No, amateurs are not 'Just as good as...'

Sir Graphus

Well, you don't have to take part, do you? Presumably no-one is getting paid.

Think of it as parents' race at the school sports day. Paula Radcliffe doesn't stand around shouting that no-one else should be allowed to run because none of them are as good as her. All have the right to run in a low grade amateur event.

All of us have the right to write, too, and indeed be published these days, on the internet. You, like Paula Radcliffe, get paid, because you’re very good at it. On the other hand, the best I can manage is to give away these scraps of opinion at the Speccie.

Be thankful.

SRS

Agreed, absolutely--- I would hope that the pilot of my plane or the surgeon at my operation have training and skill and experience. But so many otherwise intelligent people seem to feel that in the arts there can be no standards. It's all a matter of taste, all personal, what they like is good and what they don't, bad. If you are going to argue for any sort of hierarchy of quality (and I do believe there is one) you may need to address this mindset.

terence patrick hewett

...there is an upstart Crow, beautified with our feathers, that with his Tiger's heart wrapped in a Player's hide, supposes he is as well able to bombast out a blank verse as the best of you: and being an absolute Johannes factotum, is in his own conceit the only Shake-scene in a country.

Beer Moth

Think yourself lucky you're not trying to make a living out of the visual arts.

Everyman and his hitherto neglected dog can produce dross and then by means of some blurb, hook it onto whatever issue seems right-on this month.

Agree: we're stuffed.

James Delingpole

Great post Susan.

Mills

I agree that some people are better than others, and that standards should be maintained, but why pick on 'amateurs'?

It is one thing to object to people who are no good, but quite a different think to identify that group with those who don't do whatever it is for a living. This is especially so in the case of writing where it is quite possible to make a living (it would seem) from writing badly, as many examples of lifestyle-journalism show. Perhaps the exponents of this do have to practise very hard, but I am sure that there exist people who do not even try to be published whose work is better.

Fergus Pickering

I write poetry when I'm not earning a living. I am very good at it and Ihave published lots of books. I constantly enter competitions which are judged anonymously. I win enough to make a tidy profit on it and of course it's not taxable. Most poetry is TERRIBLY crappy, including a fair amounnt that is published. Mine is A1, takeit from me.

Michael Booth

Ooooooooooooooooer... better hope Harriet Harman doesn't read this, Susan, or she'll send the heavies in to ram a bit of equalities up your jumper....

Ben Mortimer

Madam,
While your point is indeed valid, you argue it badly. Perhaps you should stick to writing fiction.

ajs

Oh Sir Graphus do not touch me...
you stupid fellow; presumably you post merely to taunt or upset? So, we shall duly ignore you.
Go back to your groundhog hole.

Dan Holloway

I have lots I would like to say, and may well ahve said were this not Susan's post and I respect her deeply (and thoroughly enjoyed her reading from Howard's End is on the.. at our local bookstore) but I too am spitting somewhat, so I WILL say this:
1. I am amazed no one has mentioned the Royal College of Art's annual secret postcard exhibition, where top artists and students consider it rather fun tomingle anonymously at £30 a pop, and see no slight on either side

2. I really do object to "published" authors using that status as proof that they write better than others. Surely the proof is in the writing and not the credentials - and if the writing is SO much better than everyone else's than that will shine out like a beacon and put the others to shame, will it not?

3. protectionism. Some posts by people in the literary establishment simply cry out for the word to be used.

I am actually in agreement with Susan. I am all for the highest praise and accolades going to the best authors. If we amateurs are so terrible, then you have nothing to fear from us, so why baulk at comparison? And if we aren't so bad, then surely we deserve to displace you - however manuy years of experience we don't have?

Sir Graphus

I'm deadly serious, ajs. I'm not so cruel as to taunt.

Susan didn't explain the details of this fringe event, or whether public funds are involved, but it does look pretty low grade. Just like the world is full of amateur footballers, runners and the like, it is also full of amateur writers. These people will have a readership of a couple of hundred for the first and only time in their lives; and good for them; if the story is rubbish, no-one will get beyond the 1st paragraph. If the event is full of bad writing, no-one will go.

The event is clearly trying to get some proper writers like Susan to give it some credibility, and she can decline if she wishes. These amateurs aren't undercutting her (anymore than Sunday footballers undercut Frank Lampard); this event's punters are more likely to go read a book when they leave. Some of them might read a Susan Hill book.

If you want to feel sorry for authors, read Philip Henscher in today's Indy.

