Are There Literary Cults, and Are They Dangerous?
By Barry Knister | July 21, 2018 |
In his short story, “What We Talk About When We Talk About Love,” Raymond Carver sets two couples to talking on the subject of love, They are drinking gin to help them discover what they mean, but by story’s end, there is no resolution. The four have talked their way through an afternoon, from daylight to darkness. Carver leaves them there, in the dark both literally and metaphorically.
I don’t want to end up in the same place, but my subject is love, specifically the love that readers have for the written word, and for writers. I think the distinction between the two is worth considering.
Here’s a hypothetical. I visit a well-known writer’s website. The writer is promoting his latest suspense novel, in the course of which he laments how little support he’s been getting from those closest to him, his friends and family.
The writer acknowledges how time-starved so many of us are, and that reading is time-consuming. He even goes so far as to acknowledge a simple if depressing truth: many people just don’t like to read. Even so, it seems to him the neglect he feels is not his imagination. Even if those he knows don’t have time to read or can’t be bothered, it seems reasonable to him that they would show a little interest in what he does. He has been let down, and wants people to know it.
When I read these complaints, I think there’s something wrong. I comment to the effect that this successful, admired writer seems to be engaged in self-pity. Of course I know what he’s talking about. With a handful of exceptions, who among the community of writers doesn’t know? But reading this writer’s expression of being wronged just doesn’t seem right. Not in the face of his success in the marketplace.
Is my comment motivated by envy for a writer much more successful than I am? That’s certainly possible: I write suspense novels, too. But in my view, even if my motives are questionable, that’s not relevant. To me, the writer deserves to be challenged about his complaint.
Reaction is swift. One person replies to my comment by saying it’s wrong to criticize anyone for thinking out loud about something that bothers him. We all have the right to express ourselves on anything, and who am I to say otherwise. Another tells me that if I knew the author, I would understand that he never complains about anything, that he’s tough as nails. Not only is he tough, but he’s also mindful of sensitive matters related to race, class, gender, and the environment. Another supporter points out that the author is extremely dedicated to his craft, plus he goes out of his way to help other novelists.
I am an older writer, so my takeaway from all this may be influenced by my age. First, it’s true: I don’t know the writer. I’ve never gone to a reading or book-signing of his, I’m not on his mailing list, and we’ve never met at a conference. Those who have defended him obviously do know him in some way, and they see my criticism as unfair. The writer should be left alone. He’s hard-working, and makes every effort to do his best, plus he champions socially responsible goals in his work.
For me, as a writer, these reactions reveal a new, dubious aspect of our craft.
First, the words I’m reacting to in this hypothetical situation are taken from an author’s blog. That’s something not only unheard of but impossible until very recently. Secondly, those who leap to the defense of my hypothetical novelist do so in terms that have nothing do with the words he wrote and that I read. They are mostly the defenses we offer for friends and family. Those close to us are good people, and we want others to know how hard-working and morally admirable they are.
This I think is both the appeal and the danger posed by the rise of social media. In the current moment, writers are far less likely to succeed if they don’t create a posse of online followers. These supporters are encouraged to develop something like a familial or at least a personal relationship with the author. When this happens, the writer sells more books, and readers enjoy a sense of belonging to something like a fan club, or even a cult.
Is this in any way dangerous?
If you think that what we talk about when we talk about lit should focus first on what’s written, not on friendship or admiration, then yes, it’s potentially dangerous. To the degree the growing emphasis on electronic fandom shapes our reactions, the importance of good writing and clear thinking is almost certainly diminished. Fandom also reduces the likelihood of writers gaining the advantage of hearing the unvarnished truth.
More importantly, if we think of the effect these burgeoning, personalized connections between writer and reader are likely to have on the reviewing process, and on critical thinking in general, there’s nothing trivial about it.
What do you think? Is this is a matter of real importance, or an older writer’s overreaction to changing times? Have you “pulled your punches” and silenced yourself as a consequence of knowing a writer too well to risk speaking the truth? Did you decide it was just a matter of good manners, not one of honesty?
