Stock-Taking

The Litblog Co-op is closing down, mainly because so many of its members have become so preoccupied with their own blogs, as well as other literary endeavors that in some cases their blogs helped to make possible, that they could not devote the kind of time and attention required to keep a loosely-affiliated group like the LBC functioning adequately. The LBC was formed with a specific mission to highlight books that weren't being discussed much, or at all, in mainstream book sections by putting the collective authority of the then better-known literary weblogs behind the selection of one book per quarter the group believed was worth readers' attention.

I'd like to take the LBC's dissolution as an opportunity to not only reflect on its success in highlighting such books but also on the evolution of the literary blog from the time (actually only 3-4 years ago) when "literary weblog" seemed merely a peculiar conjunction of words to the present moment, when the litblog has become sufficiently established that numerous print-based critics have attacked literary blogs for encroaching on their territory (the gates to which they apparently intend to keep).

When I discovered what I would identify as the original group of self-identified literary weblogs--Maud Newton, The Literary Saloon, Moorish Girl, Golden Rule Jones, The Elegant Variation, The Return of the Reluctant, a few others--I had for a while wondered why there was not more web-based literary discussion and criticism, since such discussion on the internet could be both more widely disseminated and more up-to-date than what was published in magazines--most of which had actually been moving away from providing their content online--or even in newspapers, only a very few of which printed literary-related commentary on a semi-regular basis, anyway. What I found on these ur-litblogs was, if not fully worked-out literary criticism, an obvious enthusiasm about books and an admirable interest in serious fiction. As a lapsed academic, I was especially pleased to find such an interest among people who, in most cases, were not academics, since living in the world of the academy can lead one to suspect there are no serious readers of serious fiction outside its insulated walls.

My alienation from academe was in part a reaction against the prevailing modes of academic criticism, which in my view had essentially abandoned "literature itself" in favor of critical approaches that were mostly just a way of doing history or sociology by other means. I had pursued a Ph.D in literary study in order to study literature, not to validate my political allegiances on the cheap, or to study something called "culture," an artifact of which literature might be considered but given no more emphasis than any other cultural "expression." I was looking to find a way to write literary criticism that continued to focus on the literary qualities of literature, and to that end had published several critical essays in publications that would still print such efforts when I happened upon the literary weblogs I have mentioned. I soon enough concluded there was no reason the literary blog could not accomodate a form of literary criticism--longer than the typical kind of post I was seeing on the extant litblogs but shorter than the conventional scholarly article or long critical essay. Trying out these possibilities has been the ongoing project of this blog over the now four years of its existence.

At a time when still print-bound critics and book reviewers seem to be handing off a rhetorical baton in their eagerness to keep ahead of the perceived threat posed by literary blogs, it is rather difficult to recall how thoroughly marginal to the established critical discourse the literary weblog was in the first months and years of its existence. Among the criticisms that were directed at literary blogs in this initial stage of audience-building was the accusation they were too insular, too preoccupied with linking to each other in a kind of in-group celebration. And indeed there was a good deal of cliquish cross-linking, but this was mostly, it seemed to me, a function of the litblog's presumed marginality, a way of creating a community of engaged readers--the early bloggers were readers first of all--who could communicate their interests, insights, and enthusiasms to like-minded others. While most of us exploring the boundaries of the new medium were surely hoping our posting might attract a wider audience, I don't think many anticipated such a dramatic increase in attention paid to litblogs as did indeed occur. (The suddenness of this increase can be illustrated by the fact that as recently as BEA 2005, efforts by the then just-created Litblog Co-op--specifically by LBC mastermind Mark Sarvas--to interest the powers that be at the BEA in a panel discussion of literary blogs were rebuffed because few people associated with the event had heard of literary blogs.)

