HTMLGIANT / 15 ‘Towering Literary Artists’ Who Are Still Alive

September 6th, 2009 / 5:28 pm Ken Baumann—

Where the hell is Bolaño???

:)

reply

September 6th, 2009 / 5:29 pmBlake Butler—

haha

reply

September 6th, 2009 / 5:44 pm Dennis Cooper—

Pierre Guyotat
James McCourt
John Ashbery
….

reply

September 7th, 2009 / 12:57 amRoss Brighton—

Guyotat. Word.

reply

September 6th, 2009 / 6:23 pm evelyn—

…”a neutral and objective list of towering authors”…

I’m wondering how that could be done, especially once the word “towering” is included. Authors most people agree are really tall?

reply

September 6th, 2009 / 6:34 pmBlake Butler—

;)

reply

September 6th, 2009 / 6:31 pm blake—

Stephen Dixon and Anne Carson both should be here too, dang

reply

September 6th, 2009 / 6:44 pm Michael Schaub—

This is great, by the way. Awesome to see Hempel and Cooper on there. If I had to supplement:

Mary Robison
Galway Kinnell
Salman Rushdie (I know)
Philip Roth (I know, I know)
Deborah Eisenberg
Kenzaburo Oe

But shit, I don’t know.

reply

September 6th, 2009 / 6:55 pmjh—

It seems to me, having read just about all of Roth and 1 book of Rushdie’s (for good reason), that they are pretty far apart, in terms of doing interesting things with language. So why the doubled ‘I know’? Have you read the last 30 pages of ‘Everyman’? If not, you should.

reply

September 6th, 2009 / 7:13 pmMichael Schaub—

Oh, the “I know” thing — a lot of the times I’ve mentioned loving Roth and Rushdie (in other venues, not this one), I’ve gotten eyerolls or glares, or the Internet versions of those. That was just my way of being all “de gustibus non est disputandum” because I’ve lost the will to engage in another argument about Roth being a misogynist or Rushdie being anti-Muslim or conservative or whatever other bullshit attack those dudes get on a regular basis. The double “I know” was arbitrary. That’s just how I roll: passive-aggressively and uncarefully. Whatever.

I’ve read “Everyman,” yeah, and loved it; I actually like Roth a little better than Rushdie, but it’s really close for me. Which Rushdie did you read? Just for my own part, I can’t recall anything he’s done that’s linguistically uninteresting. All a matter of taste, of course, I’m just curious.

reply

September 6th, 2009 / 7:36 pmKyle Minor—

I don’t think anybody should apologize for liking Roth. As a body of work, his is about as aesthetically broad as any writer we’ve ever had. And on grounds of ambition, he’s unmatched. Also, almost everything he has written is intertextually connected in a very interesting and intentional way. Also, he doesn’t even start writing his best books until he’s in his sixties. Also, his late work is in conversation with Shakespeare, Turgenev, and Joseph Conrad in ways I haven’t yet seen any critics write about, except maybe a wink or two from Hermione Lee or Frank Kermode. Also, he produced Sabbath’s Theater and American Pastoral, his two best books, back to back, and they are quite nearly opposites, even as they are (intentionally it seems) complementary. Also, his work as a whole is the synthesis of modernism, postmodernism, and the 19th century realist traditions, with not a little bit of the Greek dramatic mode and the Jewish mythic mode informing all of it. The eye-rolling, for all I can tell, is an affectation posed by readers who haven’t done the work of reading a lot of Roth and letting him teach the reader how to read it, which maybe isn’t the reader’s obligation, except that all the eye-rolling seems to come from champions of difficulty and readerly obligation toward the difficult. There are aspects of Roth that are challenging, even though the surfaces are so immensely sleek and pleasurable. I don’t see how these are problems, though.

September 7th, 2009 / 10:33 amTim Horvath—

This defense of Roth is about as eloquent and comprehensive as I can imagine, except that I’d say Human Stain is a better book than American Pastoral. For me, it had all of the strengths of Pastoral but also takes on issues of race, powerfully and perspicaciously. But you’re right that Roth’s work is so interconnected that in some ways it almost seems like they are the same novel, each a version of it for its time.

September 7th, 2009 / 10:34 amTim Horvath—

Uh, that was meant to be a response to the comment below. Kyle Minor and His Precursors.

September 7th, 2009 / 11:14 amDA—

I agree on Roth: no apologies necessary. I’ve read almost everything he’s written. To me Sabbath’s Theater is his best novel.

I also always recommend Patrimony – his nonfiction work about the death of his father. Who, if you’ve read Roth’s novels, is a “character” you know very well.

September 8th, 2009 / 4:27 pmmimi—

Are you the one that graffitti’ed ‘de gustibus…..’ in the tunnel between upper Solano and Shattuck in Berkeley?

