OT-ish - Mark Lawson on Post-War AmLit
HVS
"Review" section, and was faced with a looooonnnnnnng article by Mark
Lawson on post-war American literature.
Now, my immediate reaction to this sort of thing is "Here's something
worthy that I know I really ought to read. It's gonna bore me to
tears. I'll scan it a bit, so I can at least say I tried."
So I started reading (fairly quickly), but found I slowed down and
read the whole article. Was well-written, insightful, analytical,
non-polemical, and neither contentious nor point-scoring.
Mileages and all that, but I thought it was worth highlighting as
"worth a read".
http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2010/feb/06/american-literature-
great-novelists
or
--
Cheers, Harvey
CanEng and BrEng, indiscriminately mixed
Garrett Wollman
HVS <use...@REMOVETHISwhhvs.co.uk> wrote:
>Mileages and all that, but I thought it was worth highlighting as
>"worth a read".
>
>http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2010/feb/06/american-literature-great-novelists
Thank you for this... it at least tells me that the author is a
"serious litt-ra-cher" snob and I need make no effort to listen to his
radio presentation.
-GAWollman
--
Garrett A. Wollman | What intellectual phenomenon can be older, or more oft
wol...@bimajority.org| repeated, than the story of a large research program
Opinions not shared by| that impaled itself upon a false central assumption
my employers. | accepted by all practitioners? - S.J. Gould, 1993
LFS
> In article <Xns9D17DB23...@news.albasani.net>,
> HVS <use...@REMOVETHISwhhvs.co.uk> wrote:
>> Mileages and all that, but I thought it was worth highlighting as
>> "worth a read".
>>
>> http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2010/feb/06/american-literature-great-novelists
>
> Thank you for this... it at least tells me that the author is a
> "serious litt-ra-cher" snob and I need make no effort to listen to his
> radio presentation.
>
> -GAWollman
>
What a strange observation! What evidence of snobbery do you find in the
article? It seems to me to be a balanced and thorough analysis of recent
American literature and I look forward to listening to the programmes. I
listen to Lawson's "Front Row" programme regularly, as well as reading
his work in the Guardian. He is a good interviewer and he is a critic
who applies the same rigour to popular culture as to "serious" art.
--
Laura
(emulate St. George for email)
HVS
> Garrett Wollman wrote:
>> In article <Xns9D17DB23...@news.albasani.net>,
>> HVS <use...@REMOVETHISwhhvs.co.uk> wrote:
>>> Mileages and all that, but I thought it was worth highlighting
>>> as "worth a read".
>>>
>>> http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2010/feb/06/american-literature
>>> -great-novelists
>>
>> Thank you for this... it at least tells me that the author is a
>> "serious litt-ra-cher" snob and I need make no effort to listen
>> to his radio presentation.
>>
>> -GAWollman
>>
>
> What a strange observation! What evidence of snobbery do you
> find in the article? It seems to me to be a balanced and
> thorough analysis of recent American literature and I look
> forward to listening to the programmes.
It struck me as a strange reaction as well (but as I said, mileages
and all that).
I probably won't listen to the programmes -- the article is of
sufficient depth for my personal interest in the subject -- but I
thought it was a sane and extremely accessible treatment of a
subject that usually prompts rather pompous and boring writing.
> I listen to Lawson's
> "Front Row" programme regularly, as well as reading his work in
> the Guardian. He is a good interviewer and he is a critic who
> applies the same rigour to popular culture as to "serious" art.
--
LFS
> On 07 Feb 2010, LFS wrote
>
>> Garrett Wollman wrote:
>>> In article <Xns9D17DB23...@news.albasani.net>,
>>> HVS <use...@REMOVETHISwhhvs.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> Mileages and all that, but I thought it was worth highlighting
>>>> as "worth a read".
>>>>
>>>> http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2010/feb/06/american-literature
>>>> -great-novelists
>>> Thank you for this... it at least tells me that the author is a
>>> "serious litt-ra-cher" snob and I need make no effort to listen
>>> to his radio presentation.
>>>
>>> -GAWollman
>>>
>> What a strange observation! What evidence of snobbery do you
>> find in the article? It seems to me to be a balanced and
>> thorough analysis of recent American literature and I look
>> forward to listening to the programmes.
>
> It struck me as a strange reaction as well (but as I said, mileages
> and all that).
