No Easy Cure for Novel-Nausea
Zadie Smith has a long essay in The Guardian that is half about David Shields’s forthcoming, Reality Hunger: A Manifesto, and half about her own frustration with novel writing. Go read it. It’s longish, but it is completely worth the time. I am not going to include an excerpt here. Once you’ve read all of it, read the rest of this entry.
Ok….. done? Pretty good, right? I invited David to speak on a panel discussion last year and he gave me the galley to give Zadie, so I feel personally very happy that she read it because now that essay exists, which deepens my understanding of Reality Hunger. (Everyone, put your pre-orders in with a book seller you love.) However I disagreed very slightly with her perspective on the book and when David emailed me to say that her essay was on the Guardian this morning I replied to him with this:
…She assumes that enthusiasm about the book equals an act of “literary hara-kiri” and that enjoying Reality Hunger is a form of “grave-dancing.” Not at all! I read Reality Hunger as an encouragement to write a more risky, honest book, be it memoir or novel or something in between.
Also, she seems to get a little bent out of shape when thinking about your and Coetzee’s praise of “novels that don’t look like novels.” She assumes that this taste is meant to be “in some way unusual, the mark of a refined literary palate,” but I don’t think that’s what you meant at all. I think you’re just encouraging writers to bend the boundaries of the novel or story or memoir as we understand it now. She seems to believe that too, and says so in the next sentence: “But even the most conventional account of our literary “canon” reveals the history of the novel to be simultaneously a history of nonconformity.” Yes. Nonconformity. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I thought that Reality Hunger was encouraging more nonconformity, particularly in the realm of incorporating “nonfictional” or “true” elements or questions into the novel form. Also, when she says that “underneath some of these high-minded objections, and complementary to them, there is another, deeper, psychological motivation, about which it is more difficult to be honest,” does she think that is so contrary to what Reality Hunger advises? Because it seems to me that is exactly what your book is encouraging us toward.
In any case, I really enjoyed reading about what she thought while reading your book even if it seems she agrees with it more than she thinks. The idea of “novel-nausea” seemed to be an astute diagnosis…
Also, Hi. I’m back. It’s been a while. What did you think of the essay? Anyone else have Novel-Nausea?
Tags: David Shields, Zadie Smith
fantastic essay. a lot to think about. zadie smith has balls of steel!:
“When our own imaginations dry up – when, like Coetzee, we seem to have retreated, however spectacularly, to a cannibalisation of the autobiographical – it’s easy to cease believing in the existence of another kind of writing. But it does exist.”
fantastic essay. a lot to think about. zadie smith has balls of steel!:
“When our own imaginations dry up – when, like Coetzee, we seem to have retreated, however spectacularly, to a cannibalisation of the autobiographical – it’s easy to cease believing in the existence of another kind of writing. But it does exist.”
Smith seemed defensive to me. I don’t think that the distinction is between the novel and the non-novel, or the novel (well-made) and everything else. The distinction is between the raw and the cooked: I think what most of us want is the obsessive, the heartfelt, the passionate, the crazy, the compulsive, the intimate, the revealing, and the revelatory, and all of that is _raw_. Too many novels, Zadie Smith’s among them, are just cooked: they’re not very interesting _Bildungsromane_, they’re social novels of “the way we live now” variety, they’re character studies, they’re just not compelling. Nothing wrong with them — they sell! people read them! — but they’re not what I’m looking for.
Smith seemed defensive to me. I don’t think that the distinction is between the novel and the non-novel, or the novel (well-made) and everything else. The distinction is between the raw and the cooked: I think what most of us want is the obsessive, the heartfelt, the passionate, the crazy, the compulsive, the intimate, the revealing, and the revelatory, and all of that is _raw_. Too many novels, Zadie Smith’s among them, are just cooked: they’re not very interesting _Bildungsromane_, they’re social novels of “the way we live now” variety, they’re character studies, they’re just not compelling. Nothing wrong with them — they sell! people read them! — but they’re not what I’m looking for.
I can certainly claim to have bouts of novel-nausea, but it always seems to be a symptom of having read too many, too-similar novels too quickly. And is thus always overcome by reading something fresh, whether fiction or non-fiction. I must say I did greatly enjoy Schields’s “The Thing About Life…”–and felt at the time that he must have taken inspiration from Markson’s recent work. Since I haven’t read Reality Hunger I can’t be sure, but Smith seems to imply that Schields may be mistaking his own frustration with the form for a general trend or exhaustion, overblowing something personal into a social sphere. But however much attention he brings to his own struggle, we simply can’t have too much encouragement to push beyond received ideas about what novels “should” be, so I applaud the sentiment.
