Fiction and the Media in the English-Speaking World - Essay Example

Fiction and the Media in the English-Speaking World 27 March 2008 There has always been somewhat of a schism between so-called serious readers of fiction and media treatment of the same. Books that make the bestseller lists and stay there include everything from Toni Morrison to Zadie Smith to the likes of American trash-romance writer Nora Roberts or mystery writer John Grisham, bestseller lists and are a nuanced reflection of the public value of fiction. Fiction, as reviewed by the Guardian, the New York Times, and other major newspapers of the English-speaking world, is as varied in tastes as it is in quality as are humans themselves. The media is apt to seize upon books that provide a human touch, that present a fresh take on the human condition in accessible language and context, and that draw upon certain historical events without becoming too 'dense' while never shaking the status quo too dangerously by endorsing fiction that presents tremendously radical ideas. The media, as it is a mass-produced, mass-circulation endeavor, concerns itself with accessibility in literature and its connection to its readership. If the average reader of The Guardian can't understand a particular work of fiction, than The Guardian, in the interest of its readership, is apt to forego it in favor of another, more accessible title. While there certainly exist nuanced and talented book critics writing for the major news outlets, bestselling lists are indicative of the most accessible tastes of the fiction-reading public. American media giant Oprah Winfrey publishes a highly-circulated book list called Oprah's Book Club. Books appearing on the Oprah's Book Club list have several characteristics in common: many address the 'feminine condition', the lives of Black women, and they all are emotionally and culturally substantial. Books appearing on Oprah's Book List include: Sula (Toni Morrison), What Looks Like Crazy on an Ordinary Day (Pearl Cleage), Where the Heart Is (Billie Letts), The Bluest Eye (Toni Morrison), The Book of Ruth (Jane Hamilton), Breath Eyes Memory (Edwidge Danticat), Daughter of Fortune (Isabel Allende), The House of Sand and Fog (Andre Dubus III), I Know This Much is True (Wally Lamb), Icy Sparks (Gwyn Hyman Rubio), Middlesex (Jeffrey Eugenides),A Million Little Pieces (James Frey), and Mother of Pearl. As is quite obvious, the majority of these works are authored by women, and speak to the human condition, the feminine condition, and/or issues of race, class, and culture. If Toni Morrison is an indicative example of Oprah's treatment of fiction, she fulfils an important role with her work. While rife with social commentary, hidden meaning, and deft literary mechanisms, Morrison's language is comparatively simple and can be interpreted by an audience of broad socioeconomic variety Oprah's book club is a reflection of the issues that resonate most fully with the human experience: gender struggles, racism, classism, and the personal struggle that accompanies hacking it in the modern world. It is, however, important to note the difference in treatment between a bestseller list and recognition within the literary world. A bestseller list is a public seal of quality, while a literary award is something entirely different and often reserved for members of literary circles only. The prestige that went with winning any of[the]prizes was confined to the literary world. The sums of prize-money were certainly appreciated by the winners, but they were not substantial by today's standardsand the awards themselves had no real effect on the author's sales (56). As noted above, media attention to any substantial literary prizes was and continues to be largely absent. The media frenzy that has surrounded Elizabeth Gilbert's recent non-fiction book Eat Pray Love, or Dan Brown's The DaVinci Code far surpassed any recognition that Doris Lessing received for her Nobel Prize in Literature in 2007. The Nobel Prize in Literature was established to reward a candidate that 'should have bestowed "the greatest benefit on mankind" - and the special condition for literature, "in an ideal direction". Both prescriptions are vague and the second(Epsmark 1999, 1).' However vague, it is a heavy charge, to bestow a great benefit on mankind. Should not Lessing have received more than her fifteen minutes of fame for such a contribution Disappointing Perhaps, but it must be remembered that the majority of the English-speaking and English-reading world are not intellectuals. They are accountants, business owners, florists, shopgirls. The lack of media attention that Lessing and her prize merited is, more appropriately, an accurate reflection of the public's values in fiction. While admittedly less apt to give weight to established literary prizes, the media plays an important part in affording institutional weight and approval to works of fiction. While individual intellectual and technical merit are important aspects of 'art as icon', the fact cannot be ignored that literature and fiction is manipulated to represent, deconstruct, and reconstruct society according to the priorities of those in power. While some wishfully state that the arts are the only remaining purity on earth, I would submit that the arts are as manipulated as much, if not more so, than many other aspects of the human experience. As a product of this manipulation, certain pieces become iconic in part because of their inherent validity, and in part because they have been elevated to a place of social relevance within a current context by those whose interests they serve. Take, for example, Charles Dickens. With the advent of the literary prize, works of 'art' that had previously been created for their artistic merits alone became commercialized. As James P. English writes in Schaffer's book, In Britain literary awards had, until the early nineteenth century, largely been restricted to schools and universities-institutions within which it was, after all, normal practice to promote competition among writers and to rank their works according to precise hierarchies of value. To some extent, these devices of educational apparatus anticipated later, extra-curricular forms of the literary prize, with their tendencies to become entwined with the political and commercial agenda (162). Dickens' works speaks directly to issues and values of his Victorian his era-Christianity, moralism, and the London underworld-and as such serve a distinct social purpose. It was very convenient to have the public reading about the streets within the context of Victorian righteousness, and easier still when the politicians and the statesman could leave this informal education to the likes of Dickens. Media recognition gave Dickens institutional weight, and