40 miles uphill, in snow, both ways

Snark strapped on? Check.
Eye-rolling apparatus fully lubicated? Check.
Tongue in cheek? Check.

In Great Britain, the Sunday Times sent a few 1970s Booker prize-winning novels into publishers and agents, garnered a handful of rejections, and has decided that this experiment makes a statement about how publishing has gone downhill since the good old days of mutton chops and bell bottoms when these books were first published.

(In other news, telecommunications corporations pass on the opportunity to acquire this “telegraph” device invented by a guy named Morse. And Ford Motors has shown absolutely no interest in the Model T.)

One of the the authors, V S Naipul, made the least nonsensical statement in the whole article when he said, “the ‘world had moved on’ since he wrote the novel.” Yep, that’s what happens in a quarter of a century. He’s very right. Unfortunately, he follows it up with “To see that something is well written and appetizingly written takes a lot of talent and there is not a great deal of that around.”

Update: Someone just pointed out that it’s entirely possible that these remarks were taken out of context, and that Mr. Naipul responded to a question such as, “Do you think it’s difficult for a talented new author to break in these days?” Fucking reporters, with their twisting, devious ways. 😉

Ouch! Well, you sure told us young whippersnappers, V. Nothing’s the way it used to be. But, come on, isn’t that the point of a classic? It works for what it is, when it is, what it’s saying about when it is. And people are still reading your books and admiring your prizes and recognizing what great works of literature they were and are and can continue to be, but does that mean that they are something that should be INTRODUCED to the marketplace now?

Part of the fun of literature is placing it in its proper reference frame. You can appreciate how universally relevant a piece of fiction is while also recognizing why it was suited to when it was written, and why it was so important (or later grew to be important, as art is so often not appreciated in its own time blah blah blah… except for this art WAS appreciated!)

And even then… 20 places these books were sent to, including JK Rowling’s agent, who probably isn’t really all that hungry for more work at the moment anyway. (If I were him, I’d bankroll that 15% into my own private continent somewhere.) Last I heard, Madeleine L’Engle’s A Wrinkle in Time was rejected by 26 publishers back in 1962, and that was after having published a bunch of novels before. So it’s not that people don’t appreciate good books now. They never did, and they always did, and it always helps if the novel wasn’t “already done” 30 years ago. When people also liked the Bee Gees.

And you question our taste?

Further update: I don’t *dislike* the Bee Gees. I’m not familiar with Naipul. I’m sure he’s fab. Kind of have a thing for folks with a Nobel. This whole article just seems like a mess to me. No counterpoint, faulty set up, ridiculous control and possibly misappropriated quotes. Both authors are currently being vilified across the blogosphere, which I doubt is how they had intended on spending their 7th and 8th decades on Earth. Poor guys.

I guess this means I have to read the books, huh?