# Interesting Article about Modern Literature



## SteelPalm (Jun 3, 2013)

A friend of mine linked me to an article on writing a couple of weeks ago, which I found to be excellent.  

A Reader's Manifesto: An attack on the growing pretentiousness of American literary prose

I'm mainly posting this to share with others, not because I care to debate his particular examples or arguments.  Of course, there are exceptions, and it's easy to quibble with any number of minor points he makes.  On the whole, his examples are well-chosen and frequently incredible, and the overall message is a damn good one.  

However, I found his section on Cormac McCarthy to be unsettling.  I have never read McCarthy, but was really looking forward to it.  The article gave me an unpleasant flashback to when I read a several page excerpt of _The Crossing_ when I was 18.  I had no idea who McCarthy was, nor his huge reputation.  My immediate thoughts were that this was someone doing a poor, second-rate impression of John Steinbeck.   I had ignored that in the years since, thinking perhaps the excerpt didn't do him justice.  However, it's harder now, after seeing some of the truly horrid examples cited in the article.  I still want to read McCarthy, but might have to bump him down my list.   

In the interests of sparking some directed conversation, I will add a 

*Focus*- What contemporary American writers do you feel suffer from the shallow pretentiousness cited in the article?


----------



## Deleted member 49710 (Jun 4, 2013)

Probably best to read McCarthy and decide for yourself whether you enjoy his prose style or not. Same goes for Proulx, O'Brien, Delillo, etc. 

Some people enjoy literary prose. I don't mind having to stop and think about what I'm reading; I like it. The writer of the above article does not, and I guess that's fine, it's his opinion. I find it surprising that he managed to get a PhD in literature with that attitude, but whatever. But stating one's opinion as if it were representative of the masses or somehow definitive is always problematic. And he loses me entirely on two points: 

a) He misuses the word "manifesto." This isn't a manifesto; it is, at best, a polemic; at worst, just complaining. There's no course of action set forth here--"read the classics"? Yeah, that's revolutionary. The thing is, he must know what a manifesto is. He just doesn't care about using precise language. What a great arbiter of good literature. 

b) His final line (_"I'll be reading the kinds of books that Cormac McCarthy doesn't understand") _is pathetically disrespectful and its premise--that McCarthy has not read or does not understand the classics--seems to me almost certainly false. 

In the end, complaining's easy, and bagging on others to make oneself look better is a time-honored tactic of the insecure. There's a few thousand books being published every year. If this guy actually cared about modern literature, he'd be finding and writing about what he likes, helping the authors he cares about gain recognition, not just insulting the prizewinners.


----------



## ppsage (Jun 4, 2013)

13.2k words. There's five minutes I'll never get back.


----------



## Rustgold (Jun 4, 2013)

ppsage said:


> 13.2k words. There's five minutes I'll never get back.


I stopped reading once my eyes glazed over (and not from glazed fruit & rice [lunch]).


----------



## Deleted member 49710 (Jun 4, 2013)

I would also like to note (and I say this as a grad student in the humanities) that if you have a PhD, you're employed as a professor and get published in the _Atlantic_, yet you're launching invectives against the "cultural elite"--time for a good, long look in the mirror.


----------



## wehttam (Jun 4, 2013)

I've only read one of McCarthy's books, _The Road_, (seeing as it was published after this article was written, I'm not sure how much relevance it has) and I only had two problems with the book- his utter disregard for grammatical convention, and the "epilogue". Both are rather pretentious. However, it did not stop me from enjoying the book. In fact, I daresay it's one of my favorite books. Mainly because I'm a big apocalypse buff. 

However, I am of the opinion that calling something pretentious is inherently pretentious, and as such, I am calling myself pretentious, infinitely. Quite frankly, I wasn't even aware there was a difference between literary and genre fiction. The Road is an apocalyptic sci-fi, right? Blood meridian is a western, right? these are genres, aren't they?

And this line just totally confuses me-


> That's right: "strangled, work-driven ways." _Work-driven is fine, of course, except for its note of self-approval*, but strangled ways makes no sense on any level._


I don't get the problem. Strangled is a versatile word- as are nearly all english words. In fact, one of the definitions straight out of webster gives the phrase a perfectly logical meaning.
Strangle- To suppress, repress, or stifle. 
i.e, the phrase is interchangeable with the phrases: suppressed ways, repressed ways, or stifled ways. This makes his next point seem even odder, to me.
*That particular aside was just downright snippy, and snippyness is unappealing.


> "_Strangled ways," they murmur to themselves in baffled admiration. "Now who but a Writer would think of that!"_


Personally, no thought even remotely resembling this sentiment crossed my mind. 

All in all, I didn't finish the article. I just can't relate to anything he has to say, except maybe that literary awards are more than a little bit arbitrary.


----------



## SteelPalm (Jun 4, 2013)

Like I said, I wish that this topic can be more fruitful than simply quibbling with the author's article, which isn't particularly difficult or enlightening to do.  I even agree with lasm's two particular quibbles; I hate pieces that brand themselves as "manifestos", and b) was a parting cheap shot at McCarthy because he said he didn't understand Proust and James.  I'm not particularly a fan of those two authors myself.  Furthermore, I disagree with the author's infatuation with the past.  There are many great writers today.  Perhaps more than there ever were.  

That's all besides the point.  While criticizing authors might be easy, nitpicking a review article and making snarky comments about its author is far easier still. 

