|
Hey TL, I've been kinda AWOL recently, but that's mostly because I've been pretty wrapped up in everything recently.
One hit wonders have been on my mind recently. I was just thinking about them this week because of all the books I've read in the past year. I read more of my own volition in the last year than ever before. Yet one thing has continued to, for lack of a funnier word, baffle me. That thing is, apart from my inability to not be addicted to setting things off in commas unnecessarily, the way we read books versus the way we listen to music.
Let me set up the battle ground here. I'm not going out on a limb here. I've been thinking about the philosophy of how books are set up and how albums are set up. The average way people read a book is in no way similar to the way modern teens listen to music. For the average book reader, the book is linear by definition; it is a start to finish process. Music on the other hand, though one listens from beginning to end, is based around picking and choosing tracks. This style has absolutely nothing to do with the creation of a coherent album or one that flows together, and the modern single is the focal point of the album - this is at least what I see when it comes to general consumption music.
The reason I wanted to bring this up is, after reading both Kafka on the Shore by Haruki Murakami and especially Infinite Jest by David Foster Wallace, I saw a major transition in modern novels. Though few authors have jumped on the bandwagon, and even Murakami could be seen as not actually using the style, Wallace's work is absolutely non-linear. The book requires footnote use in the back, which actually physically breaks the monotony of turning pages. More interestingly, it introduces a dynamic approach to reading a book, much like introducing a "Z" axis to a regular X and Y graph. While this certainly a cool feature, it's not used very often. However, these two examples are outliers.
Most books are the same linear process. If one of the books catches on, the author is boosted to fame. These authors use the same tried and true approach, rarely influencing style, or telling a novel story. They gain fame off of one book, and then the rest are either good, or just satisfying enough to continue to create revenue, mostly off the glory of their first big hit. These authors are then boasted about, given claims to fame they may not even deserve compared to other authors, and then, in the case of some authors, nearly apotheosized.
For the most part, music is the same way. If one song catches on, the artist is boosted to fame. The top 40 is instant $$, basically. Making the top 40 supposedly requires a sound all one's own; supposedly at least. This differs little from the summary I gave of authors; each has a unique vibe, but usually a non-unique overarching method, nor anything that makes their work truly magnificent. I should be clear I'm not talking about artists that continually put out great books or great sounds or great works of art in general. I'm talking about one hit wonders. Because in the music world, that term applies quite frequently and in all times it's a derogatory term, but in writing the term is never applied despite it's accuracy. And I honestly don't get it.
Why? Why are authors immune from the scrutiny? There are bad chapters quite frequently in books. There are bad songs quite frequently. When artists put out their works in music, one great song and only one great song is somehow something terrible. When artists put out their works in composition, one great piece and it seems to be just that, a great fucking piece. I understand much of this is up to subjectivity and taste. That's fair. What I don't find fair is the double standard. Let me be clear, the first two sentences of this paragraph are not an attempt to throw authors under the bus; just the opposite, in fact. I find the railing of artists unfair.
It seems that for every Harper Lee in writing, there are many more 1 hit wonder artists. The artists get their 15 minutes of fame, and the writers are memorialized. Why is there such a divide? I don't think every 1 hit wonder deserves everlasting glory, nor do I think all writers are memorialized, but one has to admit there is an obvious discrepancy between the two when it comes to what the audience forgives. I just can't seem to understand why, even though I'm the same way.
I'm the exact same way too, I don't remember the artists or their songs, but I remember the 1 hit wonder books. Maybe you guys can shed some light on it. I don't really understand why I'm wired this way.
 
|
People tend to think of literature as more intellectually pure. Writing a good book is not the same as having a one hit wonder. You cannot stumble upon literary genius; writing a great book is a long, arduous process and very few people can just think up great literature in their mind (although Samuel Taylor Coleridge allegedly dreamed of poetry after smoking opium). Music, however, is largely experimental. Great music is a difficult thing to create, but much of what is popular is not necessarily great; it's just appealing and popular. A lot of what makes one hit wonders get that notoriety of being bad musicians is that their one popular song was just a fluke. It isn't a repeatable event for them. They experimented and they found what worked and may have had a great ear for that one piece, but just don't have the talent to continually make great songs over and over again.