September 6th, 2009 / 9:08 pmMolly Gaudry—

The Ground Beneath Her Feet is linguistic lovemaking. I’ve always appreciated that this was the first Rushdie novel I read. From there to Midnight’s Children and then Haroun and the Sea of Stories. I will be grateful forever that this was the order of my introduction to his work.

reply

September 6th, 2009 / 10:12 pmMichael Schaub—

Oh, yeah, I’m totally with you. I just wrote a piece about “The Ground Beneath Her Feet” for another blog, and I was surprised at how badly people seem to regard it. It’s my second-favorite of his, after “Midnight’s Children.” Though I haven’t read the newest one yet.

reply

September 10th, 2009 / 4:41 pmMolly Gaudry—

What blog? Did you see it made the LA Times blog recently (within the last month, I think)? And yes, I agree with you: Midnight’s Children is #1.

September 10th, 2009 / 6:03 pmMichael Schaub—

Molly, yeah, that was the one I wrote, at the LA Times blog, Jacket Copy. I wasn’t responsible for the sexy picture of Salman looking all sexy, though.

September 7th, 2009 / 6:48 pmryan—

Haroun is one of my favorite books of all time.

reply

September 10th, 2009 / 4:42 pmMolly Gaudry—

I think of that book and think, He must have had a ton of fun writing this. And then I think, Or maybe he was really sad.

September 6th, 2009 / 7:13 pm Where Have All The Literary Towers Gone? | Fiction—

[...] out of that discussion, htmlgiant editor Blake Butler posted a list of 15 ‘Towering Literary Artists’ Who Are Still Alive. His list includes many of the people I would name myself (Barrry Hannah, Cormac McCarthy, Diane [...]

September 6th, 2009 / 7:46 pm alan—

Hey, where the fuck is Salinger?

reply

September 6th, 2009 / 9:13 pmjh—

In the treehouse with Stevenson and Carroll, where he belongs.

reply

September 6th, 2009 / 10:05 pmreynard seifert—

yeah!!!!

reply

September 6th, 2009 / 7:54 pm Shya—

I’m certainly glad to see that white people seem to be holding their own for you, Blake.

reply

September 6th, 2009 / 7:55 pmBlake Butler—

oh, me.

i’m a racist, didn’t you hear?

reply

September 6th, 2009 / 8:00 pmShya—

Not calling you a racist. You just haven’t pushed too far out of your cultural inheritance, is all. Not blaming you, really, either. It’s hard to do, especially with a local (meaning, U.S.) literary scene that doesn’t go too far out of its way to push translations.

reply

September 6th, 2009 / 8:01 pmBlake Butler—

who would you suggest that fits the definition and that i missed?

September 6th, 2009 / 8:11 pmKyle Minor—

Some possible international towering types, still living (too bad Solzhenitsyn is not with us anymore!):

Milan Kundera (Unbearable Lightness of Being and The Book of Laughter and Forgetting)
Wislawa Szymborska (single poems containing ambition to rival Joyce, and dozens of them)
Kenzaburo Oe (body of work and also Somersault)
Gunter Grass (lies and all)
Halldor Laxness (is he still alive?)

Also, while we’re talking Americans, I think that the huge ambition of Chris Adrian is not often enough remarked upon, particularly in books such as The Children’s Hospital. Also, his moral project, which he pursues at great personal cost (he’s a theologian-in-training at divinity school, a practicing pediatrician, an Iowa MFA, a Civil War novelist, a latter day Stanley Elkin but with less fucking around, a first-rate story writer, and a writer of 600 page novels) is decidedly 19th century even as it is decidedly 21st century. Also, he has balls enough to choose a “recording angel” as narrator for his last sprawling novel.

Other young American candidates for future toweringness:

Justin Tussing
Brady Udall
Ron Rash
James Yeh

And I wouldn’t put it past Jeffrey Eugenides or Tim O’Brien or David Benioff or Katherine Dunn to stun with their next novels.

September 6th, 2009 / 8:14 pmShya—

Well, I didn’t say I wasn’t in the same boat, but just off the top of my head:
Rushdie
Morrison
Achebe
Wideman

Even Murikami I’d throw up before a few on your list, which I think is guilty of a little redundancy. Hannah and Hempel, for instance, though, sure, seem quite different now, will, I imagine, be fighting for a common slot in 100 years. Much of the Lish continuum, of which your list boasts an inordinate amount of authors, will over time be seen as variations on a theme, some of them essential, some of them less so. It’s difficult to call, however, this soon after the event of their publication/influence.

September 6th, 2009 / 8:15 pmBlake Butler—

I read a lot of translation, but there aren’t a ton in English who fit my definition here. It indeed is a symptom of poor translation habits, but I wouldn’t call that my ‘cultural inheritance’ anymore than any other’s.

