March 28, 2022
Mediocre Fiction: Why Is There so Much of It?
Mediocrity is one of the things that occupy much of my time – on the blog and otherwise. We’re surrounded by mediocrity, and there are clear, simple reasons for this, which I’ll talk about in this post. More importantly, for the topics of the blog, what concerns me is mediocre fiction.
The whole concept is somewhat tricky. After all, I’ve claimed that:
- authors are the sole authorities on their work.
- literature is not quantifiable.
- the overall quality of writing has improved.
- literature is an overall complex topic.
You get the idea…
So, if literature is very hard to approach objectively, how can we speak of mediocre fiction? To put it another way, what makes mediocre fiction… mediocre?
Mediocrity Is Inevitable (in our Current World)
We live in capitalist societies. This means, we live in people-pleasing societies – if you want to sell something to someone, you want them to be pleased by it. And because it’s easier to condition people what to be pleased by than to adapt your product to them individually, we ultimately live in people-conditioning societies.
In simpler words: We live in a world that is average because it has to.
Just go to your local supermarket and see the products. Most of them give you the illusion of choice, while in actual fact they simple average out to please the overwhelming majority of people living in that specific area (city/country).
In fiction, the whole idea of genre is about being average: diluting on things you normally wouldn’t do (artistically speaking), so that it’s easier to sell your book to people who expect to find these things.
But mediocre fiction isn’t about genre – to be absolutely clear about it, there’s high-quality genre fiction, just as there is very mediocre literary fiction.
Mediocre Fiction Exists because Writing Has Become Accessible
Can you sculpt? Paint? Play the oboe?
Me neither. (If you can do any of the above, props to you).
Most arts require a certain level of technical skill to do at all, let alone well. To put it this way, if you gave me a marble block, hammer and chisel (I’m not even sure what tools are required) and asked me to produce anything at all, chances are I’d gradually hack the block away producing nothing.
But writing is different.
As long as you are literate enough to put words one after another and form semi-coherent sentences, you can “write a novel”. In other words, unlike other arts, writing has a much lower threshold to weed out the truly mediocre artists.
Mediocrity is Both Objective and Subjective
As I said in the introduction, I generally believe an author is the sole authority on their writing. They are the only ones who can say their book is good or bad, based on whether they believe they’ve expressed what they intended with it.
But there are some (more) objective ways of approaching this, too.
- writing might be such that “any idiot can do it”, but it still requires some technical knowledge of syntax, grammar, and vocabulary (one lying on a vast continuum, to be sure). Writing like e.g. “*The man went here. She goed in. Opened the lights. It was nice” has clear issues on a technical level that make any subsequent assessment moot.
- Even beyond simple syntax/grammar, some authors just don’t have a sense of pace in their writing. Here’s an example similar to the one above: “The man went there. He went in. He turned on the lights. It was nice”. Well, it’s “proper” English, but it has no sense of pace whatsoever. If you think “come on, nobody writes like this”, then let me assure you, unfortunately you’re wrong.
- Moving further beyond technicalities, into the realm of complex plot designs (sometimes too complex), character creation, and everything that turns mere text into narrative, and you simply get texts that we can objectively assess as lackluster on an artistic, rather than technical level. Such texts fail on affect, rather than as texts. That is, they might be technically fine (even great!) but fail to inspire an affective response in the audience. Subjective? We could debate it, perhaps, but it can be objective, too. Hint: the more entrenched a text is in its genre (if applicable), the easier it is to detect such failures. I leave it as an exercise for the reader to figure out why.
So, we have mediocre fiction. Is that a problem?
So, We Have Mediocre Fiction. So What?
There are several ways to approach the topic of mediocre fiction, particularly of whether we should care about it or not.
On the one hand, caring about quality seems like a given. “Of course we should care about improving mediocre fiction”, could be one instinctive response, and I can’t blame it. I would like to agree to it – and in principle I do (though at the same time, sometimes being “good enough” is fine).
However, on the other hand, we must also remember that mediocre fiction is inevitable because mediocrity is, alas, inevitable. Realistically speaking, we can’t avoid mediocre fiction, because of the democratization of artistic expression. Literacy, access to writing devices (first a typewriter and nowadays computers), and the emergence of independent publishing methods create a scenario far different to the one of centuries ago.