The Litblog Co-op was created during the first wave of interest in literary weblogs from beyond the small corner of the blogosphere litbloggers and their initial audience had staked out for themselves--a few noticies in newspapers, links from more established, non-literary blogs, comments from "name" authors and critics increasingly showing up on various litblogs. As I recall it, the LBC aimed to accomplish two related goals: to bring attention to small-press books and less-known writers, and, implicitly, to raise the profile of literary weblogs even higher, to make them, through the authority the LBC might acquire from its selections, more of an accepted presence in the national conversation about books and writers. These were both entirely laudable goals, one directed toward showcasing alternatives to the fiction most loudly celebrated by the "book business," one directed toward providing alternative sources of discussion and debate about current fiction.

I'd have to say that our success in accomplishing the first goal was mixed. Several books that received little or no attention in the mainstream review pages did get some exposure as LBC nominees. Some of these were books by first-time authors, while others were by more veteran authors (some in translation) whose previous work had not gotten them the recognition they might have deserved. However, I don't think the LBC was ultimately able to establish itself as an authoritative guide to small-press books and overlooked fiction, judging by the degree of notice taken of our selections by blogs not themselves part of the LBC or by the literary community more generally, as well as by the number of comments most of the postings on the LBC blog received. The LBC's Read This! selections just never seemed to achieve the status with readers of current fiction that they were originally meant to achieve.

I believe that one explanation for this failure is that the LBC never really recovered from the disappointment spawned by its very first selection, a more or less mainstream work of "literary fiction" that had already been widely reviewed and whose selection seemed to many (including me) to be inconsistent with the LBC's stated mission. This selection perhaps indicated that the LBC was going to be business as usual, choosing the same old books published by the same old publishers and reviewed in the same old high-profile book reviews. Our subsequent selections mostly demonstrated that this was not the case, but it may be that an impression was left that the LBC wasn't quite the champion of unduly neglected fiction it was claiming to be.

It may also be that, eventually at least, the Litblog Co-op was perceived as a too narrowly-constituted, "clubbish" sort of group. When the LBC was formed, it could plausibly claim to represent the "leading" literary weblogs, but the litblogosphere has so dramatically expanded, both in sheer numbers of blogs and in the quality of the posting to be found there, that it really could no longer assert itself as the collective voice of the preeminent litbloggers. The LBC did enlarge its membership, and continued to invite new members when places became available, but this only made the process of nominating titles, choosing a favorite, and posting on the ultimate selection increasingly unwieldy, and it would have only gotten worse if we'd expanded the membership once again. When the litblogosphere was a fairly self-contained space, populated by bloggers united by a desire to identify worthy books and confer a kind of "indie" credential to these books, it was still possible for the member bloggers of the LBC to consider themselves the vanguard of a new online literary movement, but by now such a claim just isn't credible.

As for the second goal of bringing more attention to literary weblogs, there is no doubt that litblogs have established themselves as part of literary culture, but I don't really think this was a direct result of the actions of the Litblog Co-op. Perhaps the existence of the LBC did contribute to the increase of weblogs dedictated to literature, both past and present, but it was only a modest factor among those that led more readers to litblogs and ultimately led some of them to become litbloggers. I think it's probable that the individual members of the LBC did more to make the litblogosphere an accepted source of information about and judgment of current fiction on their own blogs than did the LBC itself. It's likely that a given title can be exposed to a potential audience just as effectively when two or three or more individual bloggers discover it and consider its merits as when it is in effect made the winner of a competition conducted by some such organization as the Litblog Co-op.

In this way the LBC may have unwittingly performed at least one useful service. Its relatively brief existence, and the reasons for its brevity, suggests that probably there will be no online version of the National Book Critics Circle, no self-appointed arbiters of literary value on the net to rival the NBCC and other print-based critics' associations that exist mainly to bestow awards. This does not mean the litblogosphere, for example, cannot wield the authority represented by these kinds of groups, but it does mean that whatever authority literary blogs do attain will be much more widely dispersed, not concentrated in organized groups pretending to encompass the "best" available judgment about current fiction or poetry. Since there is no such "best" judgment, just as the books chosen as "best" by the NBCC, The National Book Awards, or, indeed, the Litblog Co-op are no such thing (except by accident), readers will need to find the litblogs that consistently examine the sorts of books they find they like to read. This may result in a further fracturing of the litblogosphere into zones of "niche" interest, but this will only reflect an already existing diversity of taste and preference and will hardly lead to the destruction of a "common" literary culture, the existence of which is and always was a myth.

