Somnilit:

or, why calling your book Literature does not make it so

Today's a tough day in teddybear-land. Today the world-famous photographer, Amelie
Bearhart, will find someone's run off with twenty negatives of her best shots. The master
artist Edward Bayer will unveil his masterpiece to the world -- only to find the painting
replaced with a blank canvas. Today Theodore Graham will be blackmailed with some
ridiculous selfies hacked from his cellphone.
After all, my friends, today's the day the teddy bears get their pics nicked.


















You know the type. He's the one that thinks of himself as intellectual, groundbreaking,
genius. In reality he'd get laughed out of a creative writing class, he's writing the same
genre fluff as the people he sneers at, and his prose? Well, it's best you read it and decide
for yourself.
I know the type. Some days it seems I have the most unfortunate ability to run into that
type. I try to keep them from being total jerks, but, you know, no good deed goes
unpunished.
Let me introduce myself. I'm Andrew DeSear, and I'm here to tell you about these authors
who've tried to argue their way into Literary Genius and failed.
Why would I do this? Admittedly, I kind of hope that this ebook will act as a warning sign
for anyone thinking of copying these guys. It doesn't make me happy when people fail, and
once you go down this road, it's very, very hard to come back.
Another reason:
Author meltdowns can be fun.
And great with haiku.












Now, in order to make this a proper Literary Review, I've got to generalize on my subject
and hypothesize wildly about their motivations. (All the quintessential reviews do it, you
see.)
These authors treat literature as if, with the exception of themselves, all great literary
writers died in the 20th century. They cling to the image of the misunderstood genius,
writing his masterpieces in the face of critics and hardships, knowing someday the world will
recognize its brilliance.
Personally, I can understand that. In a time when all the celebrity authors happen to be
beautiful women, a man might feel like he is... overlooked. I know I do. After all, if
publishers would stop publishing trash like Twilight and Divergent, maybe they'd pick up a
work of real literature, like The DaVinci Code!
Obviously, the disgruntled writers I'm talking about don't like the industry very much.
You'll find them talking about how it's broken, how the agents and editors wouldn't know an
original story if it bit them on the nose, how publishers only want sparkly vampire fluff.
Then, if they're completely oblivious, they'll also claim that critics insult Art because they're
not creative enough to make art of their own.
But enough about the industry.
The fun part, the part I find interesting, is how these authors try to distinguish their genre
works as literature. The way Ive noticed most?
Making up new genres.







Edgar Allan Poe is sometimes credited as the father of detective fiction.
Most of his work was gothic horror and suspense, but he did write a few stories featuring an
amateur detective named Dupin. He didnt set out to create a new genre with Dupin. He
was just telling another story. That story laid the foundation for authors like Conan Doyle
and Christie to create the mystery genre as we know it today.
Whos ever heard of C. Auguste Dupin?
But everyone knows Sherlock Holmes.
Similarly, for a more contemporary genre, alt lit is credited to Tao Lin. He didnt loudly
proclaim that his work was a new genre. He just wrote, and others built on that foundation.
The alt lit community grew and produced new writers, blogs, magazines, and even critics.
The lesson here?
You cant make a new genre by yourself.
If you think your work might deserve a genre of its own, since it doesnt fit into any of the
genres already there -- who knows, it might. But labeling it yourself says that you dont
know a thing about genres.
For example, Ive seen an author insist that his story about angels, spaceships, and
philosophy was not science-fiction/fantasy because it had angels, spaceships, and
philosophy. So he made up a new genre for it.
Last I checked, his book was the only one of its kind.
Does this mean that you cannot create a new genre today? Of course not. Alt lit happened
in the last five years or so. But it's not something you can do while insisting your work is so
unique it doesn't fit in any of the current genres.
You can't argue a work into being Literature, and that's not a label you're allowed to give
your own work. That's something for the critics to decide.
And if the critics unanimously agree that your work isn't good enough?
Write a better one, and show them it is.
Key word here: show. Don't tell.
Hey, what about the Shiny New Thing that's going to change literature as we know it???
What, you mean self-publishing? Crowdfunding? Subsidy publishing? POD?
You've got to be more specific. I've seen so many things that will supposedly revolutionize
the industry, only for them to fail at revolutionizing the industry.
Interactive fiction? You mean like Choose Your Own Adventure books?
Hm. So, like an ebook, but with little widgets and maps and things?
Like a video game?

















There is so much more I could type here -- about reviews, about replying to reviews, about
Kung Fu Panda -- but in the interests of keeping this short, I'm going to end it here. You
can email me at adesear@dayrep.com.
I hope you have a great rest of the day.




















Heres my collected haiku, from that one thread:
Methinks the author
doth protest too much over
teddy detectives
Still wasting time here.
He isn't realizing
We're laughing at him
If you really thought
I cared about the review,
I cannot help you.
At this point it seems
the best course of action is
to just let it go
Would anyone like
To write some haiku with me
And enjoy the thread?
I love the haikus
My greatest accomplishment
Though they sound snarky