Really, I hope that more people have thoughts about the particular focus;

*Focus- What contemporary American writers do you feel suffer from the shallow pretentiousness cited in the article?*


----------



## Kyle R (Jun 4, 2013)

I read the whole article. Whew! It was tiresome.

There were some points where I agreed with the author. Mostly with this:



> When DeLillo describes a man's walk as a "sort of explanatory shuffle ... a comment on the literature of shuffles" (_Underworld_), I feel nothing; the wordplay is just too insincere, too patently meaningless. But when Vladimir Nabokov talks of midges "continuously darning the air in one spot," or the "square echo" of a car door slamming, I feel what Philip Larkin wanted readers of his poetry to feel: "Yes, I've never thought of it that way, but that's how it is." The pleasure that accompanies this sensation is almost addictive; for many, myself included, it's the most important reason to read both poetry and prose.



I know that feeling well, and I'm always on the search for writers who evoke it in me.

The rest of the article, though, borders on tautology itself, which is ironic, considering tautology (saying the same thing over and over again in several different ways) is one of the author's pet peeves.

That's essentially what the entire article boils down to, really: a blog post about his personal pet peeves. 

Some of the examples I found to be poorly written. Others I thought were done rather well. The excerpt from Annie Proulx, where her character was in the shock of having her arm violently amputated, was excellent, (in my opinion). Myers snidely (and incorrectly) asserts that Proulx's prose is meant to numb the reader into submission. I saw it differently. The run-on sentence, full of quick images and sensations, is meant to convey the character being in a state of shock. She's experiencing everything around her in a slow-motion flurry, an adrenaline-fueled break from reality. Time itself seems to stand still, as she witnesses everything happening around her in crystal-clear, zoomed-in precision.

In that example, Proulx wins. Myers strikes out. Nice try, though.

Overall I thought the article was interesting. Some good points, some not so good. I agree with Lasm when she said the author could do better by introducing readers to authors he likes, rather than spending so much energy attacking a movement he himself admits cannot be challenged.


----------



## SteelPalm (Jun 4, 2013)

KyleColorado said:


> Overall I thought the article was interesting. Some good points, some not so good. I agree with Lasm when she said the author could do better by introducing readers to authors he likes, rather than spending so much energy attacking a movement he himself admits cannot be challenged.



In his defense, has written several such articles for _The Atlantic _after his provocative 2001 debut. 

This one is probably my favorite;  

Men Who Love Too Much

And don't worry; it's much, much shorter.


----------



## Staff Deployment (Jun 4, 2013)

I found I often agreed with him on which excerpts were ridiculous and meaningless, and which were thoughtful and prosaic. I liked that one about the man falling in love with the woman in the race, while Proulx and McCarthy and the other examples seemed way too caught up in themselves to be coherent. Gave me the odd feeling that it takes longer to read those passages than it took to write them. But that's probably just me.

Ironically enough, I also agree that the guy has no awareness of his own hypocrisy, subjecting us to nearly 14,000 words of dense, repetitive, tautologous literary nonsense with only brief forays into the relatable. But this was all the way back in 2001. _It was a different time._

EDIT: I've read no authors who write with a similar affectation as he describes, beyond classics – Bram Stoker, Oscar Wilde, Herman Melville, et cetera – though I do find that perhaps my own writing carries some elements of it, interspersed (of course) with ultraviolence and gratuitous profanity, ha ha.


----------



## Kyle R (Jun 4, 2013)

One thing I found helpful in that article was the reminder to avoid drawing too much attention to my writing, lest a critic like this attack my prose!

I'd hate to slog through a dictionary in order to decipher the multi-syllabic barrage of insults he flings at my sentences. 

("Oh, that bastard! He called my writing _emulsifucientarialistic_! ... *flips through the E pages in the dictionary*")

Oh, and I also learned a new word. _Sonorously_. 

_The fireman sonorously doused the flames._


----------



## Staff Deployment (Jun 4, 2013)

KyleColorado said:


> I also learned a new word. _Sonorously_



Me too, and the same word! I looked it up when I saw it, and I think it's now one of my favourites. _Imposingly deep-voiced or verbose_.


----------



## Sam (Jun 4, 2013)

He's an atavistic and draconian old fart who delights in tearing authors apart and proclaiming that "literature is dead". We have a similar busybody on this side of the water as well, Professor Harold Bloom, a bitter excuse for a human being. While I won't disagree that certain pieces of 'literature' should have remained untouched (*cough* _Twilight_ *cough*) for every flop there is also a jewel in the rough. 

He may be grounded in classical roots, he may have more knowledge of literature than any of us could ever dream of, but this article clearly demonstrates the elitism that pervades academia. The thing is: Of all the professors and doctors who wax polemic about the state of literature, about 10% of them have ever written anything beyond their theses.


----------



## JosephB (Jun 4, 2013)

Yawn.


----------



## SteelPalm (Jun 4, 2013)

Sam said:


> He's an atavistic and draconian old fart who delights in tearing authors apart and proclaiming that "literature is dead". We have a similar busybody on this side of the water as well, Professor Harold Bloom, a bitter excuse for a human being. While I won't disagree that certain pieces of 'literature' should have remained untouched (*cough* _Twilight_ *cough*) for every flop there is also a jewel in the rough.
> 
> He may be grounded in classical roots, he may have more knowledge of literature than any of us could ever dream of, but this article clearly demonstrates the elitism that pervades academia. The thing is: Of all the professors and doctors who wax polemic about the state of literature, about 10% of them have ever written anything beyond their theses.



