August 7th, 2010 / 9:37 am
Snippets
Snippets
Alexis Orgera—
I haven’t even read this yet. But look who made it onto the list—
The 15 Most Overrated Contemporary American Writers
Wow—okay, I just read it. I’m filled with joy at the sheer ballsiness of this article—whether or not I agree with its methods or conclusions. What do you think?
On Antonya Nelson: “An MFA leader, Bread Loaf luminary, and constant conference-hopper (you name it, she’s teaching there), she’s spawned a whole pantheon of ‘realist’ short story writers obsessed with dysfunction: Maile Meloy, Jean Thompson, and most recently the absurdly lauded Wells Tower.”
That’s the least specific attack on someone’s writing I’ve seen in awhile. Is that a critique of Nelson’s writing (obviously not) or a shot at dirty realism and the proliferation of MFA programs? The article reads as if Shivani just wanted to blast writers who represent his least favorite aesthetics/publishing trends.
It’s ballsy, but kind of mean spirited and useless. Why do so many writers feel the need to take others down in order to build themselves up? This isn’t thoughtful debate.
I didn’t stop reading, but I stopped caring after “moral core.”
“If we don’t understand bad writing, we can’t understand good writing. Bad writing is characterized by obfuscation, showboating, narcissism, lack of a moral core, and style over substance. Good writing is exactly the opposite. Bad writing draws attention to the writer himself.”
Is Anis Shivani supposed to be describing instruction manuals or literature? He seems genuinely confused. What on earth does “substance” have to do with art? It seems like he would rather Spark Notes replace books — I mean, if clarity and substance is the most important thing about a work of literature, then we shouldn’t waste our time reading the books, we should just read the distilled substance. Forget Shakespeare’s virtuoso use of language, his “obfuscation, showboating, narcissism” — what is most important is the substance, the story. We can get that from Spark Notes.
God, what an idiotic position! And to make matters even worse, just when we think John Gardner is dead, someone like Shivani shows up to resurrect the ghost of moral imperatives. I halfway think he’s kidding, to make such obviously preposterous claims.
The only thing he seems to get right in that article is at the end when he admits that he’s the biggest fool of all. That’s pretty apparent. Can’t wait to see who he considers the most underrated American writers today!
Attacking the already more than well established is not ballsy at all. Saying that Billy fucking Collins is overrated is old as fuck hat and the introductory part of the essay sounds like it was written in an Attacking Contemporary Authors Mad-libs.
Fucking ridiculous. He follows-up the standard rant against MFA programs with — wait for it — William Vollmann, an untrendy maximallist who decided to risk death in Afghanistan rather than enroll in an MFA. Then he follows that with a complete misreading of his work. (Pretty telling the sample sentence was the *first one* from his most recent work of fiction).
Then, what, he argues against MFA conformity by listing…several different types of writers.
Great to find someone with an opinion. Too bad his is just so incoherent.
I actually don’t think it’s very ballsy at all, at this point in time, to put down anything and everything related to contemporary literature. The big prizes are bogus, academia is full of nonsensical theory and uninterested in literature, MFA programs breed imitation and mediocrity, John Ashbery has lost it, Billy Collins is a joke, Jonathan Safran Froer is overrated — how many of those claims have we not heard a million times before? At this point, for the Huffington Post’s readership, it’s probably just validating them in their decision to never read anything at all.
What will be really ballsy is the underrated writers list, assuming that he’s actually going to tell his audience that there are things out there that are actually worth reading.
I’m pro both substance and style. I think that’s what maintains Shakespeare’s relevance today. I think there’s way too much being published that is all style and no substance, or conversely, all substance and no style. I don’t mean substance as in plot (this much ought to be clear about my tastes by now: I’m in no way pro-plot; I’m pro-narrative, which can easily be done without plot).
And I’m all about obfuscation, showboating, and narcissism. To do those three things well is to write a damn fine book, as long as style and substance aren’t sacrificed along the way.
And what does morality have to do with any of this? Is Shivani suggesting we ought to go back to morality tales?
Academia is full of nonsensical theory — it just hasn’t ( and probably can’t) suck the life out of literature.
Really interesting point: “I’m in no way pro-plot; I’m pro-narrative, which can easily be done without plot”. Can you talk a little more about this and what you see as the differences between the two?
To me (and this is just my opinion, it has nothing to do with official definitions): Plot is what happens. Narrative is development. Development does not necessarily move the plot along. I come from a music background, so I think of development more in terms of the development of a theme in a quartet or a symphony or a sonata than the happening of stuff. Does that make any sense?
You’d think that Shivani would at least mention William Gass since he’s stolen half his talking points from “Pulitizer: The People’s Prize.”
Would love to see an example of what’s meant by “nonsensical theory.”
Sounds like an empty jacket.
Schizophrenia is caused by unresolved homosexuality. Scientists are biased against water because it’s curvy, like women. Women are not curvy; there are no women. A person’s ‘sex’ is an illusion caused by talking. (How many do you need?)
Lily,
“Way too much being published that is all style and no substance, or conversely, all substance and no style.”
Can you give a few examples, more to the all-style-no-substance end of things?
A good list.
Mind linking each of these blank statements to theorists/movements for some context?
Sure, let me link you Lacan’s blog, hang on a sec…
Ha. Kidding. Srsly, tho: you’ve encountered none of those? I’m on a cell phone, but if you just want just like a quick peek at some hilarity, look up Sokal’s book Fashionable Nonsense on Amazon. The Look Inside feature should be of use.
What I find most odd, though, is usually not any individual wacky idea, but the overwhelming acceptance of *every* wacky idea — especially because so many contrafict each other (ex: professors who embrace both Cixous and Judith Butler).
Wizardry. Wackiness.
That would assume that Shivani knew what he was doing, or had an actual plan other than something besides being spiteful and complaining and picking more or less safe targets for his attempt at scorn.
Postmodern feminist critiques of science are awesome when read as fiction, though they present a logical dilemma of being fundamentally essentialist while denouncing essentialism. Fun stuff. I’m still waiting for anarcho-primitivist literary criticism.
Completely. That’s a good way to think about it. I’ve been troubled by the way “plot” has become a dirty word in literary circles, but maybe “narrative” is a better way to think of it.
I’m intrigued by your ideas and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.
Underrated Writers List:
1) Harold Brodkey (who suffers posthumously from having starred on most secret overrated-writers-lists while he lived); pioneer of the avant garde magazine essay
2) Joan Didion: our Dickens; a toweringly-mordant intelligence overshadowed by Tom Wolfe’s venal white ice cream suit and BEE’s materialism and youth. Fearless.
3) Harlan Ellison: co-parent of American Postmodernism
4) Victor Pritchett: Victor *who*? The master of the unresolved.
5) Bruce Chatwin: the Gay snobby young British sex-tourist Calvino
6) John Gardner: if only for Grendel
7) John Lilly: the Jules Verne of hipster headspace
8) Paul Bowles: shows up Hemingway as a melodramatic sissy and Stein as a celebrity-sucking charlatan (the Blavatsky of letters); WSB’s Yoda.
