January 17, 2012

What makes a cult author?

by

Roberto Bolano: Cult author?

‘Cult favourite’ has always been a loaded term in publishing: it conjures up a devoted fan-base, but is often code for ‘crap sales’. There was an interesting analysis of what it means to be pigeonholed as a cult author in El Pais over the weekend. Some prominent names — and cult favourites — of Spanish-language literature weighed in, offering their tuppence worth as to whether it’s a compliment, a critique of previous sales, or — most dangerous of all — an indication that an author is perceived as hopelessly uncommercial.

There were interesting differences of opinion as to whether ‘cult favourite’ books are so inherently, or whether it’s simply a category invented by marketing departments, a part of the architecture of the literature industry, unrelated to a book’s themes or manner of presenting them. Arguing for the fundamental cultishness of certain books, the Chilean writer Rafael Gumucio says:

There must be, in the writing of a cult writer, something that tends to the sacred and the secret. Something that makes you feel, as a reader, unique and chosen. It’s a religious category, which relates the book to one of its most controversial functions: to be the depository of the word of god, and writers his priests.

Meanwhile, Venezuelan author Alberto Barrera Tyszka says:

It’s a term used more by editors or critics. Writers are very vain and the category might be a way of softening a failure with readers. We writers want it all: critics and public. It might also be a provisional definition. More than twenty years ago, maybe Robert Walser was considered a cult writer. Bolaño too. Today he’s practically an institution.

The notion of provisionality is an interesting one in this debate. Was Bolaño ever really considered a cult writer? Or is this a label that sticks? Elsewhere in the article, Andrea Palet of independent Chilean publisher Los Libros Que Leo takes a strong position:

‘Cult’ is a very stable tag: you can be selling like crazy, but they’re going to continue to call you a ‘cult’ writer until you’re in the retirement home.

Palet also describes a cult writer as one who ‘already has fans, before the industry and the press even know of his/her existence’. This is particularly interesting when you consider that some online platform, evidence of a burgeoning network of fans, is now virtually a prerequisite of a publishing deal. How many Twitter followers makes a ‘cult’ readership? As self-publishing projects proliferate, it’s a safe bet that use of this most nebulous of terms will increase, too. As it becomes more ubiquitous and less meaningful, will we be losing a useful category? Or was it always too vague to be helpful?

 

Ellie Robins is an editor at Melville House. Previously, she was managing editor of Hesperus Press.

  • Marie

    I always thought a cult writer was someone who was edgy and wrote about things outside the mainstream but who has a devoted fan base outside of the literary scene. When I hear the term, I think of the kinds of books that get passed hand to hand in high school or college, books about people on the margins of society by people who likewise existe(d) on its edges. I think about books that weren’t big successes when they came out but have stood the test of time and are still being read years later, still important to people. I hope it doesn’t get coopted to the point where the  literary mainstream is using it to hype a book, because it seems to me like it’s the kind of label that has to grow around a book- a book has to earn the right to be called a cult classic! Great topic. I may steal it for a blog post of my own (and link back to you, of course!)

Stories from related categories