And here lies another issue: Mediocrity in art can be relative/subjective. The further it moves away from technical aspects, the more subjective it becomes. I spoke of centuries ago, and let me tell you, few authors put me to sleep faster than Jane Austen or Ann Radcliffe. At the same time, Hamlet, Othello, or King Lear I will never get bored of, and they make my heart race every time. This is subjective.
The Solution Lies with the Problem
The truth is, there has always been mediocrity in fiction, because there has always been mediocrity. It’s just that mediocrity nowadays is more visible.
If we want to find solutions to the problem, first of all we need to be aware of it. Ignorance and stupidity are separated by being aware of our ignorance. In this case, we must attempt to be precise in our definitions, clear about our intentions, and realistic about our expectations.
In other words: We need to see things for what they are.
Writing fiction, unlike sculpture, painting, or playing the oboe, has a very low threshold of technicality required. Storytelling is, one would argue, innate in humans. Pairing that with literacy, and voila! You’re a writer.
But being a writer is not the same as being an artist, and writing to sell comes with its own, entirely different set of dynamics.
In a mediocre society, mediocre fiction sells.
And if that’s the goal, it destabilizes the entire thesis.
5 Comments
Comments are closed for posts older than 90 days
I would like to broaden the topic to mediocrity in general that includes and explains mediocrity in writing. You have touched on it at the beginning of the blog by saying: “We live in capitalist societies – if you want to sell something to someone, you want them to be pleased by it.”
There is a Japanese proverb: “The nail that sticks out shall be hammered down’”. In a capitalistic society you don’t want to be exceptional because then you become a threat. A threat to whom? you may ask. The answer: to the ‘unexceptional’ or, in other word: to the ‘mediocre’.
If you are an exceptional writer (or anything) you risk two things:
– You may not be understood and make the befuddled feel stupid.
– You may be understood and then envied and resented.
It’s not the buying public you have to be concerned about when you are an exceptional writer. It is the whole establishment of publishing (where Capitalism comes in) and the critics who will tell the audience whether they should like your book or not.
The publishing industry is easier to understand – they go after the money, plain and simple. The critics, on the other hand are driven by their ego: I have heard it said that “if you don’t have any talent, all is not lost – you can still become a critic”. And there is an army of readers out there who go by what they perceived as ‘fashionable’. So, if you manage to become a ‘fashionable’ critic then you have a direct influence on what the mediocre (majority) readers read and, consequently, what the author sells.
So, it boils down to the author’s motivation. Do you write because you feel you have to and judge the result by your own standards (as opposed to the amount of royalties) or you want to be in a lineup of a literary beauty contest? Your own character will help you decide what you crave more.
Spot on, Francis; I couldn’t have said it better myself. It’s a vicious cycle – one that will break (perhaps for a precious transient moment in human history) only by chance. Thanks for your comment!
The fact basic education (mainly commensurate with simple literacy) became compulsory, and writing/printing materials got cheaper and more readily available than ever before, made writing one of the most universal activities exercised by all. Couple that with a million factors leading to the search for fortune and fame, and you have the perfect formula for disaster. Since no one has enough “spare” time to dedicate themselves to writing (or producing anything of value), mediocrity ensues as the new middle (balancing) point. Because there is not enough time and practice to even develop a sense of taste — i.e., criteria for selecting and evaluating —, mediocrity reigns free. Money can’t buy everything, but tell that to them big game-runners, and hate at their sarcastic smirk in response. That’s why we can’t trust public taste.
The supposed lack of time is an integral part of consumerism – plenty of temporal components in how capitalist systems work. I could’ve indeed mentioned a thing or two about it, but thankfully you beat me to it 😀
I search hard for the readers who understand. Then I pitch them. The good ones write the most amazing reviews – and I am content. I’m a niche taste – too many requirements for your average millennial (though my beta reader is one – with an amazing education from omnivorous reading as a homeschooler). There are still ‘people like me’ out there – they get tired of the quickly produced average reading material. The trick is to winnow them out of the chaff.