September 6th, 2009 / 8:18 pmBlake Butler—

calling Hannah and Hempel on the same slot seems kind of way off to me. can’t agree there at all. the list is lish heavy for sure, but i could make an argument for all of them being their own bag, and vital in completely different ways.

wish I could say I dig Murakami enough to include him but the three books of his I’ve read were nothing more than OK.

Marquez should have definitely been on there but I thought he was dead.

Rushdie is on the cusp for me, he has too many mediocre books to battle off his legacy, but he’s a close call.

September 6th, 2009 / 8:22 pmBlake Butler—

i think you’re reaching

September 6th, 2009 / 8:26 pmShya—

I don’t know, Blake. I think that one of the foremost ways to become a “towering” figure in any medium, is to have created a body of work that remains, despite contributing “better” and “worse” additions to it over time, unique and indeed inspires a host of derivative work. So one of the ways to predict who will attain that status, is to look at the work of people influenced by these artists. Which is why Rushdie and Morrison and Achebe most certainly deserve places on the list. Hannah and Hempel produce different work, but those people who are influenced by them, I would argue, do not. So they will inevitably bleed together in the long run.

September 6th, 2009 / 8:30 pmBlake Butler—

i guess we disagree

September 6th, 2009 / 8:33 pmMichael Schaub—

Word on Laxness. He’s dead, though, unfortunately.

September 6th, 2009 / 8:34 pmShya—

indeed. let’s revisit the issue in 100 years.

September 6th, 2009 / 8:41 pmKen Baumann—

Shya:

I don’t want to start a fight here, but would you say you’ve ‘pushed … far out of your cultural inheritance’?

September 6th, 2009 / 8:45 pmShya—

Ken: absolutely not. I said as much above. But the first part of gaining a global perspective is admitting where your own perspective is myopic.

September 6th, 2009 / 8:46 pmBlake Butler—

i dunno, dude. 75% of what i read this year was work in translation. that doesn’t mean i am going to force people onto a list just to ‘balance it out’. it was just a list. and it is indeed sad that more work is not put into translation, but again, i don’t think that is symptomatic of me, as much as it is symptomatic of american publishing.

dalkey is god in this consideration.

September 6th, 2009 / 8:53 pmKen Baumann—

For you is there an ethical imperative to try to gain a ‘global perspective’? Do you really think one can gain a global perspective in one’s lifetime, especially through reading words, in English, on paper? Aren’t great stories all markedly similar in that they all contain what is sort of monomythical and older than written language/destroy the cultural barriers by way of emotional transference, that is to say: isn’t the recognition of great story a recognition of the uselessness of even acknowledging cultural difference? Do you claim to know that your view is myopic, but claim that Blake does not know that his view is myopic?

‘But the first part of gaining a global perspective is admitting where your own perspective is myopic.’ That sounds like AA.

September 6th, 2009 / 9:02 pmShya—

Blake: I do think it’s symptomatic of american publishing, which is why I said I didn’t blame you.

Ken: if you don’t think there’s a point to recognizing cultural difference when accounting for aesthetic taste, you’re definitely a product of exactly the kind of myopia I’m referring to, my friend.

September 6th, 2009 / 9:09 pmMolly Gaudry—

I’m with Kyle on Szymborska and Oe. Yes yes yes!

September 6th, 2009 / 9:10 pmKen Baumann—

You didn’t answer any of my questions.

As mutual sufferers from that myopia, what have you done lately to try and push out of your cultural inheritance? Other than reading books.

September 6th, 2009 / 9:12 pmKen Baumann—

Also, Shya: ‘Ken: if you don’t think there’s a point to recognizing cultural difference when accounting for aesthetic taste, you’re definitely a product of exactly the kind of myopia I’m referring to, my friend.’

Does anyone else read this and feel a tone of snootiness? Intellectual superiority? Do you feel superior when you type that, Shya?

These are questions.

September 6th, 2009 / 9:14 pmKen Baumann—

Also, all questions I have asked are Yes or No questions, at minimum of course.

September 7th, 2009 / 1:04 amRoss Brighton—

I’m gon’ have to back Shya on this one.

September 7th, 2009 / 1:59 amKen Baumann—

Ross: I hope it doesn’t come down to backing. :) But seriously, ultimately we’re just two more dudes talking. I’m sure Shya is a nice person — and he has been in our communication elsewhere — but I am actually curious to know what he thinks. I want him to answer these questions.

Shya, Ross, etc.: I think it’s naive as hell to call someone racially myopic after a few comments stemming from literary/aesthetic preference, and in defense of a friend whom I KNOW to not ’see color’ AT ALL in his daily being, and be the ‘best’ or most ‘global’ reader I’ve met, but, well shit I’m young and culturally imprisoned. What do I know.