9) Charles Forte: 19th-century visionary proto-paranoiac of impeccably ironical style
10) Zelda Fitzgerald: her letters were better than Scotty’s stories
11) Stanley Kubrick-the-author: re-wrote and improved Terry Southern, Anthony Burgess, Arthur C. Clarke, Vladimir Nabokov… et al.
http://www.elsewhere.org/pomo/
I stopped reading when I saw it was a slide show. Does this dude actually list who he thinks are good writers? Because the buffoons who whine about mfas and such tend to end up laudong laughable writers
Lauding… stupid phone
I have (I’m enduring my doctoral exams in a few weeks), but I was curious to see how you’d define those in relation to the field. Just feels like a generic argument w/o specifics. I think you’re assuming that if I knew of these things I’d agree with your position. Re: Sokal: looks interesting, but the chapter on Lacan is kind of cherry-picking late Lacan to talk about/dismiss all of Lacan . . . seems a bit easy. Sokal’s point seems to have more to do with the misuse of scientific/mathematical principles than it does regarding the body of the theorist’s work as a whole . . . I think what’s frustrating here is the same thing that’s frustrating about Shivani, and that’s that his premise is polemical to begin with. It’s simply too broad/sweeping to be incisive and so feels tossed off in a way that belies the author’s seeming passion about the subject. Just more polemics/talk of crisis/bemoaning lack of value. Feels the same here: re: “overwhelming acceptance of *every* wacky idea,” “Academia is full of nonsensical theory.” So what: what does it mean really? I’m trying to get at what you mean to imply that academia (I’m talking specifically about Lit here) should be.
You know that’s randomly generated right? Wondering if you were hoping I’d read that garbage and come back here claiming to have understood it . . .
How can you complain about obfuscation and showboating then laud faulkner or attack narcissism and then praise henry miller?
Also, other than diaz and a few others I’m not sure how “rated” most of those authors are in 2010…
I don’t think the Huffington Post has a right to criticize any writing or writers until they start paying the writers for the content that drives their blog.
It wasn’t aimed at you, you ignorant git… it was in response to Pem’s Alan Sokal ref.
bam!
Ah, misread. A simple mistake. His is a response to my question. Assumed you were providing an example as well.
Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darüber muß man bullshit.
I appreciate you helping me, re: my ignorant git-ishness. I love your website, btw.
5 points for the one thing, -5 for the other
In response to the poster above, I was merely agreeing (with the article writer) that there are some very nonsensical ideas embraced by the humanities. And noting (to you) the illogic that results by embracing any number of competing world views huddled under the umbrella of ‘Theory’. (And, as a tiny example, I listed Cixous and Butler, two popular, but apparently incompatible, thinkers). That’s all. What literary studies *should* be sounds like an awfully big discussion!
As far as Sokal goes, please — check it out! Or at least read about his hoax. Really eye-opening stuff that hits on a lot of issues. (Actually, his book is pretty specific, addressing only the misuse of scientific terms by various darlings of the humanities. It merely points out the meaningless of say, Lacan’s statement that a hard penis of the unconscious is a -1, etc. — it does not try to make sense of or discredit Lacan’s thinking as a whole [though it does expose him as somewhat of a charlatan]).
And…I’m lost again. And again, I blame my tiny screen. I’m sure I do have a position; however, the only position I meant to advance here is that, yes, there *is* a healthy dose of nonsense to be found in English departments. (Though really, I expected your most poignant examples to be personal, anecdotal, like my own).
Thank you, too, for the Wittgenstein. I should have remembered that before I opened my stupid mouth (being stupid, it’s easy to forget how stupid I am). In fact, I actually forgot to remind myself of how stupid I am this morning. And of course I end up here. PS. Will you take my exams for me?
How much cash (in Euros) on you…?
i haven’t read vollmann, only heard lots of things about him, so i have no opinion on this guy’s opinion of him, but that’s a thorough hatchet job, hehe…
I agree about the mean-spiritedness. He makes some interesting points and, yes, some of the authors he disses are overrated, but his criticism is more adolescent than literary. One is reminded of Leon Bloy’s famous comment: “This is what happens when a burst of righteous indignation passes through the mouth of a sewer.”
On Antonya Nelson: “An MFA leader, Bread Loaf luminary, and constant conference-hopper (you name it, she’s teaching there), she’s spawned a whole pantheon of ‘realist’ short story writers obsessed with dysfunction: Maile Meloy, Jean Thompson, and most recently the absurdly lauded Wells Tower.”
That’s the least specific attack on someone’s writing I’ve seen in awhile. Is that a critique of Nelson’s writing (obviously not) or a shot at dirty realism and the proliferation of MFA programs? The article reads as if Shivani just wanted to blast writers who represent his least favorite aesthetics/publishing trends.
It’s ballsy, but kind of mean spirited and useless. Why do so many writers feel the need to take others down in order to build themselves up? This isn’t thoughtful debate.
Sokal’s hoax was cute and clever (and dishonest as hell), but what ruins it is that Sokal is such a self-righteous prick. I imagine that he’s the type to turn on the sprinklers when kids walk across his lawn. Why is he so insecure that he needs to try and make fools of other unsuspecting people.
I didn’t stop reading, but I stopped caring after “moral core.”
“If we don’t understand bad writing, we can’t understand good writing. Bad writing is characterized by obfuscation, showboating, narcissism, lack of a moral core, and style over substance. Good writing is exactly the opposite. Bad writing draws attention to the writer himself.”
Is Anis Shivani supposed to be describing instruction manuals or literature? He seems genuinely confused. What on earth does “substance” have to do with art? It seems like he would rather Spark Notes replace books — I mean, if clarity and substance is the most important thing about a work of literature, then we shouldn’t waste our time reading the books, we should just read the distilled substance. Forget Shakespeare’s virtuoso use of language, his “obfuscation, showboating, narcissism” — what is most important is the substance, the story. We can get that from Spark Notes.
God, what an idiotic position! And to make matters even worse, just when we think John Gardner is dead, someone like Shivani shows up to resurrect the ghost of moral imperatives. I halfway think he’s kidding, to make such obviously preposterous claims.
The only thing he seems to get right in that article is at the end when he admits that he’s the biggest fool of all. That’s pretty apparent. Can’t wait to see who he considers the most underrated American writers today!
Attacking the already more than well established is not ballsy at all. Saying that Billy fucking Collins is overrated is old as fuck hat and the introductory part of the essay sounds like it was written in an Attacking Contemporary Authors Mad-libs.
Fucking ridiculous. He follows-up the standard rant against MFA programs with — wait for it — William Vollmann, an untrendy maximallist who decided to risk death in Afghanistan rather than enroll in an MFA. Then he follows that with a complete misreading of his work. (Pretty telling the sample sentence was the *first one* from his most recent work of fiction).
Then, what, he argues against MFA conformity by listing…several different types of writers.
Great to find someone with an opinion. Too bad his is just so incoherent.
The Sokal Affair and the book Fashionable Nonsense impresses nothing on me, except that a certain, bitter So-Kalled somebody from an entirely different academic field totally misunderstands the way literary criticism and cultural theory works. It is indeed no contradiction to ’embrace’ as Pemulis puts it Butler and Cixous because there is no question in literary theory as I see it that you need to tag your bluetac to one wall. you can read, appreciate, embrace, hell go the whole hog with Butler and Cixous without having to panic that you are contradicting yourself one bit, though perhaps it’d be better to tease out the points where contradictions slacken of into interesting paradox. It is also perfectly legit in my view, in cultural theory, to put forward a position based on what literal minded scientists might call flawed mathematics: in cultural and lit theory, things are taken to be just that- theory. And, Sokal’s book is cherry-picked beyond belief, wilfully misreading thinkers at every turn.
