Reading old literature is a common theme for any of us English majors, or those of you desperately trying to meet your humanities requirements, only to end up having to read nine massive novels in one semester. Often, conversations in seminars about these novels, the books currently being read by the class, are compared to novels currently being published. This same conversation played out in my class recently. Specifically, the difference between multiperspectivalism in Victorian novels and modern novels. Multiperspectivalism is when a novel follows the point of view of multiple characters. Before long, the conversation turned from differences to which method is superior. This is an impossible question to answer when comparing only two novels to each other, and a dumb question to ask when comparing every multiperspectivalism novel against each other. The rules and formulas that have been created to regulate the literature published now have stifled creativity, yet this isn’t the fault of those who popularized said strategies.
The big debate in my class was if novels should use the system of multiperspectivalism employed by George Elliot in “Middlemarch” or the modern system. Elliot separates her novel into both chapters and books, yet these separations do not tell you which character you will be reading about. Instead, the reader must be careful and think through what is being said. The point of view can shift within a chapter, forcing the reader to pay attention. In most modern multiperspectival novels, the point of view switches between a set number of characters and switches at chapter marks. This strategy is much clearer, yet loses the forced attention of Elliot’s method.
Both strategies are useful tools for writers to possess and know how to use. “Middlemarch” would not have been as effective if it employed modern standards, and “Six of Crows,” a fantasy heist novel by Leigh Bardugo, would be made far too complex if it employed Elliot’s style. This idea that styles and formats should be treated as tools and not rules has been lost. The publishing industry has strict standards and desires for novels they will publish, and as such, limits the way authors can write and expect to succeed.
The publishing industry does this because, in many ways, they have to do it to keep the businesses afloat. Imagine you are a brand-new author with no connections in the industry, and you just finished your first novel. The first step towards publication is to query agents. Each agent provides a list of what they’re looking for. If you can’t find an agent looking for your novel, you can try submitting to them and hope they love it enough, or you can give up. If there are agents looking for what you’ve written, you can send them your manuscript and hope they accept it. Good luck, because there are only five major publishing houses. If they do accept it, your new agent will start taking your book to different editors working at various publishers. Once again, you have to hope there are editors who are looking for exactly what you have written. Only once an editor has offered to buy your book can you finally relax slightly before editing begins.
This whole process forces authors to have their novel fit into the guidelines of two separate people who can then demand edits that change major aspects of the book. Due to all of this, it is nearly impossible to get an experimental book published without a past history of successful novels. No longer do we see books like “Middlemarch,” which seek to convey information to the reader through format and style choices; instead, every book follows the same rules, standards and formats.
This problem has only worsened in the past two decades as social media has exploded. Readers used to control which books became popular by sharing their love of certain books with the people around them. Now, we have influencers online telling us exactly what we should read. Books aren’t just popular anymore; they’re trending. It’s not even just certain books or genres that trend either, certain tropes or character types are pushed online. You can’t go on the book side of TikTok, Instagram or YouTube without being flooded with tropes: enemies-to-lovers, fake dating, found family, etc. Novels are marketed, not for what they’re doing differently, but for every trope and expectation that they follow. Publishers are being pushed to viral marketing strategies by influencers who found success by simplifying every aspect of books down to their tropes. Publishers then see the success of this form of marketing and pay influencers to do more of it. It’s a self-defeating cycle that will push the publishing industry into a corner where they publish the same book 100 times a year with a different cover on each.
Even if an author attempts to get around this by self-publishing, they are still victim to the whims of readers, and readers have become used to knowing what is going to happen in each beat of a story before they open the first page. A self-published novel is less likely to succeed than a traditionally published one in general, but a self-published novel that can’t be virally marketed will have a very difficult time.
The current desire to know if you will like something before you engage with it and the culture of looking to influencers over friends for recommendations have greatly limited the number and kind of novels that can succeed. Yet, the most financially responsible thing for publishers to do is continue chasing this success until it stops making them money. Innovation doesn’t guarantee success, and publishers don’t need to take risks to make money, so why should they? Money and consolidation are killing the publishing industry. Capitalism hasn’t bred innovation since corporations gained enough money to never have to change.
