, for example, Romantic poetry or nineteenth century realist prose, appearing quite remote from the kind of work that today's publishers would want to put on the bookshelf.

2. Far more important than the ways in which an advanced degree in Literature may be of little relevance, or even a disadvantage, from the standpoint of the ability to produce a salable work of fiction is the fact that publishers are infinitely less interested in whether someone can write a book than whether their name can sell a book. This is, of course, not a thing admitted much these days, but Balzac spelled out very clearly in Lost Illusions (the kind of work by the kind of author today's publishers are unlikely ever to read, and knowledge of which they would probably regard as being to an author's discredit), and the reality has not changed one iota since. Indeed, there is ample reason to think that any number of factors have only encouraged the latterday Dauriats in their obscene crassness, as what was only emergent in Balzac's day developed in full.

Spy and Military Techno-Thriller Fiction

This page lists my Social Science Research Network (SSRN) working papers addressing the subject of spy and military techno-thriller fiction.

"The Decline of the Spy Story and the Transformation of the Thriller in the 1990s: The Data From the Bestseller List." (2018)

"American and British Attitudes Toward Spy Fiction: A Note." (2023)

"Spies, Elites and Imperial Decline: Fleming, Haggard, and le Carré." (2023)

"The Rise and Fall of the Military Techno-Thriller." (2018)

"The Military Techno-Thriller: A History." (2023)

"Military Techno-Thriller Fiction and the Bestseller List, 1985-2000." (2018)

"The American Military Techno-Thriller and the Debate Over Women in Combat of the 1990s." (2024)

"Reliving the 1940s in the 1990s: Germany and Japan in the Military Techno-Thriller." (2024)

"The Weirdness of James Bond's World: How Thorstein Veblen's Theory of the Leisure Class Helps Us Understand Ian Fleming's 007." (2021)

"'What Makes an Action Film an Action Film?': How the James Bond Movies Defined the Genre." (2021)

Social Withdrawal

This page lists my Social Science Research Network (SSRN) working papers addressing the subject of social withdrawal.

"Japan's Lost Generation, the World's Lost Generation and an Epoch of Social Withdrawal: A Note." (2022)

"Beyond Japan: A Note on the Hikikomori Phenomenon in America." (2022)

"Hikikomori Nation: A Note on the Possible Dimensions of the Phenomenon in America." (2022)

"Are Attitudes Toward Work Changing? A Note." (2021)

"Low Unemployment, or Just Undercounted Unemployment? A Note on America's "Full Employment" in 2019." (2019)

"Is a Flight into Virtuality Already Underway? A Consideration of Changing Lifeways in the Early Twenty-First Century." (2021)

Science Fiction

This page lists my Social Science Research Network (SSRN) working papers addressing various aspects of science fiction.

"Ecological Catastrophe and the Neoliberal Imagination." (2020)

"Of Singularitarianism and Flying Cars: Our Changing Images of the Future, and Our Changing Economic Models." (2020)

"'Why Superheroes?' Explaining a Pop Cultural Phenomenon." (2022)

"'Why Zombies?' A Note on Zombie Imagery in Contemporary Culture— and Contemporary Economic and Socioeconomic Commentary." (2022)

"Why Does Discussion of Pop Culture Make Up So Large a Part of Political Discourse in Twenty-First Century America?" (2022)

Politics and Popular Culture

This page lists my Social Science Research Network (SSRN) working papers addressing the subject of politics and popular culture.

"Ecological Catastrophe and the Neoliberal Imagination." (2020)

"Of Singularitarianism and Flying Cars: Our Changing Images of the Future, and Our Changing Economic Models." (2020)

"Liberal Hollywood? A Note on the Conventional Wisdom." (2022)

"Why Does Discussion of Pop Culture Make Up So Large a Part of Political Discourse in Twenty-First Century America?" (2022)

"Cyber-Utopianism and Reality: A Note on the Politics of the Internet." (2024)

"To What Extent Was the Left Ever Actually 'Cyber-Utopian?': A Note." (2024)

"The Ascent of the Internet and the Ascent of the Culture War in American Political Life: A Note." (2024)

"Thomas Frank's 'Market Populism': Is it Still Relevant?" (2022)

The 1990s

This page lists my Social Science Research Network (SSRN) working papers addressing the subject of the 1990s and its popular culture.