Em

I agree with Mills that amateur need not necessarily mean worse than professional. Professional writers have managed to hit the market with what's wanted at the time and sometimes it's excellent and sometimes it's dross.

Some authors continue to be published because of their reputation (and I don't mean Susan Hill - The Beacon is still settling itself in my mind months after reading) even if what they produce is sloppily or hurriedly written. This doesn't seem fair.

Presumably the gamut of writing expertise gathering at the fringe event is so that readers can have fun trying to match writer to story. I think it sounds interesting. Including some well known authors with defined styles of writing adds to the interest.

London Calling

Cilhl out Sauesn

'Aoccdrnig to a rscheearch at an Elingsh uinervtisy, it deosn't mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoetnt tihng is taht frist and lsat ltteer is at the rghit pclae. The rset can be a toatl mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit a porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae we do not raed ervey lteter by it slef but the wrod as a wlohe.

Ist aobut epxrisonsg oenslf

Ceehiro…

hadrian

I think the point Susan is making most eloquently is that you need some degree of native talent and hard graft to produce a half decent piece of fiction. That all are nowadays consdered 'equivalent' is just the result of the utter eglaitarian bampots that dominate so many of what used to be accurately termed 'the humanities' but are now tragically in idelogical strait-jackets, almost invariably of the leftist drivel. Since 1997 we have been relentlessly dumbing down absolutely everything- or at least this damnable government has. With luck it'll soon be dumbed down itself- right out the door of No.10.

Nicholas J. Rogers

Hear, hear. I have aspirations to become a published author. That status is an honour and a privilege, and should be afforded only to those who can demonstrate that they deserve it.

James Murphy

Fergus Pickering - I like the cut of your poetic jib! Give us a lyrical line blown from that trumpet of yours! (signed, a fellow genius).

Fearless Frank

London Calling...
The funny thing is, they're right - I can read your post quite easily! It's often possible to read a line of text with the bottom half covered up, so half the alphabet is more or less redundant, and obviously spelling isn't all that important either. But perhaps that wasn't what you meant...

Dan Holloway

There is actually a very serious point here that has been skirted around, which is what makes a story good, and who judges it to be good. The traditional arbiters of quality do not come from marginalised communities (however much the great and the good literati claim to be marginalised themselves in contemporary society - and I DO have sympathy with them). There is, therefore, a self-perpetuating idea of what is "good", and it is actually a rather important thing to do to challenge this.

Where storytelling is concerned, communicating one's story in such a way as to articulate the fears and aspirations of one's community, and to help transform hopelessness into hope and invisibility to visibility has a pretty good prima facie case for being a criterion of "a good story" - after all, AS one of those crusty humanities bods who did dead languages at uni, I'm pretty sure I could make a good case that our august body of literary greatness started life as campfire pep talks, and ways to keep the fears at bay, imagine a better future, and give a sense of identity (I see no other justification for many of the interminable passages in the Aeneid). And if THAT is anything to do with whether or not a story is good, then published authors are precsiely the ones who are not in a position to judge whether these stories have merit.

Wily Trout

Does this mean I have no hope of ever being as good as Jeffrey Archer? Woe.

Rachel Green

Well said indeed, Ms Hill. Your scenario brings to mind those eighties pranks where monkeys would scrawl paintings and be hung in galleries.

simon

I understand Magnus Mills is a bus driver and used to build fences before writing the award winning 'Restraint of beasts'.
You do not have to study English to be a good writer and it is at least interesting to remove from writers the context and 'baggage' of their reputation and place them alongside those without.
All that is left is the words they have written and will stand and fall on their merits. There is too much log rolling in the literary world.
I am with Sir Graphus. Maybe there is an undiscovered talent waiting to be spotted. Maybe not. Who cares? Let them write.

Fergus Pickering

James Murphy, fellow genius. We d0o not live in a lyric age. However, that is a cop-out. Here is half a yard of genius:

Little

When Archie died the Year was dying too.
Late loitering leaves were drifting to the ground,
A time that dying has a lot to do,
And does it with a dry, susurrant sound.

Some say when Archie died it was not much –
A boy who did not walk or talk. But he
Did love to smile and laugh and look and touch.
He did do that. He did it constantly.

So small, so weak, so fragile, yet when Death,
That most ingenious and practised thief,
Unlocked the house and stooped and stopped the breath,
He left a strong sufficiency of grief.

Now is a winter and a summer since,
A year of rain and sun, and sun and rain,
A year since Archie died, our Little Prince.
We shall not look upon his like again.