I don't know how much of the piece you read, but he would likely agree with a number of your comments.  In fact, his thesis is almost identical to yours, in calling out "the elitism that pervades academia".  He specifically praises both Stephen King and genre fiction, particularly thrillers and detective novels.  

Yes, he is guilty of a similar elitism himself, and thus a hypocrite.  But that's true of virtually anyone that writes critical articles, myself included.  And yes, it's easy to make fun of him for his overly pessimistic view of modern literature.  It's the part I disagree with most, and hurts his overarching point.  While I should have foreseen most of the replies would focus on the author of the provocative article, I am very curious if there are other authors to be cautious about.  

At the very least, the actual examples he cites are stunningly awful, and I want to know if there similar gremlins in highly-touted contemporary literature.


----------



## Bloggsworth (Jun 4, 2013)

I have read Roth and thought so what, but then again, I read Dickens and thought the same; Hemmingway's novels I can leave on the shelf, but his short stories sparkle. Stephen King writing about writing is superb, but I have no desire to read one of his novels. Is Fitzgerald over-rated? Read his short stories and ask yourself the same question. I would happily consume Robert B Parker and Sara Paretsky by the bucket-load but Kay Scarpetta... meh. I guess most of it is about personal choice, if someone tells you what writing/music/films/plays you *should* like, tell them to take a running jump into a deep abyss.


----------



## Gamer_2k4 (Jun 4, 2013)

I always appreciate any justification I can find for not reading.  This article and its examples provided plenty of it.


----------



## Sam (Jun 4, 2013)

SteelPalm said:


> I don't know how much of the piece you read, but he would likely agree with a number of your comments.  In fact, his thesis is almost identical to yours, in calling out "the elitism that pervades academia".  He specifically praises both Stephen King and genre fiction, particularly thrillers and detective novels.
> 
> Yes, he is guilty of a similar elitism himself, and thus a hypocrite.  But that's true of virtually anyone that writes critical articles, myself included.  And yes, it's easy to make fun of him for his overly pessimistic view of modern literature.  It's the part I disagree with most, and hurts his overarching point.  While I should have foreseen most of the replies would focus on the author of the provocative article, I am very curious if there are other authors to be cautious about.
> 
> At the very least, the actual examples he cites are stunningly awful, and I want to know if there similar gremlins in highly-touted contemporary literature.



If there are authors I have to be cautious about, as you put it, I'll find out about them on my own. I don't need a professor pontificating to me about high-brow and classic literature being superior to everything else. I'll read what I want to read regardless. I don't write so some dinosaur can justify his/her ego by comparing my work to 'literary darlings'. I write first and foremost for myself and then for my readers. I couldn't care less what an archaic and didactic professor thinks. I'm sure the feeling is mutual for him as well.


----------



## Dictarium (Jun 4, 2013)

I feel like lots of American authors understand how long it's been since there's been a really good, really well-known American author who doesn't write teenage girl fantasies *cough*Nicholas Sparks & Stephanie Meyer*cough* and who can be studied in English classes like the likes of Fitzgerald and Steinbeck and Salinger, and lots of them want to be "that guy/gal" who breaks the mold. Metaphors and similes lining their arsenals, they go about writing the most literary novel they can possible write because those are the kinds people remember, right? Those are the kinds that make you a legendary writer, right?

The fact is, if I can get a bit nationalistic for a moment, the scoreboard looks something like Brits: 5,000 Americans: 17 for all intents and purposes; people are just trying too hard to fix that all the time.


----------



## Terry D (Jun 4, 2013)

I don't read Literature.  I don't write Literature. I read books. I write books.


----------



## Rustgold (Jun 4, 2013)

Gamer_2k4 said:


> I always appreciate any justification I can find for not reading.  This article and its examples provided plenty of it.


Trouble is, you had to read the article to find out.  That's almost as bad as reading a 3rd rate novel itself.


----------



## spartan928 (Jun 4, 2013)

What right do I have as a reader to presume the motives of an author?  Read a work under the assumption that every word the author put to page  was the best word they could imagine and you'll be far better off  when you read their work. All that psycho-babble criticism is a load of  hot air. Read Mccarthy. Read Proulx. Read them all and digest every word  in the way you see fit.


----------



## SteelPalm (Jun 4, 2013)

Sam said:


> If there are authors I have to be cautious about, as you put it, I'll find out about them on my own. I don't need a professor pontificating to me about high-brow and classic literature being superior to everything else. I'll read what I want to read regardless. I don't write so some dinosaur can justify his/her ego by comparing my work to 'literary darlings'. I write first and foremost for myself and then for my readers. I couldn't care less what an archaic and didactic professor thinks. I'm sure the feeling is mutual for him as well.



Ah, but that presents a time problem, doesn't it?  Namely, if I have to experience every book and author firsthand and ignore any and all reviews, I won't even have enough time left to eat and sleep!  At some point, one has to go off imperfect heuristics.  The same way we decide on what movies to watch and what restaurants to patronize.  And I will be cautious of those authors not because the reviewer told me to be, but because the examples he cites truly are that bad.   

And by the way, the article specifically bashes many "literary darlings" while praising Stephen King and genre fiction like detective stories and thriller.  