In other words, do you think the growing media-enabled connection between reader and writer is blurring our commitment to critical thinking in favor of fandom and loyalty?
After a career in college teaching, Barry Knister returned to fiction writing. For several years, he served as secretary for Detroit Working Writers, and for two years he directed the Cranbrook Summer Writers Conference. He is the author of the Brenda Contay mystery/suspense series. Just Bill , a short novel about dogs and their owners living on a golf course in Naples, Florida will soon be joined by another novel set in the same fictional golf community. Now and then, Barry also gives in to a whimsical impulse, and writes short posts for several Medium publications. He and his wife Barbara live in Pleasant Ridge, a suburb just north of Detroit. Barry looks forward to hearing from you, either through Facebook , his website , or bwknister@sbcglobal.net . Insult comedians are welcome.
Fans as a posse, mob, gang? The tribal nature of our times is pervasive, and of course it can be seen in the publishing realm too. I used to notice a divide between literary and commercial writers. Nowadays the enemy nations seem to be print and indie. The fierce enmity of the early days of e-books has receded, but I suspect that it is less a dawning peace than a temporary cease fire. The cultural differences run deep, which is too bad since we all believe in the same thing: stories.
What will happen? I can’t say that except to forecast this: Things will change. They always do.
The very word “posse,” taken back to earlier days, resonates. It suggests the drawing of battle lines before a battle or even its combatants have been defined. These days, heads of state all the way down to two-bit sheriffs have their posses. I want my posse… want my posse…I want my posse…even more than the best words in the best order do I want my posse. How can I even touch pen to paper or fingers to keyboard without knowing my posse is on call?
Hi Anna. Thanks for commenting. I think you’re right: writers these days are often encouraged to work at assembling a posse even before they publish. I use the word in terms of the Old West. A group of locals (readers) is deputized (through contact with a writer). They mount up, follow where the lawman leads, and do/say whatever he would like them to. I can’t help thinking of this in relation to the bad name that “loyalty” has gotten lately. Forget skepticism, forget independence of mind. Loyalty is all.
I started a Patreon account, and will have that kind of relationship – more personal, more on-going, more immediate – with those who want it, more or less on my terms.
But neither there nor on my regular blogs am I comfortable doing what this author did, complaining about readers and how they do or do not react to my writing. Because I’d have to go back and remove all of them some day. My mother said never to say something you’d have to take back (she meant it in context of marriage, but it will serve in general), because you can’t un-say things, and the other person can’t un-hear them.
We all start at zero, and we all find out that the people we love and spend time with and bond with over Christmas and Scouts and camping trips are not our ideal readers. And our fellow writers are usually not either. My first writing partner – and good friend – writes thrillers and spy novels. I write mainstream. We were both delighted to find anyone who wrote at all. The critiques stopped almost as soon as they started – neither of us wants to risk the friendship.
To answer your question: yes, I think we should censor the heck out of ourselves. Lets keep some mystery going so our readers don’t see the man behind the curtain in the throne room of Oz. We can’t give fans the whole of us – nor are they interested in the boring details. They just want the media hype – if you’re an exhibitionist at all, give them bits of that. But overdo, and you will end up feeling exposed and neglected, and they’ll move on to the next in thing.
And if anything turns sour, there’s an awful lot more of them.
Hello Alicia. Thanks for contributing to the discussion. Your example of tact and diplomacy between writers fits in a positive way here.
But my hypothetical attempts to illustrate how fandom works against honesty on the part of both writers and readers. In my example, the writer’s fans jump to his defense, not on the basis of what he wrote, but in terms of his work habits, upright character, support for good causes, etc. All that’s missing is a list of the stray dogs he’s rescued. This may be interesting in some other context, but I don’t think it has much to do with the criticism made of what the writer wrote.
And yet, as in the case of many politically incorrect (according to our lights) writers of the past, we hesitate to read them because they were on the wrong side of history. If they can be dismissed because of their character, maybe we should also let them be defended because of it.