>
> I probably won't listen to the programmes -- the article is of
> sufficient depth for my personal interest in the subject -- but I
> thought it was a sane and extremely accessible treatment of a
> subject that usually prompts rather pompous and boring writing.
I suspect that the interviews in the programmes will be the same as the
ones previously broadcast but Lawson is a good interviewer IMO - he asks
the questions I would ask and he does not appear to be overly
intimidated by stellar reputations. I like the line in the article about
having "coffee with set texts".
HVS
> HVS wrote:
>> On 07 Feb 2010, LFS wrote
>>
>>> Garrett Wollman wrote:
>>>> In article <Xns9D17DB23...@news.albasani.net>,
>>>> HVS <use...@REMOVETHISwhhvs.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>> Mileages and all that, but I thought it was worth
>>>>> highlighting as "worth a read".
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2010/feb/06/american-literatu
>>>>> re -great-novelists
>>>> Thank you for this... it at least tells me that the author is
>>>> a "serious litt-ra-cher" snob and I need make no effort to
>>>> listen to his radio presentation.
>>>>
>>>> -GAWollman
>>>>
>>> What a strange observation! What evidence of snobbery do you
>>> find in the article? It seems to me to be a balanced and
>>> thorough analysis of recent American literature and I look
>>> forward to listening to the programmes.
>>
>> It struck me as a strange reaction as well (but as I said,
>> mileages and all that).
>>
>> I probably won't listen to the programmes -- the article is of
>> sufficient depth for my personal interest in the subject -- but
>> I thought it was a sane and extremely accessible treatment of a
>> subject that usually prompts rather pompous and boring writing.
>
> I suspect that the interviews in the programmes will be the same
> as the ones previously broadcast but Lawson is a good
> interviewer IMO - he asks the questions I would ask and he does
> not appear to be overly intimidated by stellar reputations. I
> like the line in the article about having "coffee with set
> texts".
The comment about the marked difference with a couple of them
between the pre-interview conversation and the "great man of
letters" persona for the actual interview was also interesting.
Wood Avens
Interesting. When I read any of Mark Lawson's articles, I always find
I'm "hearing" them in his voice, which is very familiar from his radio
programmes (and I've also heard him speak at a literary festival).
Undoubtedly Harvey and Laura and many if not all the other Brits in
aue are similarly familiar with his voice, and he almost always sounds
as if he's in animated conversation with a friend about something
which they both find particularly interesting or engaging. He never,
ever, sounds as if he's speaking to a public meeting, even when he is.
But Garrett can't be expected to "hear" the article in the same way at
all. And I can just about see, if I screw myself up to *not* reading
it in Mark Lawson's voice, why he might have been misled.
--
Katy Jennison
spamtrap: remove the first two letters after the @
Garrett Wollman
LFS <la...@DRAGONspira.fsbusiness.co.uk> wrote:
>What a strange observation! What evidence of snobbery do you find in the
>article? It seems to me to be a balanced and thorough analysis of recent
>American literature and I look forward to listening to the
>programmes.
The fact that he confined himself to "literary" fiction, poetry, and
"serious" drama, all very tiny subsets of modern American fiction,
most Americans' exposure to which is limited to the high-school
classroom. With the principal exceptions of Mailer and Thompson, he
takes a bunch of midlist writers most people only read because they
were forced to, as the exemplars for "American literature".
I would venture to say that more people have read Michener for
pleasure than John Irving. And by what possible justification do you
ignore Ray Bradbury? Stephen King? Harlan Ellison? Stephen Sondheim
and the whole of the musical theatre, for that matter?
LFS
I'll admit that's plausible but I've read the article twice and still
can't see evidence of snobbery. Lawson states his position very clearly:
his analysis focuses on leading writers publishing since 1945. He also
admits that any overview will inevitably be accused of omission. I just
don't see why this is regarded as snobbery.
Mike Page
Brown. I guess some people might consider this intellectual snobbery.
But they can be disregarded as morons.
--
Mike Page
Google me at port.ac.uk if you need to send an email.
LFS
I enjoyed "The Da Vinci Code".
I don't think he does assert superiority. The relevant section is:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
There were other signs that this was the right time to analyse Am lit.