			
				Dictarium said:
			
		

> I feel like lots of American authors understand how long it's been since there's been a really good, really well-known American author who doesn't write teenage girl fantasies *cough*Nicholas Sparks & Stephanie Meyer*cough* and who can be studied in English classes like the likes of Fitzgerald and Steinbeck and Salinger, and lots of them want to be "that guy/gal" who breaks the mold. Metaphors and similes lining their arsenals, they go about writing the most literary novel they can possible write because those are the kinds people remember, right? Those are the kinds that make you a legendary writer, right?



It doesn't appear you actually read the article.  It came out in 2001, well before Twilight, and criticizes famous and well-regarded "serious literature" authors like McCarthy, Proulx, and Delillo, not genre fiction writers like Sparks and Meyer.  




			
				spartan928 said:
			
		

> All that psycho-babble criticism is a load of hot air.



I'm curious what you're referring to here.  The majority of the article is criticism about shallow ideas and horrible, pretentious language found in certain highly-praised fiction. It's very much a discussion of the nuts and bolts of writing, not "psycho" anything.


----------



## Dictarium (Jun 4, 2013)

I was giving examples of American authors who've gained success writing trash. My examples were not at all related to my overall point, which still applies given the context of the article.


----------



## JosephB (Jun 4, 2013)

SteelPalm said:


> Ah, but that presents a time problem, doesn't it?  Namely, if I have to experience every book and author firsthand and ignore any and all reviews, I won't even have enough time left to eat and sleep!  At some point, one has to go off imperfect heuristics.  The same way we decide on what movies to watch and what restaurants to patronize.  And I will be cautious of those authors not because the reviewer told me to be, but because the examples he cites truly are that bad.



I do read reviews, and learn about books by word of mouth and occasionally by trial and error -- the same way I learn about restaurants and movies. That article isn't really a review -- it's just a general diatribe about the state of things. If I never read a single article like it -- I'd still have all the other methods I use to vet books. Recommendations from astute readers are especially valuable to me. I bet Sam does it about the same way.


----------



## Kyle R (Jun 4, 2013)

SteelPalm said:


> The majority of the article is criticism about shallow ideas and horrible, pretentious language found in certain highly-praised fiction. It's very much a discussion of the nuts and bolts of writing, not "psycho" anything.



I agree. Mostly the author is pointing out some weak and/or nonsensical prose.

I think the problem is the article comes across as an avalanche of superfluous text. Myers does a good job of dissecting some of those prose examples, but he then goes on to imply that it's the fault of the general reading public (as well as the critics) for, essentially, being "too stupid" (my words, not his) to notice.

I believe that's why you'll find readers responding negatively to the article and its author, because, while he does a good job of pointing out some pretty flagrant prose, the condescending way in which it seems to be delivered turns people off.

I do agree with his breakdown of many of those examples, though. Some of those excerpts were pretty bad. :cower:

It doesn't show, however, the other times when those authors may very well have written jaw-droppingly good passages. Hard to judge an author without looking at a large sample size of his or her work!


----------



## Rustgold (Jun 5, 2013)

spartan928 said:


> What right do I have as a reader to presume the motives of an author?


Every right.  If the average reader misunderstands the motives of an author in a piece, then maybe the author has failed in being understood.


----------



## Sam (Jun 5, 2013)

SteelPalm said:


> Ah, but that presents a time problem, doesn't it?  Namely, if I have to experience every book and author firsthand and ignore any and all reviews, I won't even have enough time left to eat and sleep!  At some point, one has to go off imperfect heuristics.  The same way we decide on what movies to watch and what restaurants to patronize.  And I will be cautious of those authors not because the reviewer told me to be, but because the examples he cites truly are that bad.
> 
> And by the way, the article specifically bashes many "literary darlings" while praising Stephen King and genre fiction like detective stories and thriller.



The issue I have with the article is this: It's like your uncle or grandfather saying, "Oh, you listen to _that _music? That's the _wrong _music. You should be listening to _this _music." It doesn't matter how good or bad it sounds to other people; the music I listen to sounds good to _me. _That's the important concept in all of this. If something is truly bad, I will find out about it through my own means. I won't rely on the invective of an academic dinosaur.


----------



## luckyscars (Jun 5, 2013)

My usual method for accepting or rejecting a new book/writer is to open it, skip past any prologue or foreword and read the first paragraph/page/chapter. I will then read on or, more likely, put it back. How much I read before deciding if I like a writer depends on how close a call it is. I have been known to make up my mind very quickly. Sometimes that troubles me but, as a writer, my reading habits are an important guide on how to write. I now spend a lot of time on crafting the opening for this reason.


----------



## luckyscars (Jun 5, 2013)

Sam said:


> The issue I have with the article is this: It's like your uncle or grandfather saying, "Oh, you listen to _that _music? That's the _wrong _music. You should be listening to _this _music." It doesn't matter how good or bad it sounds to other people; the music I listen to sounds good to _me. _That's the important concept in all of this. If something is truly bad, I will find out about it through my own means. I won't rely on the invective of an academic dinosaur.



This is very true. The problem with critics in general is that the incentive is always there for them to have more controversial views that the casual reader. It's their job afterall. Nobody wants to read an opinion which is indifferent. Coupled with that there is the massive issue of subjectivity. Pick any successful writer and any group of their readers and you'll find a split.

Usually I find the reason why I dislike a writer who is technically proficient and highly rated is simply because...well I don't know, I just don't like them. It usually is not personal. The reasons aren't always clear. It's like people in real life - there are many good people in the world but not all of them I would care to be friends with. Likewise there are many immoral fools who somehow snake their way into my life. 