Just pointing out the logical flaws that can arise.
I got involved in a Goodreads thread with that kind of an attitude: they waited until anything didn’t please a couple of the more vocal members, and then pounced. My guess was that their preconceived notion – indies are all bad writers – was so strong that they couldn’t allow for variation, even though they said they were fair and open.
Not arguing with your premise so much as stretching it a bit.
I’ve become very frustrated with the pervasive advice of using social media to gain fans… of you. I want people to be fans of my work and would prefer they knew as little about me as possible. But now in this age of “authenticity” and “openness,” preserving your private self for your family and real friends is considered a no-no. So much of the advice on how to sell your book devolves into advice on how to make “friends” on Twitter, thus leading to the cultish swarming behavior you mentioned in the post. I don’t see anything good about it. Not for literature and not for society.
Kristen–Thanks for saying what you’ve said. It flies in the face of what in the name of irony you put in quote marks–“authenticity” and “openness.” The whole idea of making “friends” and checking to see how many “likes” you get is completely at odds with actual authenticity. I also like what you say about “preserving your private self,” instead of exploiting such details to sell, sell, sell.
Hi Bill,
I think you’ve touched on something, definitely. Regardless of the level of success, I have witnessed writers displaying their arrogance or displeasure at not getting the attention (sales, readership, followers, etc) they feel they deserve. And part of me can understand – we all feel unhappy about our situations sometimes. We all feel frustrated. We all feel we have worked so hard for so little. Sometimes. But that doesn’t mean it makes sense to post it on a blog or publicly.
Isn’t that what journals and diaries are for?
And I don’t want to be overly cynical, but it’s not out of the realm of possibility that this particular writer posted it intentionally, perhaps to get some sympathy sales. I’ve seen writers do screwier things than that.
But the nature of fandom, has always been pretty intense. Try going to a Dodger game and cheering for the Giants and you’ll see it live in the real world. But yes, the Internet has helped to amplify it. Considerably. Probably because you can do the most outrageous things online and (seemingly) suffer no consequences.
So I wouldn’t say cult but yes, there can be a sort of mob mentality that gets going. And pity the poor fellow who challenges that.
Your post also triggered some thoughts I had regarding a type of cult-ish behavior I’ve witnessed in writers – or rather groups of writers. Because the post that you cite of this writer is not unusual in terms of attitudes and discussions that happen in groups on social media and just social media in general. But I should probably leave it at that.
Good post. Thanks.
I find it interesting that that in calling you out for a critical comment, they are denying your right to say what you think.
I used to contribute to sites that review opening pages. On one occasion, I called an opening boring and I was attacked by my fellow contributors. If you fight back, you will eventually be called a Nazi. Now I keep my honest opinions to myself.
Brian–There you go. Or don’t go, not when you’re attacked for making a critical comment. Assuming you had reasons for calling an opening boring, and made your reasons clear, you engaged in a grown-up discussion that the writer should welcome. He can come to see you’re right, or make clear to you his/her reasons for thinking you’re wrong. In either case, something useful is going on, not empty compliments or equally empty insults.
Thanks for words of wisdom from your own experience.
“… something useful is going on, not empty compliments or equally empty insults.” What a great concept! Thank you.
Perhaps we should adopt a variation on “If you can’t say something nice…” When offering feedback and counter-feedback, I propose: “If you can’t say something useful and relevant, don’t say anything.”
Sounds right on the money to me, Janice.
Hi Anita. Thanks for a comment worthy of thought in its own right. I don’t think you’re being “overly cynical” at all. A real part of the problem is writers “gaming the system,” manipulating social media to create bonds for the purpose of boosting sales. As for ventilating frustration, that’s become all too easy to do. Long ago T.S. Eliot drew a distinction between tough-minded and tender-minded poets. He advocated for tough-mindedness. I guess I do, too. Not callousness or disregard for feelings, but a little less selfie-like preoccupation. For both writers and readers.