Another thought: I’d be careful not to confuse “honesty” in writing with the inclusion of “true” or “nonfictional” elements. Dishonesty can be as easily the result of disordered facts as it can properly ordered lies. Trying to pursue “honesty” or personal risk in writing has no necessary correlation with particular forms or content. It’s simply a matter of clarity of mission, a kind of self-awareness.
I can certainly claim to have bouts of novel-nausea, but it always seems to be a symptom of having read too many, too-similar novels too quickly. And is thus always overcome by reading something fresh, whether fiction or non-fiction. I must say I did greatly enjoy Schields’s “The Thing About Life…”–and felt at the time that he must have taken inspiration from Markson’s recent work. Since I haven’t read Reality Hunger I can’t be sure, but Smith seems to imply that Schields may be mistaking his own frustration with the form for a general trend or exhaustion, overblowing something personal into a social sphere. But however much attention he brings to his own struggle, we simply can’t have too much encouragement to push beyond received ideas about what novels “should” be, so I applaud the sentiment.
Another thought: I’d be careful not to confuse “honesty” in writing with the inclusion of “true” or “nonfictional” elements. Dishonesty can be as easily the result of disordered facts as it can properly ordered lies. Trying to pursue “honesty” or personal risk in writing has no necessary correlation with particular forms or content. It’s simply a matter of clarity of mission, a kind of self-awareness.
My memoir-malaria is a lot more intense than my novel-nausea these days.
My memoir-malaria is a lot more intense than my novel-nausea these days.
I haven’t read Reality Hunger but I did hear Shields give a leacture based on the book and my reaction was pretty much the same as Zadie Smith’s. I like Shields as a writer and think he is very intelligent and interesting, but as Shya paraphrases Smith saying, Shields just seemed to be mistaking his own biases and habits with universal trends.
I also find the idea of looking towards non-fiction for inspiration, new forms or “messiness” of truth to be totally bizarre. Non-fiction seems to be always playing catch-up with fiction technique wise. Someone like D’agata can be praised as a revolutionary for using techniques fiction writers used decades earlier.
And while truth in reality may be messy and ambiguous truth in non-fiction is normally more simplified and cleaned up. I think fiction has a much longer tradition of ambiguity and messiness, indeed trying to “open a window instead of closing a door” has long been a motto of fiction” where as non-fiction tends to want explanations for everything. Which is fine and good, but simply the opposite of what Shields seems to think, from my point of view. On a similar note I agree with Zadie saying that novel writing has always been baggy and sloppy and idiosyncratic while non-fiction forms like essays are thought to be hardened jewels, or at least were until they started borrowing more and more from fiction.
Still, I’m sure Reality Hunger is worth the read.
I haven’t read Reality Hunger but I did hear Shields give a leacture based on the book and my reaction was pretty much the same as Zadie Smith’s. I like Shields as a writer and think he is very intelligent and interesting, but as Shya paraphrases Smith saying, Shields just seemed to be mistaking his own biases and habits with universal trends.
I also find the idea of looking towards non-fiction for inspiration, new forms or “messiness” of truth to be totally bizarre. Non-fiction seems to be always playing catch-up with fiction technique wise. Someone like D’agata can be praised as a revolutionary for using techniques fiction writers used decades earlier.
And while truth in reality may be messy and ambiguous truth in non-fiction is normally more simplified and cleaned up. I think fiction has a much longer tradition of ambiguity and messiness, indeed trying to “open a window instead of closing a door” has long been a motto of fiction” where as non-fiction tends to want explanations for everything. Which is fine and good, but simply the opposite of what Shields seems to think, from my point of view. On a similar note I agree with Zadie saying that novel writing has always been baggy and sloppy and idiosyncratic while non-fiction forms like essays are thought to be hardened jewels, or at least were until they started borrowing more and more from fiction.
Still, I’m sure Reality Hunger is worth the read.
I love your Raw & Cooked idea….. That is exactly it.
I love your Raw & Cooked idea….. That is exactly it.
Yeah, those Memoir-Mosquitoes will get you.