Also, I do believe that if one can actually craft a ‘global perspective’, that one must do so by doing & living, rather than reading, esp. in the wheelhouse of TOWERING LITERARY ARTISTS, and the like. And if anyone would like to challenge me in the doing & living section, please do so.

September 7th, 2009 / 7:29 pmelsa—

this is a response to “who would you suggest that fits the definition and that i missed?”:

amiri baraka!

he’s a total intellectual & creative giant. its not just his poetry but also the crucial role he’s played in modern race relations, and his massive contributions to jazz (esp free jazz) scholarship. he wrote about ayler, sun ra, archie shepp, etc before most anyone else. he really “got it” yknow? baraka was also an early supporter (& crucial promoter) of olson. he let olson publish whatever olson wanted (quite literally, whatever) in several baraka’s land-mark magazines: yugen (late fifties), kulchur (1960), and floating bear (1961).

who else? toni morrison? percival everett is maybe too young? renee gladman has always stood out; her leroi press is admirable.

brazil has a long-standing history of brilliant (& ugh, “avant-garde”) lit. helena parente cunha is still alive & as astounding as ever. woman between the mirrors is her most famous, i think. i wish clarice lispector & joao guimaraes rosa were still alive if only so i could gush a little longer.

gush: i don’t really ever think of authors in terms of towering figures. more like “awww, shit, man.” taste is, well, taste. baraka doesn’t fit in with the other authors listed so i don’t actually rec’ an “include”; i just dig him. its difficult to imagine the 20th cen. landscape (avant-garde or not) without him.

hope this all isn’t too douchy; i mean, i don’t know anyone here. just lurkin’. & late. xoxo.

September 7th, 2009 / 2:02 amKen Baumann—

Unless one reads thousands upon thousands of texts, e.g. Joseph Campbell, who, funnily enough, was accused of being a bigot by another rich ‘white’ person.

reply

September 6th, 2009 / 8:20 pmlorian—

haha. my first thought: shit white people like.

good move on vollmann, though. anyone read (or bench pressed) imperial? best book since 2666.

and where is denis johnson?!

reply

September 6th, 2009 / 8:25 pmBlake Butler—

denis johnson is overrated.

worrying about race is also overrated.

reply

September 6th, 2009 / 8:35 pmreynard seifert—

i heart you, blakester

September 6th, 2009 / 8:41 pmShya—

denis johnson may be overrated, but jesus’ son is better than any book lish, cooper, hempel, or evenson has written. he may not do it again, but that one time he did was superlative.

September 6th, 2009 / 8:43 pmBlake Butler—

jesus’ son might be the most overrated book of all time

September 6th, 2009 / 8:50 pmjeff t johnson—

jesus’ son (which i like) might be overrated, but other dj books (resuscitation of a hanged man, tree of smoke) are probably underrated (i say that even tho tree of smoke won the ntional book award; i think it’s one of the most remarkable books i’ve read in the past ten years).

September 6th, 2009 / 8:54 pmShya—

you might be right, blake (though i’m slowly learning that you’re interested, often, simply in being argumentative). i only know what work has a profound impact on me, and that book hit me like the proverbial ton of bricks. those other authors i cited above have written great stories, passages, books, and have certainly contributed greatly to my own literary sensibility, but no one thing they’ve written has had such an impact.

which leads to a slightly different conversation: i expect the feeling i describe above is not uncommon. one must, i expect, when attempting to arrive at the definition of “towering”, eventually contend with the relationship between common sensibility and personal perspective. one could very easily love an author while admitting that they’re never become a towering literary figure.

September 6th, 2009 / 8:59 pmBlake Butler—

shya just called me argumentative

September 6th, 2009 / 11:58 pmsasha fletcher—

i loved jesus’ son but there is no way i would call it as being more than hempel.

so after ben marcus puts out a new book, can we put him on the list?
i feel that the anchor book is probably one of the most solid anthologies of contemporary fiction i’ve read. and whatever, i was glad about what he said to franzen in harper’s.
maybe this doesn’t qualify him, but i am saying, think about it.

and yeah on the carson and dixon.

September 6th, 2009 / 11:59 pmBlake Butler—

only reason marcus wasn’t on the list already was because of the only 2 books thing. but that guy is real.

September 7th, 2009 / 12:32 amsasha fletcher—

i know. and i figured. which is why i said after he comes out with some more can we do that. can we say he is on deck for the list. because he is.

and i don’t know that i’d disagree with shya. but i mean it as, yknow, i don’t know, a compliment. or i mean, i would take it as that is what i am saying.

September 7th, 2009 / 1:56 pmTom Beshear—

I read IMPERIAL over 20 days in a white heat. Read it amid my participation in Infinite Summer. IMPERIAL is much more compelling to me than INFINITE JEST, which, though it’s a monumental work in its way, lacks the urgency of Vollmann’s best. As I told someone, if you want to know what America really is, and how it got that way, read IMPERIAL.

reply

September 7th, 2009 / 2:52 pmBlake Butler—

interesting. i really really want to make time for Imperial. maybe christmas time.