Selfie-like preoccupation is an apt description. I’ve seen it too many times. A writer friend wants to be alpha dog, spending more time posting on social media her author accomplishments, reviews, blurbs, endorsements, pics, what she had for dinner at five, how she meditated at the river at seven, how she was speaking afterward and signing books…. Apparently it’s a cult following she’s after.
And yes, I’d call it a cult. Allen Ginsburg called his literary community a cult. What else is it when a writer, operating from a narcissistic center, keeps the focus always on oneself? When I say ‘narcissistic center’ I’m speaking more of my friend than Allen, because I don’t even know him. But I do know what I’ve witnessed on social media, not only from my friend, but of others who are fueled by attention and adoration.
I could go on and on, as I’ve seen this dynamic one time too many. Excellent post. Thank you.
Debra–What you’re talking about may stem from narcissism, a growing, societal preoccupation with the self–or from something equally depressing. People who furnish their minds with plenty of learning, ideas, and carefully observed experience are capable of critical thinking. They have lots to talk and write about besides stubbed toes and hangnails. Those who don’t learn beyond, say, what applies to a genre dwell in the mental equivalent of a sparsely-furnished feng shui house.
I understand the desire for support. We writers are a sensitive lot. But rather than dwell on what we feel is lack of support, let’s ask ourselves why we write. If we write to receive accolades, we are bound for disappointment. If we write for the joy of the craft, the lift it gives our souls, the satisfaction of a well turned sentence or a well told story, we are sure to feel the pleasure that accomplishment provides. Maybe that is all there is. But is it enough. Usually it needs to be. Writing is a solitary act. The pleasure it gives us is solitary too. Relying on a fan base as a measure of success can only bring us down, because fans are fickle and unreliable. Consider this: What I think about when I think about writing.
Hello Sharon. As you say, writing is a solitary act–and writers are a sensitive lot. I would argue (and I think you would agree) that for this very reason, we do well to avoid giving lots of public emphasis to our sensitivity, at least as it relates to feelings of neglect or emotional reaction to criticism.
Most fans enjoy personal details, and they root for the writer who is pressing on during challenges. I know three much-published writers at the moment who are writing and meeting deadlines in the midst of chemo treatments. It has been rough for them, and they’ve been honest about the challenges, but never complainy or whiny. The writer you talked about sounds rather whiny to me.
It might be my age too, but whining sounds childish. We have become such an easily offended society. It’s a very small percentage of writers, published or not, who have family members and friends who read their stuff. For probably 90% of writers, that truth is something you have to get over! Your readers are rarely your family members, and we don’t have to make it mean that we are neglected. I would guess that it is almost never intended that way.
Kristi–“We have become such an easily offended society.” Too true. It’s almost a litmus test to establish credibility: how vigilant can you be in detecting slights or oversights committed against you and your constituency? How pure is your loyalty to your political party–or to a particular writer?
Even before the media-enabled connection between reader and writer came into being, there were loyal fans. Fandom mentality is passionate.
Most people do not have a commitment to critical thinking, so no blurring has occurred.
Or, very little blurring has occurred.
Tina–I would agree with you when you say most people aren’t committed to critical thinking. I would actually go further: most people have no idea what critical thinking is. But among those who do know and practice it, I hope–and still believe–a good many of them are writers.
Bill–I enjoyed reading your perspective. I just turned 61 (feel more like 41) and have seen myriad changes in the writing world since I sold in 2002. I don’t miss AOL and dial-up, but I do miss a sense of writing without a sense of the world looking over my shoulder.
My best friend sold her first book about 30 years ago. We talk a lot about how the role of a writer has changed. She remembers when writers were somewhat mysterious creatures who emerged from their writing castles every couple of years with a 500 page masterpiece. Now we have daily conversations with readers, and writing fast is expected–and necessary for financial survival.
There are pros and cons, of course. I love interacting with readers, but I miss the writing castle, the moat, and the chance to write, work, and create without distraction.