Yeah, those Memoir-Mosquitoes will get you.
Seconded.
Curious: What would you say of 2001: A Space Odyssey (the film)? Raw or Cooked? I feel as if that is in another class, perhaps the Gourmet? A masterful mix of the two? Obsessive, well formed, perfectly manipulative?
Seconded.
Curious: What would you say of 2001: A Space Odyssey (the film)? Raw or Cooked? I feel as if that is in another class, perhaps the Gourmet? A masterful mix of the two? Obsessive, well formed, perfectly manipulative?
2001 just an example… thinking of others now, but films keep coming to mind. Infinite Jest?
2001 just an example… thinking of others now, but films keep coming to mind. Infinite Jest?
A writer may be unimaginative both in fiction and nonfiction. Zadie Smith makes quite the perfect case.
A writer may be unimaginative both in fiction and nonfiction. Zadie Smith makes quite the perfect case.
ouch
ouch
sarah manguso won’t stop talking about how this book is going to change everything and i will more or less trust sarah manguso, what with my blind belief in brainwashing.
sarah manguso won’t stop talking about how this book is going to change everything and i will more or less trust sarah manguso, what with my blind belief in brainwashing.
Zadie Smith’s hot
Zadie Smith’s hot
I cannot speak to the cookedness of Zadie Smith’s novels, but this essay of hers is outstanding. Consider me spanked. I agree with Shya: this seems a case of one author mistaking his own thoughts and feelings for a more general cultural illness. Which, come to think of it, seems something of a recent trend with guys like Malcolm Gladwell presuming that their individual curiousity somehow speaks for all curious people. It’s like synechdoche fever up in here.
One argument missing from Smith’s essay has to do with the abundance of ‘reality’ already contained in most novels. How many wild, crazy, mindblowing books have you read that took place in a city you recognize, with a protagonist who reminds you slightly of your overly sensitive, nervous little brother? Even works of absurdity, fantasy, and science fiction still include human beings, works and days, a local habitation and name. We need a smidgen of the real in all our fictions, or else we couldn’t read it. The only fully un-real text would be indecipherable. This Shields guy seems to neglect the superabundance of reality already there in the literature he wants to surpass with more “reality.”
And another thing. Why is “honesty” a value in literature? I keep reading so many comments (including by posters on this site) praising works for being somehow “honest.” But if I want honesty, I’ll read a court transcript. Isn’t the whole point of literature to make shit up?
I cannot speak to the cookedness of Zadie Smith’s novels, but this essay of hers is outstanding. Consider me spanked. I agree with Shya: this seems a case of one author mistaking his own thoughts and feelings for a more general cultural illness. Which, come to think of it, seems something of a recent trend with guys like Malcolm Gladwell presuming that their individual curiousity somehow speaks for all curious people. It’s like synechdoche fever up in here.
One argument missing from Smith’s essay has to do with the abundance of ‘reality’ already contained in most novels. How many wild, crazy, mindblowing books have you read that took place in a city you recognize, with a protagonist who reminds you slightly of your overly sensitive, nervous little brother? Even works of absurdity, fantasy, and science fiction still include human beings, works and days, a local habitation and name. We need a smidgen of the real in all our fictions, or else we couldn’t read it. The only fully un-real text would be indecipherable. This Shields guy seems to neglect the superabundance of reality already there in the literature he wants to surpass with more “reality.”
And another thing. Why is “honesty” a value in literature? I keep reading so many comments (including by posters on this site) praising works for being somehow “honest.” But if I want honesty, I’ll read a court transcript. Isn’t the whole point of literature to make shit up?
I would agree with you wholeheartedly if the book that Zadie is critiquing actually existed, but, as brilliant as she is, she is got quite a bit of it wrong. When it comes out in February, you should have a look.
whoa, let’s re-read that:
“she is got quite a bit wrong”
HA.
I would agree with you wholeheartedly if the book that Zadie is critiquing actually existed, but, as brilliant as she is, she is got quite a bit of it wrong. When it comes out in February, you should have a look.
whoa, let’s re-read that:
“she is got quite a bit wrong”
HA.
It is one of the curses of these of-the-moment book reviews that they tend to deal with upcoming, yet-to-be-seen books. Which leads to a certain information asymmetry. I’m out in the cold here. How do I know whether or not Zadie is right, if I can’t go straight to the source till early next year?