September 7th, 2009 / 3:37 pmRauan—

blake butler— augmentative?

reply

September 6th, 2009 / 8:18 pm jeff t johnson—

Good list, Blake. Nice photos, too. I’d add Stephen Wright (doesn’t have 8 books, but each of his is worth at least two of most other living writers), Denis Johnson and Samuel Delany (if only for the monumental Dhalgren). I’d also clutter my own list with poets like John Ashbery, John Koethe, Brenda Hillman, CD Wright, Michael Palmer, Albert Goldbarth…

And I wish DFW could be on this list.

I have no problem with your inclusion of Evenson. He’s got that bigness and inclusion (by which I mean the scope of his literary universe) to his writing that should be a prereq for folks on this list.

I like your balance of personal preference with the big picture, though you of course skew toward your experience (men, English language writers, Caucasians, fiction writers). Bottom line is I was excited to see this post (cracked a beer before digging in) because I know you’re a serious reader, and I wasn’t disappointed.

Read on!

reply

September 6th, 2009 / 8:21 pmBlake Butler—

it really hurt me that dfw wasn’t there. really hurt. i stared for a good 5 minutes.

reply

September 7th, 2009 / 12:08 amryan—

yes. bigtime hurt.

reply

September 6th, 2009 / 8:38 pm Blake Butler—

“I don’t know, Blake. I think that one of the foremost ways to become a “towering” figure in any medium, is to have created a body of work that remains, despite contributing “better” and “worse” additions to it over time, unique and indeed inspires a host of derivative work.”

hmm. i think you just elected Stephen King to this list.

i actually feel ok about that.

but that logic is baffling. ‘good and bad stuff, as long as there’s a bunch of it, and people look at it.’

naw

reply

September 6th, 2009 / 8:45 pm Lincoln—

The race issue is always a hard one, but I feel here the international scope is maybe more of a problem. Blake should probably have swapped out Saramago for someone and just made it a list of American towering figures.

THen again, I don’t think Blake was pretending to be definitive.

reply

September 6th, 2009 / 8:47 pmBlake Butler—

sigh

reply

September 6th, 2009 / 8:56 pmKen Baumann—

‘Blake should probably have swapped out Saramago for someone and just made it a list of American towering figures.’

…

reply

September 6th, 2009 / 11:59 pmsasha fletcher—

cute ken.
yr real cute.

reply

September 6th, 2009 / 9:34 pm chloe—

Nice list & nice additions in the comments. Let me throw some possible devil’s advocacy behind two more candidates: Alice Monroe and Joy Williams.

reply

September 6th, 2009 / 10:04 pmMG—

Oh, yes: Joy Williams. Yes, yes, yes.

Alice Munroe, not so much for me. I mean, if you stacked her books one atop the other, I guess they would create a tower. Unless there’s an author called ‘Alice Monroe’ who I’ve never heard of.

But Joy Williams, yes, couldn’t agree with you more on that one. I was actually surprised to not see her on Blake’s list. I thought he liked her quite a bit.

reply

September 6th, 2009 / 10:04 pmMG—

Oh shit, Munro?

reply

September 7th, 2009 / 9:58 amchloe—

typo city: yep, i meant Alice Munro

September 6th, 2009 / 10:18 pm barry—

delillo is the most overrated “towering” author alive… if not in all of history

what about gg marquez? or jayne anne phillips. for god’s sake, where is jayne anne?

reply

September 7th, 2009 / 6:38 pm+!O0o(o)o0O!+—

Dellilo is god

reply

September 7th, 2009 / 12:03 am gene—

oh god. god oh. i’m fucking zooted. but still. man, fuck the whole fucking “stuff white people like” bullshit. fuckk fuc k fuck. fucking stupid.

the only name that i would add is juan goytisolo cuz dude is legit. but how can you talk about lackign in translations and then mention names like rushdie and morrison and wideman who all write in english.

pur dfw on that list man. fuck it. pale king is still on the frontier.

i’m korean. i don’t gives a f cuk about korean american writers. does this mean i haven’t pushed far enogh into my cultural inheritance?

my favorite writers are donald barthelme and dfw and gary lutz. does this mean i have white male fever?

fuck fuck ufukc

words is words motherfuckerssss. white people get so mad at other white people for not being culturally sensitive enough.

reply

September 7th, 2009 / 1:07 amsasha fletcher—

it’s called white guilt.

reply

September 7th, 2009 / 1:40 amBlake Butler—

its called people who bitch about racism by exclusion are racists, in that they see race as such a defining factor, whereas i just see people.

reply

September 7th, 2009 / 3:24 amMatthew Simmons—

Now, now.