Victoria–thanks for your wise words. The whole “writing fast is expected” thing is worth its own post. It seems likely to me that internet/media fandom is a large part of what drives this new, forced-march-from-Bataan emphasis on production, the preoccupation with daily word count, etc. Forget taking time to get it right, just get it out there, and then get back to work. Your fans must have another book soon, or they’ll forget you and wander away to someone else.
I’m with you, Barry. I don’t share much of a personal nature with readers. I don’t engage regularly on Twitter or Facebook, and only use my “R.E. Donald, author” accounts to make announcements about an upcoming release, a conference I’m attending, or to answer a question about how my current WIP is coming along. My personal life is, well, personal.
I’m not interested in having a posse. As a reader, I like to read a good mystery and am grateful to the author for having written it, but I don’t need the author to be my friend and (I may be wrong, but) I assume most of my readers feel the same.
As far as being critical of other writers, I don’t tend to review other writers’ work, again to avoid mixing my personal self with my author self. I also don’t worry much about negative or critical reviews of my own work. Different strokes and all.
It’s an interesting topic and I’m glad you brought it up.
Ruth
Ruth–thank you for commenting. As I say in my post, it’s very possible that my reaction to all this stems from my being older. I was brought up not to be stoical, but to exercise self-control. This phase of my development was not very successful, but I still consider it a value. I was educated in a time when skepticism/critical thinking (often confused with criticism) was emphasized, and emotional self-examination was not. When the personal/emotional seems to intrude on thinking, that bothers me. I think the best insights come when they merge.
Having had a career in performing arts long before I switched over to writing, I can commiserate with any artist who laments a lack of emotional an spiritual support from the people who surround him. Performing requires the performer to be constantly “on” and to maintain (or pretend) a level of enthusiasm that is often generated only by knowing there is an audience waiting to witness it. Performers know how much energy this requires, and we usually try to maintain our enthusiasm and support for other performers because, frankly, we know what feeling unappreciated is like, and it’s so so hard.
When I started my MFA program for writing, one of the first things I was told was that “writing was a lonely business.” Coming from the performing culture, I was shocked to see exactly HOW lonely a writing career is. I can completely understand a writer being frustrated by the lack of support from friends and family — because they are all that writer has. We performers had it good. Writers may have a critique group, but they don’t really have other writers actively pushing them to do this thing every day, or rallying behind them when things get tough. Friends and family should do this, but I often see that they don’t, possibly because writing isn’t taken as seriously as the “day job” or it’s perceived that writing doesn’t require the same skill as the performer. I don’t know. But that has got to be hard to live with every day.
As far as a cabal or posse of fans, I would argue that ANY successful creative eventually finds him or herself surrounded by people who take an active interest in either the creator or the creation. The performer/audience relationship is not NEARLY as intimate as that of the writer/reader. As a reader myself, I’ve felt an oddly personal connection with the writer of a book that just happened to affect me emotionally at the right time in my life. Sometimes I feel as though Haruki Murakami writes just for me, as though he has a direct line to my emotional center and knows just what I want to read, what I need him to say.
Readers tend to feel “ownership” of a writer, if they respond well to that writer’s work, and that can lead to loyalism, but also fans are very easily disappointed. The public is fickle. If you write the wrong book (for them) at the wrong time, you can lose readers. We used to say “The audience will love you until they hate you,” and I see a similar sentiment in readers.
Social media and the author’s personal and political feelings DO impact their readership. I have a “black list” of indie authors who have acted so beastly on social media that I will never buy or read their books. Life is too short to waste it on unpleasant people. If anything, social media is allowing readers to whittle down the height of their “to be read” piles.
Amanda–You have a great deal to say here, but I will offer only this. Yes, writing books is often a lonely enterprise, one that for most of us lacks that sense of shared struggle and mission I think must figure in a troupe of dancers, musicians, or ensemble actors. But in my view we make a free choice to write, and no one, including family or friends “should” rally behind us. If they do, that’s great. As you say, writing is also very hard work–and here, the would “should” applies. If it’s not hard, it should be, and something is wrong.