It is one of the curses of these of-the-moment book reviews that they tend to deal with upcoming, yet-to-be-seen books. Which leads to a certain information asymmetry. I’m out in the cold here. How do I know whether or not Zadie is right, if I can’t go straight to the source till early next year?
from the content of her last few essays i’d guess whatever she’s working on fiction-wise might be more interesting, or at least trying to be more interesting, than anything she’s published to date. But I concur with Landon and often see things rose-coloured w/r/t Zadie.
from the content of her last few essays i’d guess whatever she’s working on fiction-wise might be more interesting, or at least trying to be more interesting, than anything she’s published to date. But I concur with Landon and often see things rose-coloured w/r/t Zadie.
Verisimilitude is a good quality to have in novels and soda.
Verisimilitude is a good quality to have in novels and soda.
Hey Htmlers, I found this excerpt from the book in question: http://www.ewu.edu/willowsprings/archives/shields.pdf
It’s gotten me very excited about Shields’ ideas
Hey Htmlers, I found this excerpt from the book in question: http://www.ewu.edu/willowsprings/archives/shields.pdf
It’s gotten me very excited about Shields’ ideas
I think, in some ways, RH will make authors turn back to the traditional novel and, perhaps, compel them to write more “real” novels (or at least better ones). The Zadie Smith article had quite an affect, and Coetzee’s quote has been taken away (at his request) and will not appear in the final book. Coetzee (this is my opinion) realized that his comments reflexively attacked much of his own work, and many people (editors) have incorrectly thought Shields misquoted him…this is not true. It’s one of the underlying subtexts of the controversy.
Over the last month I’ve thought too damn much about the novel, its defense, as well as the valid points RH raises…I hope RH inspires writers, but very few try should try to replicate what Shields has done or aspire for what Shields loves (not that it isn’t good, it has a place, but it’s only a piece of the whole).
http://therumpus.net/2010/02/the-rumpus-interview-with-david-shields/
I think, in some ways, RH will make authors turn back to the traditional novel and, perhaps, compel them to write more “real” novels (or at least better ones). The Zadie Smith article had quite an affect, and Coetzee’s quote has been taken away (at his request) and will not appear in the final book. Coetzee (this is my opinion) realized that his comments reflexively attacked much of his own work, and many people (editors) have incorrectly thought Shields misquoted him…this is not true. It’s one of the underlying subtexts of the controversy.
Over the last month I’ve thought too damn much about the novel, its defense, as well as the valid points RH raises…I hope RH inspires writers, but very few try should try to replicate what Shields has done or aspire for what Shields loves (not that it isn’t good, it has a place, but it’s only a piece of the whole).
http://therumpus.net/2010/02/the-rumpus-interview-with-david-shields/
Just read the interview. Everything this Shields guy says is so inane that it makes me want to screech and claw things.
Just read the interview. Everything this Shields guy says is so inane that it makes me want to screech and claw things.
I think this idea that the “traditional” novel can be described in so many words, and is in crisis, can’t be sustained in today’s culture, etc. etc. is just wrong. It’s all misguided. The novel has always been inventive. Invention is what drives a good novel. The novel is constantly reinventing itself and always has been. It’s not a static form, so the basis of Shields’ critique is just wrong.
Also, while I don’t want to be unfair to Shields, because I haven’t read his book, and with apologies to Caleb Powell, in the Rumpus interview they both make statements that are just ridiculous. I realize it’s a transcript of two guys shooting the breeze at a bar, but still, the entire conversation seems to be shot-through with misconceptions.
Take, for example, this exchange:
Rumpus: You dismiss fiction as entertainment.
Shields: Too often it is.
Rumpus: Many fictional stories, though, are art, and the author is not concerned with entertainment per se.
Shields: Give me an example.
Rumpus: Rohinton Mistry’s A Fine Balance. Nine hundred pages of traditional fiction.
Shields: Haven’t read it, though I’ve heard it’s good.
I want to argue with every line of this exchange. It’s so simple and reductive. Art can be entertaining. Graham Greene and Cervantes wrote entertainments that stand as great works of art. What does it even mean to try to draw this distinction? Also, Rohan Mistry didn’t care about entertaining his audience? He just wrote a gripping book by accident? Can’t he be doing three or four or even ten things at once? Finally, there is the sadly hilarious idea of a writer excoriating the so-called “traditional” novel with one breath and then, with the next, casually admitting that he hasn’t read “A Fine Balance” but that he hears it’s good? Unfortunately, it’s impossible to take this kind of thing seriously. Either something essential has been omitted from the conversation or Shields and Powell don’t know what they are talking about.