I actually don’t think it’s very ballsy at all, at this point in time, to put down anything and everything related to contemporary literature. The big prizes are bogus, academia is full of nonsensical theory and uninterested in literature, MFA programs breed imitation and mediocrity, John Ashbery has lost it, Billy Collins is a joke, Jonathan Safran Froer is overrated — how many of those claims have we not heard a million times before? At this point, for the Huffington Post’s readership, it’s probably just validating them in their decision to never read anything at all.
What will be really ballsy is the underrated writers list, assuming that he’s actually going to tell his audience that there are things out there that are actually worth reading.
I’m pro both substance and style. I think that’s what maintains Shakespeare’s relevance today. I think there’s way too much being published that is all style and no substance, or conversely, all substance and no style. I don’t mean substance as in plot (this much ought to be clear about my tastes by now: I’m in no way pro-plot; I’m pro-narrative, which can easily be done without plot).
And I’m all about obfuscation, showboating, and narcissism. To do those three things well is to write a damn fine book, as long as style and substance aren’t sacrificed along the way.
And what does morality have to do with any of this? Is Shivani suggesting we ought to go back to morality tales?
Academia is full of nonsensical theory — it just hasn’t ( and probably can’t) suck the life out of literature.
Really interesting point: “I’m in no way pro-plot; I’m pro-narrative, which can easily be done without plot”. Can you talk a little more about this and what you see as the differences between the two?
To me (and this is just my opinion, it has nothing to do with official definitions): Plot is what happens. Narrative is development. Development does not necessarily move the plot along. I come from a music background, so I think of development more in terms of the development of a theme in a quartet or a symphony or a sonata than the happening of stuff. Does that make any sense?
tell em y u mad sun
u mad
vollman is right; he will win the nobel prize. soon.
and i’m glad someone had the balls to point out that junot diaz sucks, because he does.
Vollmann… Ridiculous.
Oh, and Nabokov wrote the screenplay for Lolita, not Kubrick.
You’d think that Shivani would at least mention William Gass since he’s stolen half his talking points from “Pulitizer: The People’s Prize.”
Would love to see an example of what’s meant by “nonsensical theory.”
Sounds like an empty jacket.
Schizophrenia is caused by unresolved homosexuality. Scientists are biased against water because it’s curvy, like women. Women are not curvy; there are no women. A person’s ‘sex’ is an illusion caused by talking. (How many do you need?)
Lily,
“Way too much being published that is all style and no substance, or conversely, all substance and no style.”
Can you give a few examples, more to the all-style-no-substance end of things?
A good list.
Mind linking each of these blank statements to theorists/movements for some context?
Nabokov’s version wasn’t used (about which situation Nabokov himself later joked)
tell em y what- the last part, about Sokal and Bricmont wilfully misreading thinkers? I think the whole thing is a willful misread because Lacan etc are writing theoretically, in many cases imaginatively and metaphorically. Irigaray, for example, can perfectly legitimately write that E=MC squared is a Masculinist equation without needing to defend that against any strict Scientific justification. I’m not particularly expert on all of this, and I don’t have the book to hand, but when I did read it, their petty objections to theoretical assertions like that one of Irigaray’s felt completely alien to what I find important in those thinkers’ work. Point-scoring, it felt like.
Some theorists are better than others; some critics make better use of theory than others — of course both those things are as subjective as anything. But, based on my experience nearly getting a PhD, the image of academia as ruled by theory is about 10 years out of date anyway. Now it’s all about historicism. And even at the height of theory, there were plenty of people inside the academy attacking it as vigorously as anyone.
Sure, let me link you Lacan’s blog, hang on a sec…
Ha. Kidding. Srsly, tho: you’ve encountered none of those? I’m on a cell phone, but if you just want just like a quick peek at some hilarity, look up Sokal’s book Fashionable Nonsense on Amazon. The Look Inside feature should be of use.
What I find most odd, though, is usually not any individual wacky idea, but the overwhelming acceptance of *every* wacky idea — especially because so many contrafict each other (ex: professors who embrace both Cixous and Judith Butler).
Wizardry. Wackiness.
That would assume that Shivani knew what he was doing, or had an actual plan other than something besides being spiteful and complaining and picking more or less safe targets for his attempt at scorn.
Postmodern feminist critiques of science are awesome when read as fiction, though they present a logical dilemma of being fundamentally essentialist while denouncing essentialism. Fun stuff. I’m still waiting for anarcho-primitivist literary criticism.
Completely. That’s a good way to think about it. I’ve been troubled by the way “plot” has become a dirty word in literary circles, but maybe “narrative” is a better way to think of it.
I’m intrigued by your ideas and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.
Sorry, Colin, but that’s ridiculous. If you champion, simultaneously, the view that there is no objective reality other than what’s created through people chatting, *and* the view that there is, then your cultural theory doesn’t work at all. Apparently, the only lines you draw are about who’s in the field and who’s not.
Also, when *the* big cultural studies journal published his string of pure gibberish, Sokal proved he knew very well how cultural theory ‘works’.
Colin,
What did you find important in their work? Why are theoretical assertions important?
My point was that you needn’t champion either in a way that makes it contradictory to the other, to read and ’embrace’ both in a meaningful way.
No he didn’t prove anything of the kind. If he had understood cultural theory, in my view he would realize that whether or not a cultural theory paper stands up to mathematical or scientific scrutiny is while perhaps mildly interesting, not the major point on which the validity of that paper stands. A cultural theory paper stands depending on whether it is any use in the way the publishers of the journal and its readers understand society, their world etc etc.
He proved he was good at hoodwinking and could mimic a certain tone etc.
Underrated Writers List:
1) Harold Brodkey (who suffers posthumously from having starred on most secret overrated-writers-lists while he lived); pioneer of the avant garde magazine essay
2) Joan Didion: our Dickens; a toweringly-mordant intelligence overshadowed by Tom Wolfe’s venal white ice cream suit and BEE’s materialism and youth. Fearless.
3) Harlan Ellison: co-parent of American Postmodernism
4) Victor Pritchett: Victor *who*? The master of the unresolved.
5) Bruce Chatwin: the Gay snobby young British sex-tourist Calvino
6) John Gardner: if only for Grendel
7) John Lilly: the Jules Verne of hipster headspace
8) Paul Bowles: shows up Hemingway as a melodramatic sissy and Stein as a celebrity-sucking charlatan (the Blavatsky of letters); WSB’s Yoda.
9) Charles Forte: 19th-century visionary proto-paranoiac of impeccably ironical style
10) Zelda Fitzgerald: her letters were better than Scotty’s stories
11) Stanley Kubrick-the-author: re-wrote and improved Terry Southern, Anthony Burgess, Arthur C. Clarke, Vladimir Nabokov… et al.
http://www.elsewhere.org/pomo/
I stopped reading when I saw it was a slide show. Does this dude actually list who he thinks are good writers? Because the buffoons who whine about mfas and such tend to end up laudong laughable writers
Why do people write this kind of stuff? I think she’s wrong on Graham, Gluck, and probably Vendler (though I haven’t read enough of her stuff yet to be sure.) She is massively wrong on Vollmann and Ashbery. Ashbery is a stone-cold lock for literary immortality, and I’m starting to think that, in the long view, Vollmann’s work will hold the kind of critical acclaim that DFW’s does now, and that history may wipe away most of DFW’s stuff, or at least relegate to the status of someone like Berryman. (Which, btw, favorably comparing Berryman to Ashbery is a total joke. And I even sort of like Berryman.)
