June 11th, 2010 / 3:26 pm
Craft Notes
Roxane Gay
Craft Notes
A Few Tidbits on That Whole Over/Under 40 Fancy Writer Genius Thing
In the New York Times Sunday Book Review Sam Tannenhaus asks How Old Can a Young Writer Be?
Frequent commenter Amber Sparks weighs in.
Alex Balk talks about how for those of us nearing 40, time is running short.
Stephen Elliott has this to say.
Tags: the awl, the new york times book review, The New Yorker
I’m not entirely sure where this under 40 thing came from. If I was in a U40 intramural basketball league, I’d tear it up, even at 5′ 7″. In film, I can see U40 having a significance. You need to break into the industry, you need to have enormous funding to make a feature film. The youngest “young directors” like Wes and Noah and P.T. are all around 40. In writing, you pick up the pen and you write. There’s no industry to prevent you from getting behind a pen like there is one to prevent you from getting behind a camera (even though cheaper technology is bringing the camera a little closer to the pen). There’s no argument that I’ve seen to be in any way convincing as to why U40.
Fantastic piece by Sam Tanenhaus! Love his argument and love his closing comment about writing being an interior “fight.” Wow… The New Yorker gently chided… Scare quotes used to signify that a term/idea is suspect… Thanks, Roxane.
Time is only running short for those who bother to worry about the media’s arbitrary standards. And not only arbitrary, but also self-serving – the under-40 concept seems designed primarily to create buzz for an increasingly irrelevant magazine.
increasingly irrelevant? I’d think the opposite might be true, given the closing or falling off of so many of its rivals.
I think the NYer is relavent in many areas, but in poetry and fiction, it has a feeling of desperation to it.
I’m not sure what to make of Sam’s argument there. Noting that most writers writer their best work under the age of 40 isn’t terribly surprising, especially since, as Amber notes, so many of the past examples died before 40. I’ll probably have to write my own blog post response, but it seems to me he is cherry picking a bit here. He does make a good point that many of the people picked are probably either past their prime or are so established that there is no point in anointing them in this way.
but I don’t know about the age thing. In some other art forms, like music, you are pretty much washed up by age 35 and almost everyone does their best work in their 20s or at worst 30s. Not only that, but few popular music acts even remain relevant past their 30s. This isn’t true for writers. There seem to be plenty of examples of writesr whose best work was past 35 and many of the people listed were certainly important and relevant to the literary world past 40 even if they only wrote their second and third best books in that time, instead of their best best book.
I can’t speak for poetry, but the New Yorker’s fiction is about as relevant as fiction can get. Writers who get in there are the writers who get famous and influence the wider literary world. And so many of its rival king-makers have either stopped publishing fiction or don’t have much cache in that area…
Mind you, I don’t read the NYers fiction often and it mostly bores me, but so does Lady Gaga and I wouldn’t call her irrelevant. The NYer’s fiction isn’t nearly as staid or awful as most people on this site like to pretend though. They publish plenty of great modern writers like George Saunders.
Here is a list I put on my own blog, and put on Stephen Elliott’s post too. But maybe my idea of a good book is different?:::
James Joyce: Finnegan’s Wake (arguably his best book) Age 57
Dostoyevsky: Brothers Karamazov (arguably his best book) Age 60
Tolstoy War and Peace (arguably his best book) Age 41
Balzac: Cousin Bette (arguably his best book) Age 47
Zola: Germinal (arguably his best book) Age 45
Victor Hugo: Les Miserables (arguably his best book) Age 64
Dante: The Devine Comedy (his best book) Age 65
Charles Dickens: Great Expectations (arguably his best book) Age 48
Finnegans Wake
There’s a theory, I’m not sure who promulgated it, or if it’s just folk psychology, but mentioned recently on philosopher Graham Harman’s blog, that on average humans have about 15 peak years of creativity. It’s not that they do bad work outside that sphere apparently but not peak work. I’m not sure if I’m sold on the notion or not, though I guess it runs on the idea not that one does bad work before and after but that the work in that bracket is the best of even a thinker/artist who is consistently genius their whole life through. And it needn’t be fifteen consecutive years. For instance, Harman thinks Heidegger had his peak years in two phases: one in the twenties and one later in the early fifties, so a young and an old Heidegger, parsed out in a run of ten and five. But I thought it might be an interesting way of looking at the weirdness of the idea of dividing best work between under and over forty. Seems like a strangely ineffable debate, in a way, like arguing fiercely over how many hairs on a Wookie.
