Debating Black Books

As has been seen over the last couple of months, it is very difficult to engage in a decent debate about differences between highbrow and lowbrow writing, or writing quality at all. Part of this, I have begun to believe, is that many people have not been properly educated in critical thinking, reading, or rhetoric. Many have no real understanding of logic, or that good debate depends on the participants responding to each other's actual points, not to vague concepts of each other’s platforms.

Perhaps most telling, there are many people involved in this debate who clearly don’t know how to read. They skim, gobble down the text and get a basic idea about what something says, but it’s clear that they don’t swallow each sentence one at a time, digesting each careful so as to understand exactly what it is being said. It’s no wonder they see little difference between a poorly constructed manuscript and an expertly crafted one. Unfortunately, this is also what hinders the quality of this debate significantly.

Here are examples of common rhetorical disconnects I have come across in the last three months of this debate.

Money Mania

Criticism: Beginning writers who spend too much time focused on the business of selling books often lose sight of the art, and as a result become unskilled writers.

Response: Yes you can have a successful business selling your own books.

Bizarrely, this response has absolutely nothing to do with the original criticism. In fact, the two statements don’t even contradict each other. This, I would think, is obvious, but the fact that this logical error was repeated by several of the commercial fiction proponents has led me to examine this disconnect.

Here is my theory: the reason this misunderstanding happens is that commercial writers see writing almost entirely through the lens of business, so much so that the words used to describe writing take on a different meaning. Selling books is the commercial writer’s primary goal, therefore an “unskilled writer” is a writer who doesn’t sell books. So when they read the above critical prompt, what they see in their heads is:

Beginning writers who spend too much time focused on the business of selling books often lose sight of the art, and as a result become business failures.

That then is the sentence that they respond to, unaware that their most basic perception has been warped by their entrepreneurial fixation.

Candy is Good for You!

Criticism: While candy might be yummy, it is not nutritious and should not be represented as a meal.

Response: How dare you say my candy isn’t delicious!

This is a classic disconnect, one shared across the board. Notice that the criticism makes no statement about the worth of candy, just the nutritious value (which of course is nonexistent). It does not say that candy is not yummy. It does not say that candy has no value, or a place in this world. But in an community unused to criticism, any critique is considered the equivalent of a dismissal.

Lester Spence has an interesting take on this debate between highbrow and lowbrow art, showing a clip of the battle waging at the National Black Theater Festival, a bi-annual event that highlights the most promising plays in black theater. The controversy swarms around the fact that Tyler Perry, the most commercially successful black figure in theater in generations, has never been invited to this prestigious event.

In my opinion, Tyler Perry is very good at what he does, I would argue even brilliant at it. His work is at times hilarious, surprisingly insightful and creative. And for this, Perry should be highly praised. That said, I don’t think he should be invited to the National Black Theater Festival, which is a highbrow event for more sophisticated theater.

Tyler Perry’s plays are often smart for what they are, but what they are is vaudeville. Their goal is not to innovate in the art form, but to utilize existing story structures to give people something familiar. Their intention is not to go for depth and layered meaning, but to explore the surface. Perry’s plays are not about challenging people to think about the world in new ways, but instead to give them a break so that they can laugh at the world we live in. There is real worth in a good lowbrow vaudevillian play such as the kind that Tyler Perry creates. But that does not mean it is the same degree of worth found in a play that challenges the medium and our very notion of reality, such as the kind of plays once created by August Wilson. However, this world should be big enough for both those visions to exist.

Poopy Throwing Time

Criticism: I believe that good writing should be nuanced, original, and transcendent.

Response: I believe that you are an asshole.

The problem with arguing with the unenlightened is that their first inclination is to respond by flinging the feces scooped from the bottom of their intellectual cages. (Now that’s an insult for you!) Seriously though, this has been a sad re-occurrence in the debate over the last few months. It happens for a lot of reasons: those unused to critical dialogue see criticism as an attack, those just trying to make money are confused with concerns about quality from others whose primary concern is the state of the art form, and there are those who just think that name calling is how you argue. The latter do not always use crass curses, rather instead making personal accusations against the critic's motives (that they seek only to aggrandize themselves, that their criticism indicates insecurity, that they are hateful people, etc.).

The reason this is so detrimental, besides just petty, is that once this happens the debate is over. There is nowhere to go from there, no chance for either side to argue their point. Everything instantly degrades into mudslinging. (Or poop slinging, as the case may be).

For good example, look at the end of the National Black Theater Festival piece, and see the reaction of Malik Yoba to Tyler Perry's omission from the event. He responds in a style more apt to professional wrestling than artistic debate, turning to the camera to stare it down with a melodramatic, theatrical threat. It's hilarious. How does this guy not have a show anymore?

Directions vs. Dictates

Criticism: If you would like to go North, take the road to the left. If you would like to go to the South, take the road to the right.

Response: How dare you tell everyone they have to go North? Everybody doesn’t have to go North, that’s just stupid.

Besides the obnoxious and inflammatory intro I used for my self-publishing critique (which shockingly nobody attacked directly, except me just now), the critique itself is rather tame, I think. It doesn’t tell people they should be a commercial writer or a literary one, it just says that the self-publishing route is a potential dead end for those who want to write sophisticated fiction. To my mind, it is a simple statement of facts about how I arrived where I am as a writer, and how others have ended up with the careers that they have. It is not an order for all else to do the same as I did, whether that's getting an MFA or even writing lit fiction. But again, the response logic of some of the would-be critics got caught up in the absolutes of its own invention.

Why I'm Bothering

Another thing that has come up repeatedly, from emails and other responses, is why I’m even bothering to trying to have a critical dialogue at all. For those that wonder, here is a list of my intentions for this dialogue:

1. To create an understanding of the difference between highbrow and lowbrow art in the African American community, and for an intellectual space for both of them so that they might better co-exist.

2. To make aspiring literary writers aware of the pitfalls between them and their goals.

3. To foster inter-community discussion about the current direction of African American literature.

4. To bring a discussion about quality of writing to the black commercial fiction arena.

5. To turn these resultant discussion into an anthology to be published by my new imprint, Niggerati Manor Productions ($39.95 hardcover). Then to come up with a nationwide speaking tour, charging college campuses another $8-12,000 a pop to have a live debate on their campus (think Carl Webber versus Edward P. Jones). Next, I'll spin that off into a reality show on BET where 10 writers live together, struggling to get published, but one team is commercial and the other literary. We'll kick one off each episode, with the tag line "You're a hack!" This show will of course be hosted by LeVar Burton, the winner being published by Niggerati Manor Productions with us retaining the movie rights (because let's face it, it's all about the movie rights). Then it's just sit back, and let the revenue streams pour in.

Now, dear reader, it's time to test your critical thinking skills. Which of the above statements is false?

Sincerely,

Mat Johnson