But regardless, the article reads like the screed of someone with many many personal vendettas. I honestly don’t get why a person would write this. It’s like w/ Dale Peck. If you wanted to personally attack someone, why not just write them a letter that says, Fuck You?
Lauding… stupid phone
It wasn’t (just) about the science not adding up; it was about the intellectual bankruptcy of the entire endeavor. Nothing they published underwent any scrutiny; they didn’t even understand *what* they published. As long it sounded PC and ‘questioning’, it was A-OK.
Also — and I swear, I’m not just trying to be rude — I don’t get the value or purpose of trying to accept (in spirit, I guess, though that, too, is problematic) such diverse and opposing theories of reality — and then, of course, applying them to fictional narratives as if they were reality (which in some views, doesn’t exist). It’s like, Oh, OK, only capitalism causes schizophrenia, but then again, only homosexuality causes schizophrenia. And those are both OK, we love them both. But the minute that old stodgy scientist steps in with his ’empiricism’ and ‘reality’ and says, Hey, it’s not capitalism, it’s this…we’re supposed to be like, Fuck you?
:-/
I have (I’m enduring my doctoral exams in a few weeks), but I was curious to see how you’d define those in relation to the field. Just feels like a generic argument w/o specifics. I think you’re assuming that if I knew of these things I’d agree with your position. Re: Sokal: looks interesting, but the chapter on Lacan is kind of cherry-picking late Lacan to talk about/dismiss all of Lacan . . . seems a bit easy. Sokal’s point seems to have more to do with the misuse of scientific/mathematical principles than it does regarding the body of the theorist’s work as a whole . . . I think what’s frustrating here is the same thing that’s frustrating about Shivani, and that’s that his premise is polemical to begin with. It’s simply too broad/sweeping to be incisive and so feels tossed off in a way that belies the author’s seeming passion about the subject. Just more polemics/talk of crisis/bemoaning lack of value. Feels the same here: re: “overwhelming acceptance of *every* wacky idea,” “Academia is full of nonsensical theory.” So what: what does it mean really? I’m trying to get at what you mean to imply that academia (I’m talking specifically about Lit here) should be.
hi d. For me, theoretical assertions are important because they stretch thinking beyond what can be posited on a strictly scientifically provable rigorous sense-basis. I think this guy (John Sturrock, writing in the LRB, says it better than me, but close to what I think):
“I find all this weirdly heavy-handed and alarmist. Sokal and Bricmont have gone about damming the tidal flow of irrationality into intellectual life in an all-or-nothing manner sure to go down well with those theory-haters who long to hear bad things about such as Lacan or Kristeva, but it will be counter-productive among the broader-minded, who believe that the more styles of intellectual discourse cultures find the room and time for the healthier. There is an instructive symmetry between Sokal and Bricmont’s way of proceeding and the one they so much object to: where the impostors like to inlay bits and pieces from the discourse of science in writings that no one would think of calling ‘scientific’ in the strict sense in which Sokal and Bricmont are using the word, the latter apply criteria of rigour and univocity fundamental to their own practice which are beside the point once transferred to this alien context. I’ve read only a little of the work of the feminist writer, Luce Irigaray, but I was delighted to learn, from the few briskly contemptuous pages devoted to her here, that, in arguing for the masculinist bias of science, she has had the estimable insolence to suggest that the 20th century’s most resonant (and sinister) equation, E = MC2, may be sexist for having ‘privileged the speed of light’ or ‘what goes fastest’ over other velocities, and that if the science of fluid mechanics is under-developed, then that is because it is a quintessentially feminine topic. Irigaray’s invocations of the sciences concerned may be worse than dodgy, but in that libertarian province of the intellectual world in which she functions, far better wild and contentious theses of this sort than the stultifying rigour so inappropriately demanded by Sokal and Bricmont.”
No, you simply say to the scientist, ah, ok, so, according to your research schizophrenia is caused by this. I still find it useful to read Jameson and consider the relation of capitalism to schizophrenia, you have in no way invalidated his writings..
You know that’s randomly generated right? Wondering if you were hoping I’d read that garbage and come back here claiming to have understood it . . .
How can you complain about obfuscation and showboating then laud faulkner or attack narcissism and then praise henry miller?
Also, other than diaz and a few others I’m not sure how “rated” most of those authors are in 2010…
too busy to be mad. u mad.
I don’t think the Huffington Post has a right to criticize any writing or writers until they start paying the writers for the content that drives their blog.
It wasn’t aimed at you, you ignorant git… it was in response to Pem’s Alan Sokal ref.
Hi, Pemulis – I get where you’re coming from, but I think you’re setting up a strawman ‘English Department’ – I’m not saying there aren’t theorists who have come up with whacky ideas, but my experience is that despite how you’re characterizing academics, most of the ones I’ve dealt with (most, not all) are thinking human beings, not automatons who mindlessly absorb and believe every theoretical text they read. Sure, Lacan had some nutty ideas, but he also has some compelling ideas. Does that mean he was ‘right’? Does he have to be? You might not like Butler, but what about Silverman, Mulvey, Irigaray, Sedgewick? Just because you’ve heard some goofy ideas come from some theorists doesn’t mean it’s all bullshit or that all academics readily embrace all of it. I know lots of academics who are interested in responding to texts through close reading, without bringing theory it the table, maybe more so than not, and I don’t know many academics at this point who adhere to one ‘school’ of theory. I’m only speaking from one point-of-view, but I’m not sure your stereotype is valid at this point. Lit theory isn’t meant to be a blanket with which to smother a text – they’re just other texts. Some texts are more useful than other texts – I’m not sure why you would expect all theory to be good, just as you wouldn’t expect all fiction to be good.
I mean, we could make the same arguments for alchemy or witchcraft. It’s just that alchemy and witchcraft aren’t en vogue right now… = this ‘inclusive’ approach really isn’t all that inclusive…the Jameson witchcraft just happens to blame what we already accept is to blame: capitalism, Truth, men, oh noes!
I see your point, though, about metaphorical comfort. It an affirmation of your balues. In this way, with objective reality/empiricism against it, etc., it is much more like a religious belief.
bam!
@Matt K: yes, I hear you. In my personal schooling exp., theory sort of crowded out everything else, which was a major bummer. Less close reading, less how does this work, and more, How is this sexist? …sigh. It taints my view! (And haunts my wallet).
Ah, misread. A simple mistake. His is a response to my question. Assumed you were providing an example as well.
Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darüber muß man bullshit.
I appreciate you helping me, re: my ignorant git-ishness. I love your website, btw.
5 points for the one thing, -5 for the other
In response to the poster above, I was merely agreeing (with the article writer) that there are some very nonsensical ideas embraced by the humanities. And noting (to you) the illogic that results by embracing any number of competing world views huddled under the umbrella of ‘Theory’. (And, as a tiny example, I listed Cixous and Butler, two popular, but apparently incompatible, thinkers). That’s all. What literary studies *should* be sounds like an awfully big discussion!