You can sum it up to old-man syndrome, but I am once again lamenting the digital age—in particularly, social media. I miss the days when authors had a mystique about them. Even if they were the types that were celebrities, we knew little more about their lives than the glimpses offered in interviews, talk-show appearances, and the brief bios on their book jackets. Now we can get daily updates on what TV shows they are watching, what comic book conventions they are attending (yes, comic book conventions; I wonder how the authors of yore would have felt about comic book conventions). Sometimes we get updates such as what they are having for breakfast, lunch, and dinner. Sometimes we are informed that the author has a headache, a cold, or other trivial tidbits about their physical status. Not long ago, one reputable author announced on social media that she had stubbed her toe, and she provided photos. (This same author also frequently complained of digestive issues such a diarrhea. I’m glad she didn’t provide photos).
There used to be a time when authors (whether of celebrity status or the average wordsmith plugging out stories on a pay-per-word basis) were protective of their children’s privacy. Now we get to see what their children get for birthdays and Christmas, what their latest Crayon drawing is, what their Halloween costume is, what foods they like and dislike—pretty much anything that is a part of the life of any parent’s child. How is this interesting? Why should we be informed about this? In the past, people (including authors) with children would only share this information with family members and friends—not random strangers from Jerkwater U.S.A.
I am not saying that authors used to be regarded as super human, removed from the mundane aspects of life. It’s just that we did not know about those things in their life because it was none of our business, and they did not discuss it. To do so would have been considered rude on the author’s part. It was also believed, and rightly so, that no one cared. Yes, such knowledge of their lives brings the authors to the level of a common person—the reader and the aspiring writer. But do you really want that? Weren’t you more in awe of an author when there was a mystique—a distance—associated with them?
Remember writers such as Harper Lee and J.D. Salinger? Their avoidance of attention only made them more interesting. You may argue that an author’s work should be enough to make them interesting, but sometimes the less we know about our literary heroes, the more we are interested in them. One name comes to mind when I think of authors that don’t pander to the public on social media: Bentley Little. That might explain why my shelves are filled with his books. What goes on in his daily life? I don’t know. I admit that I am interested, but because I don’t know, I respect him more and find his work more intriguing.
He is not much a part of the digital age. The digital age would tell people more than they need to know about him. He just writes stories, and he is good at it. That is all people, his readers included, need to know.
Robert–As one old-man-syndrome guy to another, I like the cut of your jib. And I like your writing style. So, please tell me in excruciating detail all about your favorite meds, types of replacement joints and stents, budget-priced generic brand of Metamucil, and which style of foot-surgery boot you recommend. BTW, the stubbing-of-the-toe thing dropped me for the count.
Jokes aside, I agree with all you say here. Perhaps most telling is the idea of the leveling effect of so much personal detail. You might call it the kaffeeklatsch mentality. To be fair, I also think this wish for personal information probably has a lot to do with people being homebound, or just feeling isolated. The computer and smart phone serve to convince people they’re connected, and many writers now think they’re obligated to fill this need. And of course to improve the bottom line.
Thanks again for a great comment. If we ever meet, I’ll stand you to a round of oat bran.
Excellent post.
Thought provoking.
Thanks!
Right back at you, Tom–thanks.
Barry, there clearly are literary cults. For instance, I lead a team of 13 called the Barry Bearders, who try their damnedest to emulate your hoariness.
However, because I can’t resist multi-culti cults, I have also added the red robes and bonnets of The Handmaid’s Tale as the requisite Bearders outfit. Our next meeting will be on your lawn, and we expect pizza.
Really though, I agree with the slant of your post. The words are the things, not the beards.
Tom–I wait with bated breath for the moment when red-robed figures with white snoods AND beards appear on my front lawn. Let’s hope this doesn’t happen just when the sprinkler system goes into action. That happened once with another group of celebrants. They were wearing cap-and-bells, and the colors ran.