Updike, in that last interview, reflected on having twice been pictured
on the cover of Time magazine, part of the nation's honours system, to
mark the publication of Couples in 1968 and Rabbit Is Rich in 1982. Now,
the novelist who takes that prize is Dan Brown. And so the changing of
the guard in American fiction is arguably not just generational but
cultural: the large, interested readership who lined their shelves with
Updike's Rabbit Quartet, Bellow's Herzog, Mailer's The Naked and the
Dead, Roth's Portnoy's Complaint and other bestsellers of serious
literary merit had perhaps migrated to the quick-read thriller and the
confessional memoir.
Any overview is immediately subject to accusations of oversight which
are followed just as inevitably by a defence of compression; but my
definition of modern American literature concentrates on authors whose
first work appeared after 1945, which was, in so many ways, a
break-through date.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't think he is being snobbish about "the quick-read thriller and
the confessional memoir". He is noting a change. He is quite clear about
the boundaries of the work he chooses to analyse but I can't see that
setting those boundaries represents snobbery, as I understand the
meaning of the word, and IMO such an accusation is the result of a lazy
reading of the article.
Nick
> He does assert some kind of superiority of his chosen writers over Dan
> Brown. I guess some people might consider this intellectual
> snobbery. But they can be disregarded as morons.
I don't think he even said that. He said that they were writers of a
different sort of book to Dan Brown - which is surely something noone
can quibble with.
--
Online waterways route planner | http://canalplan.eu
Plan trips, see photos, check facilities | http://canalplan.org.uk
Mike Lyle
Don't forget that Garrett thinks music comes in four-minute pieces.
--
Mike.
Mike Page
seem to imply shallowness and association with the sensational and lurid.
LFS
Not in the least. But I think Katy J may be right and my interpretation
of the article may be influenced by the fact that I have heard Lawson
apply the same rigorous critical analysis to a wide range of popular
culture, as well as what might be termed heavyweight.
(Wish I'd seen this earlier, we could have argued over lunch!)
Mike Page
http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2009/sep/15/review-lost-symbol-dan-brown
ML's review of a DB is headlined, "The Lost Symbol: A puzzling,
rollicking piece of tosh". The review goes on to make his views clear.
Lunch was grand, thank you. And we had far more interesting things to
talk about than Dan Brown, or even Mark Lawson.
--
Mike Page
Nomina rutrum rutrum (L. Kellaway, FT 08/02/10, p14)
LFS
My original point, in response to Garrett, was that, in the article to
which Harvey drew our attention, I could not discern any snobbery. I
still can't and I don't think that introducing evidence from elsewhere
is pertinent. (However, if you read the article you cite *carefully*
you'll see what I mean about the objectiveness of Lawson's critique.)
>
> Lunch was grand, thank you. And we had far more interesting things to
> talk about than Dan Brown, or even Mark Lawson.
>
Yes, but my digestion is often improved by an argument. The only thing
we argued about was who was first in umra and I was so overwhelmed with
chips that I conceded without a fight. Ggle Gps is no help on that.
Mike Page
Nor did I impute to Lawson snobbery, merely that he thought Salinger's
literary output superior to Brown's and some commentators might mistake
that for snobbery. External evidence is relevant in that it increases
the probability that any ambiguous phrase is consistent with ML's views
obtained from that external evidence.
To suggest that ML believes that 'confession memoirs' have equal merit
to the other literature he was discussing imputes to him a remarkable
degree of cultural relativism that would make the only valid criterion
'what the reader likes'. Such a view would probably be a considerable
handicap in earning one's living as a cultural pundit.
--
Mike Page
Arte et Labore
LFS
What was ambiguous?
>
> To suggest that ML believes that 'confession memoirs' have equal merit
> to the other literature he was discussing
Did I suggest that? Just *read* what he wrote. I've quoted the relevant
paragraph above.
imputes to him a remarkable
> degree of cultural relativism that would make the only valid criterion
> 'what the reader likes'. Such a view would probably be a considerable
> handicap in earning one's living as a cultural pundit.
>
In today's paper he's written a very touching article about the TV
programmes he watched with his father who died recently. He and the
Blessed Nancy are the reasons I buy the Guardian.
Mike Page
Well I don't think there was ambiguity, but you seem to think that when
ML contrasts novels of 'serious literary merit' with 'quick-read
thrillers and confessional memoirs', he may not be making a value judgement.
>
>>
>> To suggest that ML believes that 'confession memoirs' have equal merit
>> to the other literature he was discussing
>
> Did I suggest that? Just *read* what he wrote. I've quoted the relevant
> paragraph above.
