This morning I was waiting for a bus in the University Street Metro station when I saw Jon Evison, best-selling author of West of Here and All About Lulu, walking along on the opposite side of the station, pulling a suitcase and garment bag behind him. Jon’s on his way to the Virginia Book Festival. He spends a lot of time on the road, giving readings and meeting readers and encouraging up-and-coming writers from coast-to-coast. I could’ve yelled Hey, Evison! across the big gap between us and even though he and I have only met twice in the last three years, Jon would’ve remembered not only where and when he’d seen me last, but also what my name was and that I was a writer. Jon Evison has that sort of memory, and he’s that sort of people-loving guy. So while I’m sure he misses his family when he’s on the road, he’s also made friends all over America and he really loves meeting new people and he loves doing readings. Still, I had the disturbing thought later this morning that Jon Evison, best-selling author, is now sort of a traveling salesman, and I think of him standing alone with his suitcase and garment bag on the Metro platform, off to SeaTac and nine or ten hours of traveling to get him to his hotel in Virginia. It did not strike me as a good thing. But it’s the artist life, isn’t it? Mozart toured Europe, conducting his symphonies and giving recitals and dedicating new works to various crowned heads, hoping that someone would give him a decent regular gig. A self-employed artist must constantly hustle his wares, it seems. Not much new there.
Yesterday, in the comments of a blog dedicated more-or-less to reading 19th-century literature, someone mentioned that her husband only reads “classics,” working through a list provided by Clifton Fadiman (I assume it's Fadiman's "Lifetime Reading Plan"). She went on to ask, partly in jest, why we should read anything being written now? Most of it’s probably crap; let time sort out which will become classics, and let readers of the future enjoy them. We have more “classics” available right now than anyone will have time to read in a lifetime.
This gave me pause. I’m one of those people writing novels now, and I have no way of knowing if my novels aren’t part of the “most of it’s crap” pile. I think it would be nice if tens of thousands of people bought my books, but I can’t honestly say that my books are worth the time to read. None of us can honestly say that about our own books. No, we can’t, no matter what you might think. No, we really can’t say. So I have no real idea of the “worth” of my books. I agree with you that terms such as “worth” and “classic” are poorly understood and indefinable, but let’s pretend they do mean something and move on.
So, I can’t claim that my books are worth reading. I also can’t claim that most of the books I read are books written by living authors. I’m one of those people who read capital-L “Literature” (another very slippery term) and most of my bookshelves are full of books by people who are long dead, some having gone to their graves thousands of years ago. It’s a constant struggle for me to find living authors whose books I want to read, so I’ve got Bulfinch and Walter Scott and Nabokov and Chekhov and O’Connor and Faulkner on my “to be read” list right now. I can depend on those people not to waste my time. All of this might make me think that I have no justification behind asking living readers to give my books a try. And yet I will. This line of thought confuses me. Why am I writing when, maybe, all the good books have already been written? When’s the last time a really great book came out? No, I can’t tell you what I mean by “great,” either.
This is all pretty grim stuff for a Friday morning, and I apologize. Very likely it’s just that I’m in the vasty emptiness of the middle of a new novel and being there always makes me question the value of my own writing. Why this book? I ask myself. What’s the point? Who’s going to want to read this, for gosh sakes? It’s just a phase. I’m in a chapter that’s hard to write, introducing a new character and a significant plot point and I worry that I’m going to screw it up so I put off working on the book and pretend I’m doing research or that I’m too busy to finish the chapter. So I should just finish the damned chapter and move on with my life. So, yay me. Problem solved. So glad we had this chat. Happy Friday.
I read a lot of "literature". I have all those authors on my shelves. I even graduated in Comparative literature. But I still read books currently published. There is a lot of junk but there is a lot of good things too. If everyone only read classics and books by people long dead no one new would be published and there would be no new classics in the future.
ReplyDeleteMany classics were popular or genre books of their day. That's one of the reasons they survived long enough to become classics. If we aren't finding the good books out there now then the classics of the future will be chosen by the people that are reading currently published books.
"Many classics were popular or genre books of their day. That's one of the reasons they survived long enough to become classics." I really like this point!
DeleteAnd many of the recognized classics were unpopular during their day as well. So it's all unknowable, unpredictable. I'm just glad they didn't give Franzen a Pulitzer for Freedom. A decade from now, people will be asking themselves what all the fuss was about. Same with Junot Diaz and Oscar Wao. Lahiri and Strout are much better writers than those two guys.
DeleteMy problem with most modern fiction is that it seems to be too impressed with itself for writing about the 21st century, as if we live is some special point in time. We don't, and I'd rather people wrote about the timeless existential issues and not about pop culture. I'm hoping my WIP, which is set today, is actually a consideration of deeper themes than middle-aged office work and charity organizations run by white American liberals. We'll see.
"My problem with most modern fiction is that it seems to be too impressed with itself for writing about the 21st century"
DeleteYes, you do have a point with this. I think there will always be books and authors that are trying so hard that all we see is the trying, not the book, or themes within it. Or that are so impressed by their writing a whole book that they never noticed how many other people have done it. (not to downplay the accomplishment of writing a book) But that is one reason I think we need discerning readers. To be able to sift the wheat from the chaff so only that which is worthy really pushes on to the next level.
I agree that for a book to really live it HAS to have timeless issues. Things that people of all ages can relate to.
