Your 'mission statement" celebrating your first anniversary is very heartening. I definitely fall into the category of writers who do not fit the current criteria: senior, white, Jewish, left-leaning and female, to name just a few liabities. Thank you for giving me hope!
For some reason, we humans have trouble handling Truth-- with a capital 't' to distinguish it from what the propagandists/ideologues/ fanatics promote as 'truth'. Bernard has nailed this distinction, and I applaud Heresy Press and all those who believe in actual freedom, which must always begin with freedom of thought, as in free will. If this cancel mentality had been in control since written history began, we would never have had Homer, Chaucer, Shakespeare, Melville., Dickens, Mark Twain, Tolstoy, Kafka, Hemingway, and thousands of others who wrote about races, ethnic groups, classes, sexes, etc. they were never part of. Nor would exist the Bible, the Koran, the Buddhist and Hindu writings, or poets like Emily Dickinson, Walt Whitman and William Blake who wrote of God and the soul.
And that may be why great writing becomes immortal--because it is FROM and ABOUT the immortal part of every human being who has ever lived in this mortal world.
Interesting and, of course, well written. I have encountered parallel issues and concerns in poetry publishing. You not only argue well, you also commit time, money, and spirit into publishing the contrary fiction.
I completley agree with Max's comments. And I will say, as a lifetime lefty and dedicated "good trouble maker ala the great John Lewis and the thousands of us in the ongoing civil rights movement, your - I dont know what call it- essay? disguised diatribe> is racist. It is appalling yet predictable. For decades, "identity" politics has ruled literature. White identity has been fine, especially in publishing. If Bernard (may I call you Bernard, had presented ONE FACT, in his argument, we might have a different conversation,but anyone can go to anyone or magazine and get the stats of contemporary publishing- among them is the FACT that most books published in the US today are by WHITE writers. At the same time, in the last twenty years, a sea-change has occurred in "American Letters" where more and more African-American, Latinox American, Native, American, Asian American, and Arab American writers are not only being published, but providing an ocean of the most startling ,gripping, and daring literature of the highest artistry. I am talking about , among African American artists fiction writers Jamel Brinkley, Leila Mottley, James McBride,John Edgar Wideman, the return of the briliant Gayl Jones. In poetry, the Cave Canem network, started in 1996 by two established poets Toi Derricote and Cornelius Eady as a place for MFA students to flourish now has at 500 Cave Canem poets among them Pulitzer Prize winners such as the pioneering Tyehimba Jess, Doug Kearney, and Evie Shockley. Among Latino writers are Martin Espada, Sarah Uribe(author of Antigone Gonzalea, Angie Cruz, Javier Zamora. The Asian American network Kundiman and its magazine Kaya, started by Joseph Legaspi and Sarah Gambito has helped spark the poetry revolution with such writers as Frannie Choi, Truong Tran,
Monica Youn, Ishle Yi Park and many others, literally encouraging literary magazines to include more writers. What Bernard does not understand, what Lit Hub, The NY Times, and all the BEST OF THE YEAR list makers is that the change has come from an American insistence: "United We Stand; Divided We Fall". The small presses have grown over the years and are doing much of the publishing of the groups mentioned above.
Let me add that although Bernard continually compliments himself on literary acuity, he has nothing to say about the dearth of international literature and not much to say about the cowardice of many major publishers who with the finaIncial success of publishing such authors as Colson Whitehead (African American) and Tommy Orange and Louise Erdrich( Native American) are more open to other identities because they bring in the money.
I think the most distressing aspect of Bernardis essay is his fawning to white people as if white people were all fellow travelers in America and were being attacked by Indians and they /we were trying to hold off the great Sioux Chief Crazy Horse until William Bennet and Helen Vendler arrived. and to the writers who so glowing praise Bernard's writing, I suggest you read the writers mentioned above to learn more about "identity writing".
PS When South End Press accepted the first four stories of my collection about hosptals (in 1979 when they were starting out and wanted to have a line of fiction and poetry books,, I was delighted.. One of their editors said,"We have just one thing we were all wondering about."
"What's that?" I asked, having no idea what he meant."
It is not quite 7:00 AM. I am sitting in the dark living room reading from my iPhone. Is the ambrosial smell I detect coming from one of my wife's scented candles? Or is it coming from Bernard Schweizer's article for LitMag News? To my delight, on turning on the light, I have confirmed it is the latter. I join the ranks of those who thank you.
You have beautifully written the narrative of all that is real for writers now; for me, it's the best summary of the last decade+ experience as a poet and children's author. During covid, I pulled a nonfiction memoir from publication that addressed the hugely underrepresented issue of patient safety in our hospitals because even with poetry absent of all identification and a lawyer's assessment that no one could sue, the small publisher wanted to include a disclaimer that implied the work was fictionalized. Thank you for all you are working to hold on to.