Often I like a writer not because they're the greatest writer ever but simply because I like the way they SEE the world.


----------



## Staff Deployment (Jun 5, 2013)

Jon M said:


> the current state of things



Well, the current state of things over a decade ago.

Does anyone read literary fiction? If so, is the general style these days the same as in the 20th century? Genres do evolve (except the fantasy genre which is totes stagnant, dawg).


----------



## Rustgold (Jun 5, 2013)

KyleColorado said:


> I believe that's why you'll find readers responding negatively to the article and its author, because, while he does a good job of pointing out some pretty flagrant prose, the condescending way in which it seems to be delivered turns people off.



13.2k of dribble is what put me off.  Seriously, if I wanted that much dribble, I'd buy myself a dog.


----------



## spartan928 (Jun 5, 2013)

Rustgold said:


> Every right.  If the average reader misunderstands the motives of an author in a piece, then maybe the author has failed in being understood.



I'm talking about an authors motives in writing the piece not in the work itself. I'm saying that the implication of this article is that these authors are presumptuous and sprinkle their work with fat words and overblown similes and metaphors for the sake of seeking high praise. I disagree that anybody has an intimate relationship with an author to make those kind of assertions. Also, I think people who make these kind of long winded critiques are certainly free to do so, but it is clear their aim is to disparage the praise and acclaim the work has received. Go ahead, but who gives a rip. I think people should not be discouraged from having an experience with the works of the likes of McCarthy just because this dude has a couple issues with grammar.


----------



## spartan928 (Jun 5, 2013)

KyleColorado said:


> I agree. Mostly the author is pointing out some weak and/or nonsensical prose.
> 
> I think the problem is the article comes across as an avalanche of superfluous text. Myers does a good job of dissecting some of those prose examples, but he then goes on to imply that it's the fault of the general reading public (as well as the critics) for, essentially, being "too stupid" (my words, not his) to notice.
> 
> ...



Maybe a wrong choice of word. But you hit my meaning here Kyle. To extract a few grammatical issues from the body of an entire work and imply it isn't worthy of the recognition and praise it received is wrong. This article babbles on for thousands of words in an effort to run down certain works of contemporary literature because of a few flaws. I totally disagree with that tactic. Sure, McCarthy uses all kinds of exotic words, metaphors and such. Some strange, weird or just plain wrong. But when you read his work in its entirety it's a moving experience. It's incredibly evocative and original. So what if every page of Mccarthy or Proulx doesn't make it through the grammar filter spanking clean. That's no reason to suggest the state of contemporary fiction is presumptuous and fatuous and blah blah blah. He's the one coming across as presumptuous and fatuous, not the authors of these books.


----------



## SteelPalm (Jun 5, 2013)

spartan928 said:


> . To extract a few grammatical issues from the body of an entire work and imply it isn't worthy of the recognition and praise it received is wrong.



If you're going to criticize the article, at least read and understand it first.  I have seen the strawman above mentioned by a few others, all of whom glossed over one of the very first things written in the review.   

Namely, the grammatical examples are _not_ ones cherry-picked by the review writer.  They are examples *praised by other reviewers as examples of the author's genius*. In some cases, they were cited by a committee that gave them a prestigious prize.  

As Byers himself notes, everyone writes a poor, confusing passage and metaphor every now and then.  But when these passages are persistent, and actually the source of accolades (!), that's a major problem.

Anyways, I had hoped that by the third page of the topic, everyone had gotten their potshots at the reviewer out of the way, which I noted are both incredibly easy to make (far easier than criticizing famous authors, even!) and rather fruitless, and we could move on to a discussion of contemporary writers that may or may not suffer from this.  Or, at the very least, whether this is a problem in modern fiction writing at all.


----------



## Sam (Jun 5, 2013)

It isn't a problem, and it certainly isn't a problem because a tightly strung professor says it is.


----------



## Terry D (Jun 5, 2013)

SteelPalm said:


> If you're going to criticize the article, at least read and understand it first.  I have seen the strawman above mentioned by a few others, all of whom glossed over one of the very first things written in the review.
> 
> Namely, the grammatical examples are _not_ ones cherry-picked by the review writer.  They are examples *praised by other reviewers as examples of the author's genius*. In some cases, they were cited by a committee that gave them a prestigious prize.
> 
> ...



You can't really separate the reviewer from the review, can you? It is, after all, his topic of discussion, so the way in which he presents it--and represents himself--is absolutely pertinent. I also disagree with the idea that stylistic choices are a "problem". If readers understand and enjoy the manner in which a writer presents his/her ideas, then that is the ultimate arbiter of quality; regardless of how non-traditional the style might be. The author of this article is entitled to his opinion, just as are the reviewers who praise the works he condemns. Just as are those who buy the books and put the likes of McCarthy on the bestseller lists.


----------



## Staff Deployment (Jun 5, 2013)

Just out of curiosity (and reiteration), who here reads literary fiction? Not a criticism or a sarcastic remark – legitimately, does anyone read literary fiction? I tend to stay away from it due to the density; my impression whenever I flick through one is "too many words, too simple a concept," but that may be because I simply don't have the right patience for it.

For instance, a favourite (and likely overused) technique of mine is to have Bob tell Jane to "Do X" and then immediately follow it with the phrase: 'Jane does X.' It quickly conveys dominance or power in a relationship. But in literary fiction, similar ideas tend to come out in five or six lengthy paragraphs, rather than one terse line. Seems wasteful.


