NP journo trashes contemporary authors

[cj hurtt]

>Could it be, as scores of academics and social critics have been saying for
>decades, that the novel is simply irrelevant, now?

>That, as a society, we are beyond literature? Not post-literate, but
>actually, evolutionarily, beyond being affected by fiction?

what do you mean? if fiction no longer affected us, wouldn't this very list
not be? if anything, what with the glut of "reality television shows" and
this whole chandra levy smokescreen extravaganza, we are being less affected
by reality.


>And could it be that even authors of fiction are beginning to realize that
>there's nothing less interesting than navel-gazing about navel-gazing?

>
>When was the last time a work of fiction changed anything, anyway?  Grapes
>of Wrath?

again what do you mean? changed for society or a single person? house of
leaves changed quite a bit for me, but i know that it did little for other
people.
>
>
>
>
>At 11:59 AM 7/13/01 -0700, you wrote:
>
>> >PW Daily for Booksellers from Publishers Weekly
>> >http://www.publishersweekly.com
>> >
>> >-----------------------------------------------------------
>> >Contents for the issue sent Thursday, July 12, 2001:
>> >
>>[...]
>> >Atlantic Debunking Evocative of Not Much
>> >
>> >What if they trashed the literary establishment and nobody cared? The
>> >Atlantic magazine's other contrarian article this month--the one more
>> >interesting than the chestnut about whether superstores are good for
>> >America (http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2001/07/allen.htm) accuses a
>> >number of showhorse writers of mediocrity and blasts the editors and
>> >critics who encourage them.
>> >
>> >The essay's emperors-new-clothes argument (reminiscent in some ways of
Tom
>> >Wolfe's screed of a few years back) is too vast to be summarized. But if
>> >you haven't read it, it comes down to this: 1) Prize juries reward a
good
>> >sentence over a dazzling passage, story or character,  2) Those
sentences
>> >are often overblown, overwritten and overrated, 3) Don DeLillo sucks.
>> >
>> >The author of the piece--one unknown B.R. Myers--also exegisizes
>> >contemporary stars like Cormac McCarthy, Rick Moody, Annie Proulx, David
>> >Guterson and Paul Auster, putting them down for convoluted writing that
he
>> >says lacks the clarity of Bellow or the story-telling chops of Stephen
>> >King.
>> >
>> >Whatever the argument's merits, bookstores might say that it doesn't
>> >matter. Prize stickers, they claim, help sell books; Myers thinks that
>> >juries dish them out reflexively, to the wrong authors. Booksellers say
>> >blurbs catch a shopper's eye; Myers counters that critics have gotten
lazy
>> >with their adjectives. "It is easier to call writing like Proulx's
>> >lyrically evocative or poetically compelling than to figure out what it
>> >evokes," he writes.
>> >
>> >His is, um, an entertaining and thoughtful essay, with points astute,
>> >specious and provocative all rolled into one grape leaf of an argument.
But
>> >perhaps most provocative is how little its, well, provoked. "It will
start
>> >a firestorm among the literati. I can't wait," wrote one book editor
>> >outside New York last week. Industry reaction, however, has been closer
to
>> >a mild drizzle. Some people haven't read it, or they've read it and not
>> >noticed, or, as Myers might argue, they've read it but are too busy
>> >sleepwaking through pretentious prose to care. Last weekend Myers
appeared
>> >on NPR, but that didn't do much to goose interest. It's a shame, because
>> >like it or not, the piece is a rarity: long (16 pages crammed with
text),
>> >passionate, at once, um, serious and highly readable.
>> >
>> >Unfortunately, readable does not always with equate with read. "I've
heard
>> >zero," says Little, Brown editor Geoff Shandler, as good a touchstone
among
>> >young editors as any, adding he didn't really get why Myers was so in a
>> >lather. "A lot of the books in stores today have a very strong sense of
>> >storytelling. It seems a little like a rich person complaining about the
>> >capital-gains tax."
>> >
>> >Even the piece's editor, Ben Schwarz, himself a member of the NBCC
board,
>> >was a little taken aback. "I've been surprised. I was expecting a much
more
>> >hostile response." Schwarz says he's heard from many readers but none of
>> >the authors--or their editors. Ditto for us; at press time, calls to
>> >editors of Guterson and Moody had gone unreturned.
>> >
>> >The exception to the silence is critics themselves. Theirs is a split
>> >opinion. New York Times Book Review editor Chip McGrath is writing a
letter
>> >to the Atlantic agreeing with most, but not all, of the critique.
Jonathan
>> >Yardley mostly supported Myers in his Washington Post column. But two
other
>> >super-critics--Nation literary editor Art Winslow and L.A. Times Book
>> >Review chief Steve Wasserman--were reportedly less tickled.
>> >
>> >Sitting at the eye of this swirl of heavy hitters is Myers (first name:
>> >Brian). With a generic-sounding name and an Atlantic bio that lists him
>> >only as "liv[ing] and writ[ing] in New Mexico," it's tempting to think
of
>> >him as a deliciously pseudonymous figure, the Joe Klein of literary
>> >criticism. Alas, the media has not pulled out its Sherlock Holmes
costume,
>> >Jim Romenesko has not been bombarded with e-mails and the truth,
>> >regrettably, is more prosaic. Myers has a PhD in Korean literature (book
>> >credit: Han Sorya and North Korean Literature from Cornell UP) and is
not,
>> >according to Schwarz, actively seeking publicity.
>> >
>> >"He wants the argument to speak for itself," Schwarz says. "He's a
serious
>> >reader, and he's writing for people like himself--serious readers who
are
>> >not necessarily part of the cognoscenti. This piece confirms what
they've
>> >always felt: reviewers tell them to like a book and then they can't read
>> >it. That's why so many of our readers have read the piece and loved it."
>> >The same can't be said for the industry, but Myers shouldn't be
>> >discouraged: most people, after all, don't read Proulx either.--Steven
>> >Zeitchik
>>