This discussion at its core is about what model or template for writers to follow. In one camp: the status quo model for the past so-many decades. (With exceptions like Hubert Selby.) Literary quality, you could say. The other: an attempt to present a different model, with different standards. Call that model: woke. The bottom line is that neither model is exciting anyone beyond literary culture. The woke model at least brought a few new people into the tent of reading and literature, but not nearly enough. As a societal phenomenon, literature remains safely in a box inside a closet in the attic of the house of culture in this society, with no exciting widely-known personalities (unless you consider Stephen King exciting). Debates-- between editors and writers, say; or this one-- remain within the box. Needed: an all-new template that turns the art form on its head, and attracts notice from everybody. How to achieve that is the question, but it won't be done via complacency, nor through what's kinda worked in the past so let's keep doing it.
It also won't happen by worrying about who's "not good at writing." Arts history tells us the truly new is always dismissed by those who are "good at" the accepted mode of operating. In a Peter Guralnick book about the rise of Elvis Presley there's a description of the first television appearance of Presley and his combo on the Dorsey Brothers show. Highly-skilled jazz drummer Buddy Rich observed them warming up backstage and remarked, "These guys can't even play their instruments!" What they had was raw energy. Within two years Elvis was huge and the Dorsey Bros and their big band style were history.
Real artistic change won't look like anything we've seen. Starting out it won't be acceptable to any of the gatekeepers: center, right, left. Or anyone in academia. Just saying.
Bernard Schweizer's article eloquently articulates the dilemma currently confronting authors, editors, publishers, and especially readers. Intellectual, political discourse occupies a critically important place in our lives, but literature is not that place. Worthy fiction is less about reason than emotion, aimed primarily not at the head but the heart, and also the belly and the groin. Authors, regardless of age, race, religion, gender, and sexuality, confront the same challenge: to tell the most compelling, engaging story that they can. Imposing too many ideological restrictions on the imaginative process of fiction writing can lead to a product that is heavy handed, self-conscious, and uninspiring. No cause, however worthy, is well served by a boring book.
This is the first I hear of you.
Your 'mission statement" celebrating your first anniversary is very heartening. I definitely fall into the category of writers who do not fit the current criteria: senior, white, Jewish, left-leaning and female, to name just a few liabities. Thank you for giving me hope!
For some reason, we humans have trouble handling Truth-- with a capital 't' to distinguish it from what the propagandists/ideologues/ fanatics promote as 'truth'. Bernard has nailed this distinction, and I applaud Heresy Press and all those who believe in actual freedom, which must always begin with freedom of thought, as in free will. If this cancel mentality had been in control since written history began, we would never have had Homer, Chaucer, Shakespeare, Melville., Dickens, Mark Twain, Tolstoy, Kafka, Hemingway, and thousands of others who wrote about races, ethnic groups, classes, sexes, etc. they were never part of. Nor would exist the Bible, the Koran, the Buddhist and Hindu writings, or poets like Emily Dickinson, Walt Whitman and William Blake who wrote of God and the soul.
And that may be why great writing becomes immortal--because it is FROM and ABOUT the immortal part of every human being who has ever lived in this mortal world.
Interesting and, of course, well written. I have encountered parallel issues and concerns in poetry publishing. You not only argue well, you also commit time, money, and spirit into publishing the contrary fiction.
I completley agree with Max's comments. And I will say, as a lifetime lefty and dedicated "good trouble maker ala the great John Lewis and the thousands of us in the ongoing civil rights movement, your - I dont know what call it- essay? disguised diatribe> is racist. It is appalling yet predictable. For decades, "identity" politics has ruled literature. White identity has been fine, especially in publishing. If Bernard (may I call you Bernard, had presented ONE FACT, in his argument, we might have a different conversation,but anyone can go to anyone or magazine and get the stats of contemporary publishing- among them is the FACT that most books published in the US today are by WHITE writers. At the same time, in the last twenty years, a sea-change has occurred in "American Letters" where more and more African-American, Latinox American, Native, American, Asian American, and Arab American writers are not only being published, but providing an ocean of the most startling ,gripping, and daring literature of the highest artistry. I am talking about , among African American artists fiction writers Jamel Brinkley, Leila Mottley, James McBride,John Edgar Wideman, the return of the briliant Gayl Jones. In poetry, the Cave Canem network, started in 1996 by two established poets Toi Derricote and Cornelius Eady as a place for MFA students to flourish now has at 500 Cave Canem poets among them Pulitzer Prize winners such as the pioneering Tyehimba Jess, Doug Kearney, and Evie Shockley. Among Latino writers are Martin Espada, Sarah Uribe(author of Antigone Gonzalea, Angie Cruz, Javier Zamora. The Asian American network Kundiman and its magazine Kaya, started by Joseph Legaspi and Sarah Gambito has helped spark the poetry revolution with such writers as Frannie Choi, Truong Tran,
Monica Youn, Ishle Yi Park and many others, literally encouraging literary magazines to include more writers. What Bernard does not understand, what Lit Hub, The NY Times, and all the BEST OF THE YEAR list makers is that the change has come from an American insistence: "United We Stand; Divided We Fall". The small presses have grown over the years and are doing much of the publishing of the groups mentioned above.