That doesn't lessen the value of that one great song, but it's not the same as a single piece of literature. You can't just throw together words on a page until you get a great novel, but you sure as hell can just screw around with a guitar and a piano until you hear something you fall in love with.
|
"most authors" seems ambiguous
not really sure who/what you're talking about specifically. i feel mostly the opposite, i think. i read a book or a story and then try to read more of that writer. i think a lot of times what people regard as "the best" of someone's work isn't always the most representative of what i think is the essence of their aesthetic, or the parts of the aesthetic that most interest me. for example, lorrie moores "people like that are the only kind of people here" i think is probably one of her most recognizable stories and i think it's really good, but i prefer a story like "you're ugly, too" over it. another example would be george saunders "semplica girl diaries" - i feel like most ppl really like that story, and would pick it as the best story (or one of the best) from december 10th, but i mostly felt neutral towards it and liked other stories. i think you'll see a lot more of this when u get into shorter works- it's harder with longer works because there's less to pick from but maybe itd be helpful to visualize it in terms of "your favorite passage"/"the best passage" from the book,
in general theres a difference between a 3 minute pop song and a novel that will take u a couple of days of dedicating your free time to read (for just the first read), not just in the time commitment but the amount of attention you need to put into it, the amount of thought, etc.
there is a greater amount of effort that goes into writing a novel (generally) than going into making a 3 minute pop song- i had a writer show me 9-10 boxes of the papers related to writing his book, it doesn't feel uncommon for a writer to say that they had to write 9 or 10 drafts of a novel before it gets published, a lot of the writers ive talked also often have to cut out a lot from each draft (having 1000+ pages that will be pared down to ~200). i dont think its uncommon for a book to take 5-10 years to write.
i feel like the literary canon is mostly a tool invented to writers/people who study english looking out for their own livelihood, because as long as they are the tastemakers etc. they have jobs teaching english
|
You can't just throw together words on a page until you get a great novel, but you sure as hell can just screw around with a guitar and a piano until you hear something you fall in love with.
the writing process for a lot of writers (almost every writer ive talked to / read interviews with) is throwing together words on a page until they find something that they like.
|
Writing "pop" books is similar to writing pop music. It takes longer, but isn't all that much more creative. I recall reading an interview with the author Jim Butcher. He wrote a book and his writing group/teacher said it was impossible to sell. He wrote a new one following the common themes and style, instant sale since the person can write.
People aren't looking for something unique, they are looking for something different. Somebody writing a book in a way people aren't used to reading in will face a harsher audience in telling its story. Something like that would likely be a one hit wonder, the publicity needed to get people to give it an honest shot is too high.
|
I think theres different levels of dedication. Like, if you've never played starcraft then you might not really appreciate Flash as well as someone who has reached C on Iccup. Top 40 is people who just want to play farmville and that's where the money is.
Unless you're lucky with where you live. A city can have a better bookstore with more experimental stuff because theres more people so theres more people who are above "C" in the analogy or at least are "teamliquid goers" in teh analogy.
Also making a top 40 song is a pretty simple formula. Steal beats...keep the lyrics simple and PG 13.. oo baby baby lol
Like if I wanted to I could probably plagiarize good art and make it accessible to a certain market but I'd rather leave the field open for people who are more serious about the craft.
or to give another analogy you could feed kid mcd and a icea cream everyday "ya good shit" but it would be more adimirable to cook a fuckin stirfry or smthn ya know? that's how pop music is. Hella fun but not really as sensible for a good lifestyle
|
Kafka on the Shore is linear. It takes more than experimenting with linear structure to make a book stand out. The criteria for aesthetic value is complex, and most of all, aesthetic, and not intellectual. There are plenty of literary "one-book wonders," for example Herman Melville. A more apt comparison musically is artists who have only put out one or two great albums. Novels shouldn't be compared to single songs. My Bloody Valentine, until recently, was a one-album wonder. A literary one-single wonder would be someone who wrote a hip short story but is never to be seen again. There is no double standard as far as I can see.
|
Baa?21242 Posts
You came up with a grand total of one "one-hit wonder" author. Hardly a compelling argument.
|
On March 02 2014 11:09 Carnivorous Sheep wrote:
You came up with a grand total of one "one-hit wonder" author. Hardly a compelling argument.
I left it ambiguous for you to insert the names. There are more of them than just Harper Lee. The argument isn't that authors should be treated like trash, and it's not even an argument, it's me asking why society judges this way.
