Philip Roth wins Booker

[rhadin]

Originally Posted by SlowRain

...and then one of the judges resigns because she didn't like the choice. I agree with both sides: Roth is a good writer, but he really only does write endlessly about one thing. I can read about one Roth novel a year.

I agree with the dissenter.

As for reading 1 book a year, you clearly have a higher tolerance for pain than I do. I can read about 5 pages of Roth in a lifetime. The only hope he has of my completing any book he has ever written is that I am constantly reincarnated with his book in hand. Perhaps over dozens of reincarnations I'll get through 1 of his books.

[rhadin]

Originally Posted by Prestidigitweeze

By all means, let's judge novelists by their subject matter and not their level of craftsmanship.

Everyone judges a writer by both the subject choice and their level of craftsmanship. It is one of the ways we do personal gatekeeping. For example, I would never consider reading a book about zombies (and the weres are rapidly joining zombies in that regard) -- not interested, don't care about them, and myriad other reasons. Consequently, I would have a tough time evaluating the author's craftmanship, if for no other reason than I couldn't wrap myself into the subject matter.

Similarly, I do not read Harlequin romances. I am not particularly interested in the libidos of women seeking 6-pack abs, so even if the author can describe a sex scene better than James Joyce or D.H. Lawrence, I'd never know it.

Subject matter and craftmanship go hand-in-hand and are not separable.

[TGS]

Originally Posted by rhadin

The only hope he has of my completing any book he has ever written is that I am constantly reincarnated with his book in hand. Perhaps over dozens of reincarnations I'll get through 1 of his books.

I'd be willing to wager that Philip Roth has no hope of you reading any of his books since he is ignorant of your existence. And I'd be willing to double the bet that he could not care less.

[issybird]

Anne Tyler wrote the same novel over and over again, too, IMO. Nothing would get me to read another novel by either Tyler or Roth, but I think Roth is by far the more important of the two.

If you participate in the judging process, you are bound to accept the decision graciously, unless it's a matter of high moral import and I don't think an aversion to Roth qualifies.

[Prestidigitweeze]

Originally Posted by rhadin

Everyone judges a writer by both the subject choice and their level of craftsmanship. . . . Subject matter and craftmanship go hand-in-hand and are not separable.

You'd do well to substitute the pronoun I for everyone. I completely disagree with you, as would many of my friends. I'm far more interested in depth of insight, stylistic grace and concision than in the subject. A great writer can make anything their subject and hold my interest.

I once read a biography of Hitler that praised him endlessly. I happened to enjoy it because it was written by Wyndham Lewis. Besides which, I have maternal relatives who perished in the Holocaust. If I'd lived in Germany back then, they'd have tossed me into Auschwitz as well.

Which leads me to this next bit:

I wonder if there would be the same level of defense for a Neo-Nazi who had excellent craftsmanship.

See above.

Andanzas: No offense taken. I wasn't in a particularly stern mood while replying to your post, either.

Shibamistress and Issybird: I completely agree with you about the graceless behavior of the judge and the relative merits of Anne Tyler as opposed to those of Roth.

[Prestidigitweeze]

BTW:

I'm thinking of writing a blog entry for my magazine and titling it "The Truth of Faps." The piece might begin like this: "Unlike Philip Roth, Oscar Wilde never wrote a novel about onanism. But if he had . . ."

[rhadin]

Originally Posted by Prestidigitweeze

You'd do well to substitute the pronoun I for everyone. I completely disagree with you, as would many of my friends. I'm far more interested in depth of insight, stylistic grace and concision than in the subject. A great writer can make anything their subject and hold my interest.

But you wouldn't have picked up the book to read if the subject choice didn't interest you. I don't pick up books on the biology of a dormouse in Winchester Cathedral because I am not interested in the subject matter.

If you were subject choice blind, you would, for example, simply go into a bookstore, close your eyes, let someone guide you to the nearest shelves regardless of subject matter, reach out and pick up the nearest book, buy it and read it. Is that what you do?

[Prestidigitweeze]

Originally Posted by rhadin

But you wouldn't have picked up the book to read if the subject choice didn't interest you. I don't pick up books on the biology of a dormouse in Winchester Cathedral because I am not interested in the subject matter.

Not so. I pick up a book regardless of the subject because I have it on authority or have noticed that the writer is good.

I have no interest in the western as a genre. Yet I've read John Hawkes's western simply because I like his style.

More examples: Michelet's book on insects and Francis Ponge's book of descriptions of extremely prosaic objects. On a given day, I don't open textbooks on entomology and simple biology, or visual dictionaries, unless I'm doing research. However, I do read Michelet and Ponge for pleasure.

Yet another: William and Dorothy Wordsworth. On the surface, I ought to prefer William's poems to Dorothy's diary entries, since the poetry is more high-minded, dramatic and so on. But because I prefer Dorothy's prose style, with its surgical precision about plant life and so on, I'd rather read her entries than her brother's finished poems.

Here's the most telling example of all: I am not now nor will I ever be a Christian. Yet as interesting as I might find Bertrand Russell, I prefer reading Sir Thomas Browne's Religio Medici and Jeremy Taylor's Holy Dying because I enjoy their styles more than Russell's (and also the elaborate ways they think). (Of course, I prefer Minima Moralia to all three, but that's for another topic.)

I'm a fan of the metaphysical poets for many of the same reasons: I enjoy "heterogeneous ideas yoked by violence together" (as Samuel Johnson famously said of their metaphors).

How many non-Christians, atheists and agnostics do you know who would rather read a strange and precisely-written book in praise of Christianity than a well-written but conventional book in praise of skepticism, or even a fairly well-written novel about war, romance and/or a series of violent or lascivious acts?

If you can't think of any, then you haven't met certain of my friends.