which came after what the Modern Library named the Best Novel of the 20th Century, as well as after what the ML called the 3rd Best Novel of the 20th Century, and after “Dubliners,” which contains “The Dead,” often cited as one of the greatest short stories ever written.
arguably
Well, I am pretty sure Joyce thought it was his best book.
my feeling is that sam tanenhaus isn’t discounting the potential maturation of an artist, but rather discouraging the labeling of young writers as “promising” or “on their way” to being a respectable writer. he seems to be encouraging people to take younger writers more seriously sooner, which i like. and he also seems to be reminding us how many “great authors” showed their “greatness” earlier on. your list seems to be cherry-picking and futzing. Ulysses is Joyce’s most “notable” book and “the masterpiece,” if there must be one. only a reactionary would claim otherwise. that’s not to discount Finnegans Wake in the slightest. and if you want to claim it’s his “greatest” or “best” book, that’s fine, but i think the more “relevant” point as far as sam’s article goes is that Joyce showed his talent as early as 25.
I find the under 40 designation very strange but I can say that my 30s have been the most productive years of my writing life. I can only imagine my 40s will be even better when I reach them A LONG TIME FROM NOW. I don’t think that writers putting out their greatest work is as much about age as it is where they are in their writing careers. And then, there are the prodigies.
I think I’d be most interested in a look at authors who only have one book out, regardless of age. Who is showing the most promise for the future? That seems more interesting that just listing people we already know are literary stars.
Well, the only reason people prefer Ulysses is that they can understand it, or at least pretend to.
Sure, everyone cherry picks, but I think overall my list is of much more famous books.
Even leaving Joyce out. The best authors seem to get better with age. I understand Sam’s point, but I think his examples are not that great. He says that “history speaks” in a certain way and then cites exclusively books from the 20th century.
I think you go to far saying the best writers get better with age. Sam’s article lists plenty who didn’t get better.
Personally, I’d say most authors are best in the middle phase of their career. 3 to 4 books into it, although there are exceptions either way.
However, it seems less tied to age than other art forms as people seem to pick up writing much later in life in a way that, say, few Rock stars start playing guitar at age 40.
“Well, the only reason people prefer Ulysses is that they can understand it, or at least pretend to.” This is a demonstrably false statement.
You understand Finnegan’s Wake?
for christ sake, brendan, it’s Finnegans Wake. i can read and write the title properly, for a start.
i assure you that vladimir nabokov, david markson, ezra pound, and anthony burgess could all “understood” both ulysses and finnegans wake as well as any person other than the author can “understand” a book, and they seem to have all preferred ulysses. what are you trying to accomplish here—you’re trying to prove that you know better than sam tanenhaus or that you’re very sophisticated and have a “better” concept of “good books” based on complexity and sophistication? i only started talking because you miswrote Finnegans Wake and because there was a very easy and obvious counter-argument re Joyce.
Stephen (can I use a cap in your name?). I am not trying to accomplish anything. You chose one book out of my list that you seem to feel connected to or connected to the author. We all know that “better” is subjective. But if you look at the list, generally these are all great books. Can we agree on that? None of them were written by young men. That is all I am saying. Not trying to get in some kind of strange argument where two people who don’t know each other try their best to make the other feel like shit.
damn… yeah, i don’t want that either. rock on, dude. i get your point. it’s all good in the hood.
Thanks Stephen. Sometimes I get the feeling that people who in real life would get along well, end up arguing on the internet.
We both are into Joyce. Says a lot right there.
