A reader's manifesto !!??

buck65

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200107/myers

What do you guys think of this?

turgon

Quite a good article, thanks for the link.


The writer of it is very critical of the way in which some books are written, and he completely supports his case with reference to a number. He makes a good points on what the definition of good literature has become and is highly critical of this.

What I noticed, especially with the consumerism book, is the way in which authors try to force their points out blatantly. I think subtlety is much better approach in dealing with such topics, not just over-describing the over-exaggerated emotions of entering a super market.

godspal

This is a very cynical and over-sentimental attack on the contemporary greats of American Literature. Even though I haven't read Proulx and DeLillo (Underworld and The Shipping News are both veneered in a light layer of dust in my room, and I have been meaning to read them, and I will.) I still have to say his attacks on McCarthy and Auster are over-simplification of the contemporary prose.

First of all McCarthy is a nihilistic-image based story teller so his prose tend to be very cinematic in nature and sometimes he tends to repeat nouns in sentences. The effect of his writing, however, is amazing, allowing for fluid movie-esque progression.

Secondly Auster is also influenced by Hollywood, mainly film noir (sorry if this may come across ignorant but I have only read The New York Trilogy.). The prose style that Auster uses is so edgy and direct, and even though his tales spiral out of control (which is done purposefully), he still conveys a well-written, informative story (Ghosts being my favourite story of the novel).

Conversely Toni Morrison I really don't like, her prose tending to be so inaccessible that I, as the reader, lose interest every 10-15 minutes. Beloved was one of the most boring books I have ever read, and I believe that Morrison is too influence by Langston Hughes' article The Negro Artist and the Racial Mountain. Her prose which could have been a contemporary portrayal of America's problems with slavery are instead an attempt (and somewhat failed attempt) at trying to make an African-American prose.

I also believe that Myers identification of: "The decline of American prose since the 1950s is nowhere more apparent than in the decline of the long sentence." is somewhat flawed and rigid. His immediate identification of Dressier being a wonderful writer immediately lays out his mid-set, Sister Carrie and The American Tragedy even though being filled with wonderful prose are both as stories are a bit boring. Myers goes on to juxtapose his argument by bringing in Stephen King, I will have to say one thing Stephen is entertaining but not much else, his attempt at awe-inspiring prose in It loses any sort of impact as a story until the clown comes in because really who gives a f*** about that dam.

I think as well that Myers is quite selective in his argument and refuses to address other contemporary powerhouses such as Pychon. Gravity's Rainbow (which I recently finished) is one of the most brilliant reads of 20th Century writing. Pychon brings the reader to all sorts of places, and his descriptions are evidently very thought over prose. Myers selectivity of the passages of the writers that he does attack is amateurish, he is unwilling to assess the novels as a whole.

(I really wish I had the time dissect this essay bit by bit, but this is just my feelings on first read.)