Personally I haven't read Franzen, I keep thinking I should just to see what all the fuss is about. But whatever. Lol, I guess I should follow my own advice and be a discerning reader.
I have to respectfully disagree with Mr. Bailey on this one. As someone fascinated with history, folklore, and anthropology, I believe every point in time IS special and that the time we are living in is uniquely significant to the human story--the technological leaps, the globalization, the extreme culture shifts, etc.
DeleteThe reason I read modern literature as well as ye olde classics is that there are concepts, cultural beliefs, and nuances of interpersonal relationships that simply have not existed before this time. There are stories to be told now that could not have been told before at any other time. I very much enjoy comparing and contrasting newer works with older ones. Works from different times that deal with the same Big Concepts and "Timeless Truths" have interestingly and importantly different perspectives.
I haven't found that my coworkers or family are notably different that the people in Chekhov or Shakespeare or Austen. Or in Homer or Ovid or Moses, neither. We're still Babylonians, posting to facebook. I think that social customs change, obvs, but I don't think that humanity does. Not really. No, not a bit.
DeleteWhen I step back and look at romantic relationships, gender dynamics, social class, international relations, and other dynamics that are bigger than the individual human, I see major differences that don't translate across time periods. Women in a Jane Austen novel behave (and are expected to behave) in ways markedly different than women in ancient Greek plays or women in contemporary chick lit. Even if you find a story in which women from all those categories are doing the same thing--trying to snare a husband, say--they have different motivations and strategies, and the "happy ending" is not exactly the same for each. Some basics stay the same, but there are details that change--and those details are interesting to me.
DeleteI guess I'm the opposite sort of cultural observer. I think that the traits that are unchanged from culture to culture are the most interesting, and likely the most human. Though no, you can't separate character from culture. Hmm hmm hmm. Stuff to consider.
DeleteWe're probably both right. And stuff.
DeleteThe living writers I am reading and admiring very much now are Lahiri, Yoshimoto, Murakami, Ishiguro, Bailey, Fish, Manickavel, Munro, King (Jason), and I'm sure at least a handful of others I can't think of right now. I do feel like I get value out of their work, and I'm glad they continue. Working as a fundraiser now, I'm writing documents every day that could lead to lives being changed, and the idea of value pops up a lot. It has changed my fiction writing as I seek out value and how fiction can be valuable. I have a feeling it's something I will continue to think about for a very long time...and hopefully I will keep writing novels even if I never find a satisfactory answer.
ReplyDeleteI've read some of those, I'll have to look up the others. Thanks for the names.
DeleteI also have a bookcase full of classics but have spent a lot of time in the past few years branching out. I rely heavily on recommendations. If I've heard something is excellent from several different sources I check it out. I'll occasionally read a book without a recommendation if I see it at the library, if it's very inexpensive or if it sounds so intriguing I can't put it back down.
ReplyDeleteVery interesting post and sorry I am late.
ReplyDeleteI get what you are saying about being sure your time won't be wasted. But I still think there are so many great contemporary novels/novelists. Maybe that is because I tend to read mostly multicultural fiction. I feel that these are critically important stories, voices and perspectives that are missing from the classics. It's the whole "Danger of a Single Story" meme.
Alexander Chee. Mohsin Hamid. Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie. Ha Jin. Alice Walker. Zadie Smith. Hillary Jordan. Etc.
I am grateful for their work.
JA, this ties into my point above. There are voices that were simply not published or popularized in the past, from people who were not part of the Old White Men (and a few women and token others) club of Classical Literature. There is much more diversity of perspective and experience from modern authors. That in itself is a valuable reason to read current writing.
DeleteMaybe so. Though a lot of the new writing isn't necessarily great as writing, if you know what I mean. Maybe that's the fault of the global publishing marketplace. Certainly Bapsi Sidhwa is a better writer than Salman Rushdie, but people call Midnight's Children brilliant while never having heard of Cracking India. Hmm hmm hmm. Possibly the problem, or situation, is that I'm set in my ways and I like a certain type of prose. Though I don't so much care for the books of Young White Men that are being published now, either. I will admit that, probably, I don't know what I'm looking for from literature these days, but whatever it is, I'm not finding it. Hmm hmm hmm.
DeleteThere's a whole lot more on the market now, so for sure there's more slush to wade through to find the good stuff. But that doesn't mean it isn't worth finding, in my opinion!
DeleteAnd definitely worth writing. Your time is not being wasted, sir--reading or writing.
Storytelling is a living, human thing. I don't care whether the same stories are told over and over. To me, the exciting and interesting part is how they can be told differently and evolve.
My favorite stories are those I've heard before, presented in a new way. It adds a depth and complexity to the old narrative that my brain just can't process with a fresh, new story.
I agree! To me, the least interesting thing about today is the technology. I'm sure that in the 19th century, people were in awe of the steam engine and the telegraph, but if you remove the cultural markers the writers were fascinated with, you get the same stories in Lahiri that you did in Aeschylus. Look past the cultural artifacts and you get to the humanity, and we're all the same. Which is, maybe, the best argument I can find for reading widely these days. So hmm hmm hmm again.
DeleteHmm hmm hmm indeed! Yeah, I'm with you on the technology thing. The people are the interesting part. I think we're interested in the same thing from different angles.
DeleteI know a lot of people who bitterly (or not so bitterly) write off modern culture as something not worth appreciating. I smile and keep on enjoying the latest thing :)
ReplyDelete