Bunnykins

I understand your frustration Susan. However, it puts me in mind of my piano teacher (a concert pianist)who complained about the years of study and the paltry monetary rewards she received versus keyboard players in rock bands, with little or no musical training, who can notch up a comfortable earner with ease. I thought then, as I do now, life's a bitch innit. Surely the point is this, if you are talented and people enjoy reading (or in her case, listening to) your work, then isn't that reward enough?

wrinkled weasel

Unfortunately your analogy about fine art falls at the first hurdle; there are many stories about the paintings of chimps and children of six being exhibited alongside major artists and which then get fulsome approval from critics. I am not saying this is healthy, but it happens.

It happens because people are credulous, and perhaps that is the crime that raises the hackles. (If you do not actually have hackles, please forgive me. It was a metaphor.)

Of course, I understand why you are mad. I read (and more importantly, bought) "The Woman in Black" as a result of discovering you through this column. It is finely crafted without actually parading the devices. (Having tried to write an adventure story myself, I understand some of the process.) And so I could read that book again, and still enjoy it, because it has a coherent and charming narrative, which I am sure was something that came out of knowledge and application.

I was reading a piece of mid-Victorian prose this afternoon, and it occurred to me that if I cut up the sentences, which regularly reach 100 words, and allowed them to be replaced randomly, nobody would be any the wiser. The point is, however careful one is about writing - or not - you have no control over who reads it, or what they do with it. In essence then, your decision to withdraw is not elitist or snobby, it is a valid attempt at preserving your hard work in a worthy context.

JohnAnt

I agree with Susan that it's galling for any professional to have amateur work in any field treated as if it was on the same level. (Also, how convenient a way of avoiding paying anyone for anything!)
I was astonished recently that Radio 3 featured gobbets of performances by amateur pianists immediately following the evening concerts. Some were quite decent attempts; but to any reasonably discerning ear all, all of them were palpably inferior to any professional standard that Radio 3 would normally insist on. I felt quite cheated by having to give aural room to this indulgent wallpaper, and it felt like a misuse of licence fee payers money.
The point is surely - we pay the licence fee but that doesn't entitle us thrust ourselves in front of the mic. Yet so much Beeb-think these days is based on this looney audience-pandering idea, from 'Any Answers' to 'You and Yours', and the ghastly arrangements of the Upstairs, Downstairs' tune sent in by listeners to the PM programme. I expect 'Poetry Please' will consist of listeners reading their own verse soon.
What it all illustrates is how far our educational standards have sunk, that few can now tell the difference.
What particularly disturbs me about the fringe festival's idea is the anonymity of the entries. There is something rather dehumanising, promiscuous and undiscriminating about that.
And yes, "undiscriminating" is a pejorative concept, and 'discriminating' a positive one. The first systematic use of the word 'discriminate' as a negaive complaint was in the pre-1933 rants of Adolf Hitler.

Michael

You lost me when you defended journalists.

steeleweed

The democratization of anything simply reduces it to its lowest common denominator.
It is as though there is a limited amount of quality in any field and spreading it around lowers the average. But then, I'm a grumpy old man who lives life the hard way - and knows the meaning of integrity, artistic and otherwise.

Paul

I think the stunning point of this event that Susan has missed in her bid to (for some reason) decide that this is all to give asylum seekers publishing contracts, is that this ISN'T given amateurs entitlement, despite lack of talent.

The stories are anonymised. They will live and die by their quality, without preconceptions of the "authorial name". The quest will be to see if you can pick the talented professional from the untalented professional, from the talented amateur, from the untalented amateur. The access for all these people is democratised for this event, but not for the wider publishing world. As with the RCA Secret exhibition. And since enjoyment is in the eye of the beholder, perhaps Susan is worried that some jumped up amateur might produce something more popular than her 43 published novels and 50 years of experience?

If talent is key, surely the cream will rise to the top? And some of that cream may just be someone undiscovered.

Stephen

This is almost unbelievably self-indulgent and whiny. "Almost" because we've become all-to-used to such pathetic self-righteousness.

If you are so confident in your learning and your craft and your 43 books, why be so angry that someone might overlook your story? Publication is no guarantee of worthiness. It sounds to me like you should step down from your perch and see what people might really think of your work. That is, if you're not too frightened. Er, sorry, "angry".

Beer Moth

Paul.

Yes, cream rises to the top. But if the fashion is for bottles full of milk to be smashed upon the wall - and hey, like, why not? - then we just end up with a rather cheesy mess and painful feet.