"The Mood of America in the 1990s: A Note on the American Political Imagination After the Cold War." (2024)

"The 'Information Age' Narrative and the Deflection of the Declinist Critique: A Note on the Tech Boom of the 1990s and Its Impact on American Politics." (2023)

"Thomas Frank's 'Market Populism': Is it Still Relevant?" (2022)

"What Made the '90s so 'Extreme?' A Note on the 'Extreme' Aesthetic of the Decade." (2024)

"Revisiting the 'Extreme' Culture of the 1990s: A Fuller Consideration." (2023)

"The Decline of the Spy Story and the Transformation of the Thriller in the 1990s: The Data From the Bestseller List." (2018)

"The American Military Techno-Thriller and the Debate Over Women in Combat of the 1990s." (2024)

"Reliving the 1940s in the 1990s: Germany and Japan in the Military Techno-Thriller." (2024)

My SSRN (Social Science Research Network)-Published Papers

I have been publishing through the Social Science Research Network since 2018--or about six years. My papers vary greatly in subject and length, but the total number of them now comes to 170 at last count.

Given the number it seems to me appropriate to do something about organizing them for the reader--and so I have decided to here organize those relevant to this blog's themes by subject, allotting a page of this blog to each of those subjects that I have found myself writing about time and again. Where its subject matter makes this appropriate, I have listed some papers on more than one page, or even under more than one heading.

The links to those subject pages are listed below in alphabetical order.

The 1990s.

Politics and Popular Culture.

Science Fiction.

Social Withdrawal.

Spy and Military Techno-Thriller Fiction.

Social Withdrawal and the Cost of Being with Others

In writing about social withdrawal I have tended to write mainly about the economic and socioeconomic factors that seem to me to encourage this--the way the gap between "middle class" aspirations and what people are actually achieving, for example, has grown, the high monetary costs of participating in social life, and how all these create inducements for people to just "drop out" of the job market, the dating market, every market, and stay home, and immerse themselves in the world of Azeroth (or whatever has replaced it these days).

Still, it does seem to me that the quality of interpersonal relations does enter into this. I recall, for example, David Foster Wallace writing that the lonely are often people not willing to bear the costs of being with others--emotional as well as financial. It stands to reason that those who give more and get less satisfaction out of the experience of being with others--who, around others, find themselves repressing themselves all the time, for example; who find themselves enduring rather than enjoying the company of other people--will simply have less to do with those others. The resulting isolation may not be what they really want out of life--but as is much more often the case than those pampered idiots who speak so pompously about "choice" admit, life for most people, most of the time, is about what seems "least-worst" within a fairly unappealing range of options rather than the truly desirable.

It also seems to me the case that there is an interaction between the economic and the emotional here. Those who have not managed to live up to social expectations and "fit in" for whatever reason have fewer contacts and less status. Their choice of personal relations is smaller, and whatever their range of choice the people they deal with are likely to treat them less well--leaving them with that much more incentive to keep to themselves.

The Automation of Rejection

In that truest portrait yet of the struggles of the aspiring writer, Jack London's Martin Eden, the eponymous protagonist, in the course of receiving one form rejection letter after another, begins to wonder if he is dealing not with human-staffed organizations, but with a machine that returns form rejections for submissions in exactly the same manner that a vending machine would give a stick of gum in return for a coin.

If there is any difference between that experience and the writer's experience of today it is that, especially these last few years, the process probably has become genuinely more automated--and continues to become more so all the time. For many years it has been common for writers to submit work to publishers through online forms.

Given what we know about how employers automate the sifting of job-hunters' résumés to weed out much before there is call for any human to look at anything, and indeed job interviews now seem to be handled by artificial intelligence it is very, very easy to picture publishers turning over the low-priority work of dealing with the slush pile that turns the interns who deal with it into nasty little trolls pouring forth their abuse on aspiring writers in publications whose editors ought to know better (Salon, Guardian) over to algorithms and chatbots--which then dutifully arrange the dispatch of yet another copy of that e-mail saying "Please excuse the impersonal nature of this reply . . ."

"Please Excuse the Impersonal Nature of the Reply": What Rejection Letters Really Say to Those Who Get Them

It is a truism that those pursuing a career as a writer, and submitting their work for publication, experience a great deal of rejection, overwhelmingly by way of form rejection slips. Those who acknowledge the fact commonly wear on their faces that "smelled a fart" expression that stupid people think conveys gravitas and say something like "Rejection? Yes, terrible that," as if the emotional wound of a "No" in reply to one piece of their work was all that they suffered.

Of course, that is not at all the case.

There is the fact that submitting that work was a time-consuming, sometimes costly, never pleasant process--and the time, effort, money that went into that submission was completely wasted.