As far as Sokal goes, please — check it out! Or at least read about his hoax. Really eye-opening stuff that hits on a lot of issues. (Actually, his book is pretty specific, addressing only the misuse of scientific terms by various darlings of the humanities. It merely points out the meaningless of say, Lacan’s statement that a hard penis of the unconscious is a -1, etc. — it does not try to make sense of or discredit Lacan’s thinking as a whole [though it does expose him as somewhat of a charlatan]).
And…I’m lost again. And again, I blame my tiny screen. I’m sure I do have a position; however, the only position I meant to advance here is that, yes, there *is* a healthy dose of nonsense to be found in English departments. (Though really, I expected your most poignant examples to be personal, anecdotal, like my own).
Thank you, too, for the Wittgenstein. I should have remembered that before I opened my stupid mouth (being stupid, it’s easy to forget how stupid I am). In fact, I actually forgot to remind myself of how stupid I am this morning. And of course I end up here. PS. Will you take my exams for me?
How much cash (in Euros) on you…?
It makes me giddy to hear social/cultural/literary theory likened to religious belief.
me too. for the sake of clarification, the point i’m alleged to have made here and which Pemulis sees is 100 % different to my experience reading theory. I find it incredibly difficult and challenging to my beliefs and not at all comforting.
i haven’t read vollmann, only heard lots of things about him, so i have no opinion on this guy’s opinion of him, but that’s a thorough hatchet job, hehe…
“often”, that is. i find theory often difficult and challenging etc…
“Hermeneutics”, anyone… ?
She?
Sokal’s sprinkler actually undoes the binary wet/dry.
I agree about the mean-spiritedness. He makes some interesting points and, yes, some of the authors he disses are overrated, but his criticism is more adolescent than literary. One is reminded of Leon Bloy’s famous comment: “This is what happens when a burst of righteous indignation passes through the mouth of a sewer.”
Really? Why? You agree with Shivani that Diaz has no sense of rhythm? Is purely obsessed with the sexual exploits of his characters? I’ve only read Drown but that seems like a caricature so skewed as to make me question whether it was April 1st.
Sokal’s hoax was cute and clever (and dishonest as hell), but what ruins it is that Sokal is such a self-righteous prick. I imagine that he’s the type to turn on the sprinklers when kids walk across his lawn. Why is he so insecure that he needs to try and make fools of other unsuspecting people.
Criticism, when done well, is a fine thing, but mockery veiled as criticism is boring, particularly when the targets and the commentary are so unoriginal, that’s very difficult to take seriously.
Also, Amy Tan is the SHIT. That’s fancy talk for, amazing.
Deleuze, Sartre, Badiou, Merleau-Ponty, Horkheimer, Baudrillard, Barthes, Saussure, Lacan, Adorno, Habermas, Žižek, etc. They are only good for filling up bibliographies to make me look better.
Steve Brule voice: “Just a bunch of hunks . . . think they know everything.”
It’s Fort, not Forte. Also, you are wrong about some other things on this list.
oops! The only person with the last name Shivani that I know is a she, must’ve mentally goofed it.
The Sokal Affair and the book Fashionable Nonsense impresses nothing on me, except that a certain, bitter So-Kalled somebody from an entirely different academic field totally misunderstands the way literary criticism and cultural theory works. It is indeed no contradiction to ’embrace’ as Pemulis puts it Butler and Cixous because there is no question in literary theory as I see it that you need to tag your bluetac to one wall. you can read, appreciate, embrace, hell go the whole hog with Butler and Cixous without having to panic that you are contradicting yourself one bit, though perhaps it’d be better to tease out the points where contradictions slacken of into interesting paradox. It is also perfectly legit in my view, in cultural theory, to put forward a position based on what literal minded scientists might call flawed mathematics: in cultural and lit theory, things are taken to be just that- theory. And, Sokal’s book is cherry-picked beyond belief, wilfully misreading thinkers at every turn.
tell em y u mad sun
u mad
vollman is right; he will win the nobel prize. soon.
and i’m glad someone had the balls to point out that junot diaz sucks, because he does.
KKB lost to the Von Erichs all the time. Even had to get his head shaved after losing to Fritz, right?
Steven, you are a horse’s ass, and mean-spirited to boot. I hope you get raped.
Quite a lot rests on the corrective removal of that “e”, Joseph. Thanks for catching that. Interesting argument, too.
Vollmann… Ridiculous.
Oh, and Nabokov wrote the screenplay for Lolita, not Kubrick.
uh, wtf is your point? so, editors of 95% of lit journals shouldn’t have opinions either?
yes the joy luck club was just so fucking good. pulease, sell that shit somewhere else ms. gay.
Okay, Bill!
Damn. “Good list.” Yeah. It’s a pretty good list.
All writers, even great ones, need to get knocked down a peg or two every now and then. Keeps them honest.
Nabokov’s version wasn’t used (about which situation Nabokov himself later joked)
tell em y what- the last part, about Sokal and Bricmont wilfully misreading thinkers? I think the whole thing is a willful misread because Lacan etc are writing theoretically, in many cases imaginatively and metaphorically. Irigaray, for example, can perfectly legitimately write that E=MC squared is a Masculinist equation without needing to defend that against any strict Scientific justification. I’m not particularly expert on all of this, and I don’t have the book to hand, but when I did read it, their petty objections to theoretical assertions like that one of Irigaray’s felt completely alien to what I find important in those thinkers’ work. Point-scoring, it felt like.
Some theorists are better than others; some critics make better use of theory than others — of course both those things are as subjective as anything. But, based on my experience nearly getting a PhD, the image of academia as ruled by theory is about 10 years out of date anyway. Now it’s all about historicism. And even at the height of theory, there were plenty of people inside the academy attacking it as vigorously as anyone.
Sorry, Colin, but that’s ridiculous. If you champion, simultaneously, the view that there is no objective reality other than what’s created through people chatting, *and* the view that there is, then your cultural theory doesn’t work at all. Apparently, the only lines you draw are about who’s in the field and who’s not.
Also, when *the* big cultural studies journal published his string of pure gibberish, Sokal proved he knew very well how cultural theory ‘works’.
Colin,
What did you find important in their work? Why are theoretical assertions important?
@ Roxane,
I find Shivani’s “mocking” pretty appropriate for quite a few folks on his list.
If people stepped back and saw the forest through the trees maybe they’d realize Shivani’s overall point wasn’t to individually indict any of these authors, but rather to use them as examples of how the publishing industry hypes and brands “types” of writing or styles instead of critically examining each book that a writer produces.
Shivani is using a mocking tone, mocking the way major reviewers lavish quaint praise on an author’s style without much of any critical inquiry.
My point was that you needn’t champion either in a way that makes it contradictory to the other, to read and ’embrace’ both in a meaningful way.
No he didn’t prove anything of the kind. If he had understood cultural theory, in my view he would realize that whether or not a cultural theory paper stands up to mathematical or scientific scrutiny is while perhaps mildly interesting, not the major point on which the validity of that paper stands. A cultural theory paper stands depending on whether it is any use in the way the publishers of the journal and its readers understand society, their world etc etc.
He proved he was good at hoodwinking and could mimic a certain tone etc.