----------



## Kevin (Jun 5, 2013)

In regards to the article: What is it? What are the points?
 It is critique and statement of the current trends (in '01) running through the literary world. The subject  _is _other writers' works, and, the opinion that there appears to be a trend in the literary award/literary expert world to heap praise on obscurely written or even mangled text. It is a critique, therefore it should contain negative statements, not praise, in regards to the subject. Is there a trend towards the praising of works that are written solely for their apparent novelty or 'newness' regardless of whether or not the prose is lacking in clarity, full of outright errors, and done in such a way as to attempt to impress with distortions of the language? Is the attempt  to impress the judges by following or adding to this trend, or are these works simply a result of the writer being incapable of a more consequential approach? Are the judges (critics) being impressed by flash and less by substance? Are they disregarding other works simply because they are not written in a similar, _new, or trendy style? _


----------



## Deleted member 49710 (Jun 5, 2013)

Staff Deployment said:


> Just out of curiosity (and reiteration), who here reads literary fiction? Not a criticism or a sarcastic remark – legitimately, does anyone read literary fiction?


Well, assuming we can even define "literary fiction" (another way in which Myers is intellectually sloppy), I do when I can. I've read several of the authors Myers apparently dislikes, McCarthy and Proulx and Morrison. Can't remember who else he takes after.



> in literary fiction, similar ideas tend to come out in five or six lengthy paragraphs, rather than one terse line. Seems wasteful.


Can you give an example? Because this seems like a total mischaracterization. And if you think the exact same idea is being conveyed in six paragraphs vs. one line, you're not reading very well.

Regarding some of the excerpts, in some cases I think it's a bit unfair to read a very stylized paragraph out of context. Like the McCarthy one with the guy eating the tortilla, you can't tell what the situation is, if the repetition of "tortilla" (for example) serves some purpose. Maybe it conveys the character's feeling in some way, annoyance or boredom or... who knows.

Steelpalm, nobody can answer your discussion question without addressing the original article because the article is the premise of your question. In any case, the discussion we're having is more interesting than the one you propose, so maybe just accept that you can't control strangers on the internet and go with the flow a little.


----------



## Staff Deployment (Jun 5, 2013)

I flicked through _Such a Long Journey_ by Rohinton Mistry recently; can't remember the passage exactly but it was about a hundred words, describing how one character had used to be short and chubby as a young man, but as he started to lose weight he became taller and leaner, and his derogatory nicknames "became forgotten like a dried-up scab." It went on like that for a while and seemed to just as quickly go discarded by the author. A simple "he moved like he was still fat" would likely have sufficed, but perhaps I'm missing the proper context.

Don't have many more examples, because as I mentioned it's not really what I read. You're almost certainly correct that I've got a misconception of the genre, which is why I thought I'd ask what other peoples' experiences are.


----------



## Gamer_2k4 (Jun 5, 2013)

Sam said:


> The issue I have with the article is this: It's like your uncle or grandfather saying, "Oh, you listen to _that _music? That's the _wrong _music. You should be listening to _this _music." It doesn't matter how good or bad it sounds to other people; the music I listen to sounds good to _me. _That's the important concept in all of this. If something is truly bad, I will find out about it through my own means. I won't rely on the invective of an academic dinosaur.



That doesn't always work.  If you misspell "separate" as "seperate" and it looks fine to you, you're never going to change unless someone blatantly tells you, "That's wrong."  While there's a lot of subjectivity in creative works, there are also objectively good and objectively bad qualities that can (and should) be recognized.


----------



## Kyle R (Jun 5, 2013)

Staff Deployment said:


> Just out of curiosity (and reiteration), who here reads literary fiction? Not a criticism or a sarcastic remark – legitimately, does anyone read literary fiction? I tend to stay away from it due to the density; my impression whenever I flick through one is "too many words, too simple a concept," but that may be because I simply don't have the right patience for it.
> 
> For instance, a favourite (and likely overused) technique of mine is to have Bob tell Jane to "Do X" and then immediately follow it with the phrase: 'Jane does X.' It quickly conveys dominance or power in a relationship. But in literary fiction, similar ideas tend to come out in five or six lengthy paragraphs, rather than one terse line. Seems wasteful.



If terseness and an absence of style is what you prefer, then yes, literary fiction might not be your cup of tea. 

Generally, at least the lit fic I read, style is heavy and the prose is lucid. But the lengthy passages usually aren't devoted to simple character actions. Generally they are devoted to abstract concepts, like how the character relates, internally, to the world around him or her. That's really the (or _a_) defining characteristic of lit fic: the emphasis on the internal journey of the protagonist through the story.

Genre fiction (if we're going by basic labels) usually puts more emphasis on the external journey of the characters.

On of my favorite authors is Karen Russell, mostly for her amazing debut collection, _St. Lucy's Home for Girls Raised by Wolves_. It's a collection of strange fantasy stories (minotaurs, ghost-oceans, dream-farms, prehistoric seashell theme parks...), written in a very literary style. Maybe, one day, if you feel brave enough, you can give that book a read and let me know what you think! She walks a fine line between the bizarre and the poetic, always, somehow, managing to make her storyworlds seem completely real and believable, and the characters move through emotions and self-discovery in the same way the rest of us do.

Some lit fic is boring, though, I admit! But usually that's the fault of the author, not the genre. I think the most common misconception about literary fiction is that it's boring because it poeticizes mundanity and, simply, "nothing happens." Again, I think that stems from reading mundane, nothing-happens authors, instead of reading the quality stories instead. :encouragement:

In review!

