Has It Really Been a Year?
That's what I asked myself when I came across the annual Eulogy For the Dying Art of Fiction In America in the SF Bay Guardian. Heck, it's only the last week of May. Jonathan Yardley ran through the checklist (1. Writing workshops are to blame; 2. Literary fiction fails to engage the larger society; 3. Ironically, sometimes "genre" fiction achieves higher excellence than effete literary fiction; 4. Contemporary fiction is stuck in a dead end of style over substance…&c.) back in July of last year. B.R. Myers' laundry list hit newsstands in June the year before. Jonathan "Don't Correct Me While I'm Saving Civilization" Franzen's sermonette in Harpers—well, that was back when Osama bin Laden was still living in Sudan. So this year's requiem is a bit early, but still in the ballpark.
This year's undertaker Paul Reidinger employs a relatively original method: Rather than calling for the Great American Novel to become even greater, he takes aim at the very concept of the G.A.M.—that bloated, flatulent slab of Important Fiction that measures greatness through girth alone. (I kept wondering, though: Isn't the central idea of Great American Novelism that the Great American Novel hasn't been written yet, and only exists as a kind of chimera or Platonic ideal?) As I am partial to criticism that measures literature by the metric tonne, I found much in Reidinger's essay to agree with. But little in his pompous, windy, snooty style to enjoy.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
ignore them and they will go away. you're only encouraging them.
Literature is always changing, and there are always some complaining that this new stuff really sucks.
And some--maybe most--of it does. But the sentiment that somehow these "new writers just don't get it," that they are somehow decadent or self-absorbed, is a cheap and easy way to approach the problem. And to assert that all well-written literature must be easy to read the first go-round is just plain silly. Some stuff takes time to read and to consider.
But criticize away, B. R. Myers! Although a better (albeit less ego- and wallet-reinforcing) way to do it would be to ignore the bad stuff and read the good. Heck, why go to the Penguin rack at the bookstore? There are enough free etexts out there to last more than one lifetime.
But PLEASE! I can't believe anyone defended Stephen King as anything beyond pulp. The guy is just not a great writer. Good storyteller? Yes, sometimes. But writer? I never encountered (before or since) so many clunky sentences as in Stephen King (with the possible exception of Orson Scott Card, another storyteller). Better to pick someone more defensible, who writes well for a broad audience: Michael Crichton comes to mind; John Grisham is another very popular writer who has a good way with words.
re; Grisham
Huh?
I'll settle it now. I am the greatest writer who ever lived.
So there.
Grisham was a tired hack from word one. King, however, has only gotten deeper, more complex and better at his art as the years have passed. Of course, that "genre" fiction often is far more substantial than "literary" fiction is nothing new.
michel houellebecq is the only contemporary writer worth reading.
King "has only gotten deeper, more complex and better"??? Mhua ha ha ha.
King has all the depth of a high school English essay. Storyteller he is, and sometimes a good one, but he is not a good writer--and he is certainly not deep. Pretentious at times (when he tries to be deep, high school style), but real depth is just not his gig.
My point about Grisham (who ranks below Crichton, but still) is that he is a solid writer. Depth? None. And no pretense of depth, either. But I can read a Grisham book and not hit one tenth the number of clunky sentences that litter King's prose. And when King tries to be deep, it just gets worse.
This isn't to say "don't read King." Just the opposite: read away! Enjoy the stories. But don't try to pass it off as good writing.
And, as everyone knows, there is an objective measuring stick of "writing-ability" that only some of us can make use of.
I sincerely hope no one, aside from those getting paid to pretend to do so, spend time contemplating "the nature of literature".
Best current "popular" writer: Dean Koontz (and I liked him LOOONG before I read the Reason interview).
Jeffery Deaver writes excellent thrillers. Great suspenseful style.
The comments by "What" are probably the most depressing of all. Rather than a spirited debate about one of the great human arts, we get a dismissal of both literature and anything not "objective." In fact, as anyone who can read will grant, there is good and bad writing. The exact nature of what is good or bad varies a lot--from time to time, place to place, person to person--but there is certainly a distinction.
Anyone who thinks that only things objectively measured are real should look into phlogiston. It was measured, shown to exist (to certain people at a certain time), and then completely disproven and forgotten. But its potency as metaphor for the problems inherent in "objective" measures has not diminished.
Michael Swanwick or nothing! Of course, Haruki Murakami is excellent too, but he's not American.
Yes, Murakami is awesome!
My favorite Great American Novel is Charles Portis's "True Grit." (Don't judge the book by the goofy John Wayne movie adaptation.) The novel represents everything that I consider to be "great" about America.
Plus, it's hilarious.
And at barely 200 pages, even Mr. Reidinger might like it.
Dog of the South puts True Grit in the shithouse, but I'm glad to see anybody representin' for Portis.
The movie gets a bad rap from Portis fans, though. It's as close to a word-for-word adaptation as I've ever seen.
As for the Grisham/Crichton/King debate, LONG LIVE THE KING! Not even a contest, in my view.
Don DeLillo had a string of great novels, but he seems to have whiffed twice in a row.
EMAIL: draime2000@yahoo.com
IP: 62.213.67.122
URL: http://www.enlargement-for-penis.com
DATE: 01/26/2004 06:26:18
Self-imposed ignorance should disgust everyone.