I think if review the tape, you’ll see that Shya did not “bitch about racism by exclusion.” He pointed out something that is demonstrably true. Blake, your list has a lot of white people. Look at it.

Heck, so does mine. This may not be a good thing. This may not be a bad thing.

But it’s a thing. Let’s not forget that it IS a thing.

September 7th, 2009 / 12:33 am sasha fletcher—

am i the only person who doesn’t care about john ashberry?
i probably just don’t get it.
or i mean, i do not get it.

reply

September 7th, 2009 / 2:48 amMichael James—

i liked ashbery. then i hated ashbery. then i liked him again. then i wanted to blow my brains out because he seemed so… i dunno, i just couldnt live with myself anymore. then i really liked him. like, i wanted to do that thing he said another man did to him in that one poem from ‘a reflection in a convex mirror’ (if I got the title right. i probably didnt).

These days… I am still bouncing.

Towering?

Depends on the shoes he’s wearing….

reply

September 7th, 2009 / 4:02 pmRauan—

or the alcohol he’s drinking

reply

September 7th, 2009 / 1:09 am Ross Brighton—

Yeah – where are the poets? They write to. unless the list is fiction writers.
Susan Howe
Lyn Hejinian
Christian Bok (maybe)
Aase Berg?

Heiner Muller is dead – sigh

Obviously I have a bias toward the experimental…

reply

September 7th, 2009 / 2:30 pmMatt Cozart—

***ALICE NOTLEY***

reply

September 7th, 2009 / 2:33 pmMatt Cozart—

oh, and clark coolidge. i should stop now or this thread will never end.

reply

September 7th, 2009 / 1:23 am sasha fletcher—

james tate isn’t dead yet and that’s all i really need.

reply

September 7th, 2009 / 1:19 pmmike young—

you really need to read more ashbery than just self portrait

reply

September 7th, 2009 / 2:12 pmsasha fletcher—

I KNOW
I WILL
I PROMISE

reply

September 7th, 2009 / 2:25 pmMatt Cozart—

they’re both good. (and friends in real life to boot. (i always like it when i have the opportunity to say “to boot”.))

reply

September 8th, 2009 / 7:26 amdavid erlewine—

one should always revel in tossing out “to boot”

reply

September 7th, 2009 / 1:46 am Blake Butler—

all of those 15 people are fucking poets to the teeth

reply

September 7th, 2009 / 1:46 amBlake Butler—

that is, if you have to use the word poet

reply

September 7th, 2009 / 4:03 pmRauan—

violin time

reply

September 7th, 2009 / 4:03 pmRauan—

who are they fucking? who are they skull fucking? name them, Blake, name them

reply

September 7th, 2009 / 6:54 pmKen Baumann—

i think he means they (the 15) are poets

reply

September 7th, 2009 / 11:18 pmRauan—

i see.. god damn, i’m anal…. but i still want to know!

September 7th, 2009 / 1:55 am mark—

writers not yet mentioned who’d be on or near my list:

houellebecq
ishiguro
thom jones

reply

September 7th, 2009 / 10:23 ammark—

also, this one is stretching (compressing) the whole “towering” thing, since he’s only written one slim book so far, but I’d add hilton als. “the women” is easily one of the best and most ambitious american books of the last 20 or so years.

also: no big antrim fans here? i’ve haven’t read his first two books, but on the basis of “the verificationist” and “the afterlife” he might be a candidate for the list.

oh yeah, also maybe paula fox?

reply

September 7th, 2009 / 5:37 am Chris—

Just throwing these out there. Some More American Males For Your Consideration. Not saying they are necessarily on my list, if it was indeed a restrictive list:

Richard Powers
Eliot Weinberger (not fiction, but An Elemental Thing has become like a blanket I must carry with my nearly everywhere)
Richard Ford
EL Doctorow

I too would tip my hat to many of those mentioned above – Didion, Achebe, Aria

Oh yeah and:
Ngũgĩ wa Thiong’o
Javier Marias

reply

September 7th, 2009 / 10:53 am Tim Horvath—

To the list I might add Norman Rush and Paul West. Rush has only published two novels, although rumor has it that a third is on the way, and only 1 1/2 of them are stupendous, although there is a short story collection that is singular and reads like the slightly-less-ambitious child of the novels. Mating, I think, defines for me what “towering” ought to be–and it has little to do with influence and how many imitators get spawned. It has to do with how an author’s work demands to be reckoned with, aesthetically, thematically, linguistically, how utterly transformative that work is to receptive readers. With towering figures, there’s got to be the word and page count so that we can assess the scope of their work, but you can sample, too–on any given page the potential impact is visible. Rushdie counts because even in his failures the attempt is there. I’ve had moments where I couldn’t stand the Rushdie I was reading (eg. Shalimar), but you can look at his shitty stuff and say, “Okay, but from this same cloth you could get something like Midnight’s Children.” Of course, you’ve got to have the goods too in order to verify that.