Peace.
yea, ‘dumb argument’ + ‘sensitive apology/make up’ used to be like my trademark move on htmlgiant. glad i could ‘trip down memory lane’ with you, bro. and yea, joyce.
peace
I’m not entirely sure where this under 40 thing came from. If I was in a U40 intramural basketball league, I’d tear it up, even at 5′ 7″. In film, I can see U40 having a significance. You need to break into the industry, you need to have enormous funding to make a feature film. The youngest “young directors” like Wes and Noah and P.T. are all around 40. In writing, you pick up the pen and you write. There’s no industry to prevent you from getting behind a pen like there is one to prevent you from getting behind a camera (even though cheaper technology is bringing the camera a little closer to the pen). There’s no argument that I’ve seen to be in any way convincing as to why U40.
Fantastic piece by Sam Tanenhaus! Love his argument and love his closing comment about writing being an interior “fight.” Wow… The New Yorker gently chided… Scare quotes used to signify that a term/idea is suspect… Thanks, Roxane.
http://blacklawrence.wordpress.com/2010/06/05/hudson-prize-finalists-announced/#comments
Jacob Appel has 4 collections as finalists/semi-finalists for the Hudson Prize from Black Lawrence Press.
I don’t think he’s under 40.
Just wanted to point that out.
He is 37 but who cares?
Time is only running short for those who bother to worry about the media’s arbitrary standards. And not only arbitrary, but also self-serving – the under-40 concept seems designed primarily to create buzz for an increasingly irrelevant magazine.
increasingly irrelevant? I’d think the opposite might be true, given the closing or falling off of so many of its rivals.
I think the NYer is relavent in many areas, but in poetry and fiction, it has a feeling of desperation to it.
I’m not sure what to make of Sam’s argument there. Noting that most writers writer their best work under the age of 40 isn’t terribly surprising, especially since, as Amber notes, so many of the past examples died before 40. I’ll probably have to write my own blog post response, but it seems to me he is cherry picking a bit here. He does make a good point that many of the people picked are probably either past their prime or are so established that there is no point in anointing them in this way.
but I don’t know about the age thing. In some other art forms, like music, you are pretty much washed up by age 35 and almost everyone does their best work in their 20s or at worst 30s. Not only that, but few popular music acts even remain relevant past their 30s. This isn’t true for writers. There seem to be plenty of examples of writesr whose best work was past 35 and many of the people listed were certainly important and relevant to the literary world past 40 even if they only wrote their second and third best books in that time, instead of their best best book.
I can’t speak for poetry, but the New Yorker’s fiction is about as relevant as fiction can get. Writers who get in there are the writers who get famous and influence the wider literary world. And so many of its rival king-makers have either stopped publishing fiction or don’t have much cache in that area…
Mind you, I don’t read the NYers fiction often and it mostly bores me, but so does Lady Gaga and I wouldn’t call her irrelevant. The NYer’s fiction isn’t nearly as staid or awful as most people on this site like to pretend though. They publish plenty of great modern writers like George Saunders.
Here is a list I put on my own blog, and put on Stephen Elliott’s post too. But maybe my idea of a good book is different?:::
James Joyce: Finnegan’s Wake (arguably his best book) Age 57
Dostoyevsky: Brothers Karamazov (arguably his best book) Age 60
Tolstoy War and Peace (arguably his best book) Age 41
Balzac: Cousin Bette (arguably his best book) Age 47
Zola: Germinal (arguably his best book) Age 45
Victor Hugo: Les Miserables (arguably his best book) Age 64
Dante: The Devine Comedy (his best book) Age 65
Charles Dickens: Great Expectations (arguably his best book) Age 48
i want to to see the list of the best writers under 4 ft tall
Finnegans Wake
There’s a theory, I’m not sure who promulgated it, or if it’s just folk psychology, but mentioned recently on philosopher Graham Harman’s blog, that on average humans have about 15 peak years of creativity. It’s not that they do bad work outside that sphere apparently but not peak work. I’m not sure if I’m sold on the notion or not, though I guess it runs on the idea not that one does bad work before and after but that the work in that bracket is the best of even a thinker/artist who is consistently genius their whole life through. And it needn’t be fifteen consecutive years. For instance, Harman thinks Heidegger had his peak years in two phases: one in the twenties and one later in the early fifties, so a young and an old Heidegger, parsed out in a run of ten and five. But I thought it might be an interesting way of looking at the weirdness of the idea of dividing best work between under and over forty. Seems like a strangely ineffable debate, in a way, like arguing fiercely over how many hairs on a Wookie.
