tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3774635253887224578.comments2014-10-13T11:30:21.036+02:00Urban TreeStephen Crowehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18366410380175795901noreply@blogger.comBlogger40125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3774635253887224578.post-47438512208773725462010-02-24T17:25:17.047+01:002010-02-24T17:25:17.047+01:00I very much liked your article about the developme...I very much liked your article about the development, Muriel's Landing in Bothell, WA. With your words you painted a vivid, almost stark portrait of the new construction housing market. It conjured up images of ghost towns of the 19th Century. I could almost see the sage brush rolling through the abandoned street! My favorite part was your description of the powerlines "Extending from the earth, thick orange pipes of electrical wires bow sadly in imitation of the long grass that surrounds them...a planned but unaccomplished future." Very well written.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02701586726004400590noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3774635253887224578.post-91585266891633207852009-09-30T07:57:15.354+02:002009-09-30T07:57:15.354+02:00I guess you're right. I'm not dead set aga...I guess you're right. I'm not dead set against lists in general (I certainly have my own), although I do think it gets a bit silly when you start assigning numerical values. You could pretty much rearrange most lists of this kind at random without making them any more or less controversial. A list of twenty great books since 2000, in no particular order, would have aged a lot better. Less of an attention-grabber, though.<br /><br />But I will say this definitively: if Cloud Atlas is the third greatest novel of the Millennium so far, then I give up reading. It'll be just reality television for me from here on out.Stephen Crowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18366410380175795901noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3774635253887224578.post-43232496425023712702009-09-30T00:04:56.607+02:002009-09-30T00:04:56.607+02:00If you accept that 'great' work appears ma...If you accept that 'great' work appears maybe once a decade, perhaps one on The Millions' list will survive time's verdict...<br /><br />But don't dismiss the practice of identifying and arguing the merits of 'good' books over bad ...quibbling about whether or not War and Peace is a better book than Ulysses may be a waste of time: both have weathered decades of criticism; but recognizing merit in new works, and attacking mediocrity, is I think fruitful. Criticism is about argument; the more of it the better.NigelBealehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06094387597632333192noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3774635253887224578.post-77426674208738898772008-02-22T04:13:00.000+01:002008-02-22T04:13:00.000+01:00Very funny - both Paulin's piece, and yours. Funny...Very funny - both Paulin's piece, and yours. Funny in quite different ways, though.Amateur Reader (Tom)https://www.blogger.com/profile/13675275555757408496noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3774635253887224578.post-19526260998985244122008-01-11T20:57:00.000+01:002008-01-11T20:57:00.000+01:00I wouldn't say Huxley is third rate. He's an ideas...I wouldn't say Huxley is third rate. He's an ideas man, using the novel as a vehicle. He's much better as an essayist. If you haven't read any I'd recommend them. Particularly Brave New World Re-Visited. <BR/><BR/>Apparently among his earlier works Antic Hay and Yellow Chrome are worth the time. Good period pieces. <BR/><BR/>For years I collected First Editions of Huxley...have quite a shelf full...have cooled off a bit these days. Prize is a first of that third rate novel you berate :) <BR/><BR/>The cover is beautiful.NigelBealehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06094387597632333192noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3774635253887224578.post-73774424640871367442008-01-11T04:06:00.000+01:002008-01-11T04:06:00.000+01:00Gentlemen, The only thing I am a fan of is good wr...Gentlemen, <BR/><BR/>The only thing I am a fan of is good writing and convincing argument, the latter of which I had hoped to get from Steven re: his objection to Hysterical Realism. Pardon me: to Wood's "lacunae-aerated "Hysterical Realist" manifesto." <BR/><BR/>Not sure why you consider this setting one "guaranteed to be a perfect waste of my energy." Because you think that I'm unlikely to change my position? Quite the contrary Sir. Happy to do so if sufficiently persuaded. Or perhaps you're thinking that rattling on in a commenting forum is unproductive generally speaking...or possibly that you'd prefer to engage with Stephen alone, in which case I'd be pleased to sit by as a silent 'fan' in the bleachers. <BR/><BR/>As for critics taking places behind novelists...I know critics have been compared to parasites...I happen though, again, to delight in good writing, regardless of who expatiates it. I also happen to prefer good criticism over mediocre fiction. Wood's analysis over DeLillo's novels. I haven't yet read Wood's novel. But really, this matters little. Samuel Johnson wasn't much of a novelist either.