The WELL: inkwell.vue.106: Laura Miller - Salon.com Reader's Guide to Contemporary Authors

#30: Gail Williams (gail) Thu 22 Mar 01 10:02

Thu, 22 Mar 2001 10:02:00 PST

This was fun! Any hints as to cool stuff upcoming in Salon's books coverage...? [Read entire topic]

#29: Susannah Indigo (sindigo) Thu 22 Mar 01 09:41

Thu, 22 Mar 2001 09:41:00 PST

I believe that's the second beginning-writer's maxim -- "Do what you love, the money won't follow."

And, yes, it bummed me out, for example, that Jeannette Winterson got dissed for "Written on the Body" in the Reader's Guide, because I remember being completely taken with that book when I read it many years ago. But that entry was written by you, of course, and your writing on Winterson was really quite interesting, since I'd never paid much attention to her since then. And then there was that Oscar Hijuelos (who I adore) comment about the "search for the spine" in his entry -- but that's the fun of the Reader's Guide, isn't it? -- following along with the passions of the writers and agreeing and disagreeing, and learning a few things in the process.

The Inkwell hosts have asked me to wrap things up here, Laura. We appreciate your taking the time from your busy schedule to chat with us, and we all hope that the future is bright for Salon, and that we get to see more interesting projects from you. [Read entire topic]

#28: Laura Miller (lauram) Wed 21 Mar 01 17:26

Wed, 21 Mar 2001 17:26:00 PST

As for Salon's future plans, the radio show is backburners while we ride out this recession, and so are other projects, like more books. They actually aren't that profitable. Or at least, the Reader's Guide wasn't.

I think that's the other bad news every writing teacher has to break to her students: there ain't much dough in this line of work. [Read entire topic]

#27: Laura Miller (lauram) Wed 21 Mar 01 17:24

Wed, 21 Mar 2001 17:24:00 PST

Hey everyone. Sorry again for disappearing, but it was the usual last minute deadline, on a big philosophy book piece that took much longer to research than I anticipated.

Anyway, back to the negative review thing -- I've been thinking about why people like them so much, because no matter what namby-pamby thing they might say otherwise, it's like people asking for more "positive news," but actually tuning into the station or buying the newspapers that have the scandal and the gory murders; we like to see blood.

But only, I think, if it's a writer big enough to represent something to people. I'm sure everyone who had a Margaret Atwood novel urged on them by an old girlfriend, or had to read one for a class, loved my friend's harsh review. They feel vindicated. It's funny, but nothing feels as oppressive as the book you read that you don't like. I still recall just *hating* "Sons and Lovers" in college and to this day I get a little thrill everytime someone bad-mouths Lawrence. But I really like Atwood, and thought the book my friend trashed deserved better. Does it bum other people out when someone disses the writers/books they love? That happens so often on line. [Read entire topic]

#26: Susannah Indigo (sindigo) Sun 18 Mar 01 10:01

Sun, 18 Mar 2001 10:01:00 PST

I think that the Salon "Reader's Guide" does an excellent job of turning readers on to new authors - as I was reading it, it often reminded me of browsing a conference system like the WELL, where you might find interesting rants and raves on favorite authors, honestly written, with titles to be noted for future reading.

I picked up Jim Crace's book, "Being Dead," and read it over the weekend, and have to confess that I neither loved nor hated it, but found it entirely and quickly forgettable, and not something I'd tend to recommend.

I like your comment about how nobody ever goes into a bookstore and says "Is this all you've got?" I use something like that in writing workshops, borrowed from a forgotten source -- "Of course you can write a book -- just stand in the middle of any bookstore and look around you at all the crap that gets published -- of course you can be part of that!"

So what's new and exciting in Books at Salon? Any more books planned? I've thoroughly enjoyed all 3 of the Salon books (Mothers Who Think, Wanderlust, and the Reader's Guide), with "Wanderlust" being one of my favorite books of the last quarter or so. And I've heard that you're working on the new Salon Radio program -- can you tell us a bit about what that will be? [Read entire topic]

#25: Laura Miller (lauram) Sun 18 Mar 01 07:27

Sun, 18 Mar 2001 07:27:00 PST

It definitely feels better to know that you've won new readers for an author who you really love, but it just doesn't happen that often. This one critic I mentioned before really pulled out all the stops to get people to read Alistair MacLeod, but no one so far has thanked him for his trouble; instead they're all thrilled that he spanked Margaret Atwood. I think readers like negative reviews partly because they suspect that reviewing hyperbole has become so inflated. Every first novel is a "luminous' near masterpiece. [Read entire topic]

#24: Martha Soukup (soukup) Fri 16 Mar 01 00:00

Fri, 16 Mar 2001 00:00:00 PST

The thing is, bad books are usually bad in common and boring ways, whereas every really good book is good in its own unique way, which makes it much more interesting to try to figure out and explain. [Read entire topic]

#23: Neil Gaiman (neilgaiman) Thu 15 Mar 01 20:32

Thu, 15 Mar 2001 20:32:00 PST

Readers may love negative reviews, but, in my experience, over the years it's much more fun as a reviewer to have people come up and say "That is so cool, I would never have discovered Jonathan Carroll (or whoever) if it wasn't for you!" then to have someone come up and say "Boy, you really destroyed Book X there." Book X will prosper or perish and it's rare that a review makes a ha'porth of difference in the long run, but turning on readers to an author who matters to them is something that lasts forever. [Read entire topic]

#22: Laura Miller (lauram) Thu 15 Mar 01 15:48

Thu, 15 Mar 2001 15:48:00 PST

Oh, I should also have added to the above that I don't think there will ever be the "red-hot center" described in that Esquire article. The fiction market is very much a matter of niches now, and I don't think that will change.

I think electronic books are promising, but the technology and the marketing strategy have a long way to go. There are right now too many companies doing too many things that are too much alike and too similar to traditional publishing. Then, oh god, the reviewer's nightmare, the vanity press resurgence seen at iUniverse and XLibris. As I wrote in a recent Salon story, no one goes into a bookstore and says "Is this all you've got?" There are already enough books -- what we need is a way to bring people to the books they'll really love. I have a few friends who I've made some recommendations to, which is a very tricky business. People's tastes are idiosyncratic. The ones whose taste I've sussed out keep coming back to me demanding more, more, more. There's a hunger for that. [Read entire topic]

#21: Laura Miller (lauram) Thu 15 Mar 01 15:40

Thu, 15 Mar 2001 15:40:00 PST

Working for an internet co. has cured me of any tendancy to make predictions. I honestly can't say who will be the writers seen as "major" tomorrow. Obviously, nonfiction is really grabbing most readers' attention right now, from adventure stories like "A Perfect Storm" to the Dave Eggers memoir. I suspect that will continue because it's just so much easier for readers to sport the good/interesting nonfiction. There are barrels and barrels of fiction being published and it's really hard for readers to find books they like in the avalanche.

The new writers I'm watching closely are Eggers, who has a new novel on the way and a publishing company that's trying to do something really innovative, Jonathan Lethem, Zadie Smith, Michael Chabon, Colson Whitehead (whose new novel "John Henry Days" will, I expect, rock the world in May) and especially David Foster Wallace. [Read entire topic]