which came after what the Modern Library named the Best Novel of the 20th Century, as well as after what the ML called the 3rd Best Novel of the 20th Century, and after “Dubliners,” which contains “The Dead,” often cited as one of the greatest short stories ever written.
arguably
Well, I am pretty sure Joyce thought it was his best book.
my feeling is that sam tanenhaus isn’t discounting the potential maturation of an artist, but rather discouraging the labeling of young writers as “promising” or “on their way” to being a respectable writer. he seems to be encouraging people to take younger writers more seriously sooner, which i like. and he also seems to be reminding us how many “great authors” showed their “greatness” earlier on. your list seems to be cherry-picking and futzing. Ulysses is Joyce’s most “notable” book and “the masterpiece,” if there must be one. only a reactionary would claim otherwise. that’s not to discount Finnegans Wake in the slightest. and if you want to claim it’s his “greatest” or “best” book, that’s fine, but i think the more “relevant” point as far as sam’s article goes is that Joyce showed his talent as early as 25.
I find the under 40 designation very strange but I can say that my 30s have been the most productive years of my writing life. I can only imagine my 40s will be even better when I reach them A LONG TIME FROM NOW. I don’t think that writers putting out their greatest work is as much about age as it is where they are in their writing careers. And then, there are the prodigies.
I think I’d be most interested in a look at authors who only have one book out, regardless of age. Who is showing the most promise for the future? That seems more interesting that just listing people we already know are literary stars.
Well, the only reason people prefer Ulysses is that they can understand it, or at least pretend to.
Sure, everyone cherry picks, but I think overall my list is of much more famous books.
Even leaving Joyce out. The best authors seem to get better with age. I understand Sam’s point, but I think his examples are not that great. He says that “history speaks” in a certain way and then cites exclusively books from the 20th century.
I think you go to far saying the best writers get better with age. Sam’s article lists plenty who didn’t get better.
Personally, I’d say most authors are best in the middle phase of their career. 3 to 4 books into it, although there are exceptions either way.
However, it seems less tied to age than other art forms as people seem to pick up writing much later in life in a way that, say, few Rock stars start playing guitar at age 40.
“Well, the only reason people prefer Ulysses is that they can understand it, or at least pretend to.” This is a demonstrably false statement.
You understand Finnegan’s Wake?
for christ sake, brendan, it’s Finnegans Wake. i can read and write the title properly, for a start.
i assure you that vladimir nabokov, david markson, ezra pound, and anthony burgess could all “understood” both ulysses and finnegans wake as well as any person other than the author can “understand” a book, and they seem to have all preferred ulysses. what are you trying to accomplish here—you’re trying to prove that you know better than sam tanenhaus or that you’re very sophisticated and have a “better” concept of “good books” based on complexity and sophistication? i only started talking because you miswrote Finnegans Wake and because there was a very easy and obvious counter-argument re Joyce.
Stephen (can I use a cap in your name?). I am not trying to accomplish anything. You chose one book out of my list that you seem to feel connected to or connected to the author. We all know that “better” is subjective. But if you look at the list, generally these are all great books. Can we agree on that? None of them were written by young men. That is all I am saying. Not trying to get in some kind of strange argument where two people who don’t know each other try their best to make the other feel like shit.
damn… yeah, i don’t want that either. rock on, dude. i get your point. it’s all good in the hood.
Thanks Stephen. Sometimes I get the feeling that people who in real life would get along well, end up arguing on the internet.
We both are into Joyce. Says a lot right there.
Peace.
yea, ‘dumb argument’ + ‘sensitive apology/make up’ used to be like my trademark move on htmlgiant. glad i could ‘trip down memory lane’ with you, bro. and yea, joyce.
peace
Is anyone else willing to chalk this up to our general obsession with youth?
http://blacklawrence.wordpress.com/2010/06/05/hudson-prize-finalists-announced/#comments
Jacob Appel has 4 collections as finalists/semi-finalists for the Hudson Prize from Black Lawrence Press.
I don’t think he’s under 40.
Just wanted to point that out.