<BR/><BR/>NBNigelBealehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06094387597632333192noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3774635253887224578.post-41717794567421957802008-01-11T02:40:00.000+01:002008-01-11T02:40:00.000+01:00"Even better, defend those books he hates in your ..."Even better, defend those books he hates in your own terms. Focus on the texts and not on Wood."<BR/><BR/>Stephen, (a certain few of) those books don't need "defending". I'm critiquing an occasional fault that I, personally, find in Wood's production. My points address that, and I'm not interested in being dragged into a different contextual venue. Why should I? I'll stick to the purview of the aspects of this argument that interest me.A. Ominoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13807400943709124236noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3774635253887224578.post-75415365067568313952008-01-11T02:22:00.000+01:002008-01-11T02:22:00.000+01:00Notabene:"And another thing: why are you afraid of...Notabene:<BR/><BR/>"And another thing: why are you afraid of taking Wood on over books he loves, and not over books he hates? Surely, if you disagree with him it shouldn't matter..."<BR/><BR/>The point being (perhaps I was somehow unclear?) that Wood tends to be, by leagues, sharper on the former than the latter. And by being sharper on the former, he presents me with far less to disagree with; he functions more reliably as an agenda-unburdened critic; I find myself, quite often, in those cases, *agreeing* with him.<BR/><BR/>Anyway, clearly (and no disrespect meant here): you will have to remain in the camp of believers, regarding Wood, without the benefit of my futile efforts to move you. I'm more than happy, as I say, to take on Wood's curiously lacunae-aerated "Hysterical Realist" manifesto... though in a setting less likely to guarantee a perfect waste of my energy, Sir (laugh)! I thought I sensed some neutrality in Stephen's posts, which is what inspired my offer to discuss the matter further, with Stephen, in detail.<BR/><BR/>I have to say that this, for example (a random one), strikes me less as a persuasive, or, at least, elegant, response to a point of mine, than the dewy-eyed cheerleading of a believer:<BR/><BR/>"Contrary to what you say, Wood isn't explaining DeLillo's job to him, he's simply critiquing his work with consumate skill and flair..."<BR/><BR/>And the following, I'm afraid, indicates that you don't really get the proper relationship of "novelist" to "critic" (there *is* a hierarchy built into the terminology):<BR/><BR/>"I'm not so sure big name novelists are loath to respond to Wood on the commercial/careerist grounds you suggest. More likely its because they aren't up to engaging Wood at his level."<BR/><BR/>On the matter of *their own work*? Tut tut. Absurd proposition.<BR/><BR/>Again: what happened to your confidence in your own common sense? Read Wood's own effort at a novel (which I have done) and tell me, with a straight face, he's mastered the complex tools of the novelist's trade. He fails, almost immediately, on the basic level: the text is dull in its earnestness; the themes are laid out in a lifelessly predictable schematic: the bloody thing is a term paper. Henry James he's not; he's not even Paul Theroux.<BR/><BR/>If Wood's garlanded edifice as Supreme LitCritter is the weight behind the presumption that I'm speaking out of turn, what of Mr. DeLillo's much longer run of much-praised novel-writing? <BR/><BR/>I suppose that none of DeLillo's champions (since 1971) can match Wood for special knowledge? DeLillo's stature, up there with Roth and Bellow, is nothing compared to Wood's? Nonsense. The critic is the Artist's vestigial twin. Academic pretensions aside: please get the hierarchy right.<BR/><BR/>Even Edmund Wilson has to take his place *behind* Nabokov, and, frankly, I'm not sure that Wood won't end up, in the long run, behind V.S. Pritchett in the lesser canon of critics (his work was certainly less distorted by the need to earn both the stature, and the paychecks, granted in Big Fat Americaland).<BR/><BR/>Notabene, I'd say that my overall comment contained a few interesting/original ideas worth engaging on a serious level, whereas your response was pat. The defensive reflex of a fan. Again: no offense meant. I don't doubt your intelligence. I question your neutrality.<BR/><BR/>I'm not out to troll any and all positive references to Wood as they appear in the blogosphere; I'm just leery of the distinctly boys-clubbish, extra-literary, saint-making mechanisms I "see" forming around characters as disparate as Wood, Denis Johnson and Ron Paul (laugh).