Why do people write this kind of stuff? I think she’s wrong on Graham, Gluck, and probably Vendler (though I haven’t read enough of her stuff yet to be sure.) She is massively wrong on Vollmann and Ashbery. Ashbery is a stone-cold lock for literary immortality, and I’m starting to think that, in the long view, Vollmann’s work will hold the kind of critical acclaim that DFW’s does now, and that history may wipe away most of DFW’s stuff, or at least relegate to the status of someone like Berryman. (Which, btw, favorably comparing Berryman to Ashbery is a total joke. And I even sort of like Berryman.)
But regardless, the article reads like the screed of someone with many many personal vendettas. I honestly don’t get why a person would write this. It’s like w/ Dale Peck. If you wanted to personally attack someone, why not just write them a letter that says, Fuck You?
It wasn’t (just) about the science not adding up; it was about the intellectual bankruptcy of the entire endeavor. Nothing they published underwent any scrutiny; they didn’t even understand *what* they published. As long it sounded PC and ‘questioning’, it was A-OK.
Also — and I swear, I’m not just trying to be rude — I don’t get the value or purpose of trying to accept (in spirit, I guess, though that, too, is problematic) such diverse and opposing theories of reality — and then, of course, applying them to fictional narratives as if they were reality (which in some views, doesn’t exist). It’s like, Oh, OK, only capitalism causes schizophrenia, but then again, only homosexuality causes schizophrenia. And those are both OK, we love them both. But the minute that old stodgy scientist steps in with his ’empiricism’ and ‘reality’ and says, Hey, it’s not capitalism, it’s this…we’re supposed to be like, Fuck you?
:-/
hi d. For me, theoretical assertions are important because they stretch thinking beyond what can be posited on a strictly scientifically provable rigorous sense-basis. I think this guy (John Sturrock, writing in the LRB, says it better than me, but close to what I think):
“I find all this weirdly heavy-handed and alarmist. Sokal and Bricmont have gone about damming the tidal flow of irrationality into intellectual life in an all-or-nothing manner sure to go down well with those theory-haters who long to hear bad things about such as Lacan or Kristeva, but it will be counter-productive among the broader-minded, who believe that the more styles of intellectual discourse cultures find the room and time for the healthier. There is an instructive symmetry between Sokal and Bricmont’s way of proceeding and the one they so much object to: where the impostors like to inlay bits and pieces from the discourse of science in writings that no one would think of calling ‘scientific’ in the strict sense in which Sokal and Bricmont are using the word, the latter apply criteria of rigour and univocity fundamental to their own practice which are beside the point once transferred to this alien context. I’ve read only a little of the work of the feminist writer, Luce Irigaray, but I was delighted to learn, from the few briskly contemptuous pages devoted to her here, that, in arguing for the masculinist bias of science, she has had the estimable insolence to suggest that the 20th century’s most resonant (and sinister) equation, E = MC2, may be sexist for having ‘privileged the speed of light’ or ‘what goes fastest’ over other velocities, and that if the science of fluid mechanics is under-developed, then that is because it is a quintessentially feminine topic. Irigaray’s invocations of the sciences concerned may be worse than dodgy, but in that libertarian province of the intellectual world in which she functions, far better wild and contentious theses of this sort than the stultifying rigour so inappropriately demanded by Sokal and Bricmont.”
No, you simply say to the scientist, ah, ok, so, according to your research schizophrenia is caused by this. I still find it useful to read Jameson and consider the relation of capitalism to schizophrenia, you have in no way invalidated his writings..
too busy to be mad. u mad.
Hi, Pemulis – I get where you’re coming from, but I think you’re setting up a strawman ‘English Department’ – I’m not saying there aren’t theorists who have come up with whacky ideas, but my experience is that despite how you’re characterizing academics, most of the ones I’ve dealt with (most, not all) are thinking human beings, not automatons who mindlessly absorb and believe every theoretical text they read. Sure, Lacan had some nutty ideas, but he also has some compelling ideas. Does that mean he was ‘right’? Does he have to be? You might not like Butler, but what about Silverman, Mulvey, Irigaray, Sedgewick? Just because you’ve heard some goofy ideas come from some theorists doesn’t mean it’s all bullshit or that all academics readily embrace all of it. I know lots of academics who are interested in responding to texts through close reading, without bringing theory it the table, maybe more so than not, and I don’t know many academics at this point who adhere to one ‘school’ of theory. I’m only speaking from one point-of-view, but I’m not sure your stereotype is valid at this point. Lit theory isn’t meant to be a blanket with which to smother a text – they’re just other texts. Some texts are more useful than other texts – I’m not sure why you would expect all theory to be good, just as you wouldn’t expect all fiction to be good.
I mean, we could make the same arguments for alchemy or witchcraft. It’s just that alchemy and witchcraft aren’t en vogue right now… = this ‘inclusive’ approach really isn’t all that inclusive…the Jameson witchcraft just happens to blame what we already accept is to blame: capitalism, Truth, men, oh noes!
agree. chill Roxanneypoo.
I see your point, though, about metaphorical comfort. It an affirmation of your balues. In this way, with objective reality/empiricism against it, etc., it is much more like a religious belief.
@Matt K: yes, I hear you. In my personal schooling exp., theory sort of crowded out everything else, which was a major bummer. Less close reading, less how does this work, and more, How is this sexist? …sigh. It taints my view! (And haunts my wallet).
It makes me giddy to hear social/cultural/literary theory likened to religious belief.
me too. for the sake of clarification, the point i’m alleged to have made here and which Pemulis sees is 100 % different to my experience reading theory. I find it incredibly difficult and challenging to my beliefs and not at all comforting.
“often”, that is. i find theory often difficult and challenging etc…
I loved the Joy Luck Club. Deal with it.
“Hermeneutics”, anyone… ?
I think you’re overestimating what Shivani’s doing. I truly do.
She?
damn
grinning so hard right now
Talk to the hand, Roxaneypoo.
Unlike KKB, I used one n. I’m respectful like that.
Sokal’s sprinkler actually undoes the binary wet/dry.
Nah.
Really? Why? You agree with Shivani that Diaz has no sense of rhythm? Is purely obsessed with the sexual exploits of his characters? I’ve only read Drown but that seems like a caricature so skewed as to make me question whether it was April 1st.
Yes, the use of a diminutive with a complete stranger is truly the height of respect. I thank you.
Criticism, when done well, is a fine thing, but mockery veiled as criticism is boring, particularly when the targets and the commentary are so unoriginal, that’s very difficult to take seriously.
Also, Amy Tan is the SHIT. That’s fancy talk for, amazing.
Deleuze, Sartre, Badiou, Merleau-Ponty, Horkheimer, Baudrillard, Barthes, Saussure, Lacan, Adorno, Habermas, Žižek, etc. They are only good for filling up bibliographies to make me look better.
Steve Brule voice: “Just a bunch of hunks . . . think they know everything.”
