[SuchFriendsAreDangerous]

Honestly sometimes i think they need to make an English translation of Dickens yo

[ilduclo]

Originally Posted by demonrail666

The contemporary is always about sorting through. That's its problem and its excitement, depending on you. The past comes pre-filtered. Imagine how many crap novels Russians had to wade through in the 19th C before discovering a Tolstoy or a Dostoevsky, or even a Turgenev or a Gogol. The past is settled for us, just as, I imagine, our contemporary will be for future generations. Lit studies will run their 'millennial fiction' courses (or whatever they decide to call our cultural age) and speak only about Cormac McCarthy and Don DeLillo and a handful of others, blissfully unaware (hopefully) of names like Michael Cunningham and all those other flash-in-the-pans that we've had to deal with.

that's a pretty good analysis there. One of the nice things about new literature is the discovery factor. One of the nice things about the classics is realizing just how good lit can be.

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by demonrail666

The contemporary is always about sorting through. That's its problem and its excitement, depending on you. The past comes pre-filtered. Imagine how many crap novels Russians had to wade through in the 19th C before discovering a Tolstoy or a Dostoevsky, or even a Turgenev or a Gogol. The past is settled for us, just as, I imagine, our contemporary will be for future generations. Lit studies will run their 'millennial fiction' courses (or whatever they decide to call our cultural age) and speak only about Cormac McCarthy and Don DeLillo and a handful of others, blissfully unaware (hopefully) of names like Michael Cunningham and all those other flash-in-the-pans that we've had to deal with.

the thing is though i enjoy some flashes in the pan. who here remembers "slaves of new york"? a hugely dated book of late-80s short stories but i liked some of them. haven't heard about tama janowitz since then-- she still writes though. i also semi-recently read arthur nersesian's "the fuckup" which is about a kid in the east village in the early 90s. nothing glorious, but a really fun read.

the problem is that the sorting is too laborious-- and if you think about it these are provincial examples i'm mentioning there. just because it's new york it doesn't mean it can't be provincial.

and that's what i meant to mention earlier. contemporary american writing is going to be overwhelmingly provincial until it's sorted and exported. and as an immigrant, i'm not fully culturally integrated to it. e.g., when i think of "classic" novels the first names in my mind are not dickens or hardy--i'd think of victor hugo or dumas or tolstoy first.

i don't come from an anglophone tradition, and latin america is a bit more eclectic because we know we're not the center of the world-- so we'll read the french and the russians and the germans and british and americans and everyone we can get our hands on ha ha ha. i suppose that is where i see the american scene as more provincial--more closed unto itself. most "big" national cultures are that way. the french for example quote themselves endlessly. same with the spanish, or the british. but latin americans will steal from everyone. vivan los clusterfucks!

this is not to say there is not a provincial latin american scene. of course there is. there are ongoing national and continental dialogues that have little to do with the rest of the world. questions of national identity and regional politics and even sheer local gossip. for example, there's this great chilean writer, pedro lemebel, brilliant and superfunny, which i wish i could recommend to everyone here, but i think he's not going to make it in translation. i like him a lot better than bolaño, for example. but there are too many in-group codes and local assumptions to make something like this translatable without extensive footnotes that would destroy the humor with explanations http://www.letras.s5.com/lemebel221102.htm

at the same time, i no longer live in latin america, so if i were to parachute into a bookstore in mexico city or buenos aires right now, i'd be overwhelmed by all the new names and ideological and literary disputes of which i'm not longer a part.

all this is to say-- i'm in a weird spot where i'm an outsider everywhere. and i have no real problem with that--that's the lot of all nomads. but when it comes to exploring the large mass of unsorted stuff, my ideal browsing bookstore would probably be like those markets where you can buy jamaican soda next to korean pepper paste right by the bags of injera along the swedish fishpastes in a tube-- not the latest features from the new york review of books.

[demonrail666]

Originally Posted by evollove

My ex-English major mind tends to distinguish between "classic" novels and contemporary. These are rough categories that don't mean much; not sure where to put modernists, for example.

But those clearly "classic" novels are just so damn satisfying. There's something about that genre--the "well-made" novel--that pleases, even if the book isn't so great. I mean, Hardy isn't an especially good writer, but his novels are good because of the genre.