As Liz Lemon would say, Blarg!
Maybe there is something in Shields’ ideas that I am missing — I hope so! — but the interview just leaves me hoping that, for whatever reason, it doesn’t fairly represent his work.
I think this idea that the “traditional” novel can be described in so many words, and is in crisis, can’t be sustained in today’s culture, etc. etc. is just wrong. It’s all misguided. The novel has always been inventive. Invention is what drives a good novel. The novel is constantly reinventing itself and always has been. It’s not a static form, so the basis of Shields’ critique is just wrong.
Also, while I don’t want to be unfair to Shields, because I haven’t read his book, and with apologies to Caleb Powell, in the Rumpus interview they both make statements that are just ridiculous. I realize it’s a transcript of two guys shooting the breeze at a bar, but still, the entire conversation seems to be shot-through with misconceptions.
Take, for example, this exchange:
Rumpus: You dismiss fiction as entertainment.
Shields: Too often it is.
Rumpus: Many fictional stories, though, are art, and the author is not concerned with entertainment per se.
Shields: Give me an example.
Rumpus: Rohinton Mistry’s A Fine Balance. Nine hundred pages of traditional fiction.
Shields: Haven’t read it, though I’ve heard it’s good.
I want to argue with every line of this exchange. It’s so simple and reductive. Art can be entertaining. Graham Greene and Cervantes wrote entertainments that stand as great works of art. What does it even mean to try to draw this distinction? Also, Rohan Mistry didn’t care about entertaining his audience? He just wrote a gripping book by accident? Can’t he be doing three or four or even ten things at once? Finally, there is the sadly hilarious idea of a writer excoriating the so-called “traditional” novel with one breath and then, with the next, casually admitting that he hasn’t read “A Fine Balance” but that he hears it’s good? Unfortunately, it’s impossible to take this kind of thing seriously. Either something essential has been omitted from the conversation or Shields and Powell don’t know what they are talking about.
As Liz Lemon would say, Blarg!
Maybe there is something in Shields’ ideas that I am missing — I hope so! — but the interview just leaves me hoping that, for whatever reason, it doesn’t fairly represent his work.
Oops. Rohinton Mistry. Now I owe an apology to him as well! — Sean
Oops. Rohinton Mistry. Now I owe an apology to him as well! — Sean
I think the ‘per se’ essentially qualified the sentence…which can be taken as to mean ‘concerned only w/entertainment’. One thing, in going back and forth w/Shields, all these points of yours are more or less pre-considered. RH is what Shields thinks…that’s all. Argue away.
I don’t agee w/Shields in much of what he says, but I’d like to see novelists put more pressure on themselves to write better novels (this is nothing new, and thirty years ago or thirty years from now similar statements could be made)…but it’s just talking about books, and that’s what I like doing…and part of that is the joy of disagreement. I think a lot of what Shields likes is not that interesting, and that the creative nonfiction/memoir et al sometimes ventures into a lot of form w/o substance (not a blanket statement).
I did another interview w/Shields, forthcoming March 1st at http://quarterlyconversation.com/
I think the ‘per se’ essentially qualified the sentence…which can be taken as to mean ‘concerned only w/entertainment’. One thing, in going back and forth w/Shields, all these points of yours are more or less pre-considered. RH is what Shields thinks…that’s all. Argue away.
I don’t agee w/Shields in much of what he says, but I’d like to see novelists put more pressure on themselves to write better novels (this is nothing new, and thirty years ago or thirty years from now similar statements could be made)…but it’s just talking about books, and that’s what I like doing…and part of that is the joy of disagreement. I think a lot of what Shields likes is not that interesting, and that the creative nonfiction/memoir et al sometimes ventures into a lot of form w/o substance (not a blanket statement).
I did another interview w/Shields, forthcoming March 1st at http://quarterlyconversation.com/
Hmmm….I’d like to repharse: I think some of what Shields likes is not that interesting…but his reflections highlight and make it seem worth parsing. Sometimes his tastes match mine…and he points the reader toward a lot of new stuff and some is quite good.