<BR/><BR/>I'm interested in interesting ideas, not personalities, and I'm not intimidated by cant.A. Ominoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13807400943709124236noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3774635253887224578.post-71305558189706118882008-01-11T02:10:00.000+01:002008-01-11T02:10:00.000+01:00And I'm with Notabene: write your point-by-point c...And I'm with Notabene: write your point-by-point critique of Wood's "hysterical realism" argument. What's stopping you? Even better, defend those books he hates in your own terms. Focus on the texts and not on Wood.Stephen Crowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18366410380175795901noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3774635253887224578.post-16530404727750689692008-01-11T01:55:00.000+01:002008-01-11T01:55:00.000+01:00Steven:I certainly don't have a problem with peopl...Steven:<BR/><BR/>I certainly don't have a problem with people disagreeing with Wood, I'm just disappointed in the level of debate. It's the whole literary community that suffers when so many people find it acceptable to use superficial arguments and backhanded insults rather than thinking seriously and deeply about literature.Stephen Crowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18366410380175795901noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3774635253887224578.post-14539753984043730512008-01-10T21:07:00.000+01:002008-01-10T21:07:00.000+01:00Steven, (Glad the two of you go with different spe...Steven, <BR/><BR/>(Glad the two of you go with different spellings). Please do go ahead and support your critique of Hysterical Realism. <BR/><BR/>I'm not so sure big name novelists are loath to respond to Wood on the commercial/careerist grounds you suggest. More likely its because they aren't up to engaging Wood at his level. After all, literary criticism is Wood country. Most novelists are out ploughing imaginative plains, and get lost in the forest; witness Smith's painfully emotional,unpersuasive retort. <BR/><BR/>Contrary to what you say, Wood isn't explaining DeLillo's job to him, he's simply critiquing his work with consumate skill and flair. And he's no 'satisfying scold,' just an accomplish critic who holds refreshingly strong opinions and knows how to defend them. <BR/><BR/>Your snide remarks about the image he holds of himself and his profession are pure conjecture. <BR/><BR/>btw. I enjoyed your 'Wood's stocks.'<BR/><BR/>And another thing: why are you afraid of taking Wood on over books he loves, and not over books he hates? Surely, if you disagree with him it shouldn't matter...NigelBealehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06094387597632333192noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3774635253887224578.post-16792544045437331542008-01-10T14:57:00.000+01:002008-01-10T14:57:00.000+01:00"This makes it all the more baffling that here in ..."This makes it all the more baffling that here in the alternate universe of the internet, he is subject to such frequent and venomous attack."<BR/><BR/>Please forgive this late response (I only happened upon your blog as of yesterday), Stephen, and no problem if it doesn't go up (as my desire is merely that you read this as an extension of our TEV conversation). <BR/><BR/>The universe of the Internet is "alternate" in good, as well as bad, ways; chief among the advantages of reading the better lit bloggers (vs reading equivalent fare in "print") is that the lit blogger, with much less (a job; an income) to lose, is less likely to be circumspect (to the point of disingenuousness) in her/his pronouncements. The best of the better lit bloggers transcend even the personal politics of local (b)logrolling.<BR/><BR/>I don't for a moment doubt that any number of the gifted stylists who've found themselves in Wood's stocks would have zinged the feller well (and not humbly, a la Z. Smith), if the sales/prestige/connections at stake for a literary brand name weren't at risk. Professionals learn, soon enough, that fighting back (in "print" editorials or in comment threads) is a lose-lose proposition. <BR/><BR/>Withering print-venue "attacks", for that reason, are rare amongst novelists in their prime, though requisite for the critic making a name; the zingers, basically, almost always flow upwards.<BR/><BR/>Because of this factor, we're getting a skewed picture of both lit bloggers (a category from which I absent myself, as my site is 99% fiction, with ZERO daily opinion content about "issues"; neither am I a literary critic, soi-disant or otherwise) and Mr. Wood's stature. Certainly, his default self-image as being in a position to explain Mr. DeLillo's job to him, for example, deserves a gently rational corrective, but the big guns are loath to fire. <BR/><BR/>I think Mr. Wood is very popular just now, as the novel-that-is-America still finds itself recovering from that harsh Middle Eastern critique of 2001; many misinterpret that event as a stern rebuke to frivolity, and Mr. Wood makes a convincing Moses (or Spartan chief), to lead them away from frivolity in all of its literary forms. <BR/><BR/>It's the very fact that Wood is almost archetypically pure in the narrowness of his proscriptions (in inverse proportion to the breadth of his learning) that makes him such a (for many) satisfying scold, and reassuring patriarch, but these are extra-literary talents, in the end, and they support his public agenda (overcoming the critic-vs-novelist stature deficit?) whilst undermining his purchase on the subject. <BR/><BR/>If Wood uses his extravagant powers of perception to support a misconception on his part (that "the novel" can be described *accurately* with a conceptual armature that's anything less than the totality of novel-writing, past and future), I'm afraid those powers of perception are going to waste. Though I'd mitigate that pronouncement with my more-genuine feeling that nothing as well-written as Mr. Wood's often wrong-headed screeds can be said to be a "waste".