I can see how one can burn out on this stuff. The classic novel has its own conventions and cliches which can get wearisome. I can't imagine reading all of Dickens in a row, but reading Great Expectations, especially after a long dry spell, would be . . . I keep returning to that word "satisfying."





I get what you're saying, but I think there's a difference of FORM between the classic and contemporary. No one writes like Jane Austen anymore (and I'm not sure they should), so formally speaking it does something that the contemporary doesn't.

The difference between Austen and Delillo formally is so immense, they sort of have to be read differently, don't you think?

---

Come to think of it, it's been years since I read a "classic" novel.

I never read RED AND THE BLACK, and I've been thinking about it. But for some reason Flaubert's SENTIMENTAL EDUCATION seems to be calling out to me from the bookshelf. I dunno. I'd like to read something where at the end, I sigh and pat my belly.

The form has changed, obviously, and there's no point looking for a 2015 War & Peace. Tom Wolfe sort of tries and gets a critical pounding for his trouble (even though I've liked most of his novels quite a bit). To be honest, in contemporary fiction, I'm less and less interested in the 'literature' stuff - for many of the reasons El Symbols points out. It is a bit of a club, written by and for the same kinds of people, expressing a similar world-view over and over again. I'm more interested in genre fiction now (genre in the commercial sense rather than what you mean - although it's not that far removed, formally). And some of it's extremely well written, especially the likes of James Lee Burke - who I'm currently a huge fan of. There's a genuine intelligence there, not the posturing I find with so many 'cleverer' writers. And because of the serial nature of his books (there's about 25 of his Dave Robicheaux novels) he's able to really develop his ideas in the same way that a multi-season HBO series can, compared with a feature film. And while more a straight stylist, history will surely declare James Ellroy as one of the greatest American writers of the last 30 years, even if his tone and subject-matter aren't for everyone.

So I'm not suggesting we should all ditch the lit and move to detective novels but I do think a lot of people who find something lacking in the more high brow stuff might be surprised by writers like Burke, Daniel Woodrell, and a few others, who are writing some really good books atm, imo, and are willing to tackle some big themes head on and from a multitude of positions.

But I agree about the enduring appeal of the 'classic' 19th C novel. It simply works. And while I understand the reluctance among contemporary critics to promote any kind of revival, I think readers miss out when writers like Wolfe are dismissed just because they're trying to saying something big and looking to writers like Thackeray for their inspiration, rather than someone more philosophically 'relevant'.

Oh, and my favourite character from a novel is Dickens' Mrs Gamp, in Martin Chuzzlewit

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by demonrail666

To be honest, in contemporary fiction, I'm less and less interested in the 'literature' stuff - for many of the reasons El Symbols points out. It is a bit of a club, written by and for the same kinds of people, expressing a similar world-view over and over again.

i blame the rise of the MFA degree and the emergence of the university as the main patron of the arts.

used to be literary fiction writing was the province of enlightened lawyers, doctors, pirates, adventurers, shut-ins, and various charlatans of the wilderness-- a fertile ground.

nowadays it's either journalists (squares) or MFA graduates who learned writing from other MFA graduates and teach writing to future MFA graduates, all of them publishing and reading themselves in their journals.

anyway, i should continue with the sumerians today. after that i'll go look for some pedro lemebel books and chronicles i haven't read yet.

[demonrail666]

Originally Posted by !@#$%!

used to be literary fiction writing was the province of enlightened lawyers, doctors, pirates, adventurers, shut-ins, and various charlatans of the wilderness-- a fertile ground.

Well said.

[dead_battery]

i like delillo a lot but imo he wont be remembered as the best of our era. his stuff does not shine a particularly bright light on the present - its recognizable to us but it wont tell the future much about us.

[h8kurdt]

Other than Wallace, Murakami and McCarthy I can't think of many more writers who'll still be read in a hundred years time. Rowling? Will bloody Self? Stephen King, I suspect, will do.