I expect the litblogosphere to continue to grow. I especially expect an increase in blogs offering longer-form commentary and criticism, as opposed to the link-centered blog that defined the literary weblog in its first years of existence but that by now has become just one kind of litblog among others. The more that literary blogs become credible contributors to critical/literary discourse, the less will be the need of an organization like the Litblog Co-op, or for any other effort to unite bloggers on behalf of the literary blog as a medium for serious literary discussion. Considering that all signs point to a decline in literary coverage in newspapers and magazines, I still believe the time may come when blogs and other forms of online publishing will dominate the literary discussion. If so, the LBC will have played some short-term role in underscoring the potential of literary weblogs, although their long-term potential is still to be tested.

Comments

[ed]

Dan: This is a very thoughtful postmortem. You're particularly spot on with the idea that litbloggers are less collaborative these days and more interested in their own projects. Perhaps the early seeds of this fragmentation were sowed during the LBC's final year. Litbloggers wrote novels, founded publishing companies, contributed reviews to newspapers, and redesigned their sites to accommodate Google search results and advertising. In short, they began to take themselves more seriously, perhaps too seriously. Whether this will translate into a terrain as ossified and competitive as newspapers is subject to one's degree of pessimism. I have faith, but I also remain troubled by this online atmosphere, in which litbloggers are now as fragmented and thus as disparate as the left.

Which isn't entirely a bad thing, but is certainly a sign that the DIY punk rock ethos is nowhere nearly as pronounced among the litblogosphere as it was even three years ago. I mourn for this. Many of the progenitors -- including me when I am snowed under with deadlines -- have forgotten that we all started out relatively communal.

Nevertheless, this will sort itself out. The possibilities of extended discourse are indeed quite exciting.

[I am ambitious for motley]

any chance you could list the "solo" projects of the litbloggers? Who got published? By who? In what mags/journals?

Also as a seperate question, but related: could you list perhaps 5 or 10 litblogs that have acquired a lot of attention? Like who is the e-equal of the old prestegious New York Times Book Review (and who is the *new* New York Review of Books)? &c &c. (The only one I can think of, other than this one, is Maud Newton, but I dont read 'teh int0rnetz' much).

thanks

[Dan Green]

I'd suggest you go to the LBC website and look at the membership list (including the emeritus members). If you go to their blogs, I'm sure you'll discover what the "solo" projects are. (Mark Sarvas's about-to-be-published novel, for example, or Ed Champion's reviews and literary journalism, or Dan Wickett's new publishing company. Among others.)

[Gwenda]

The flaws I see are largely different ones, though you make some good points. I'm not sure about your last point though, because the (terribly nicknamed) "kidlitosphere" has made tremendous strides in accomplishing that kind of credibility around certain books with its Cybil Awards (and also with Colleen Mondor's huge interview tours). The awards are a huge undertaking, involving tons of volunteers, and nominations can be made by anyone. This is only the second year, but because of the organized way they've been run, people in that sphere of publishing are starting to notice them, and because many parents and librarians (and booksellers) are involved, they have a good shot at increasing that exposure.

I think the same kind of thing is possible in the larger litblog world, possibly through an entirely different mechanism. It just hasn't been organized yet.

[Jessica]

Aw, I'm so sorry to hear this -- especially as I was one of those bloggers who pulled out of the LBC in the past year to pursue other ventures, but I hoped it would always be around. I think perhaps, as Dan suggests, the LBC was primarily a victim of its own members' success -- as people found their voice and community in the literary world as bloggers, they found opportunities to do more and different things. Blogging was more of a springboard than an end goal, for many -- I know for me starting The Written Nerd led to many other roles in the bookselling world, which have ultimately taken time away from blogging but which are absolutely how I want to be spending my time.