Let me add that although Bernard continually compliments himself on literary acuity, he has nothing to say about the dearth of international literature and not much to say about the cowardice of many major publishers who with the finaIncial success of publishing such authors as Colson Whitehead (African American) and Tommy Orange and Louise Erdrich( Native American) are more open to other identities because they bring in the money.
I think the most distressing aspect of Bernardis essay is his fawning to white people as if white people were all fellow travelers in America and were being attacked by Indians and they /we were trying to hold off the great Sioux Chief Crazy Horse until William Bennet and Helen Vendler arrived. and to the writers who so glowing praise Bernard's writing, I suggest you read the writers mentioned above to learn more about "identity writing".
PS When South End Press accepted the first four stories of my collection about hosptals (in 1979 when they were starting out and wanted to have a line of fiction and poetry books,, I was delighted.. One of their editors said,"We have just one thing we were all wondering about."
"What's that?" I asked, having no idea what he meant."
"Well, uh,um, are you white or black?"
How refreshing! Bravo, Heresy Press!
A white European man complaining about #OwnVoices...how very surprising.
Your essay 'Why Heresy Press? Why Now/' is liberating. You are saying what needed to be said.
Robert Kinerk
Sheesh! Well, whatever their goals, hope they do well. I prefer to be published based on the quality of my writing, NOT my gender or race.
Thanks for this! I'm ordering books from you.
Thank you for your marvelously incisive and comprehensive understanding of the writer's journey and hope in writing fiction.
A brave essay, a brave project. I salute you.
It is not quite 7:00 AM. I am sitting in the dark living room reading from my iPhone. Is the ambrosial smell I detect coming from one of my wife's scented candles? Or is it coming from Bernard Schweizer's article for LitMag News? To my delight, on turning on the light, I have confirmed it is the latter. I join the ranks of those who thank you.
Nice informercial. Good luck with tapping into that reactionary anti-woke market.
You have beautifully written the narrative of all that is real for writers now; for me, it's the best summary of the last decade+ experience as a poet and children's author. During covid, I pulled a nonfiction memoir from publication that addressed the hugely underrepresented issue of patient safety in our hospitals because even with poetry absent of all identification and a lawyer's assessment that no one could sue, the small publisher wanted to include a disclaimer that implied the work was fictionalized. Thank you for all you are working to hold on to.
This discussion at its core is about what model or template for writers to follow. In one camp: the status quo model for the past so-many decades. (With exceptions like Hubert Selby.) Literary quality, you could say. The other: an attempt to present a different model, with different standards. Call that model: woke. The bottom line is that neither model is exciting anyone beyond literary culture. The woke model at least brought a few new people into the tent of reading and literature, but not nearly enough. As a societal phenomenon, literature remains safely in a box inside a closet in the attic of the house of culture in this society, with no exciting widely-known personalities (unless you consider Stephen King exciting). Debates-- between editors and writers, say; or this one-- remain within the box. Needed: an all-new template that turns the art form on its head, and attracts notice from everybody. How to achieve that is the question, but it won't be done via complacency, nor through what's kinda worked in the past so let's keep doing it.
It also won't happen by worrying about who's "not good at writing." Arts history tells us the truly new is always dismissed by those who are "good at" the accepted mode of operating. In a Peter Guralnick book about the rise of Elvis Presley there's a description of the first television appearance of Presley and his combo on the Dorsey Brothers show. Highly-skilled jazz drummer Buddy Rich observed them warming up backstage and remarked, "These guys can't even play their instruments!" What they had was raw energy. Within two years Elvis was huge and the Dorsey Bros and their big band style were history.
Real artistic change won't look like anything we've seen. Starting out it won't be acceptable to any of the gatekeepers: center, right, left. Or anyone in academia. Just saying.
Bernard Schweizer's article eloquently articulates the dilemma currently confronting authors, editors, publishers, and especially readers. Intellectual, political discourse occupies a critically important place in our lives, but literature is not that place. Worthy fiction is less about reason than emotion, aimed primarily not at the head but the heart, and also the belly and the groin. Authors, regardless of age, race, religion, gender, and sexuality, confront the same challenge: to tell the most compelling, engaging story that they can. Imposing too many ideological restrictions on the imaginative process of fiction writing can lead to a product that is heavy handed, self-conscious, and uninspiring. No cause, however worthy, is well served by a boring book.