It’s Fort, not Forte. Also, you are wrong about some other things on this list.
oops! The only person with the last name Shivani that I know is a she, must’ve mentally goofed it.
i agree completely with roxanne, in terms of overestimating what is being done. the majority of that list consists of easy targets. and if that was his goal, ” [not] to individually indict any of these authors, but rather to use them as examples of how the publishing industry hypes and brands “types” of writing or styles instead of critically examining each book that a writer produces.” then to my mind he failed, i guess, because i don’t see how that’s a secret. i don’t see the big deal in him calling these people on their shit, because, well, i was under the impression that had already happened. aside from vollman, which was i think kind of a ballsy move on shivani’s part. that was an actual risk i think. but really. saying that safran foer or billy collins are overhyped? is that supposed to teach us anything?
as far as i can tell, and this may just be me not caring for this article much, the arguments made are “i don’t like this author they are such a joke look at how much of a joke they are god can you believe people like this that is such bullshit” and i don’t see how that’s an argument. it’s an opinion backed up by an opinion, and that’s great, but who cares.
I trust a writer more when the Shivani’s of the world rags on ’em.
“For nonconformity the world whips you with its displeasure.”
rag*
KKB lost to the Von Erichs all the time. Even had to get his head shaved after losing to Fritz, right?
Steven, you are a horse’s ass, and mean-spirited to boot. I hope you get raped.
Quite a lot rests on the corrective removal of that “e”, Joseph. Thanks for catching that. Interesting argument, too.
uh, wtf is your point? so, editors of 95% of lit journals shouldn’t have opinions either?
yes the joy luck club was just so fucking good. pulease, sell that shit somewhere else ms. gay.
Okay, Bill!
Damn. “Good list.” Yeah. It’s a pretty good list.
All writers, even great ones, need to get knocked down a peg or two every now and then. Keeps them honest.
This does seem very mean-spirited and attacks Ashbery, but my sweet Lord do I hate Sharon Olds and as such I cannot completely indict this article.
bingo
@ Roxane,
I find Shivani’s “mocking” pretty appropriate for quite a few folks on his list.
If people stepped back and saw the forest through the trees maybe they’d realize Shivani’s overall point wasn’t to individually indict any of these authors, but rather to use them as examples of how the publishing industry hypes and brands “types” of writing or styles instead of critically examining each book that a writer produces.
Shivani is using a mocking tone, mocking the way major reviewers lavish quaint praise on an author’s style without much of any critical inquiry.
@ bill, if you lived on the floor under my room, i would drill a hole in the floor and shit on you as you jerk off to jonathan safran foer reading on youtube. was yr comment really necessary? no.
roxane. shit.
agree. chill Roxanneypoo.
@ Sasha,
I can’t make a lick of sense out of your post. Mind leaving me some breadcrumbs so I can find my way out of the woods and back to your point?
What was a secret, and why did it have to be a secret for Shivani to make sense? Why is it supposed to teach you or anyone else anything?
“as far as i can tell, and this may just be me not caring for this article much, the arguments made are “i don’t like this author they are such a joke look at how much of a joke they are god can you believe people like this that is such bullshit” and i don’t see how that’s an argument. it’s an opinion backed up by an opinion, and that’s great, but who cares.”
Nah.
I loved the Joy Luck Club. Deal with it.
I think you’re overestimating what Shivani’s doing. I truly do.
damn
grinning so hard right now
Talk to the hand, Roxaneypoo.
Unlike KKB, I used one n. I’m respectful like that.
Nah.
Yes, the use of a diminutive with a complete stranger is truly the height of respect. I thank you.
i agree completely with roxanne, in terms of overestimating what is being done. the majority of that list consists of easy targets. and if that was his goal, ” [not] to individually indict any of these authors, but rather to use them as examples of how the publishing industry hypes and brands “types” of writing or styles instead of critically examining each book that a writer produces.” then to my mind he failed, i guess, because i don’t see how that’s a secret. i don’t see the big deal in him calling these people on their shit, because, well, i was under the impression that had already happened. aside from vollman, which was i think kind of a ballsy move on shivani’s part. that was an actual risk i think. but really. saying that safran foer or billy collins are overhyped? is that supposed to teach us anything?
as far as i can tell, and this may just be me not caring for this article much, the arguments made are “i don’t like this author they are such a joke look at how much of a joke they are god can you believe people like this that is such bullshit” and i don’t see how that’s an argument. it’s an opinion backed up by an opinion, and that’s great, but who cares.
I trust a writer more when the Shivani’s of the world rags on ’em.
“For nonconformity the world whips you with its displeasure.”
rag*
This does seem very mean-spirited and attacks Ashbery, but my sweet Lord do I hate Sharon Olds and as such I cannot completely indict this article.
bingo
@ bill, if you lived on the floor under my room, i would drill a hole in the floor and shit on you as you jerk off to jonathan safran foer reading on youtube. was yr comment really necessary? no.
roxane. shit.
@ Sasha,
I can’t make a lick of sense out of your post. Mind leaving me some breadcrumbs so I can find my way out of the woods and back to your point?
What was a secret, and why did it have to be a secret for Shivani to make sense? Why is it supposed to teach you or anyone else anything?
“as far as i can tell, and this may just be me not caring for this article much, the arguments made are “i don’t like this author they are such a joke look at how much of a joke they are god can you believe people like this that is such bullshit” and i don’t see how that’s an argument. it’s an opinion backed up by an opinion, and that’s great, but who cares.”
Nah.
I’ve gotta side with Marc on this one. This is basically Shivani’s argument–that publishing forces ‘types.’
He’s made this argument in various publications over that past couple of years, in essays in Boulevard in essays in American Book Review in essays in Huffington Post.
Shivani’s a cool guy. He’s always been nice to me. He writes reviews and essays for a living from a small apartment in Houston, Texas.
He’s totally legit. A fearless Pakistani.
I don’t agree with all that he says–I personally admire Vollman–but I don’t think he’s off the mark either. The industry plays to demographics (as do all entertainment industries).
I think it’s an interesting list.
Although at times a tad obvious.
anyone see he went to harvard and all those blurbs on his website and stuff? the awards he won? he can brag about that stuff, no problem from me, but it’s a little funny.
@ Justin RM: How the heck do you lump Sartre and Saussure (maybe even that jazz-hater Adorno) with Deleuze and Lacan? Criminal!
*Off to Google Steve Brule…*
I finally posted something that more than 10 people commented on! Yee haw!
Ryan! That’s the kind of inconsequential comment-thread error you really shouldn’t feel too guilty about. Ditto with proper-noun typos (ahem): zero bearing on the debate. That said…
I think Shivani’s critical vaudeville can actually be useful on all sides of the equation. For example, I’d never bothered to articulate, in such detail and in print, just *why* I valued DeLillo’s “Underworld”… until James Wood famously bashed it. Wood got a career-boost out of picking on such an important target (a blue whale to the titmouse of his collected criticisms), DeLillo sold a few thousand more copies of the book, DeLillo’s detractors felt vindicated, his defenders unified against the tonsured Limey and a small fraction of America’s post-high-school, quasi-Liberal cross-chat was about books instead of The West Wing (or whatever hot glass dick they were sucking on back then).
All this talk of “mean-spiritedness” is off, I think. Everyone sort of agreeing, or agreeing to disagree, in Sunday-school tones, may seem like the heavenly gentility our parents (or grandparents) used to watch Masterpiece Theater for… but the truth is, it’s deadly-dull, in the long run, and saps the Literary World of vitality. You don’t forge steel in a lukewarm bath or create fire by caressing a twig.