1) One of the defining characteristics of literary fiction is the emphasis on the internal journey of the character. In Genre Fiction, the emphasis is generally more on the external journey.

2) Karen Russell writes fantasy stories in a literary style, and so can be recommended as an accessible introduction to lit fic for those who wish to avoid encountering the "boring, mundane" stereotype.

3) I like lit fic.


----------



## Pluralized (Jun 5, 2013)

*


----------



## GonneLights (Jun 6, 2013)

Anti-intellectual, populist garbage. The same thing is happening in Philosophy - a vicious, full-frontal assault on 'Postmodernism', by positivists, who claim it to be pretentious also. These supposedly 'down to earth' people think they are saving humanity from the intellectual elite. It's right-wing reactionaryism, nothing more. Pure neoliberalism. No only is it stupid, but its also dangerous.

EDIT: Just to qualify, it's not that I have a problem with people who prefer genre fiction or hate postmodernism. I see myself as a genre fiction writer, and a positivist in terms of philosophy. What I'm talking about refers to the ideology of the writer, and its pervasiveness. As an attestment to its pervasiveness, we can look at this - the positivists, believing they are protecting people from an intellectual elite, are actually the majority of professional philosophers. They make up the elite. My problems with this agenda lie in its paranoia and reactionaryism, which is similar, to me, to anti-immigration lobbying and other fascisms stirring in Europe.


----------



## GonneLights (Jun 6, 2013)

Gamer_2k4 said:


> That doesn't always work.  If you misspell "separate" as "seperate" and it looks fine to you, you're never going to change unless someone blatantly tells you, "That's wrong."  While there's a lot of subjectivity in creative works, there are also objectively good and objectively bad qualities that can (and should) be recognized.



This is a false analogy, I think. See, with grammar, we're trying to attain some goal (communication). With writing, we aren't always. We can be! And very often criticism, which this website is centric too, will focus on phrases like 'doesn't get the message across', 'doesn't convey it well', 'confuses the reader', etc. - it presupposes that you want to communicate with the reader. But this isn't essential for writing, it's not integral for writing, not like it is with grammar. With more avant-garde literature, the reader isn't considered at all, and that's a perfectly valid way to write. You couldn't say to, for example, Tristen Tzara, who just cut up bits of paper with words on them and threw them around and whatever landed was his poetry - you couldn't say to him, 'You're not communicating with the reader!' because that's explicitly _not _the point of the exercise. Grammar is a tool, writing is an artform, it's different in this way.


----------



## Kevin (Jun 6, 2013)

KarKingJack said:


> This is a false analogy, I think. See, with grammar, we're trying to attain some goal (communication). With writing, we aren't always. We can be! And very often criticism, which this website is centric too, will focus on phrases like 'doesn't get the message across', 'doesn't convey it well', 'confuses the reader', etc. - it presupposes that you want to communicate with the reader. But this isn't essential for writing, it's not integral for writing, not like it is with grammar. With more avant-garde literature, the reader isn't considered at all, and that's a perfectly valid way to write. You couldn't say to, for example, Tristen Tzara, who just cut up bits of paper with words on them and threw them around and whatever landed was his poetry - you couldn't say to him, 'You're not communicating with the reader!' because that's explicitly _not _the point of the exercise. Grammar is a tool, writing is an artform, it's different in this way.


So... in regards to the original article, how does this 'assault' by the 'elite' jive with the article writer's assertion that the majority, or a greater preponderance of awards, etc. are going to the authors who favor the 'progressive' style (progressive, as in art; not politics)? 

As an aside, should T. Tzara get an award, over actual poetry, for a jumble of letters? I think I get the idea behind it, but seriously, does that deserve an award? I think the only novelty of it is that anyone took notice. I say that because I myself have performed similar 'art' multiple times like with clay sculpture splatted on the table, 52 card pick-up, a bowling ball thrown off a five story structure, or my photo record of the exceptionally long (and dry), coiled scat of a wild coyote I came across on a dirt road. It's still just scat whatever I call it.   

And I think that is the point of the critique: Why are we (not an actual 'we', but the literary world) claiming that this _mis-_communicative, mistake-ridden writing deserves the highest ratings of the year? Is there nothing else out there?  

*Note: I have not read these authors (except for _the road_) so I make no personal judgements of their work other than _the examples _used in the article.


----------



## SteelPalm (Jun 6, 2013)

KarKingJack said:


> This is a false analogy, I think. See, with grammar, we're trying to attain some goal (communication). With writing, we aren't always. We can be! And very often criticism, which this website is centric too, will focus on phrases like 'doesn't get the message across', 'doesn't convey it well', 'confuses the reader', etc. - it presupposes that you want to communicate with the reader.



To this, I can only respond with one of my favorite quotes on writing;  

"To say that a work of art is good, but incomprehensible to the majority of men, is the same as saying of some kind of food that it is very good but that most people can't eat it."
-Lev Tolstoy

Then again, this probably makes me one of those evil "right-wing reactionaries" in your little tinfoil hat theory.  By the way, the author of the article, Byers?  He's a Green Party uber-liberal.  It's funny how off the mark your assumptions are.


----------



## Staff Deployment (Jun 6, 2013)

Lev Tolstoy?

