Is the American Novel Dead?

[haydnfan]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck;2079391
[B

2010[/B]: 3,000,000+ new books in the US. If 300 of them are going to last... that's .01%. The majority of readers--even avid readers who go through more than 50 books a year--will never have heard of the handful that are going to last.

It doesn't work like that. If nobody reads them they don't magically become classics, they simply become ignored and forgotten. It is really a case of who will discover the great works lest they be forgotten these days? The issue that you bring up has been noted by Henry James, who realized that by the end of his life he could no longer keep up with all published literature.

But still despite these worries moving into the 20th century great authors were discovered. And I think that it will always be that way. Greatness transcends the sheer quantity of published works and shines bright. But of course I'm sure there are authors whose literary merit is significant, but go unread. So it goes.

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by rkomar

@Elfwreck: you've given some good reasons why we're less likely to find significant books and writers today than during the "Golden Age".

We'll find them; it'll just take them longer to be nearly-universally recognized.

I have no doubt that people are just as talented today as they were 50 years ago. However, if we're not reading their books, what good is that?

We are reading them. That's like saying "the really good TV must've been in the 70's because the top shows averaged over 30 million viewers, but today they they have barely half of that. What's the point of producing a show nobody watches?"

There are more people now. More books. More diversity in available media. There is plenty more quality material; there's just so much *else* that it's not immediately apparent.

Maybe the "Golden Age" was really about developing and bringing the talent to the fore,

The "golden age" was about gatekeepers deciding what "talent" was and the public going along because they had no way to get access to anything else.

rather than whether there was more of it around then. With the way big money is pushing the publishing business, I have no trouble believing that today's system might be less geared towards producing significant works than it used to be when it was directed by book lovers.

It's still very much directed by book lovers... it's just not directed entirely by white male English-speaking upper-class book lovers. And with the erosion of the system that defined "quality" as "appealing to a particular class of readers," we have a standards system in utter chaos.

Which doesn't mean there are fewer quality works available; it just means we have no neat-and-simple universal vocabulary for establishing which ones they are. Fortunately, despite the marketing plans of large publishers, books are not produce; they don't wilt at the turn of the seasons. The quality works will find readers, if more slowly than they used to (because there's so much more competition for people's attention), and in 50 years, we'll have a nice list of "the best books of the first decade of the 21st century," and they'll stand proudly alongside Harrison, McCarthy, Roth, Kesey, and Theroux.

[RDaneel54]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

And with the erosion of the system that defined "quality" as "appealing to a particular class of readers," we have a standards system in utter chaos.

Which doesn't mean there are fewer quality works available; it just means we have no neat-and-simple universal vocabulary for establishing which ones they are. Fortunately, despite the marketing plans of large publishers, books are not produce; they don't wilt at the turn of the seasons.

[John F]

Originally Posted by kennyc

...

His new book is on my tbr list but have not got it or read it yet. I've loved his other work.

Same here. Great author. Once the DOJ/Big 4 settlement goes through, I'll be reading it.

Originally Posted by rkomar

I think you're thinking of Irving Layton.

No, I was thinking of John Irving. I hate it when that happens.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by rkomar

The best way to prove him wrong is to list current authors that produce works as significant as those mentioned in the blog. If you can't, then maybe he has a point.

Trouble is, though, that only time is the judge of who is or is not a "significant author". You can't really do it for current authors.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Trouble is, though, that only time is the judge of who is or is not a "significant author". You can't really do it for current authors.

Just because critics and awards committees like a book doesn't mean posterity will go agree. Lots of works age poorly.

[SteveEisenberg]

Why are we so sure time is a better judge than prize committees?

My all-time favorite American novel is The Town, Pulitizer Prize, 1951.

A check shows it's still in print, but there's no eBook and, Googling, I'm not finding it to be assigned in college classes, and English professors aren't publishing scholarly articles about it. I'd say it is, if not forgotten, certainly neglected.

There may be some objective measures of what makes for a bad novel, but it's hard to say what makes a good one. In as much as it has something to do with interesting the reader, this varies so much from person to person. What some on Mobileread say is of supreme interest I find a supreme bore, and visa versa.

Not that the prize process is perfect, or could be. I've read all Richard Russo's novels, and thought Bridge of Sighs was his best. By far. But the one before that had won the Pulitzer, which I suppose pretty much disqualified the next.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

Just because critics and awards committees like a book doesn't mean posterity will go agree. Lots of works age poorly.

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying.

[JDK1962]

The original article seems to mix up different topics, and talks about the "American novel" like it's this static thing that was a constant up until recently.