There is the reminder, not least by way of that "impersonal" reply, that the other party has all of the power in the relationship, they have none, and the other party makes the fullest use of its advantage in controlling the terms of the exchange so completely--with that impersonal rejection letter that rendered no satisfaction whatsoever peremptorily cutting off the conversation. ("Don't call us. We won't call you.") Because they are of no account whatsoever in the eyes of those who sent that form letter, and it matters not in the slightest if they do not excuse the impersonal nature of the reply.

And there is, for those who have been at the activity of collecting such rejection letters for a while, the way that each and every one of those letters affirms them in the increasing suspicion that those rejection letters are all they will ever get--because, contrary to the Big Lie that keeps alive that vast industry living on the hopes of aspiring authors (the books and workshops and courses and the rest), publishing is not some big meritocracy, the slush pile is in fact exceedingly marginal within the publishing world's release schedules, and, as Jack London's Martin Eden began to wonder amid his own struggles, he was not dealing with human beings, just a machine that took in submissions and returned rejections the way a vending machine takes coins and gives out sticks of gum.

The wastage, the humiliating treatment to which they are subjected as inferiors, and the impression of fraud and futility--all that is also conveyed by the rejection letter, and it is all the more devastating when trying to get published was not some whim, but their sole hope of a life they would find worth living, as it was for Eden.

But of course, this is more than the sort of person whose idea of expressing gravitas is pulling a "smelled a fart" face can wrap their small mind around.

On Not "Quitting Your Day Job"

It is, of course, the case that the artist endeavoring to make a career for themselves but not yet making it pay, and at the same time not independently wealthy or supported by other people, usually holds a "day job" to support themselves until they can make a living from their true vocation.

Most people see no great difficulty in that--and react to any suggestion that there may be difficulty with glib dismissals such as "T.S. Eliot was a banker!"

Those people, of course, are quite stupid--as they demonstrate by speaking such non sequiturs.

Not only is it the case that a day job automatically leaves less time, energy and freedom for artistic activity (for which those trying to make a real start are likely to find there are never enough hours in even the best of circumstances), but, while Day Jobs are not all the same, they are especially unlikely to be Dream Jobs. Few are the positions that are secure and pay well and yet open to someone whose real interest is elsewhere. Many are in fact insecure, ill-paid, unpleasant--and in the process take a lot more from the artist than the hours they consume.

A day job one cannot stand, the material hardship they may have to endure as a result of low pay with its additional toll on their time and energy, etc., have their effect on artistic output--and contrary to stupid remarks about how "The artist must suffer!" (a lame excuse for society's denying aspiring artists support, if not sadistic punching down at a low-status group), not a positive one. In the worst cases the day job may make the night job an empty pretension--the artist only hoping to create, rather than actually doing so because after a long day's work at that day job they are simply too run down to do anything more (as Martin Eden finds when he tries juggling a day job with his authorial efforts). Even if they do have some opportunity to create left, with the day job having the first claim on their time and energy, and their time chopped to bits by its demands, and learning the hard way that their creative faculties do not necessarily obey the clock (they may be readiest to produce just when they have to run off to work, least productive when they do have the time, etc.), there is just less of them to put into the work as, fighting for hours and even minutes in which to get something done, everything but the day and night jobs gets squeezed out--outside interests, social life, all those things that all people need, and which are also indispensable to enriching the work of the creative (the writer will find they no longer have time to read!), as they go about overtaxed all the time, exhausted all the time, rushed all the time, doing far from their best all the time, and maybe miserable all the time, especially if there is not much to buck up their hopes. Indeed, in the absence of what David in Lost Illusions called a "sublime cynicism" toward their hardships (a matter of saintliness rather than artistic genius), they are likely to find themselves aiming for low-hanging fruit rather than the masterpiece that may be the work of a lifetime, while an emotional and intellectual impoverishment is apt to produce work to match.

Grinding and frustrating as this all is it might be tolerable if it goes on for only a little while--the artist finding some alleviation of their situation, some encouragement, some practical relief after the initial hardships. But many are likely to find the hardships simply going on and on, themselves living this way for years--decades--of giving everything and getting nothing in return, perhaps not even a piece of work they can be proud of, as they look down to find themselves still standing on "square one." A particularly cruel irony for those who had thought that following an artistic career would permit them a broader, richer, freer life than the narrow existence they could expect (and most people get) from the workaday job, they are likely to feel they have wasted their lives--the more in as whoever is left in their life is likely to say to them "I told you so" at any and every opportunity (empathy and sympathy from even their nearest and dearest, as Balzac and Jack London candidly acknowledged, not something an aspiring artist is likely to have in their lives).