He is 37 but who cares?
i want to to see the list of the best writers under 4 ft tall
Is anyone else willing to chalk this up to our general obsession with youth?
Dan Rhodes, after placing on Granta’s list of Best Young British Novelists in 2003: “It’s one thing to judge a writer by stuff they’ve written, but to judge them on stuff they’re going to write is lunacy”.
…has Dan Rhodes gone on to write a striking novel, or what?
I once read that over 99% of those who publish one novel never publish a 2nd. Of course, what is being neglected entirely is the issue of extraliterary concerns impinging upon the writer’s output. Money, health, romantic life, good or bad luck in one’s publishing career, and so on.
Dan Rhodes, after placing on Granta’s list of Best Young British Novelists in 2003: “It’s one thing to judge a writer by stuff they’ve written, but to judge them on stuff they’re going to write is lunacy”.
…has Dan Rhodes gone on to write a striking novel, or what?
I once read that over 99% of those who publish one novel never publish a 2nd. Of course, what is being neglected entirely is the issue of extraliterary concerns impinging upon the writer’s output. Money, health, romantic life, good or bad luck in one’s publishing career, and so on.
I love the fiction in the New Yorker. They published a bunch of Bolano short stories that were awesome, and 1/5 of their short stories are about punks.
HOW OLD WAS CERVANTES
PRETTY OLD, RIGHT?
I find Sam Tanenhaus’s piece depressing, whereas I find the general spirit behind the New Yorker’s list inspiring.
Recently, I had the privilege watching an advance screening of Vernon Lott’s documentary “Bad Writing,” (trailer here: http://vimeo.com/10913506). There’s a part where Steve Almond asks when did we start advancing the notion that writers are athletes. He wasn’t directly referencing the Updike quote, but maybe he was remembering it.
Almond said that he wouldn’t have been friends with his 20s self. Is it true that people who start seriously writing in their late 20s are considered late bloomers? What about those of us without rooms of our own and fixed incomes? Those of us who needed to find jobs after college.
I think Sam’s list looks back too many generations to deduce any kind of argument about peaking in your late 20s to mid 30s. With this generation, a third of men ages 22–34 are still living at home with their parents. (http://www.boysadrift.com/) Maybe they’re writing novels, or maybe they’re just sitting around, playing video games, waiting to wake up and figure out what they really want to do in life. Like be writers!
I love the fiction in the New Yorker. They published a bunch of Bolano short stories that were awesome, and 1/5 of their short stories are about punks.
HOW OLD WAS CERVANTES
PRETTY OLD, RIGHT?
Hey Marco that vimeo link doesn’t work.
I find Sam Tanenhaus’s piece depressing, whereas I find the general spirit behind the New Yorker’s list inspiring.
Recently, I had the privilege watching an advance screening of Vernon Lott’s documentary “Bad Writing,” (trailer here: http://vimeo.com/10913506). There’s a part where Steve Almond asks when did we start advancing the notion that writers are athletes. He wasn’t directly referencing the Updike quote, but maybe he was remembering it.
Almond said that he wouldn’t have been friends with his 20s self. Is it true that people who start seriously writing in their late 20s are considered late bloomers? What about those of us without rooms of our own and fixed incomes? Those of us who needed to find jobs after college.
I think Sam’s list looks back too many generations to deduce any kind of argument about peaking in your late 20s to mid 30s. With this generation, a third of men ages 22–34 are still living at home with their parents. (http://www.boysadrift.com/) Maybe they’re writing novels, or maybe they’re just sitting around, playing video games, waiting to wake up and figure out what they really want to do in life. Like be writers!
Hey Marco that vimeo link doesn’t work.