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by h8kurdt

Other than Wallace, Murakami and McCarthy I can't think of many more writers who'll still be read in a hundred years time. Rowling? Will bloody Self? Stephen King, I suspect, will do.

borges and garcía márquez will definitely still be read, on a global scale, in 100 years, just like we still read kafka. by the way murakami is nice but i don't find him so original in the light of the people i just mentioned (especially kafka).

people who are alive who will be read... to find out how we live today? like, realist writers? people will probably watch our documentaries more like. as for fiction...

i'm thinking, i'm thinking...!

harry potter?

but anyway, in english, mccarthy is the one i think writes like nobody else--i can't read him and say "oh i've seen this shit before." he defeats me, repeatedly, but not from any sense of banality or irrelevancy. also, unlikely to age poorly.

[demonrail666]

Originally Posted by dead_battery

i like delillo a lot but imo he wont be remembered as the best of our era. his stuff does not shine a particularly bright light on the present - its recognizable to us but it wont tell the future much about us.

If he is remembered it'll be because he couldn't have come from any other time. I'd say his style and themes are very contemporary, but perhaps too self-consciously so. Reading him I always think he's trying a bit too hard to nail the 'now'. He's all sleek surfaces and numb detachment, without the depth of insight of someone like say Ballard.

Originally Posted by !@#$%!

borges and garcía márquez will definitely still be read, on a global scale, in 100 years, just like we still read kafka.

Yes, absolutely.

Originally Posted by !@#$%!

mccarthy is the one i think writes like nobody else--i can't read him and say "oh i've seen this shit before." he defeats me, repeatedly, but not from any sense of banality or irrelevancy. also, unlikely to age poorly.

He's interesting cos on one level he's very derivative of that whole Southern Gothic thing but he takes it into weird territory that's entirely his own. Blood Meridian doesn't necessarily feel overly contemporary (in the way DeLillo always does, even when his subject isn't) but it does feel utterly unique. Although I think The Road will be the more studied, just because it's more accessible in its style and taps into more recognisable contemporary anxieties. Blood Meridian is one of the best things I've ever read, period, but it's almost impossible to put it into any really meaningful cultural category or context.

[SuchFriendsAreDangerous]

I think true literature is rare even before our contemporary descent into soulless fiction. Im not sure ratio of truly good "classics" to the shit of their era is any different than the ratio of quality to shit in ours..

[SuchFriendsAreDangerous]

Also who knows what 21st century crap future generations will value as classic. These things are fickle and much of what classics we value as epochal today weren't all necessarily well received in their time.

[dead_battery]

i am quite sure baudrillard will be remembered as a very important philosopher from this era, whereas now he is either slandered or not mentioned whatsoever. many of the people doing the slagging will most certainly not mean shit to the future.

also, some works which are BIG in our time but are ignored since they are firmly in the "genre/trash" section, at least in the minds of the literati, will be remembered.

[Genteel Death]

Originally Posted by dead_battery

i am quite sure baudrillard will be remembered as a very important philosopher from this era, whereas now he is either slandered or not mentioned whatsoever. many of the people doing the slagging will most certainly not mean shit to the future.

also, some works which are BIG in our time but are ignored since they are firmly in the "genre/trash" section, at least in the minds of the literati, will be remembered.

You're so far stuck up your own arse you can't acknowledge there isn't a single society that misses any philosophers. Artists, yes, not some deluded intellectual. They come and go and are as relevant as Pitchfork hacks. Nobody loves them, nobody cares.

[dead_battery]

i feel a bit sorry for you sometimes but im afraid youre going back on ignore permanently this time.

[gmku]

I'm somewhat interested in starting Denis Johnson's new spy novel. Has anyone looked at it? The book store owner I know says it is a good read.

[demonrail666]

 

Henry James, Washington Square

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by demonrail666

 

Henry James, Washington Square

i read that many years ago and i remember the main lines of the story but not much else. well written and all but a bit depressing-- which in retrospective is not wrong but i was in a different, less pessimistic (more deluded?) place at the time. has parallels to daisy miller, i thought. (being purposefully vague here to avoid spoilers).

i think his conservatism turned me off to further readings. was i wrong? (probably.)

==


reading right now: various translations of the tao te ching (and comparing them) (i don't read chinese though). also planning to go back to those sumerian texts and cull some proverbs-- city life is city life now or 5000 years ago.

[evollove]

Has anyone tried to tackle James' late works (Wings, Bowl, Ambassadors)?

[Rob Instigator]

I have never managed to get more than 75 pages or so into any Henry James work. I just don't give a shit about his characters or writing style.