But my thought was always that what the LBC needed was some kind of leader -- maybe someone who didn't have a separate blog, for whom the LBC was the primary project. While all of us probably enjoyed actually reading and writing about books, the endless work of organization, scheduling, voting, posting, etc. was a bit too much to be done on a volunteer basis by a sort of loose (if "clubbish")committee. There were both too many cooks in the kitchen, and too few members to take advantage of the wisdom of crowds. If the LBC were to succeed, I think it would need someone willing to take on the organizational role so that bloggers could do what they do best: think in print about books. I'm sorry the LBC won't be bringing great new fiction to our attention anymore. But we're lucky we still have all of the members blazing away with brilliant new literary projects, on the web and elsewhere.

[Anna Clark]

Thanks for such a fully considered reflection on the LBC's sad fate. I wasn't part of it, except as a reader, but your thoughts on what went awry and how web lit culture has evolved since its early days ring true.

But I don't agree with your assessment that the LBC's closure signifies "that probably there will be no online version of the National Book Critics Circle" or other significant online literary collaborative. This was only one experiment, after all. You pointed out that the litblogging community is very different now than it was when the LBC opened shop, and that LBC's model isn't adapted to the new context. I think that rather implies that a new model might just be.

You're right--online literary communities will probably only increase in influence and popularity. It's only a matter of time until someone else initiates a collaborative litblogging project--maybe with different aims, certainly with a different structure. I look forward to it.

My thanks to all the LBC vets.

[Dan Green]

A "collaborative litblogging project" is one thing. A group of bloggers or critics who get together to hand out awards is something else. I don't believe I'd want to be part of the latter.

[Gwenda]

Count me as one of the members who never really understood the difference between bestowing a "read this" label on one of four books as _not_ giving an award. I also think that "best" is a limiting conception -- one of the reasons the Cybils are interesting is that they seek to fill a void perceived by the bloggers involved in the "bests" of the children's literature world. I'm sorry, Dan, if awards offend your sensibilities intrinsically (a view I'm not wholly unsympathetic to); that said, they very much are a "collaborative litblogging project." Don't narrow the scope of what's possible based on one, now deceased, effort.

[Dan Green]

The LBC itself actually moved away from construing the RT selection as an award. In our latter days, we spent as much time and space discussing the other nominees as the "winner." I don't know if this was ultimately the right move or not, but I remain more comfortable with the idea a recommendation or a spotlight, or whatever you want to call it, than with an "award." An award implies "best," however limiting a conception it indeed is, and it's finally just a way for the entity bestowing the award to call attention to itself, rather than an effort to steer people to good books or good movies or what have you.

[Colleen]

Ooh - don't know that I can agree with your one conclusion in this case Dan: "it's finally just a way for the entity bestowing the award to call attention to itself, rather than an effort to steer people to good books or good movies or what have you."

I am not part of the Cybils - not because of a problem with the awards but because of the time commitment involved. But one major difference between the Cybils and other awards is that it is not from an organization that exists to promote itself. The bloggers who judge the awards change every year and the Cybils web site largely goes dormant outside of the nomination process and award announcements. (It stays up merely to list the winners and update on occasional news from past winners or finalists.) There are not officers or board members as you would expect - just bloggers who fulfill certain requirements as set out by the founders who then volunteer their efforts to weed through nominations from the public. Once the awards are announced (and they are in muliple genres and age groups many overlooked by the main stream) the bloggers go back to their own sites and interests. In fact the bloggers/judges themselves are the least noteworthy (or noticed) part of this process.

I think part of the success of this award is that it does not actively exist throughout the year nor does it seek publicity or popularity for anything other than the books. So while I certainly can understand your points about awards, in this case I don't think they are valid.

