Off with the new...

[sheenaghpugh]

"We need better networked programmes [...] offering talented writers help at early stages in their careers. [..] and the profiling of work by new writers" (Arts Council England, in a recent consultation paper)

This might seem unexceptionable, and probably is, with one proviso: that "new writers" and "writers at early stages" are not, as they often turn out to be, weasel words for "writers under 30".

Not that there's anything wrong with writers under 30; they can't help it, and, given time, will acquire the experience of both life and language that gives them something to write about and the skill to do it. In the meantime, the energy of youth may even compensate, to some degree, for what they necessarily lack... ok, ok, slightly tongue-in-cheek, but no more outrageous than the assumption by so many movers and shakers in the literary world that youth and newness are intrinsic virtues.

I've got no locus in this, btw; I am neither young nor at an early stage in my career, more the stage of checking the obituaries for an appearance. But it so happens many "new" writers are not young, because they didn't start writing (and marketing) seriously until other pressures allowed them to do so. One such pressure is childcare, and although there certainly are male late starters, it's a more common pattern with women writers, which raises interesting questions re equal opportunities.

These writers are disadvantaged by "initiatives" that, more often than not, seem to be targeted at the under-30s, as if what was wanted by the public was specifically young work, rather than, as I suspect, good work. Drama is a particular offender, but in novels and poetry too, if a year goes by without some rising teenage star, or a prize shortlist consists of established authors (as why would it not?), you can guarantee some broadsheet running an article on the lines of "where are the young writers?" (a question to which I'm always tempted to reply "learning their trade in decent obscurity").

It's also a fact that, these days, you don't just break through into publication and find you have it made. I wish I had a quid for every novelist I know who had real trouble placing a second or third novel because the first, though it sold respectably for a first novel, wasn't a mega-earner. At one time publishers would stick with a writer building a reputation, rather as TV bosses allowed a sitcom to bed in; now everything has to be a mega-success from the off. As far as novels go, I'm not sure ACE shouldn't focus on mid-career writers rather than new ones.

I've heard it suggested that mid-career writers would do well to reinvent themselves with an assumed persona, because of this craze to find something "new" each year. That craze, which I'm not sure readers actually share, is one reason for this youth focus. Another is the drive to find a young audience for genres, like poetry and litfic novels, that tend to appeal to an older one - maybe publishers should accept that fact and concentrate on marketing to the audience they know is there, rather than the one that isn't listening? Another culprit, in my view, is the universal modern practice of putting a picture of the author on the book. This pernicious habit presumably brought about the question reportedly asked by a US publisher about a novelist recommended to him; "will she look like a babe on the back cover?" (So: reinvent yourself with a new name, but also with a picture of some obliging young model; he or she'll only want 10% of the hopefully huge dibs.)

I'd be interested to know what experiences writers on my f-list and elsewhere have of this, also if anyone has age-related stats on the sales of writing? And readers; does the age or newness of an author make any odds to you?

Comments

[spes-unica.livejournal.com]

I don't really have anything to contribute, but thanks for raising these interesting points!

[(Anonymous)]

I am so glad you have spoken up on this issue. So many of the initiatives and campaigns to promote younger writers seem to suggest that being young is a pre-requisite to being fresh/new/exciting - as if the rest of us are stuck in some fusty museum of writing about safe and comfortable themes. I fear that it is the poetry world's (or rather some few of the 'gatekeepers') take on the 'celebrity culture' that much of the media obsesses on these days. Maybe, also, an expression of the shortening attention span and wish for instant gratification: the concept of working at something for years without recognition, or of building experience, is completely alien to some.

I don't think it does young writers any favours to promote them too soon. There may well be an occasional outstanding talent - but Beethovens don't come along that often. I would prefer to see writers working at their craft for its own sake - as you say - in 'decent obscurity'.

I regard publishing in journals etc as an apprenticeship (whatever age one starts); I don't see any problem in young writers writing, submitting, getting published in journals and small press anthologies to learn their craft and build experience. In pushing collections out too soon, they may be prevented from fully exploring who they are or where they writing needs to develop.

I would love to see more poetry promoters/publishers recognising there are not-so-young poets who should be getting more critical attention than they are, wonderful books that are not getting the reviews.

It is sad that I feel the need to say this is not sour grapes on my part, I'm not writing this because I feel I have been neglected - but I do have to say it because it is the usual response to comments on this issue.
Angela France

[iliketea.livejournal.com]

Very interesting post. There is, of course, a snootiness about very young writers too, particularly from agents, so it seems like there's this ideal window in one's 20s when one is allowed be brilliant and new, and then it closes. The implicit assumption that all writers start at the same age is quite mad but fairly prevalent - certainly we could all do with remembering that people come to writing creatively, and writing seriously, at a whole range of ages, and don't necessarily progress along the same path once they get there, either.

New writers

[(Anonymous)]

I don't buy into any of this Young Poet, Older Poet stuff. Why should I care? I just want to read excellent poetry. Speaking as an editor (Magma Poetry), you really can't tell from the submissions what age the poet is. You can assess whether the work is fresh or exciting, whether it's well-crafted or not, and you can make a judgement as to whether readers will be interested in it. But you just don't know who the poet is, and anyway, why should it matter? What matters is the quality of the poetry. That's it. So many times, at Magma launches, the poets turn up to read their poems, and they're nothing like the person you expect from the style or content. Isn't that one of the great wonders of art? A writer can go anywhere and be anyone in their work, as long as they do it with skill, courage and talent. That is what we (and the Arts Council of England) need to encourage and celebrate. The rest is just spin.

Re: New writers

[sheenaghpugh]

I agree entirely, and this brings me back to those bloody author pics... you as an editor can't tell what age the poet is and don't want to, because like a sensible reader you want to come to the poems with an open mind. But try persuading a book publisher who's bringing your collection out not to put a pic of you on the back cover! They won't wear it, and it feeds into the culture of "it's all about you"; the idea that everything in fiction is somehow deeply autobiographical and can be decoded, as witness the kind of questions folk ask at readings - "who is the man in poem X, did poem Y happen to you?" etc etc.

PS

[sheenaghpugh]

- the comment two above this comes from Jacqueline Saphra, who's asked me to add her name.

[gillyp.livejournal.com]

Ha. As a 40+ writer trying to get a first novel published, all I can say is, yeah, I hear that. And no, the age of a writer makes no odds to me at all, all I care about is whether or not the content is good.

[emmadarwin.livejournal.com]

I was first published at just over 40, and very pissed off to be 'too old' for several prizes. Young artists can starve in a garret, in time honoured fashion, while they collect some knowledge of real life behind a Tesco's till, and they might end up being able to write La Bohème on the strength of it. It's older artists who have children to feed and aged parents to go-round-and-clean-up for, who need a lot more support, and the courage that comes from external validation, to go for it.

Dare I suggest, too, that to give younger new artists the illusion that they'll be able to 'establish a career' or 'make a living' solely by doing the art that got them the prize/grant/accolades in the first place, is unkind? As you say, Sheenagh, who knows if your first major deal will also be your last? At least older new artists, making the leap into the economic unknown, have a history of making a living by other means to fall back on.

[(Anonymous)]

Yes, well, as someone who was advised by an agent to adopt a new pen-name because I'd been published previously, which meant that I was no New Young Thing, you can imagine what I feel about this...

Elizabeth Baines

[sheenaghpugh]

Oh for the days when a publishing rep was something one built on....:)