Kona Macphee

An alternative perspective from a poet, at the Scottish Poetry Library blog:

"In defence of the amateur" : http://bit.ly/3IWHYP

CRW

Wow. I deeply, DEEPLY regret buying your latest book. I even read it thinking that you were an inspiration for a young writer who has only just started to get published. Unfortunately, you're just a narrow-minded elitist.

Roy

Surely the first question has to be is there any selection/judgement of the stories being posted. Is it really "any old body" or will there be an editor? Presumably the posted stories would be checked for content to avoid potential legal problems. If there is a proper editorial hand in the selection, where's the problem as the 'inferior' entries will be rejected and it would be no different to having your work appear in an anthology where you get a mix of ‘stars' promising newcomers and the odd first timer.

As an author at the bottom of the pecking order I have had a story in an anonymous anthology. A small press, Megazanthus, published it and I was pleased to be selected. However I believe 4th Estate published an anthology of 'anonymous short stories' by rather higher profile authors in 2009.

The Bird of Liang

Anyone who can blather that much about what a talent they are makes me suspicious. Funny thing is, however hot you are Susan, I never heard of you before reading your article. Maybe another 500 years in the trenches and you will get something with your system.

denverthen

The darkness of the amateur blogo-journalist is clearly rising. Really terrifying.

No, really.

Monica

My, my. Wouldn't it be interesting to see your work published, anonymously, alongside "lesser" writers? You've spent fifty years honing your craft, but wouldn't it be a kick in the teeth to see someone so far inferior produce a work of merit? Perhaps that's one reason you chose not to participate ... have you ever heard of raw talent? I see a little Mozart/Salieri action going on, I believe. You should check out the magazine/anthology series called Nemonymous. I think it would make your head implode. Cheers!

df lewis

I would also mention 'ANONTHOLOGY' (HarperCollins 2009) where was published short fiction by Joyce Carol Oates and others.

Terry Grimwood

I’m torn here because yes, the current egalitarianism is reminiscent of that prophetic old Kurt Vonnegut story in which equality means a “dumming down” of the highest order and in which excellence and intellect are brutally punished. Yes, the internet and easy self-publishing have encouraged ship-loads of self-indulgent dross to be presented to us in the guise of “writing”. Yes, Susan Hill, an author whose work I admire, deserves her status and success because it is based on hard, hard effort (I write and I know all about effort!) and merit. However, as in all art, anyone who writes well deserves a chance and those chances are far and few between. Publishers lists are shrinking, valuable outlets for good writing increasingly filled with professionally produced, bland and uninteresting money-spinners, while many deserving authors are overlooked. In light of this latter point, I’m afraid, I have to disagree with Ms Hill. This anonymous writing project is a chance, an opening. Some, no doubt a minute percentage of the stories it includes, will be of a high enough quality to deserve their moment in the sun and, if there is any justice in the world, lead to a struggling, deserving writer being heard. The dross will, hopefully, be forgotten. Oh, and I wholeheartedly agree with the comments about the Nemonymous anthologies, a remarkable and very worthy experiment in anonymously published fiction.

D Harrison

As others have said, you do have a couple of valid points. However, the general tone is that of a mean-spirited, sour old right winger - and frankly, it's the frightening proliferation of sour old right wingers that makes living in Britain (not to mention reading any internet comments thread) such a deeply depressing experience.

df lewis

I agree with the thrust of what people are implying above. Standards of talent and practical craft in fiction-making should be upheld via a means of elitism (a loaded word) but an elitism that somehow manages both to exclude the sub-standard and to enable the work of the many talented writers who are not named writers. In theory at least and in its own small experimental way, Nemonymity and Nemonymous have always seemed to me to fit this bill - but I would say that!

As to Ms Hill's self-styled 'rant', I suppose it is necessarily strident but also very defensive. I agree with a lot she says, however.

Roy

I think the Vonnegut story Terry referred to was Harrison Bergeron.
Those of you who seem so proud to claim ignorance of Susan and her work might be as well Googling or Binging, keywords "susan hill" black, before trumpeting that attitude so blatantly.