Hmmm….I’d like to repharse: I think some of what Shields likes is not that interesting…but his reflections highlight and make it seem worth parsing. Sometimes his tastes match mine…and he points the reader toward a lot of new stuff and some is quite good.
Thanks, Caleb—these are some solid and sober comments that could stand to be repeated over at The Rumpus thread.
What strikes me as most important in what Shields is doing (even if he’s making some mistakes—in my opinion—and even if many of his tastes differ from mine), is he’s keeping the conversation going, keeping balls in the air to be collectively juggled and thought about (and fought over), and that’s all good.
Complacency might be art’s worst enemy.
Thanks, Caleb—these are some solid and sober comments that could stand to be repeated over at The Rumpus thread.
What strikes me as most important in what Shields is doing (even if he’s making some mistakes—in my opinion—and even if many of his tastes differ from mine), is he’s keeping the conversation going, keeping balls in the air to be collectively juggled and thought about (and fought over), and that’s all good.
Complacency might be art’s worst enemy.
“One thing, in going back and forth w/Shields, all these points of yours are more or less pre-considered”
What do you mean? I can’t parse this, or something. How are all of his points “pre-considered?”
I do not consider what Shields is doing to be all that good, or productive. In my opinion it is thinly veiled anti-intellectualism, and I really don’t understand why so many people are so fascinating by it. . . . ?
fascinated*
“One thing, in going back and forth w/Shields, all these points of yours are more or less pre-considered”
What do you mean? I can’t parse this, or something. How are all of his points “pre-considered?”
I do not consider what Shields is doing to be all that good, or productive. In my opinion it is thinly veiled anti-intellectualism, and I really don’t understand why so many people are so fascinating by it. . . . ?
fascinated*
I appreciate the feedback, Tim. You nailed it, he’s keeping the conversation going…yes, the lyric essay, creative nonfiction and so forth are trends/fads, and will both earn and turn off readers.
I appreciate the feedback, Tim. You nailed it, he’s keeping the conversation going…yes, the lyric essay, creative nonfiction and so forth are trends/fads, and will both earn and turn off readers.
Ryan, I was addressing Sean. Your “…is so inane” comment seemed angry and certain, and there’s no point in arguing with an angry and certain man (if that is, indeed, who you are. It may very well be that I don’t know you and am misreading you, and you could be, in fact, a cool guy…and not only that, you might an angry and certain but also cool guy).
The things is, I agree partly with you latter comment, not that it is thinly veiled anti-intellectuallism (and what the fuck is that?…are you saying that you are seeing right through to the real Shields?), but the enigma of why this book has generated such a pre-pub buzz. I, too, disagree, or at least see value in the traditional novel.
What I meant about Sean’s comment relates to the fact that Shields wrote this book over two years ago, the book had an original release date of summer 2009, and has been excerpted in a lot of lit mags. A multitude has attacked him with every argument that can be concocted, he’s defended in turn, the attacks evolve, he embeds, and I would say he is becoming further entrenched. He’s not backing down. He’s considered and responded therein.
Two years ago David asked me if I was interested in the book, and I started following the controversy, beginning with the Willow Springs excerpt. In the fall of 2009 I got the first proof, wrote a review, placed it, and then Shields contacted me and said that proof #2 came out w/citations, and thus I read one more time. I ended meeting with him a couple times (we live two miles apart), and we’ve gone back and forth extensively. He’s humble and uncertain about life, but he knows what he likes, and he’s written about this in his book, and people can accept it or not.
One of my biggest disagreements with him, though, is how he sees ‘pain/tragedy/horror’ as a source of art, yet he is not so interested in the underlying questions of how to stop pain/tragedy/horror. His Chapter C – Books for People Who Find Television Too Slow really struck a nerve. The original book (Cambodia: A Book for People Who Find Television Too Slow) is one of the best at both being exquisitely written and genuinely concerned with social and political problems. It is a shame that it is not more widely known. By chance, I got to meet Brian Fawcett, the author, when I was in Toronto for a music conference. (He lives in the area across from Detroit that was made famous by Bowling for Columbine, and he met Michael Moore during filming). Fawcett has done well in Canada, and a later book on clearcut forestry practices, Virtual Clearcut, won the best nonfiction prize given and $20,000. Another good read. He’s a writer that should be known more outside Canada.