thus institutional approval. His novels were publicly branded as 'good', given a certain artistic seal of approval, and valorized by critics who saw in his stories an opportunity for moral and intellectual education for the masses. Additionally, institutional and media weight generate ample opportunities for writers of fiction to expand their work. Film rights are among the possibilities generated by extensive media attention. As Schaffer's book illustrates, Today's serious novelists in Britain, however, unlike those of sixty years ago, are alive to commercial possibilities that for most of the twentieth century have been available only to writers deliberately aiming at the best-selling genre-end of the market such as crime or science fiction. The media consequences for this new constituency have been varied and lucrative. A TV sensationalization or the sale of film rights have been frequent occurrences, once again, in shrewd hands these can generate vast amount of extra income, fame, and far wider prestige than was the case a generation ago (59). Such prizes can give voice to the conflict that exists between the commercialization of art and art itself, as well-known British novelist Zadie Smith illustrated in her recent attack on literary prizes. As media correspondent Nicole Martin write in The Telegraph, Zadie Smith, the award-winning author, has launched a blistering attack on literary prizes. The writer, who has received awards for her novels White Teeth and On Beauty, said that most literary prizes were "only nominally" about literature. "They are really about brand consolidation for beer companies, phone companies, coffee companies and even frozen food companies," she said on the website of the Willesden Herald, a forum of the arts. Her criticisms were attacked as hypocritical by senior publishing figures, who questioned why she had agreed to accept awards for her books. In 2000, she won the Whitbread First Novel award for White Teeth while in 2006 she received the Orange Prize for Fiction for On Beauty. Ion Trewin, the organiser of the Man Booker prizes, told the Sunday Times: "Why has she been happy to accept money from these prizes and sponsors, who she now attacks (Martin 2008). Her critics certainly point to a legitimate weakness in Smith's argument. Writing fiction is not the most lucrative profession, and literary prizes, television, and film rights often provide a much-needed augment to meager royalty payments. Income generated from the sale of film rights can increase a writer's income hundredfold, and can induce such cult-followings as occurred with JRR Tolkien's much-revered Lord of the Rings trilogy. Accompanying its tremendous power to give institutional weight, the media also has tremendous power to ignite stress, criticism, and frenzy. In the wake of Brown's The DaVinci Code, opinions, criticism, and praise ran rampant on the part of media and religious institutions. The media, however, did not fail to capitalize on the mild social uproar that resulted from this examination of religion in the context of popular fiction. Brown's book was subject to intense scrutiny, both from public media and from private-interest groups who attacked the media's handling of the issue. As Tim Graham, Media Director of the Media Research Centre, writes ''The networks also bought into the DaVinci Code craze by picking up and publicizing other Code-related books attacking Christianity and the Catholic Church[...]authors of new books like The Jesus Papers and The Jesus Dynasty were offered publicity forums...'' (Graham 2006, 8). Whereas a year previously it is highly improbable that neither The Jesus Papers nor The Jesus Dynasty would have garnered even a minute of media attention, in the wake of Brown's work such things were more closely examined and given airspace and print space in major media outlets. The National Council of Churches [of America] went on record saying: This is an opportunity to teach about and bear witness to true biblical teachings-many of which have been distorted in Hollywood as well as in our daily lives....In the midst of the media frenzy, let us not forget that The DaVinci Code is a work of fiction that does not accurately depict the life and ministry of Jesuswe call on our Christian brothers and sisters to uncover distortions of biblical truths not only in entertainment but in policies and actions perpetuated in our societyneither The DaVinci Code, nor any other work of fiction, will alter the beliefs, mission or work of individual churches or the National Council of Churches. We will not be diverted from the gospel imperative to care for creation, do justice and work for peace regardless of what the distractions of current culture may offer (ER1). The mere fact that The Jesus Dynasty and the National Council of Churches [of America] were given media time to explain their positions points to the power of Brown's writing, and the powerful manipulation thereof by the media. Had the news outlets and the critics ignored Brown's work it surely would still have ignited some passions, but it would have experienced a smaller readership and a smaller international debate on the details of Christianity as described therein. Our media, despite various editorial additions, subtractions, and manipulations, is a reflection of the literary and cultural taste of its citizenry. From the media's decision to promote some works of fiction while ignoring others we can understand that its decisions may be illogical, that they may certainly serve the interests of its advertisers, and that it gravitates towards fiction of a certain cultural inclination and inclination towards accessibility. From that we may gather that the English-speaking world's tastes are at times illogical, that we serve the interests of those who pay our salaries, and that we gravitate towards the comprehensible and that which touches us. Flawed though our decisions may be, media taste in fiction is ultimately a reflection of what tastes make us human. Works Cited: Adley, Esther. You Couldnt Make it Up. The Guardian Book Review, March 27, 2008. Epsmark, Kjell. The Nobel Prize in Literature. Copyright 1999 by the author. Graham, Tim. THE TRASHING OF THE CHRIST: Contrasts In Media Treatment of The DaVinci Code and The Passion. Copyright May 23, 2006, the Centre for Media Studies. Martin, Nicole. Author Zadie Smith attacks literary prizes. Copyright The Telegraph, February 11, 2008. Schaffer, Brian W, Editor. A Companion to the British and Irish Novel. 2005 Blackwell Publishing Ltd Electronic Resources: "NCC says 'The Da Vinci Code' is 'an opportunity to teach'," National Council of Churches, 2006-MAY-18, at: http://www.ncccusa.org/ Works Referenced: Kernode, Frank. The Art of Telling Essays on Fiction. Copyright 1983 by Harvard University Press. Read More