<BR/><BR/>I'm far from nuts enough to hanker to go head-to-head with James Wood on the topic of a particular book he knows and loves; it's on the topic of certain books he *disdains* (and "the novel" as a concept) that a mere mortal has no problem wrestling him to the ground. His "hatreds" (trailing back to complex issues of self-image, possibly?) betray him.<BR/><BR/>I'm more than happy to go through his "Hysterical Realist" manifesto (the founding salvo), passage by passage, to support my critique, along with the corollary theory that Wood exploited the post-9/11 zeitgeist of shame about "our" frivolity (and decadence) to seize power, as it were (worry not: I'm laughing). <BR/><BR/>This post-9/11 era is rife with demagogues, and my feeling is that Wood is a literary critic perfectly suited to his time.A. Ominoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13807400943709124236noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3774635253887224578.post-60196315314203642292008-01-10T12:39:00.000+01:002008-01-10T12:39:00.000+01:00Stephen:Duly noted. Glad you liked the "biochemist...Stephen:<BR/><BR/>Duly noted. Glad you liked the "biochemistry" simile, at least... I debuted it on The Valve early last year (to zero acclaim-larf). Glad we Intractables can keep the proceedings jovial...A. Ominoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13807400943709124236noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3774635253887224578.post-7724775502090505862008-01-10T04:19:00.000+01:002008-01-10T04:19:00.000+01:00Steven:I have quoted you in full on The Elegant Va...Steven:<BR/><BR/>I have quoted you in full on <A HREF="http://marksarvas.blogs.com/elegvar/2008/01/nota-bene-how-f.html#comment-96555102" REL="nofollow">The Elegant Variation</A>, and responded there, because otherwise things would have got very confusing.Stephen Crowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18366410380175795901noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3774635253887224578.post-75147889837107462422008-01-10T01:38:00.000+01:002008-01-10T01:38:00.000+01:00Stephen:I'll print my recent attempt at this "Eleg...Stephen:<BR/><BR/>I'll print my recent attempt at this "Elegant Variation" comment, on the theme of Mr. Wood, *here*, since it's not possible, apparently, to squeeze through whatever filter Mark has up at the moment; it goes as follows, bafflingly out of context:<BR/><BR/>----and before I'm the victim of a micro-pedantic tasering: "community dialect" in place of "community ideolect"; however: dialect-schmialect; it's 1 in the morning over here, I'm drowsy and it's time for bed.<BR/><BR/>Linguistic arguments, in any case, are as useful, re: the purpose and production of the novel, as a biochemistry textbook is to the creation of a five-course meal.<BR/><BR/>Not that you should take any of this as being delivered with a scowl, on my part. Imagine, please, a "smiley face" appended at the end... a smiley and a warm "good night!"------<BR/><BR/>***<BR/><BR/>To which I would add: believe it or not, Mr. Wood's pronouncements are "opinions". Under all the razzle-dazzle are simple ideas that will live or die (or live a kind of half-life, supported by the unexamined good will of the intimidated reader) according to the apparent rightness of their claims.A. Ominoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13807400943709124236noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3774635253887224578.post-88509427178935897232008-01-09T21:34:00.000+01:002008-01-09T21:34:00.000+01:00Dear me, I used 'great' three times in one paragra...Dear me, I used 'great' three times in one paragraph. Terrible...Stephen Crowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18366410380175795901noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3774635253887224578.post-72687163539438436272008-01-09T20:10:00.000+01:002008-01-09T20:10:00.000+01:00I was referring to the 'hysterical realists', Thom...I was referring to the 'hysterical realists', Thomas Pynchon &c, but I would include Huxley in that: Brave New World is third-rate, in my opinion. But that's the only Huxley I've read; does it get better?<BR/><BR/>As for Orwell, 1984 is more rightfully respected as a political statement than a great novel, but its story does have some great dramatic power (Terry Gilliam stole it very effectively in <A HREF="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0088846/" REL="nofollow">Brazil</A>, his best film). Orwell was a great writer, but journalism was his real gift.Stephen Crowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18366410380175795901noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3774635253887224578.post-89864133807678498782008-01-08T16:01:00.000+01:002008-01-08T16:01:00.000+01:00Not sure which social novelists you are referring ...Not sure which social novelists you are referring to, but based on what you're saying Orwell and Huxley wouldn't make the cut. <BR/><BR/>As for art and empathy, I agree with you. Coetzee is a master at saying little, and eliciting a lot. Art makes us feel.NigelBealehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06094387597632333192noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3774635253887224578.post-63785602097014591342008-01-08T08:04:00.000+01:002008-01-08T08:04:00.000+01:00Notabene:I wasn't really referring to novels with ...Notabene:<BR/><BR/>I wasn't really referring to novels with essayistic digressions. Obviously a novel can do two things at once. I was thinking more about authors who write novels whose purpose is to explain or argue some kind of political or philosophical point, like these social novelists that I talked about. They want to show how 'the system' works. Although I don't mind an interesting digression (I haven't read War and Peace, but Proust goes off on many tangents about art and psychology &c.), but on the whole I prefer novelists not to think they know everything, and just to tell a good story.