Mark Phillips's Blog - Posts Tagged "publishing"
On the importance of Criticism
I debated for a week if I should write this blog. Whenever you talk about your own critics I think it's very hard to not come off as needy and combative. I will do my best.
First, I would like to say that I have no problem with critics. I enjoy reading emails from fans as well as detractors. I have no problem with someone hating one of my books because you simply aren't going to please everyone, and it's madness to even try. Furthermore, if they took the time to email you then you must have really affected them. Of course, I prefer to affect someone in a positive way rather than a negative one, but I'll take whatever I can get.
Recently, though, I received an email from a critic that I simply have to respond to. In the letter he talked about the gratuitous amount of violence in Beneath the Mask of Sanity and how awful the book was because of it. He then (and this is the impetus of this blog post) compared Beneath the Mask of Sanity to the 1978 film "I Spit on Your Grave".
For those of you who have never seen this film (count yourselves lucky) I can summarize it very quickly for you. The first hour of the film is a woman getting repeatedly raped by several men. Over and over again. The second hour of the movie is the same woman tracking down and murdering each of the men in gruesome ways.
In my opinion, I Spit on Your Grave is one of the worst films ever made. There are no redeeming qualities in the movie whatsoever. The filmmaker tries to shoehorn the message that the idea that "women are asking for it" because they dress provocatively is wrong (and it is) but there is no coherent message at all and it's barely touched upon.
No, the only reason for, I Spit On Your Grave, is to show as many horrible and offensive images as possible in the running time of a motion picture.
I hear some of you saying, "But there's a lot of horrible images in Beneath the Mask of Sanity. Why is that different?"
Well (and again, this is my opinion) I believe that almost nothing is off limits as long as there is a point.
What is the point of Beneath the Mask of Sanity? Well, for one, Bentley Grimes is vicious and sadistic for two reasons. One, because I felt, at the time, that too often in the media fictional (and sometimes real) serial killers were glorified to the point of legend. In fiction they were often treated as the ultimate "bad boy" character. Someone with redeeming qualities that was appealing because of a roguish attitude.
This is not reality. In fact, it can be damaging to think so. Violent killers are not romantic, they are not misunderstood heroes. They are dangerous and psychotic individuals that don't care about anything but themselves. I wanted to write a book with a little more truth in it and a little less romanticism.
The second reason is that I did a lot of research for the book. I poured over case studies of serial killers, I read articles about them, I even read notes that the killers themselves had penned. Some of the things I read about were for more disturbing than my book. For instance, if you enjoy sleeping well, don't look up Albert Fish and the letter he wrote to the parents of one of his victims.
But Beneath the Mask of Sanity was about more than just showing a truer look at serial killers. It was about how our world looked through the eyes of that serial killer. As an outsider to society, Bentley had a unique perspective on things. He talked about everything from violence in the media to religion. There are a lot of issues in the book and I believe the violent nature of Bentley's crimes all underscore the themes.
I don't want anyone to get the wrong idea, I don't mind critics at all. I didn't like my book being compared to a piece of trash like, I Spit on Your Grave, but I don't hate critics or even the man you emailed me.
I am happy that I've gotten so many more emails from people who loved the book, because ultimately I want you to think, but I also want to entertain you. To make you happy for a little while.
But if you read my book and you hated it, that's okay too. You can even write me and I will respond to you. If you have reasons that you didn't like the book I think that's a good thing. One of the best things really. Because it shows you're thinking and I have always been pro-think.
Thank you all for continuing to read and continuing to reach out. I look forward to hearing from more of the you in the future.
First, I would like to say that I have no problem with critics. I enjoy reading emails from fans as well as detractors. I have no problem with someone hating one of my books because you simply aren't going to please everyone, and it's madness to even try. Furthermore, if they took the time to email you then you must have really affected them. Of course, I prefer to affect someone in a positive way rather than a negative one, but I'll take whatever I can get.
Recently, though, I received an email from a critic that I simply have to respond to. In the letter he talked about the gratuitous amount of violence in Beneath the Mask of Sanity and how awful the book was because of it. He then (and this is the impetus of this blog post) compared Beneath the Mask of Sanity to the 1978 film "I Spit on Your Grave".
For those of you who have never seen this film (count yourselves lucky) I can summarize it very quickly for you. The first hour of the film is a woman getting repeatedly raped by several men. Over and over again. The second hour of the movie is the same woman tracking down and murdering each of the men in gruesome ways.