Fergus Pickering

Christ, man, would you prefer sour young left-wingers? They are the pits, I'm telling you. Anyway, Susan does't even BEGIN to make it as a right winger. Does she want to hang people? Does she want to throw young single mothers on the street to beg for their bread? I'm sure she's just a sweet old lady at heart. Doris Lessing, a most interesting and leftv wing old bat, send out a novel anonymously to publishers. I can't remember what exactly happened, but it wasn't greeted as a work of genius, I can tell you. What Pisses ME off is not the encouragement of anonymous work - bloody good thing I'd say - but that fact that these days an author has to LOOK right, so in the poetry business a young attractive black lesbian will trump a fat old bald middle-class chap like me. And it doesn't help, reading the Telegraph, I can tell you. So the anonymous route is quite attractive, I can tell you. I haven't won any big money, but about seven or eight thousand tax free, no maybe more, maybe more. And that ain't hay as pin money, is it?

Robert W. Walker

I completely and absolutely agree with your rant and found it everything I have wanted to say as well; I have published over forty novels myself and I share your feelings completely.

df lewis

Even if one agrees with some of the sentiments underlying the article (as I do), can one also agree with the issue that sparked it off? What was the reason for Susan Hill not providing a short short for an anonymous project? A number of famous writers recently joined the HarperCollins ANONTHOLOGY project of short shorts.

Noel Canin

Good for you Susan Hill. I so understand your anger, one of the beauties of this world is that we all have different gifts, talents and skills, there is no need to cover this up with a colorless display of everyman. The opposite, we need honed,earned and breathtaking expressions of art to live towards.

Beer Moth

D Harrison

If Britain is, as you state, beset by a 'frightening proliferation of sour old right-wingers', then how come none of them have managed to get through interview at the BBC?

Or pretty much anywhere in the media?

And scour the school staffrooms of the country and bring back a dozen if you can.

Tendryakov

I must admit, this article has somewhat taken the shine off Susan Hill as far as I am concerned. I can well understand that skill and craftsmanship should be valued, but her attitude seems to smack of that underlying the status of artists and writers in the former communist countries, whereby one could not be a writer or an artist without official sanction. Writers belonged to the union of writers, artists to the union of artists.
This view of the artist within society underlies the famous interchange in the notorious trial of Joseph Brodsky, Nobel prize winner:

Judge: What is your profession?

Brodsky: Translator and poet.

Judge: Who has recognized you as a poet? Who has enrolled you in the ranks of poets?

Brodsky: No one. Who enrolled me in the ranks of the human race?

harry mcganagall truman

Fergus, that was a lovely peom. where can we buy the cards that you write them for? do you do valentine's as well?

Nicholas

There is a difference between meritocracies and elitism although these days the distinction is increasingly blurred. All too often it is those who benefit most from membership of an elite who profess a belief in an ability to rise by merit. In my experience that is bunk. If the members of the empowered elite like someone as a person he or she will be invited on board the bandwagon - regardless of merit. It takes a great deal of impartial objectivity to promote someone you don't like because they are the best at what they do. Most people do not possess it and will use every form of weasel words to justify plain old fashioned preference. The phrase "fitting-in" is an old chestnut behind which lies much injustice.

The classic example was watching Vic Reeves being invited to display at the Royal Academy. Which came first, Vic Reeves or his art? And if the art were not by Vic Reeves would it have been selected?

Elitism and the power of the "credentials" rubber stamp seem to have prospered in Britain - at the expense of true merit. One only has to look to government to see the blind-eyed arrogance of those who have managed to climb the greasy pole deluding themselves that it was solely due to their merit. A visit to a book store will confirm the same delusion within literature. Is rubbish never published? Don't think so. I'm with Tendryakov on this.

Trotting out credentials to underpin an opinion, an informed opinion maybe, but just an opinion nevertheless, is something that would just not be done in the Britain of my youth. This combination of advertised arrogance, self-promotion and presumption about others I cannot get my old head around.

"Time and chance happeneth to them all."

A Hughes

"Names, you see, are invidious. They might indicate to people that the story was worth reading."

You have to love the subtext of this sentence - that namelessness and worthlessness go hand in hand. God, how disappointing. I've admired several of Susan Hill's novels for years, re-reading them many times, but here she's guilty of such a terrible mean-spiritedness towards her fellow writers - and yes, they are her fellows, whether they're published or not, beginners or not, asylum seekers or not - that I don't think I can re-read them again with the same innocent enjoyment. God forbid any of those "marginalised, displaced, disadvantaged, bottom of the heap, discriminated against, asylum seekers" were chosen precisely because the elitist, gatekeeping attitude of people like Ms. Hill might be keeping them invisible. As someone else pointed out, she seems to miss the point that anonymising gives every writer an equal chance to be judged on quality alone - how is that something to be lamented? The whole post reeks of snobbery and petty defensiveness. Sad, sad, sad.

jp

Fair enough.

But. You choose to write for the Spectator?