reply

September 7th, 2009 / 1:51 pm Jonny Ross—

Richard Ford, maybe
Harry Crews, I guess
Martin Amis, probably
Paul Auster, I don’t know
Denis Johnson, personally
Zadie Smith, one day
Rudolph Wurlitzer, honorable mention (still going, still going)

reply

September 7th, 2009 / 3:29 pm Vaughan Simons—

I would have included John Menzies.
And possibly Richard Littlejohn.

reply

September 7th, 2009 / 5:09 pm Michael James—

I find it fascinating that it is overrated to be worried about race. I understand the dualities of that statement, though. It *is* overrated to worry about race, but one must worry about it until the troubles of racism (both purposeful and cultural aftershock) are dealt with. This list is heavily caucasian. Deal with it. Its true. I think I read somewhere how a book nominated for a Pulitzer was difficult to find in the fiction section of a Borders or Barnes and Noble because it was in the African-American literature section. Such things speak volumes. When these lists are usually compiled, unless it is compiled by an ethnicity under-represented, remains heavily one sided.

I think those who are not from those ethnic groups historically discriminated against have a greater chance of not realizing the deepness and psychological effects going on, not only in literature, but other facets of the art world.

reply

September 8th, 2009 / 12:24 pmmike—

agreed. i think it’s also really demonstrative of the hegemonic nature of the publishing industry. while it may not be an intentional “i like white male writers best” kind of thing, it certainly is (seemingly) easiest to get published if you’re a straight white male. even dennis occasionally ends up marginalized to the “GLBT Fiction” section of bookstores. Of course identifying a “gay writer” or a “black writer” over just a “writer” is a bad thing that feeds marginalization & the hegemonic normalcy of the publishing industry, but how do we know that there aren’t many more “great towering literary giants” that are black-american, that are european, that are asian, that are african, that are transgendered, that are gay; but the fact stands that in the same way experimental lit often gets overlooked (which is what started this whole argument to begin with, no?), writers that write about/to the marginalized “other” (in reference to the dominant SWM “ideology” that is running publishing), that will be dismissed, or thrown into (as mentioned) this ghettoized section that keeps it separated from the rest of the literary fiction. So while it may not “seem like a big deal” that all of your authors are straight & white (except for dennis– I think?), and the fact that you didn’t want to make a checklist, if the point of this is to prove the publishing industry wrong, then maybe there should be a checklist to follow.

reply

September 7th, 2009 / 6:58 pm ryan—

Kyle, re: Brady Udall, his new book is going to blow people away

reply

September 8th, 2009 / 7:36 amdavid erlewine—

Can’t wait for that one. Been a huge fan ever since “The Wig”.

reply

September 7th, 2009 / 8:04 pm matthew salesses—

ondaatje

reply

September 8th, 2009 / 3:44 am Landon—

Lydia Davis

reply

September 8th, 2009 / 8:59 am “If you love Beckett, Joyce, Stein, Faulkner, why in the name of god are you publishing Jonathan Franzen???? « Pop Serial—

[...] read or imitated like the others. Htmlgiant then built on his first post with this post on 15 Towering Artists Who Are Still Alive. Posted by desario71 Filed in James Joyce, Literature Leave a Comment [...]

September 8th, 2009 / 12:51 pm mike—

let’s try a list here (following blake’s rules):

-Dennis Cooper (obviously)
-Pierre Guyotat (though only 2.5 are available in English, plus a handful of shorter works in Semiotext(e) “anthologies”, I think ignoring him is a prime sin)
-Thomas Ligotti (his early work pales in comparison to his later work, but that’s the sign of a good author, right?)
-Peter Sotos (similar to Guyotat, the sheer visceral nature of his writing is the future in the present)
-Los Bros Hernandez (I have zero problems including comix with novels)
-John Ashbery
-Peter Handke
-Joan Didion
-Ngugi (a case where the “checklist” approach is, I think, important)
-Samuel Delany (Phallos is pretty excellent too)
-Alice Notley (though I’m under-read regarding her, what I have read is certainly mind-blowing)
-Camille Roy (only 2 “real” books published, but I feel confident in assuming she has at least 8 books including chapbooks/small press/self-published stuff that I’m unaware of, evidence of the point i made above)
-Shintaro Kago or Suehiro Maruo (Maruo is basically the second half of the 20th century’s approximation of Bataille w/r/t beautifully destructive prose, and his art complements it beautifully. Kago’s language itself is nothing particularly special, but his narratives and his formal experimentation combined with his art makes him fit the bill)

I guess I can’t hit 15. Most of my favorite-favorite authors are dead other than Dennis.

reply

September 9th, 2009 / 12:18 am Jason—

I think a writer to keep an eye on in the future is Stephen Graham Jones. He’s written some mindblowing books and he’s just in his mid-30’s.

reply

September 9th, 2009 / 3:55 pm HTMLGIANT / 15 Rich-Ass Authors I’ve Suddenly Decided To Like—

[...] really enjoyed reading Blake Butler’s list of “15 Towering Literary Figures,” and Christopher Higgs’ list of “15 Significant Contemporary Women Writers.” Both were [...]