In my opinion, I Spit on Your Grave is one of the worst films ever made. There are no redeeming qualities in the movie whatsoever. The filmmaker tries to shoehorn the message that the idea that "women are asking for it" because they dress provocatively is wrong (and it is) but there is no coherent message at all and it's barely touched upon.
No, the only reason for, I Spit On Your Grave, is to show as many horrible and offensive images as possible in the running time of a motion picture.
I hear some of you saying, "But there's a lot of horrible images in Beneath the Mask of Sanity. Why is that different?"
Well (and again, this is my opinion) I believe that almost nothing is off limits as long as there is a point.
What is the point of Beneath the Mask of Sanity? Well, for one, Bentley Grimes is vicious and sadistic for two reasons. One, because I felt, at the time, that too often in the media fictional (and sometimes real) serial killers were glorified to the point of legend. In fiction they were often treated as the ultimate "bad boy" character. Someone with redeeming qualities that was appealing because of a roguish attitude.
This is not reality. In fact, it can be damaging to think so. Violent killers are not romantic, they are not misunderstood heroes. They are dangerous and psychotic individuals that don't care about anything but themselves. I wanted to write a book with a little more truth in it and a little less romanticism.
The second reason is that I did a lot of research for the book. I poured over case studies of serial killers, I read articles about them, I even read notes that the killers themselves had penned. Some of the things I read about were for more disturbing than my book. For instance, if you enjoy sleeping well, don't look up Albert Fish and the letter he wrote to the parents of one of his victims.
But Beneath the Mask of Sanity was about more than just showing a truer look at serial killers. It was about how our world looked through the eyes of that serial killer. As an outsider to society, Bentley had a unique perspective on things. He talked about everything from violence in the media to religion. There are a lot of issues in the book and I believe the violent nature of Bentley's crimes all underscore the themes.
I don't want anyone to get the wrong idea, I don't mind critics at all. I didn't like my book being compared to a piece of trash like, I Spit on Your Grave, but I don't hate critics or even the man you emailed me.
I am happy that I've gotten so many more emails from people who loved the book, because ultimately I want you to think, but I also want to entertain you. To make you happy for a little while.
But if you read my book and you hated it, that's okay too. You can even write me and I will respond to you. If you have reasons that you didn't like the book I think that's a good thing. One of the best things really. Because it shows you're thinking and I have always been pro-think.
Thank you all for continuing to read and continuing to reach out. I look forward to hearing from more of the you in the future.
On the importance of Clarity
Writing is communication.
Maybe that seems simplistic or obvious, but you'd be surprised how often writers forget this basic fact. Good writers too, some who are considered giants of their time.
I recently read Infinite Jest by David Foster Wallace and that was a man who had forgotten (at least in that novel) that writing was communication.
The book is such a jumbled mess of ideas and transgressions and asides and stream-of-consciousness and technical jargon that it becomes almost incomprehensible; it certainly becomes tedious to read, just like this sentence.
Now I'm not against the modernistic literary movement in any way. Experimental novels can be great fun, and as a writer, it can be a joy to toy with such new ideas to tell a story.
But, one thing that a writer must always keep in mind is that writing is communication, and the hallmark of effective communication is clarity.
My biggest gripe with Wallace's novel isn't that it is experimental (Kurt Vonnegut was a genius of experimental fiction and Breakfast of Champions is one of the greatest books ever written) my biggest problem is that it is so often inscrutable simply for inscrutability's sake. That's not an effective way to communicate.
There are pretty much no rules to writing a book and every person comes at it at a slightly different angle. Though it is important to remember that if you do not have a firm grasp of the rules of composition then you will never be sure if you're doing good or ill when you break those rules.
All of us write because it fulfills us, because it makes us happy. Most of us also write to tell the world how we feel about a certain issue or group of issues. What literary critics and academics call themes. We're all different, but in my experience I am first writing for myself (to make myself happy and to try and understand what I believe) but also for the potential reader (to entertain them and show them my point of view).
Clarity is essential to this second part of the equation. If all you're writing for is yourself then why not write your story down, put it in a trunk and come back to it whenever you want to read it? In that case you can be as cryptic as you'd like. You could write in code if you pleased.