Is the American novel dead? Well, probably in the sense he meant it (i.e., big important author coming out with big important book that pretty much everyone who loved books would take a stab at reading)...sure, because, as has been pointed out, the publishing industry that produced both the authors and the books no longer exists.

The question of whether the American novel is dead is a different question. Does he mean writers writing books that say something significant about America and the era the author is living in (e.g. The Great Gatsby)? That's probably a definite "no"...just as an example, there seem to be plenty of contemporary non-genre novels talking about post-9/11 America (e.g., Foer's Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close or Waldman's The Submission). I have no doubt that, in the future, we'll have plenty of "classics" that come from the present, and that will survive 50 or more years. But, like HarryT, I agree that it's retrospective. If a book comes out now and you hear "classic," it's marketing hype.

(Unfortunately, the upswing in self-published books makes it harder, by an order of magnitude, to separate the wheat from the chaff in what was already a pretty subjective process. Yes, a few great books might get published that might have been overlooked in the old regime...good luck finding them amongst the several hundred thousand that probably should have stayed in the slush pile.)

Personally, when I'm reading, I might choose to read a novel because of the time and place in which it's set--I'm a sucker for novels set in Europe between the wars--but the nationality of the author is meaningless to me because it has little or no bearing on the goodness or badness of the book. Books belong to authors, not countries. Native-born authors can have an advantage of having marinated in their time and place, while authors from elsewhere can have the advantage of fresh eyes, seeing what the locals are blind to.

[SteveEisenberg]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

Lots of works age poorly.

I'd say that hardly any do.

One possible area I considered, while planning this post, is science fiction. If your prediction for the future is wrong, does that make the book worthless? So that 1984 was worse in 1990 than 1980? I don't think so.

Uncle Tom's Cabin? I cried over it when a kid, but when I recently reread it, was disappointed. This was because I'm older, not because the book is older.

The arguable defects in terms of portraying slaves as too compliant aren't something you just notice because Uncle Tom's Cabin is dated. They were instantly recognized, and remedied in Stowe's next novel.

[SteveEisenberg]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

Lots of works age poorly.

I'd say that hardly any do.

One possible area I considered, while planning this post, is science fiction. If your prediction for the future is wrong, does that make the book worthless? So that 1984 was worse in 1990 than 1980? I don't think so.

Uncle Tom's Cabin? I cried over it when a kid, but when I recently reread it, was disappointed. This was because I'm older, not because the book is older.

The arguable defects in terms of portraying slaves as too compliant aren't something you just notice because Uncle Tom's Cabin is dated. They were instantly recognized, and remedied in Stowe's next novel.

I there anyone who is going to say they can't read a 20th century police procedural because there is no DNA testing? Maybe. It wouldn't affect me, but I'll see what others say.

[BeccaPrice]

On books aging well or poorly:

I'm currently re-reading some classic golden age science fiction. There are mention of computers, but people also pull out slide rules (I at least know what one is, although I don't think my kids do). The love scenes are laughable (one can tell the author is really embarrassed to be writing scenes of affection - kissing is as far as it gets, and those are mostly off-stage).

I'm finding that, for all the slightly archaic writing style, I'm enjoying them immensely. Yeah, it's no world that we live in or ever could, but the story itself is great good fun.

On the other hand, mine may be the last generation that will enjoy such books. I went back and re-read some of the Mars books by Edgar Rice Burroughs after seeing John Carter of Mars the movie. I remember loving the books when I first discovered them (in the 60s or 70s, I think), but now I find they bore me.

[HarryT]

I recently spent some 4 months thoroughly proof-reading all 11 of the "Barsoom" books; I think they're wonderful stories.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I recently spent some 4 months thoroughly proof-reading all 11 of the "Barsoom" books; I think they're wonderful stories.

I have to agree as I continue to read and read them. They (even though the historical nature is sometimes anachronistic) to me hold up very well as human interest and adventure stories.

[Barty]

When I was 8, I could tell that the old Looney Tunes / Merrie Melodies cartoons that reran in the afternoon were a lot better and funnier than the new ones that ran on Saturday morning, even though a lot of the references -- Edward G Robinson, Bogart, McCall -- went right over my head. So I don't think it's just a matter of old fogies thinking things used to be better. Some things really were better.

I think what the article writer is bemoaning is the fact that novelists just don't have the cultural influence they used to. The biggest stars now are genre writers, Rowling, King, etc. There are really no Roth, Mailer, Hemingway, etc. Franzen is mostly known for his tiff with Oprah. DFW is basically a cult figure, etc.