September 9th, 2009 / 4:34 pm Brandon—

I’d also be interested in playing a sort of guessing game. This list features, naturally, older people who have a serious body of work. But which younger authors today might we one day consider heavyweights? I’d be curious to see a list like this.

reply

September 10th, 2009 / 10:49 am My Favorite Lit-Blog Things: September 10, 2009 « Hungry Like the Woolf—

[...] week’s list: 15 Towering Literary Artists who are still alive. Leave weapons at the door. (Via The Elegant [...]

September 16th, 2009 / 11:08 am Midweek Pick-Me-Up | Lit Drift: Storytelling in the 21st Century—

[...] response to HTMLGIANT’s Blake Butler’s list of “15 Towering Literary Figures” and Christopher Higgs’ list of “15 Significant Contemporary Women Writers,” [...]

October 7th, 2009 / 12:34 pm HTMLGIANT / 15 x 15—

[...] too long ago I posted a list of 15 literary artists who personally and historically seem important. Most of them have published 8 books or more, most [...]

October 7th, 2009 / 3:55 pm Jacob S. Knabb—

It’s my first time posting here, so be gentle (unless of course it turns out that I like it RAWWWW…), but I have a few thoughts after reading all of this great stuff:

Excluding Denis Johnson seems foolhardy. He has indeed written some crappy novels, (*Fiskadoro* anyone?) but that is counterbalanced wonderfully by the amazing poetry and shockingly good plays. *Jesus’ Son*, to my mind at least, really is everything it’s cracked up to be. Coming from a small, drug addled town in WV, I haven’t seen the kind of desperation I know to be true in that many books. That Johnson can do quite a bit more than that in such compact prose is impressive. He should be on the list.

If only Laxness was alive. He was, however, the oldest ever Nobel Laureate at the time of his death, and still is to this day – fucker knew how to *live*. And dammit if Naguib Mahfouz didn’t have to go and die too…

I’d like to second the suggestion of Amiri Baraka – his plays are powerful stuff and he is also so important wrt politics and history and music: I mean isn’t he the very definition of a giant? He’ll likely be remembered long past folks like Hannah (who I do indeed love quite a lot) due to this.

Harry Crews should also probably make the grade here, as there honestly aren’t that many folks doing what he has been doing. And he does it well. Plus, he is able to be a literary writer and maintain a level of humor (which is not always easy to do).

I wish Stanley Elkin were still alive and writing books… :-(

Alice Munro is a must. Whoever it was that made the snarky comment upthread about stacking her books and, ‘well, them’s pretty tall, derrrr’… You’re an ass. Munro is indeed every bit the giant she is made out to be, and there’s a reason that she is such an obvious modern analogue for Chekhov.

I saw Tony Morrison give a reading while I was at Purdue doing my MFA a few years back and I have never been in the presence of a writer with a more resonant voice and a contained power. When she talked it was electric. Hairs on necks standing at attention. She has to go on here, even if her later work is fast-fading. The first 2/3s of her books are just the bee’s knees.

I would say that E. L. Doctorow is also a true giant: if only for *Book of Daniel* and *Ragtime* alone (but then you start to dig into the short stories and books like *Billy Bathgate* and it’s just hard to deny how good he is).

I’d add John Barth, only for *Giles Goatboy*. I know that outs me as a total weirdo, but that is a funny fucking book and rather brilliantly conceived as well. And kudos to Barth for making his villain in that tome a man in a raincoat, balding, who smells vaguely of feces and then including an author photo that basically is only missing the odor of arse… Besides, *Floating Opera* is so spectacular.

Eugenides anyone? I suppose he needs to write another book or two, but damn if he hasn’t already written two that can stand alongside any of his peers.

Moody is overrated to me. He can’t end things well, and his books are, for me at least, more fun to talk about than to read. I did enjoy *Demonology*, though.

I’d be remiss if I didn’t throw Edward Albee into this discussion. He is a playwright and only a playwright, and this seems to be more geared towards prose writers, but he’s such an awesome playwright and had been able to keep writing amazing work despite his early success. He could’ve flamed out (that was a hoary pun, apologies please) after *Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf?* but he didn’t.

Anyway, I know your first time is supposed to be quick and awkward and a thing to be gotten through above all else, so I will shut the hell up at this point, as I am fearful of running on too long here. Excellent thread, though. Much more enjoyable than the grading I should be doing at this moment.

reply