Anyways, Shields made statements in Reality Hunger about Brian Fawcett’s book that were superficially but directionally correct (concerning Cambodia and the Khmer Rouge and media). This bothered me greatly – Cambodia, to Shields, did not deserve attention except as a fountain of pain to strike us with awe. When I asked Shields (in a different interview) his thoughts, he had a great answer…something like, “Of course my statement is overkill, Fawcett’s much more the political creature…the Khmer Rouge cutting you into six pieces of flesh…is far more insidious than media…”
Fawcett published my book review of RH on his website, Dooney’s Cafe, it should still be on the home page: http://www.dooneyscafe.com/
(My wife is behind me busting my balls incessantly. Earlier I wrote “I’d like to repharse”, and she’s now incorparating that into her vocab. “Caleb, would you please repharse this…would you please repharse that…you really repharsed that well”)
Ryan, I was addressing Sean. Your “…is so inane” comment seemed angry and certain, and there’s no point in arguing with an angry and certain man (if that is, indeed, who you are. It may very well be that I don’t know you and am misreading you, and you could be, in fact, a cool guy…and not only that, you might an angry and certain but also cool guy).
The things is, I agree partly with you latter comment, not that it is thinly veiled anti-intellectuallism (and what the fuck is that?…are you saying that you are seeing right through to the real Shields?), but the enigma of why this book has generated such a pre-pub buzz. I, too, disagree, or at least see value in the traditional novel.
What I meant about Sean’s comment relates to the fact that Shields wrote this book over two years ago, the book had an original release date of summer 2009, and has been excerpted in a lot of lit mags. A multitude has attacked him with every argument that can be concocted, he’s defended in turn, the attacks evolve, he embeds, and I would say he is becoming further entrenched. He’s not backing down. He’s considered and responded therein.
Two years ago David asked me if I was interested in the book, and I started following the controversy, beginning with the Willow Springs excerpt. In the fall of 2009 I got the first proof, wrote a review, placed it, and then Shields contacted me and said that proof #2 came out w/citations, and thus I read one more time. I ended meeting with him a couple times (we live two miles apart), and we’ve gone back and forth extensively. He’s humble and uncertain about life, but he knows what he likes, and he’s written about this in his book, and people can accept it or not.
One of my biggest disagreements with him, though, is how he sees ‘pain/tragedy/horror’ as a source of art, yet he is not so interested in the underlying questions of how to stop pain/tragedy/horror. His Chapter C – Books for People Who Find Television Too Slow really struck a nerve. The original book (Cambodia: A Book for People Who Find Television Too Slow) is one of the best at both being exquisitely written and genuinely concerned with social and political problems. It is a shame that it is not more widely known. By chance, I got to meet Brian Fawcett, the author, when I was in Toronto for a music conference. (He lives in the area across from Detroit that was made famous by Bowling for Columbine, and he met Michael Moore during filming). Fawcett has done well in Canada, and a later book on clearcut forestry practices, Virtual Clearcut, won the best nonfiction prize given and $20,000. Another good read. He’s a writer that should be known more outside Canada.
Anyways, Shields made statements in Reality Hunger about Brian Fawcett’s book that were superficially but directionally correct (concerning Cambodia and the Khmer Rouge and media). This bothered me greatly – Cambodia, to Shields, did not deserve attention except as a fountain of pain to strike us with awe. When I asked Shields (in a different interview) his thoughts, he had a great answer…something like, “Of course my statement is overkill, Fawcett’s much more the political creature…the Khmer Rouge cutting you into six pieces of flesh…is far more insidious than media…”
Fawcett published my book review of RH on his website, Dooney’s Cafe, it should still be on the home page: http://www.dooneyscafe.com/
(My wife is behind me busting my balls incessantly. Earlier I wrote “I’d like to repharse”, and she’s now incorparating that into her vocab. “Caleb, would you please repharse this…would you please repharse that…you really repharsed that well”)
First paragraph to: “you might be angry and cetain but also cool guy.”
First paragraph to: “you might be angry and cetain but also cool guy.”
[…] con Shields. Una delle definizioni più fulminanti in merito l’ho vista tra i commenti a questo articolo, in cui un lettore dice che la questione non è essere pro o contro la narrativa, ma piuttosto che […]
[…] the grave of the novel. (I would link to the article but it’s not up on their site anymore. Here’s something I wrote about it a while ago.) In fact, Professor Smith, I am not dancing on the grave of anything, especially not the […]