Barry, more and more I feel lost in the world of publishing. Except for here, on Writer Unboxed, I do feel welcome. And I do with one other group of women writers. But I haven’t published and so some of the groups that I initially joined I rarely visit. They have become FANDOM. An author is on FB for a week talking to her “fans” and thus selling more books. How lovely, I guess, for that writer. I would rather be working on my next novel. (It’s fine to do both, I guess.) But I’m still trying to publish my first. I love writing, so I don’t mean to sound jaded or jealous. Once, after reading a novel of a very popular writer who adds a recipe at the end of each book, I wrote her about a passage where I thought the editing needed work. She was generous. Though this was one of her own self-published books, she did have an editor and said she’d mention the slip. I guess my English-teacher self had risen against good judgement. The woman is considered a New York Times Best Seller. Okay. Make sure that editor is a good one and congrats on your success. She has fans. Bottom line–I just want readers. Thanks for your post.
Wow. Great article. And I have had this happen to me, when I pointed out to a popular foreign author a blatant anti-American bias/snobbery in something she’d written. Her cult-like fans defended her vehemently, and blindly. I do sympathize with authors and other public figures being overly scrutinized– but I was also appalled by her snooty mockery. A lesser, midlist author would never have said something like that.
Kelly–Assuming you made clear why you considered “the popular foreign author” guilty of snobbery and anti-American bias, you practiced critical thinking. When you and not what you wrote were attacked for doing so, your experience exactly illustrates the point I’m trying to make in the post. Thanks for commenting.
Read this article twice (though I wasn’t sure it interested me at first) and realized that it struck a nerve with me that has been throbbing in the background of my psyche.
I’ve felt guilty for the past few years that I don’t have a real “tribe,” which is what I think you’re talking about here (cult, tribe, online presence–same thing). My angst is that I’m an introvert, while common among writers, isn’t conducive to building tribes and joining groups. So, maybe we need an anti-tribe tribe? One that doesn’t pamper us and throw around kind words about our writing (and expecting the same in return). I also suspect there is a generational aspect at work here. My children do things in groups (including dating when they were younger). They thrive on like-minded friends and friends that will help them maintain their egos. Whatever it is, this article got me thinking…
itsamystery–I’m glad you gave the post a second look. I sincerely believe that social media is contributing to a shift of emphasis away from what’s written, to who’s doing the writing. I also think the growing emphasis on quantitative production is achieved at the expense of quality in writing. A few people have a special gift for rapid production. Most of us don’t. Thank you again.
Posse is a great description of an author’s fandom. ‘Minions’ and ‘gang’ also come to mind as I’ve witnessed firsthand what happens when anyone is at odds with or speaks out against a beloved author.
It’s never about words written or books published with some crowds, but something petty like the quality of artwork or profile photos used. Seriously. Spurred on by authors, the ‘winner’ is determined by whose posse can do the most damage to the ‘enemy’ via posts, comments, and negative reviews… usually on books neither purchased or read.
Yes, there are literary cults and they are dangerous. However, as they appear to follow an author’s temperament… or commands, authors should be mindful of the mindset or tone they project or convey through blog posts and newsletters.
Thought-provoking post!
Felicia–thanks very much for your reply. To be honest, I wrote this post without fully appreciating the degree to which some writers’ groupies exploit current technology. That self-described fans of an author of books would use this technology to make the author a “winner” by trashing other writers is disgusting to me. Any writer who knowingly accepts such support without condemning it is also disgusting to me. Thanks again.
Interesting post, and the comments have been most revealing. I struggle with the way people use social media without any restraint or censoring of what they are going to post. All the trolls on Amazon who will start a negative thread on reviews, the writers who “air their laundry” without thinking that maybe they should keep it in their dryer, and the Twitter feeds that are nothing but ugly rants. Sigh…
I grew up in a time when certain things were not talked about in polite society – how much money one made, what we thought about the color they painted their house, or what we thought about their daffy grandfather. We were polite. We were civil – for the most part. And the kinds of things being said in public now would, if you don’t mind me relying on a cliche, make my sainted grandmother roll over in her grave.