Edit: Zulu's point is a fair one. There are bands that had killer albums, but most people don't listen to the full album, they listen to the hit or two or three off of it. Though I'd like to make that distinction, I do agree it would be more fair to compare one album wonders to one book wonders.
|
Baa?21242 Posts
Your premise doesn't exist because there are no other examples of literary one hit wonders that are celebrated throughout the ages in the way you claim they are. Even Harper Lee is rapidly fading in importance (if it was ever considered an important work to begin with outside of middle school American classrooms, which is suspect). J
|
I think you have it slightly backwards. While a one hit author may be lauded and a one hit musician forgotten, the acclaim given to a prolific musician is far greater than that given to an equally talented author. Nobody is going to call Dean Koontz a great author, but the groundlings speak of Michael Jackson and Mariah Carey as if we are compelled to recognize their greatness sheerly off of the numbers. Besides, I don't think you've quite assessed the situation fairly. Harper Lee did not write drivel. Can you think of a one hit wonder author who wrote drivel or a one hit musician who didn't write drivel?
And Herman Melville wasn't a one hit wonder.
On March 02 2014 04:51 AiurZ wrote:
i feel like the literary canon is mostly a tool invented to writers/people who study english looking out for their own livelihood, because as long as they are the tastemakers etc. they have jobs teaching english.
I find that long form literature is the least susceptible to this phenomenon. The fuckin' po'mos have invaded poetry and especially painting/physical art to try to tell us that some splotches on a canvas represent the inner chaos of the uterus, but such shit is harder to pull off over 100 pages. With the advent of printing, everyone can have access to Botticelli, so they have to have something that can't be bought. I think literary criticism is remarkably non-controversial. Game of Thrones may have delighted you and Middlemarch may have had all the allure of a week old desiccated sparrow corpse, but nobody is going to argue that GoT is objectively better than Middlemarch. I'd be interested in hearing what parts of the 'literary canon' are unworthy and what has been unfairly left out.
On March 02 2014 04:56 AiurZ wrote:Show nested quote +You can't just throw together words on a page until you get a great novel, but you sure as hell can just screw around with a guitar and a piano until you hear something you fall in love with. the writing process for a lot of writers (almost every writer ive talked to / read interviews with) is throwing together words on a page until they find something that they like.
In my experience, good writing is often a spontaneous event and is usually vomited out in chunks. The scene from Finding Forrester may be a little overkill. Editing and iteration is important, of course, but it can rarely make a section an order of magnitude better, unless you're just an awful writer who lacks organizational skills.
|
On March 02 2014 11:29 Carnivorous Sheep wrote:
Your premise doesn't exist because there are no other examples of literary one hit wonders that are celebrated throughout the ages in the way you claim they are. Even Harper Lee is rapidly fading in importance (if it was ever considered an important work to begin with outside of middle school American classrooms, which is suspect). J
Zulu literally just said the exact opposite thing. If you disagree, that's fine. Few books are celebrated forever, but there are some. There are other authors that are "1 book wonders." They don't have to just put out one book, but it's clear that the one book is their most celebrated. There are poets like this too. All you have to do is type into one hit wonder authors into google and you get a list that says otherwise. These are specifically 1 hit wonder authors who did not publish another book, not just authors who published another but failed to sell. The list is by no means exhaustive, but it has 10 good ones. One could include Flowers for Algernon too.
EDIT: Melville also wasn't a 1 hit wonder, but that's not the point.
|
On March 02 2014 11:29 Carnivorous Sheep wrote:
Your premise doesn't exist because there are no other examples of literary one hit wonders that are celebrated throughout the ages in the way you claim they are. Even Harper Lee is rapidly fading in importance (if it was ever considered an important work to begin with outside of middle school American classrooms, which is suspect). J
Yes, she's definitely the exception that proves the rule.
All of these "one hit wonder" lists are pretty suspect. Listing Oscar Wilde and Sylvia Plath as one hit wonder novelists?