Here’s the correct link: http://vimeo.com/10913506
Here’s the correct link: http://vimeo.com/10913506
i’ve edited for a couple of journals. a few guys always put the year of birth in their bios, highlighting how young they are. i rejected the story in my head before reading it. fuck you, beeyotchees – – go text each other while riding scooters and showing us how brilliant you are, you yute.
yeah, i HATE the age thing. i’m in my early 50’s and i’m so much better now than i was in my 40’s and so on. i could rape the earlier writer i used to be and not serve a day in prison because i’m fucking innocent. see all the young writers out there who are so damn smart probably never even heard of dignan.
i’ve edited for a couple of journals. a few guys always put the year of birth in their bios, highlighting how young they are. i rejected the story in my head before reading it. fuck you, beeyotchees – – go text each other while riding scooters and showing us how brilliant you are, you yute.
yeah, i HATE the age thing. i’m in my early 50’s and i’m so much better now than i was in my 40’s and so on. i could rape the earlier writer i used to be and not serve a day in prison because i’m fucking innocent. see all the young writers out there who are so damn smart probably never even heard of dignan.
Google Search isn’t very kind to you, is it?–seeing as how you seem virtually unknown in terms of literary merit–though I did get a chance to read your profoundly intelligent piece, “Ass Face,” as well as “A Milf In My Room.” For your next literary abortion, you should write something about how much you love dirty realism–or perhaps just write an essay concerning your fantasies–maybe cumming all over Bukowski’s chest? Well, anyway, thanks for sharing your “writing” with the world (and simultaneously promoting your patriarchal perspective). Your notion of “age” in regard to capable writers is absolute bullshit. You are an asshole, Assface North. In fact, I’ve never felt more compelled to call someone an asshole in all my life.
“i could rape the earlier writer i used to be and not serve a day in prison because i’m fucking innocent”
Who actually says something like that about themselves? You’re not clever. You’re not witty. You’re not an important writer. You’re not doing anything important. You’re just using your full name and jerking off to the sentences you post under your full name. You “rejected the story” in your head before reading it?–because of the writer’s age? Do you want some applause? Do you think everyone in this forum is going to be like, “oh samuel, you’re so hip” and then start referring to you as SPN or something?
i would like to be called spn, as my real hero is spm.
paul, i’m too tired and old to click on your link but i suspect you were born in the 90s and are in need of some help. i do hope you get it. also, the word is “coming,” not “cumming.” that’s so embarrassing!
oh and the fucking innocent line is from “bottle rocket” – you might like the movie. you remind me of futureman!
Google Search isn’t very kind to you, is it?–seeing as how you seem virtually unknown in terms of literary merit–though I did get a chance to read your profoundly intelligent piece, “Ass Face,” as well as “A Milf In My Room.” For your next literary abortion, you should write something about how much you love dirty realism–or perhaps just write an essay concerning your fantasies–maybe cumming all over Bukowski’s chest? Well, anyway, thanks for sharing your “writing” with the world (and simultaneously promoting your patriarchal perspective). Your notion of “age” in regard to capable writers is absolute bullshit. You are an asshole, Assface North. In fact, I’ve never felt more compelled to call someone an asshole in all my life.
“i could rape the earlier writer i used to be and not serve a day in prison because i’m fucking innocent”
Who actually says something like that about themselves? You’re not clever. You’re not witty. You’re not an important writer. You’re not doing anything important. You’re just using your full name and jerking off to the sentences you post under your full name. You “rejected the story” in your head before reading it?–because of the writer’s age? Do you want some applause? Do you think everyone in this forum is going to be like, “oh samuel, you’re so hip” and then start referring to you as SPN or something?
Quadriplegic battle-royale with elbow-straw weapons to a chorus of kazoos droning “Seven Nation Army”: fun!
i would like to be called spn, as my real hero is spm.
paul, i’m too tired and old to click on your link but i suspect you were born in the 90s and are in need of some help. i do hope you get it. also, the word is “coming,” not “cumming.” that’s so embarrassing!
oh and the fucking innocent line is from “bottle rocket” – you might like the movie. you remind me of futureman!
Quadriplegic battle-royale with elbow-straw weapons to a chorus of kazoos droning “Seven Nation Army”: fun!
i know a lot’s been said about this list already, but i really enjoyed steve almond’s post over at the rumpus. figured it was worth adding to this list.
http://therumpus.net/2010/06/the-new-yorker%E2%80%99s-one-over-40/
i know a lot’s been said about this list already, but i really enjoyed steve almond’s post over at the rumpus. figured it was worth adding to this list.
http://therumpus.net/2010/06/the-new-yorker%E2%80%99s-one-over-40/