I suspect that most of you, like me, write for an audience as well as for yourself, and if that's the case than it's important to be clear in your writing. Now, I'm not suggesting that you dumb down the language so even the thickest person could understand you. Nor am I suggesting that there isn't room for ambiguity in your plot. What I am suggesting is that you give your reader a fair shake at understanding what you mean and what you believe.
Take a murder mystery for example. During the book you're trying to guess who the real killer is, but when the end comes we discover that the killer was a character only talked about once in almost no detail and never actually seen in the book until the reveal. Did you have a fair shot at figuring that out? It seems like a bit of a cheat doesn't it?
In the same way if you don't give your readers a line that can be followed--and yes it can be a well covered line--then you are cheating your readers out of a valuable part of the reading experience.
Whenever I edit one of my books I also take one pass to examine each sentence and make sure that I'm being as clear as possible. Unless, of course, I'm being a bit coy to hide a piece of information that won't be revealed until later. And even in that instance I never completely cover my tracks. A perceptive reader could pick up on it in the first read through and certainly will see the train of logic on the second.
Even abstract painters or avant garde film makers give you enough to go on so that you can see the point of their art if you look from just the right angle.
Clarity is important, it's how you are understood. The greats understood that: Hemingway, Steinbeck, Updyke, Faulkner.
Some of them were wildly experimental and deliciously metaphorical but they all brought clarity to their writing. We should all strive to be like that.
Maybe that seems simplistic or obvious, but you'd be surprised how often writers forget this basic fact. Good writers too, some who are considered giants of their time.
I recently read Infinite Jest by David Foster Wallace and that was a man who had forgotten (at least in that novel) that writing was communication.
The book is such a jumbled mess of ideas and transgressions and asides and stream-of-consciousness and technical jargon that it becomes almost incomprehensible; it certainly becomes tedious to read, just like this sentence.
Now I'm not against the modernistic literary movement in any way. Experimental novels can be great fun, and as a writer, it can be a joy to toy with such new ideas to tell a story.
But, one thing that a writer must always keep in mind is that writing is communication, and the hallmark of effective communication is clarity.
My biggest gripe with Wallace's novel isn't that it is experimental (Kurt Vonnegut was a genius of experimental fiction and Breakfast of Champions is one of the greatest books ever written) my biggest problem is that it is so often inscrutable simply for inscrutability's sake. That's not an effective way to communicate.
There are pretty much no rules to writing a book and every person comes at it at a slightly different angle. Though it is important to remember that if you do not have a firm grasp of the rules of composition then you will never be sure if you're doing good or ill when you break those rules.
All of us write because it fulfills us, because it makes us happy. Most of us also write to tell the world how we feel about a certain issue or group of issues. What literary critics and academics call themes. We're all different, but in my experience I am first writing for myself (to make myself happy and to try and understand what I believe) but also for the potential reader (to entertain them and show them my point of view).
Clarity is essential to this second part of the equation. If all you're writing for is yourself then why not write your story down, put it in a trunk and come back to it whenever you want to read it? In that case you can be as cryptic as you'd like. You could write in code if you pleased.
I suspect that most of you, like me, write for an audience as well as for yourself, and if that's the case than it's important to be clear in your writing. Now, I'm not suggesting that you dumb down the language so even the thickest person could understand you. Nor am I suggesting that there isn't room for ambiguity in your plot. What I am suggesting is that you give your reader a fair shake at understanding what you mean and what you believe.
Take a murder mystery for example. During the book you're trying to guess who the real killer is, but when the end comes we discover that the killer was a character only talked about once in almost no detail and never actually seen in the book until the reveal. Did you have a fair shot at figuring that out? It seems like a bit of a cheat doesn't it?
In the same way if you don't give your readers a line that can be followed--and yes it can be a well covered line--then you are cheating your readers out of a valuable part of the reading experience.
Whenever I edit one of my books I also take one pass to examine each sentence and make sure that I'm being as clear as possible. Unless, of course, I'm being a bit coy to hide a piece of information that won't be revealed until later. And even in that instance I never completely cover my tracks. A perceptive reader could pick up on it in the first read through and certainly will see the train of logic on the second.
Even abstract painters or avant garde film makers give you enough to go on so that you can see the point of their art if you look from just the right angle.
Clarity is important, it's how you are understood. The greats understood that: Hemingway, Steinbeck, Updyke, Faulkner.
Some of them were wildly experimental and deliciously metaphorical but they all brought clarity to their writing. We should all strive to be like that.