I do think your post made a lot of good points. I think one major difference that has been highlighted by this thread is that books are held to a much higher standard. Sure, there are plenty of one hit wonder authors, but we discount them because in almost all cases we consider it low writing. Popularity is enough for respect in music, though.
|
I think most people underestimate the importance of inspiration. Someone can develop their skills through training and education but to create true masterpieces that resonate with people requires more than just competence and talent. All famous works of art whether it be paintings or music or even mathematical theorems have involved inspiration and spontaneity, the feeling of hitting your head against a wall for months until finally a genius breakthrough is made in a week.
|
The dude who wrote the Bible is a one hit wonder. Group him in with
"len" band who performed 90s hit "if you steal my sunshine"
|
There are one hit wonder books, but they are so few and far between as to render any sort of commentary that suggests that these works/authors are comparable with their more consistent brethren pretty toothless, not to mention the already pointed out fact that one hit wonders fade from importance far more rapidly than other celebrated works. As someone who has studied books for years now, I can think of a few examples, such as John Kennedy Toole's A Confederacy of Dunces or James Alan McPherson's Elbow Room, but I'm really digging deep here lol. If one looks through the list of Pulitzer Prize winners or at the historic NYT best seller list, one is very hard pressed to find authors who have not published at least a handful of acclaimed works.
Docvoc, that list is really, really bad lol. It hinges on a very narrow conception of what it means to write popular prose; Ralph Ellison wrote tons of short stories and essays, Emily Bronte wrote numerous well received poems before Wuthering Heights, J.D. Salinger wrote shit tons of short stories to great public acclaim, Margaret Mitchell wrote tons before Gone with the Wind, Sylvia Plath was a poet lol, and the list goes on. In other words, the one hit wonder label really doesn't pan out save for a very few fringe examples.
|
Harper Lee isn't a one hit wonder.
She had one hit and then didn't write any more books. That's not a one hit wonder, that's releasing something and not releasing anything else. You can't be anything BUT a one hit wonder.
In music, usually one hit wonders release one song that's a hit, and release other songs that no one cares about. Harper Lee doesn't fit that at all since only one book was ever written or released to even be a hit.
|
On March 03 2014 00:54 farvacola wrote:
There are one hit wonder books, but they are so few and far between as to render any sort of commentary that suggests that these works/authors are comparable with their more consistent brethren pretty toothless, not to mention the already pointed out fact that one hit wonders fade from importance far more rapidly than other celebrated works. As someone who has studied books for years now, I can think of a few examples, such as John Kennedy Toole's A Confederacy of Dunces or James Alan McPherson's Elbow Room, but I'm really digging deep here lol. If one looks through the list of Pulitzer Prize winners or at the historic NYT best seller list, one is very hard pressed to find authors who have not published at least a handful of acclaimed works.
Docvoc, that list is really, really bad lol. It hinges on a very narrow conception of what it means to write popular prose; Ralph Ellison wrote tons of short stories and essays, Emily Bronte wrote numerous well received poems before Wuthering Heights, J.D. Salinger wrote shit tons of short stories to great public acclaim, Margaret Mitchell wrote tons before Gone with the Wind, Sylvia Plath was a poet lol, and the list goes on. In other words, the one hit wonder label really doesn't pan out save for a very few fringe examples.
I just pulled it off google, but I see your point. The other thing is that just writing other things doesn't make someone less than a one hit wonder. I'm not going to argue the list isn't bad, it is for sure. However, writing one insanely popular thing and the rest being more niche and less popularly consumed is a lot like one hit wonder musicians. Though you are right that it takes a lot to find writers like that. Most writers don't tend to fly right out of the blue and become famous. I honestly agree that the examples are pretty few and far between, but the question isn't how many, it's more of a why are they treated in such a way compared to musicians. For me it's more a philosophical question than anything else, it's not about the numbers or the reality of the situation. The answer I've gotten so far, which I'm pretty happy with is that writing is seen as more pure. While it can be just as experimental, it's hard to write something above 100 pages that doesn't turn to utter shit without some kind of easily spotted skill as opposed to getting very lucky with a beat and lyrics. Overall I don't want to disagree, because you and Cheep are technically right, the authors are few and far between, but what I was really wondering wasn't about how many, but more why society reacts differently to what seemed like two similar occurences in two different media.
|
can a confederacy of dunces be considered a one hit wonder since it was published posthumously?
how was toole supposed to write anything else if he was already dead
|
You have this perception that aesthetic value has a purely formal criteria, based on narrative structure, variety, etc. It's a lot more complex than that, hence I mentioned aesthetic value is aesthetic and not intellectual.
How are one-book authors and one-hit artists treated differently? I still don't see it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