<BR/><BR/>I don't think it's necessary to know much about a character in order to empathise with them- in fact it might be counter-productive. It seems to me that our inherent tendency to empathise is the reason art exists: like exercising a muscle.<BR/><BR/>Sorry you got caught in the cross-fire, but there are always casualties in war :)Stephen Crowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18366410380175795901noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3774635253887224578.post-60451123746670824702008-01-04T05:15:00.000+01:002008-01-04T05:15:00.000+01:00I suppose one has to first understand: what is be...I suppose one has to first understand: what is beyond comprehension? Author intent for example...or what's going on in the heads of others, including characters in novels. So Wood is saying there is a new relationship between reader and character in the modern novel...where the reader (following Pirandello) sees characters with a mixture of amusement and pity...laughing with them not at them...empathizing. Merging with them is not necessarily grasping after fact...it's more experiencing the specifics of their uncertainties, so we can better live with our own... Wood suggests that although unreliable, modern fiction believes that the attempt to know the character is still worthwhile.<BR/><BR/>this is where I get lost with Dan's article. Wood is saying that modern fiction believes (which is a bit obtuse) the attempt is still worthwhile. Dan seems to be saying that it isn't...<BR/><BR/>As for the inferiority of writers who try to explain the world...I'm not so sure. Tolstoy spent a fair amount of space in War and Peace describing how history is made...some may say that it weakened the novel...I found it pretty interesting...<BR/><BR/>btw: sorry for interrupting the flow of your discussion with Dan. I only incurred a slight flesh wound. Too bad we didn't get moreNigelBealehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06094387597632333192noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3774635253887224578.post-69787769206757918082008-01-03T08:19:00.000+01:002008-01-03T08:19:00.000+01:00Do you think you could state your point anyway, Ed...Do you think you could state your point anyway, Ed? Because I don't think I quite followed it.<BR/><BR/>If I <I>do</I> understand you (no certainty), you seem to be saying that Whitehead and Wood exist in distinct conceptual universes, implying that there can be no dialogue between them. In other words: total relativism. Why discuss literature at all, if that's the case? Why discuss anything at all?Stephen Crowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18366410380175795901noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3774635253887224578.post-26014715717412489542008-01-03T07:38:00.000+01:002008-01-03T07:38:00.000+01:00Titmice do indeed pick nits in my universe. There...Titmice do indeed pick nits in my universe. There are also a giddy accountant with a third nostril, giants who climb beanstalks, and insects that fellate midgets. Whitehead likewise has his own worldview. I am so sorry that you lack flexibility here, but you've demonstrated my point more adeptly than I could have ever stated it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3774635253887224578.post-84722082424318894452008-01-03T06:59:00.000+01:002008-01-03T06:59:00.000+01:00Notabene:They do sound like similar ideas. I thin...Notabene:<BR/><BR/>They do sound like similar ideas. I think there is a spiritual side to this kind of comedy, in the sense that one is reconciled with one's own flaws. Authors who try to explain the world to you are far inferior, I would say: in a sense they're simply making a fetish of their own intelligence.<BR/><BR/>Did Keats mean that one should not grasp for facts at all? Because I don't think this is even possible. But to accept the existence of irresolvable questions--I can certainly see the value of that.Stephen Crowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18366410380175795901noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3774635253887224578.post-25170544251621253262008-01-03T06:16:00.000+01:002008-01-03T06:16:00.000+01:00You haven't made any arguments. You've made unsupp...You haven't made any arguments. You've made unsupported assertions based on a glib misreading of my post and engaged in name-calling. The sort of thing you disparage bloggers for in your post.Dan Greenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03358655209302789432noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3774635253887224578.post-83552194315778142162008-01-03T04:39:00.000+01:002008-01-03T04:39:00.000+01:00Oops: my comment was directed towards Dan, obvious...Oops: my comment was directed towards Dan, obviously!Stephen Crowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18366410380175795901noreply@blogger.com