Just above the quoted paragraph, you say 'I don't think he does assert
superiority.' That does seem to be me to be saying that he isn't making
a value judgement about literary quality, in the quoted material.
>
> imputes to him a remarkable
>> degree of cultural relativism that would make the only valid criterion
>> 'what the reader likes'. Such a view would probably be a considerable
>> handicap in earning one's living as a cultural pundit.
>>
>
> In today's paper he's written a very touching article about the TV
> programmes he watched with his father who died recently. He and the
> Blessed Nancy are the reasons I buy the Guardian.
>
I gather NBS is winding down her telly watching. Which is a bit odd; in
retirement, should I be spared, I plan to go down to the pub at lunch
time and snooze on the sofa in front of the telly in the afternoon. But
Wife may have other plans for me - she has already announced that, in
retirement, there will be no telly watching before 20:00. I may have to
find a pub with decent beer, a tolerant attitude to pensioners *and*
wide screen sport.
--
Mike Page
Usque Conabor
HVS
> I gather NBS is winding down her telly watching. Which is a bit
> odd; in retirement, should I be spared, I plan to go down to the
> pub at lunch time and snooze on the sofa in front of the telly
> in the afternoon. But Wife may have other plans for me - she has
> already announced that, in retirement, there will be no telly
> watching before 20:00. I may have to find a pub with decent
> beer, a tolerant attitude to pensioners *and* wide screen sport.
I've found one, except it's the local community social club rather
than a pub.
It's quiet, pleasant, with real ale -- no choice except well-kept
London Pride, but that does me fine -- Sky Sports, and on Monday
evening the old guys seem to get a supply of (good) cheese, biscuits,
pickled onions, and tomatoes. (I don't know what the payment
arrangements are for that.)
I haven't noticed any whippets and flat caps yet, but this *is* in
Hants rather than Yorks...
LFS
>>
> I gather NBS is winding down her telly watching. Which is a bit odd; in
> retirement, should I be spared, I plan to go down to the pub at lunch
> time and snooze on the sofa in front of the telly in the afternoon. But
> Wife may have other plans for me - she has already announced that, in
> retirement, there will be no telly watching before 20:00. I may have to
> find a pub with decent beer, a tolerant attitude to pensioners *and*
> wide screen sport.
>
There is another option but I hesitate to articulate it. And the quest
would probably be a great deal more of a challenge than finding such a pub.
But a new business opportunity occurs to me: a creche for retired
husbands. They wouldn't need much attention and they'd all snooze in the
afternoons, just like children at nursery school.
tony cooper
That hits rather close to home.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
Reinhold {Rey} Aman
[...]
> But a new business opportunity occurs to me: a creche for retired
> husbands. They wouldn't need much attention and they'd all snooze
> in the afternoons, just like children at nursery school.
>
out of their beds.
--
~~~ Reinhold {Rey} Aman ~~~
Mike Page
dedicated to hard drinking for my tastes.
--
Mike Page
HVS
> HVS wrote:
>> On 08 Feb 2010, Mike Page wrote
>>
>>> I gather NBS is winding down her telly watching. Which is a
>>> bit odd; in retirement, should I be spared, I plan to go down
>>> to the pub at lunch time and snooze on the sofa in front of
>>> the telly in the afternoon. But Wife may have other plans for
>>> me - she has already announced that, in retirement, there will
>>> be no telly watching before 20:00. I may have to find a pub
>>> with decent beer, a tolerant attitude to pensioners *and* wide
>>> screen sport.
>>
>> I've found one, except it's the local community social club
>> rather than a pub.
>>
>> It's quiet, pleasant, with real ale -- no choice except
>> well-kept London Pride, but that does me fine -- Sky Sports,
>> and on Monday evening the old guys seem to get a supply of
>> (good) cheese, biscuits, pickled onions, and tomatoes. (I
>> don't know what the payment arrangements are for that.)
>>
>> I haven't noticed any whippets and flat caps yet, but this *is*
>> in Hants rather than Yorks...
>>
> Would that be somewhere in Southampton?
Unfortunately not; a much tamer one in a Basingstoke suburb.
> Shirley Social Club is a
> bit too dedicated to hard drinking for my tastes.
Yes, there are a number of those here that would put me off, too.
(I joined this one when the pub in our street closed down; the
former owner kept excellent beer, but wasn't remotely suited to
running a pub. He ran the place so far into the ground that I
doubt it'll ever open again. Sad.)