That quote is mildly ironic, because Leo is known for his preposterously huge tomes. He's not incomprehensible, but his writing is certainly [strike]imposing[/strike] _sonorous_.


----------



## SteelPalm (Jun 6, 2013)

Staff Deployment said:


> Lev Tolstoy?



That's his actual name in Russian, yes.  "Лев" translates to "Lev" in terms of how it's pronounced.  Calling him "Leo", while it's a common mistranslation, is like calling a Latin American named Miguel "Michael" instead. 

I should know too, considering I'm a Russian with the same first name as him.  



> That quote is mildly ironic, because Leo is known for his preposterously huge tomes. He's not incomprehensible, but his writing is certainly [strike]imposing[/strike] _sonorous_.



I don't see what part of it is ironic.  Tolstoy's novels might be long and slow-paced, but they are perfectly clear and understandable.

*Edit*-  Not to mention, that as Joseph Brodsky noted, 

"The reason English-speaking readers can barely tell the difference between Tolstoy and Dostoevsky is that they aren't reading the prose of either one. They're reading Constance Garnett."


----------



## Robert_S (Jun 6, 2013)

I find the cut and dry to be more tedious and less engaging than the winding, detouring prose of "recognized" authors. CIP, I'm reading "One Hundred Years of Solitude" and I'm loving it as opposed to "Neuromancer" which made me rub my tired eyes. I'll try to pick Neuro back up when I'm finished with 100 Years, but for now, I'm happy.


----------



## Staff Deployment (Jun 7, 2013)

SteelPalm said:


> I don't see what part of it is ironic.  Tolstoy's novels might be long and slow-paced, but they are perfectly clear and understandable.
> 
> *Edit*-  Not to mention, that as Joseph Brodsky noted,
> 
> "The reason English-speaking readers can barely tell the difference between Tolstoy and Dostoevsky is that they aren't reading the prose of either one. They're reading Constance Garnett."



I'm more of a Chekov fan, myself.

I did note that Tolstoy was clear and comprehensible (or at least "not incomprehensible" ha ha) but the sheer size and sluggish pacing of some of his novels make his statement ironic: many people simply can't "eat" his work (or at least they lack the right size of stomach). Perhaps that has more to do with the passage of time than his abilities.


----------



## SteelPalm (Jun 7, 2013)

Staff Deployment said:


> I'm more of a Chekov fan, myself.
> 
> I did note that Tolstoy was clear and comprehensible (or at least "not incomprehensible" ha ha) but the sheer size and sluggish pacing of some of his novels make his statement ironic: many people simply can't "eat" his work (or at least they lack the right size of stomach). Perhaps that has more to do with the passage of time than his abilities.



I believe Tolsoty was mainly commenting on the style of prose, though.  His words were perfectly digestible, if not their amount.   

And as noted above, the meal was as much cooked by Constance Garnett as it was by Lev Tolstoy himself!


----------



## GonneLights (Jun 7, 2013)

Kevin said:


> So... in regards to the original article, how does this 'assault' by the 'elite' jive with the article writer's assertion that the majority, or a greater preponderance of awards, etc. are going to the authors who favor the 'progressive' style (progressive, as in art; not politics)?



Elite is their term. They're a _majority, _and they are the universally best acclaimed in philosophy. Are the awards really going to them? Regardless of whether they are or not, a good answer to that might be this; the bourgeois establishment, responsible for giving out awards, often assimilate text antithetical to their own. Guy Debord wrote some fairly good things on why the avant-garde is getting recognised by the establishment, and why its dangerous. Anyway, I never claimed this guy was the elite. I'm claiming he's part of a reactionary anti-intellectual movement. 



Kevin said:


> As an aside, should T. Tzara get an award, over actual poetry, for a jumble of letters?



It is actual poetry. And Tzara should have won every award awarded to the mediocre poets of his day, in my opinion. He was a fantastic poet and admirable man.




> By the way, the author of the article, Byers?  He's a Green Party  uber-liberal.  It's funny how off the mark your assumptions are.



uh, yeah. The liberals are reactionaries too, what do you think _I'm_ a liberal? Unless he's actually Stalin I don't care who he is or where he's been, he's a reactionary _based on what he wrote in the article. _It's not an assumption. What he wrote is the definition of anti-intelelctual reactionary populism.


----------



## SteelPalm (Jun 7, 2013)

KarKingJack said:


> uh, yeah. The liberals are reactionaries too, what do you think _I'm_ a liberal? Unless he's actually Stalin I don't care who he is or where he's been, he's a reactionary _based on what he wrote in the article. _It's not an assumption.


 
You wrote a crazy conspiracy theory about how the reviewer is a "right-wing reactionary", so I felt the need to point out that the author is, in fact, a staunch liberal.  Not to mention that _injecting partisan politics into a discussion of fictional prose_ is absolutely nuts to begin with.

In fact, it's likely that you didn't read a word of the article and merely wanted to rant about politics and philosophy, for all the relevance your posts have had to the discussion.     



			
				KingKarJack said:
			
		

> What he wrote is the definition of *anti-intelelctual* reactionary populism.



Heh.  

Also, this must be the first populist movement in history that champions the works of Proust and James.  I always considered them the complete anti-thesis of populist writers, but hey, what do I know?  

And Proulx, Delillo, and McCarthy are all "intelectuals"?  While writers like Murakami, Marquez, etc. are not?


----------



## Terry D (Jun 7, 2013)

*Keep the discussion on topic. Personal comments will not be tolerated.*


----------