Given the economic realities that mean so few artists have any opportunity to gain any recognition at all, things would likely go the same way for many of them even if they did not have to hold down a day job. But there is no denying that it made the road harder, that it meant less realization of their potential than would otherwise have been the case, and all the hand-waving of the unsympathetic does nothing but advertise their essential meanness whenever anyone points out any of the less pleasant facts of life.

Getting Superhero Fatigue Before it Was Cool: My Early Case

As my blogging here shows, I had anticipated a collapse of interest in the superhero film genre long before the annus horriblis of 2023 that saw The Flash, Captain Marvel 2 and Aquaman 2 all crash and burn at the box office, throwing WBD and Disney-Marvel into crisis.

I guess that part of it was my taking a deeper interest in the genre than the general audience--familiarizing myself with the history of the form, not only picking up a comic now and then but actively trying to get to know the classics (reading my way through many a volume of the Marvel Essentials, etc.), and looking at it with the same critical gaze I had grown accustomed to applying to science fiction (for instance, thinking about whether there was any room for meaningful innovation left within the framework of the genre). It seemed to me that by Alan Moore's time the superhero comic book was already fairly late in its life cycle as a genre, and that impressive and significant as his work was, it just testified to the genre's approaching the end, rather than offering any source of renewal. (In art as in other things "deconstruction" is an end, not a beginning.)

However, there was also the fact that long before the twenty-first century boom in big-budget features about A-list Marvel and DC superheroes I had already seen plenty of the genre, and much of that stuck with me. There was the original 1978 Superman: The Movie and its first sequel (Superman II)--against which every other screen incarnation of the character would be measured and found wanting, precisely because later filmmakers failed to respect the spirit of the original vision as they indulged their pretensions to "adult" and "dark" and "gritty" matter, not that we had not already seen plenty of that before 2000. (Recall Tim Burton's Batman? Recall the '90s-era feature films depicting the Crow and Spawn and Blade?) And there were all those memorable small-screen versions, of which I have tended to grow more appreciative with the years--the old Adam West Batman, the Lynda Carter Wonder Woman series, and of course, the animated X-Men series (testimony to the lingering cultural presence of which is this X-Men '97 thing).

Of course, in spite of that I did enjoy many of the twenty-first century films--especially the first two of the Sam Raimi Spider-Man films, while if I became less impressed with them over time, I was also appreciative of the first two of Christopher Nolan's Batman movies. I was in fact favorable to many a film that the common run of opinion treated fairly brutally--like the 2008 Hulk film, and the 2009 adaptation of Moore's classic Watchmen.

But it was, like everything else, part of a broader body of work that extended further into the past, all as I had developed likes and dislikes and standards the way everyone does when they see a lot of a thing. This left the offerings of the Marvel Cinematic Universe and DC Extended Universe thin and flat and trite from the start. Meanwhile the X-Men movies, if increasingly dazzling visually, were far along the path of diminishing returns narratively, the reboot of Spider-Man with Andrew Garfield retreaded the same path far too soon, and Deadpool's ostentatious postmodernism (its self-awareness, its edgelordism) were wearisome. I still managed to have some positive words for 2015's Fantastic Four--but if there were some interesting elements there was no denying that taken as a whole it was a misfire, and amid a growing sense of creative exhaustion and sameness and desperation in arguing for the novelty of the newer offerings, it seemed less and less worth my while to try and catch every single new movie the way I once had done, as I wondered just how long all this could go on.

The financial catastrophes of last year, alas, answered that question--though it remains to be seen how the people in Hollywoodland will respond to that.

Of Old Genre Fans

As I have often remarked in the past, the history of science fiction has in the main been written by science fiction's writers and fans (in which capacity the writers tended to be operating when they took up historiography), rather than the kinds of scholars who generally handle literary history--especially when we look away from the college professors handling bits of the genre in abstruse ways to those attempting to provide a broader picture of the field.

Reading my way through their books I was often surprised, and not pleasantly, by how negative those writers often were about their field, not least in their constantly trashing its classics.

Later I ceased to be surprised. The eager fan new to a genre is likely to be very open to different kinds of material, and comparatively uncritical about what they look at, and respectful of received opinion. But as they get to know a genre better they form preferences--and develop antipathies. It also takes more to impress them, because they have something by which to judge what they see. And as a result they can get a lot more questioning of the "conventional wisdom." By the time they are in a position to write a book they are likely to be well past that point--and indeed many seemed simply cantankerous.

However, they often had plenty of insights to share, too, insights I often came to appreciate a good deal later--and which in hindsight seemed to me to make the cantankerousness well worth bearing with.

Subscribe Now: Feed Icon