[amcorrea]

As a reader who goes to litblogs (in part) for good book recommendations, I find this very sad. Perhaps I just don't understand the amount of work involved in the Co-op's organization, but I don't quite see why other litbloggers who have the time and motivation to read and recommend new books cannot continue to do so on the site. You delineated the reasons very well--but I suppose I wonder why the project's scope couldn't be scaled down to simply recommending new books on a periodic basis. Perhaps each member could recommend one book (on, say, a bi-monthly basis) and those who had the time and inclination could chime in on a discussion. That way, it wouldn't be necessary for all members to read and vote on a list of potential candidates.

Another thing that should be pointed out is the archival nature of litblogs and the subsequent book discussion. It's very important that the site be left up so that readers can continue to access the wealth of information and insight that the site generated. For example, I didn't read Kirstin Allio's Garner until this past February and found the Co-op's discussion invaluable in sorting through my own thoughts about it. (I'd also like to think that the Co-op should be given a small part of the credit for the international success of Sam Savage's Firmin.)

The Co-op should be left up because litbloggers in general should be (more?) aware of the myth of internet "immediacy." As books are the focus of our blogging, they are perpetually present works of art that shouldn't be affected by any sort of timeline or "buzz." I think most would agree that the fact that a reader picks up a book much later than most others does not invalidate that reader's opinion on said book. I realize this is an obvious statement, but I believe one of the challenges that litblogs present is in not letting the "good stuff" to get buried in the amount of content created. Many have addressed this problem in various ways (tags, a "best of" link list, etc.), but the issue shouldn't be forgotten completely. Another example--when I formulate a post on a given book, I use the Google search tool at the MetaxuCafé to see what others have had to say about it. This is as close as we have gotten to a central storehouse of litblog postings (as far as I know).

Anyway, forgive the rambling. It's just important that litblogs continue to discuss and recommend good books--in "anyevery" way possible.

[brewdog]

I always thought Snoop would keep the LBC forever rollin', but what do I know?

It seems that the two ideas most prominent, most salient here (even in dissension over particulars) are that litbloggers read certain books and write about them in a way they are not written about in other places. The second is that without some sort of map, the wilds of the Internet are too capricious for readers to stumble across these writings (blogs and books, natch) in a cohesive, structured sort of way.

The first part, that litbloggers occupy necessary territory, is without question, going to continue without the LBC or any organizing effort. The ongoing debate between print/blog that Dan's been writing about recently reveals the depth of commitment many people have to writing about what they've read.

The lack of structure, however, is semi-problematic. Dan's concern about people beknighting books through awards versus writing about otherwise-easily-overlooked books is valid. What I like is knowing that there's a network of minds reading and writing, and as a reader I can share in that. I don't want ten or twenty people recommending me the same two or three books.

I want to read good books, but I mostly miss out on fiction because I have painted myself into a corner, tastewise. There aren't a lot of prominent trustworthy outlets which can bring books to my attention. I skim hundreds of magazines and websites to find just one novel. The only reason I bother is that the same skimming turns up dozens of interesting nonfiction titles. So, my reading is 95-5 non-to-fiction.

What is the answer? Damned if I know. But I am fully in favor of extended discourse on single topics rather than link o-the day blogs.

[Terry Pitts]

Dan, Thanks for a great post. Your well-written comments on the use of cultural studies as a methodology for literary criticism prompted me to say something over at Vertigo on this subject. http://sebald.wordpress.com/2008/03/23/cultural-decoder-rings/

[Fred Ramey]

This is a turning point, I think. And I, too, have been led to speak to it.

http://www.unbridledbooks.com/blog/WhattheLitblogCoopengendered

[Ian]

I have to say agree with one of your points: about the first selection chosen by LBC. After a certain amount of build-up about the stated mission, the choice was a massive turn-off for me. I lost interest immediately and have only checked back with the site a couple of times since. Nonetheless, I think the mission remains worthwhile.

[Eric C]

To avoid confusion, I'd post this on the LBC page itself. I was confused when I saw that it just stopped posting.

Anyways, I discovered "The Further Shore" via LBC, and I'm bummed to see it go. I'm going to try to find other blogs dedicated to the original mission. But cheers.