If you were subject choice blind, you would, for example, simply go into a bookstore, close your eyes, let someone guide you to the nearest shelves regardless of subject matter, reach out and pick up the nearest book, buy it and read it. Is that what you do?

You make the mistake of presuming that not caring about the subject is the equivalent of being blind. Some readers don't think as you do, but that doesn't imply their choices are uninformed. Some of us follow patterns of style and prosody as you do similarities in subject matter (if I understand you correctly).

Please do me a favor and don't jump to the next likely conclusion (though I'm not presuming it's in your nature to do so -- I simply mean it would be the next logical step given the trajectory of your reasoning).

Don't presume that, because I read for style and execution, I'm some bizarre and convoluted anomaly never seen before in Texas.

The truth is more mundane than that: You happen to choose books differently than I.

[Andrew H.]

Originally Posted by spellbanisher

So the international man booker is like a poor man's nobel.

Well, yes. But it's probably the most prestigious literary award in English.

[SlowRain]

Originally Posted by Prestidigitweeze

You'd do well to substitute the pronoun I for everyone.

Actually, instead of substituting "I" for "everyone," we should substitute "most people" for "everyone." The statement was pretty bang on. I think you're just going to have to admit your method is not how most people do it, and it's merely your opinion that it's the best way. Most people do let subject matter govern their decision making.

[Prestidigitweeze]

Originally Posted by SlowRain

Actually, instead of substituting "I" for "everyone," we should substitute "most people" for "everyone." The statement was pretty bang on. I think you're just going to have to admit your method is not how most people do it, and it's merely your opinion that it's the best way. Most people do let subject matter govern their decision making.

The "statement" was no more "bang on" than the straw man analogy regarding blindness. "Most people" are definitively not "everyone" (indeed are usually the projection of induction), but using the word "I" to indicate what you yourself happen to do is almost always fair. Wasn't the latter part of the twentieth century sufficient reminder not to marginalize other people on the basis of normative assumptions?

This should be a discussion about Philip Roth, but the breadth of your assumptions compels me to ask: Why exactly is it important to insist that "most people" choose books exactly as you do? Why do you apparently find it maddening that other systems of preference exist at all?

Here's your most telling remark: "I think you're just going to have to admit your method is not how most people do it, and it's merely your opinion that it's the best way."

Funny thing is, I never suggested that my way was "the best way." I never made it a contest: You and rhadin did. The whole digression began with the insistence that I and others I know couldn't possibly select books based on style and execution alone, and that craft and creative integrity by themselves aren't reason enough to value a book.

The digression then proceeded with the idea I must not be expressing myself clearly. It concluded with the idea I must be fundamentally dishonest. And through the din of this ad populum barking, the phrase "most people" kept looping and looping like alternating orchestral stabs in a day-long mix from the moo-hanking Love Parade. It's if the phrase itself made the counter-argument right -- as if common preferences were the only kind worth having.

No one's threatening your method of choosing books, SlowRain. All I did was point out that yours isn't the only method and certainly shouldn't be the criterion for judging the worth of a writer's decade-spanning output. "He wrote about pigeons, which is utterly banal and deplorable. I'm resigning as a judge because I believe the award should go to someone who writes about ducks and pheasants as well."

Please. The judge resigned because she considers Roth's subject matter vulgar. The complaint at its root is about vulgarity, not repetition, which comes through in the ex-judge's comment that Roth was effectively "sitting on her face." It's the same complaint that was made of William Burroughs and Joyce before him because conditional decency, too, is preferred by "most people."

Nor would I stop the list of reading selection criteria at yours and mine. There are clearly more, and those are valid as well.

[SlowRain]

I'm saying that most people choose books based on subject matter and writing style. I find nothing maddening about how a minority of people may choose their books.

Choosing books based on "style and execution alone" and valuing them because of "craft and creative integrity" are both fine. I see no problems there so long as you realize that's not how most people do it. And, so long as people who do it this way don't form an elitist attitude or otherwise be condescending about common preferences--either expressed or implied--then there's no problem there, either.

No one's threatening your method of choosing books, Prestidigitweeze. All I did was point out that yours isn't the way most people do it and that subject matter most certainly is one of the criterion for judging the worth of a writer's decades-spanning output.

The judge resigned because she doesn't like the endless repetition and narrow focus. Repetition is what she was addressing with the face-sitting comment; subject matter is what we're all surmising--myself included--which she denies.

In her explanation, she again alludes to his repetition--and she's right. It's hard to endure it when someone just endlessly says more of the same--like lengthy lists of books, for example.

While I think he's a good writer, and agree with her that "his reach is narrow" and that he is self-involved, I disagree with the "emperor's clothes" comment.

I also disagree with your analysis of how this discussion has progressed. As I've said, I find nothing maddening. No one has accused you of or implied that you are not expressing yourself clearly or being dishonest.

Repetition and self-involvement seem to be her complaints with Roth, and I agree--and I don't only find this to be the case with Roth.

(Hhmm, maybe I should repeat myself one more time about how annoying repetition is.)

[TGS]

When I pick up a novel by Paul Auster or Haruki Murakami say, I have no idea what they are going to be about. I pick them up just because they are by Paul Auster or Haruki Murakami and I am interested in engaging with a text upon which they have brought their particular skill to bear. It really doesn't matter whether it's about a man finding himself in a room without explanation or a young girl in a cafe who has a comatose sister.

There is a sense in which Philip Roth always writes about the same thing - the same sense in which Tolstoy always writes about Russia - but in neither case does dismissing theses writers on those grounds rise above the level of critique equivalent to "I don't like him because I think he's rubbish". Which, of course, may be true and may provide a perfectly valid reason for you to choose not to read him, but hardly constitutes a reasoned contribution to critical discussion.