Think of the old concept of Heat Death: a deathly-becalmed universe, entropy-free. Is that our idea of Heaven? We need those blazing heats and numbing colds and metaphorical loppings-off (and posthumous re-graftings) of old gray heads. Real Writers have always known this and are forever arranging loud feuds and sudden coups and stylistic assassinations to keep the heart pumping and the nipples hard. Or think of it, less bloodily, as cultural aerobics.
It’s the insincere market-logic of late-phase-capitalism (in which nothing is not professionalized and euphemistically exploited to a max) that cautions us to speak, always, like Politicians, Undertakers or Sunday School teachers lest we “offend” someone and ruin a sale. But I go to Literature for a Truth that can’t otherwise be experienced… I expect the Art and its Artists to be charged with that edgy, honest aura. I expect Zero Controversy and Meaningless Smiles and Soft Music at Starbucks but when that pablum-ethos has supersaturated “Literature”… it’s over.
Bratty, juvenile article that caters to the lowest common denominator: “get off my lawn” types who don’t read contemporary lit yet are looking for an excuse to trash contemporary lit. I don’t even have to look at the comments section below the article to know how the target audience has responded (postively) to this poor man’s Dale Peck’s piece.
I have nothing against a little feuding, or even meanness. And really, in the most general sense, I agree w/ Shivani that Tan, Nelson, Olds, Foer, Lahiri, Diaz Collins, Kakutani, and possibly Oliver are all unexceptional authors. And I think I’ve expressed as much here re Diaz. I guess I’m not that interested in doing so anymore. Ultimately the Tans/Foers/Diazes of the present moment aren’t that different from the Tans/Foers/Diazes of fifty years ago, and unless someone asks me directly about them, or unless I’m writing up some essay regarding them [where I can be more in-depth], I don’t see the point in indicting them. Period pieces are period pieces, and only like a couple handfuls of writers and critics are truly creative in any given era. I once got really riled up by all the unimaginative crankturner-type literary criticism being produced right now, but there is no significant difference between it and the grist of the past. I’ve decided to simply hunker down and do the best I can on my own work, and largely avoid the bickering.
Regarding this specific article: I have no problem with a really good roast. As much as I love Vollmann and Ashbery, if Shivani had been armed w/ real insight while he ripped them to shreds, I would’ve cherished it. But if Shavani roasts anyone here it is only himself. It’s a lazy and childish rage that seethes with personal rage more than anything. (Which is why it reminded me of Peck–feels like a purging more than a breakdown, or analysis.
lazy and childish rant*
“He writes reviews and essays for a living from a small apartment in Houston, Texas. ”
I love this sentence.
Predictably, I sort of liked the parts where he said things I vaguely agreed with and disliked the parts where he said things with which I vaguely disagreed.
:)
I’ve gotta side with Marc on this one. This is basically Shivani’s argument–that publishing forces ‘types.’
He’s made this argument in various publications over that past couple of years, in essays in Boulevard in essays in American Book Review in essays in Huffington Post.
Shivani’s a cool guy. He’s always been nice to me. He writes reviews and essays for a living from a small apartment in Houston, Texas.
He’s totally legit. A fearless Pakistani.
I don’t agree with all that he says–I personally admire Vollman–but I don’t think he’s off the mark either. The industry plays to demographics (as do all entertainment industries).
I think it’s an interesting list.
Although at times a tad obvious.
My problem with this type of list is that, like so many others before it like that silly B.R. Meyers, the actual argument isn’t clear. This is a pretty wide collection of authors who, if rated, are rated by different people. Is this an attack on literary authors who are widely read but not all that critically acclaimed by lit snobs? Is it a list of people only moderately rated by MFA students and unheard of by anyone else? A list of highly critically acclaimed but underrated writers?
Basically, what do Vollmann, Nelson and Lahiri have to do with each other?
He rags on MFA students in his intro, but other than Junot Diaz and maybe a few Vollmann fans I don’t think any of the fiction authors (can’t speak to poetry) he lists were ever talked about much less highly rated.
It just seems like a collection of “15 authors I don’t like for varying reasons” which isn’t really a reason to write an article.
Wait, who did Dale Peck attack??
Oh.
Just read his wikipedia page.
Was only familiar with his fiction.
The real problem with the list, though, is his explanation of good writing is really hard to take seriously:
“If we don’t understand bad writing, we can’t understand good writing. Bad writing is characterized by obfuscation, showboating, narcissism, lack of a moral core, and style over substance. Good writing is exactly the opposite”
Also, while its always fun to play the man of the people, its kind of silly to go on about how “Readers know when a much-heralded book doesn’t satisfy them. They know something is missing. But there’s the institutional apparatus telling them, You’re a fool if you don’t appreciate this book.” when the books that readers find deeply satisfying are Dan Brown, Twilight and other lowest common denominator books that I’m sure Anis would like even less than those he lists.
anyone see he went to harvard and all those blurbs on his website and stuff? the awards he won? he can brag about that stuff, no problem from me, but it’s a little funny.
@ Justin RM: How the heck do you lump Sartre and Saussure (maybe even that jazz-hater Adorno) with Deleuze and Lacan? Criminal!
*Off to Google Steve Brule…*
I finally posted something that more than 10 people commented on! Yee haw!
Sure, he’s definitely assuming a superior ability to spot quality, however, I would argue, that at least at some level, all critics do this. Right?
Nice.
Thanks, but why?
Ryan! That’s the kind of inconsequential comment-thread error you really shouldn’t feel too guilty about. Ditto with proper-noun typos (ahem): zero bearing on the debate. That said…
I think Shivani’s critical vaudeville can actually be useful on all sides of the equation. For example, I’d never bothered to articulate, in such detail and in print, just *why* I valued DeLillo’s “Underworld”… until James Wood famously bashed it. Wood got a career-boost out of picking on such an important target (a blue whale to the titmouse of his collected criticisms), DeLillo sold a few thousand more copies of the book, DeLillo’s detractors felt vindicated, his defenders unified against the tonsured Limey and a small fraction of America’s post-high-school, quasi-Liberal cross-chat was about books instead of The West Wing (or whatever hot glass dick they were sucking on back then).
All this talk of “mean-spiritedness” is off, I think. Everyone sort of agreeing, or agreeing to disagree, in Sunday-school tones, may seem like the heavenly gentility our parents (or grandparents) used to watch Masterpiece Theater for… but the truth is, it’s deadly-dull, in the long run, and saps the Literary World of vitality. You don’t forge steel in a lukewarm bath or create fire by caressing a twig.
Think of the old concept of Heat Death: a deathly-becalmed universe, entropy-free. Is that our idea of Heaven? We need those blazing heats and numbing colds and metaphorical loppings-off (and posthumous re-graftings) of old gray heads. Real Writers have always known this and are forever arranging loud feuds and sudden coups and stylistic assassinations to keep the heart pumping and the nipples hard. Or think of it, less bloodily, as cultural aerobics.
It’s the insincere market-logic of late-phase-capitalism (in which nothing is not professionalized and euphemistically exploited to a max) that cautions us to speak, always, like Politicians, Undertakers or Sunday School teachers lest we “offend” someone and ruin a sale. But I go to Literature for a Truth that can’t otherwise be experienced… I expect the Art and its Artists to be charged with that edgy, honest aura. I expect Zero Controversy and Meaningless Smiles and Soft Music at Starbucks but when that pablum-ethos has supersaturated “Literature”… it’s over.
I have no problem with critics assuming a superior ability to spot quality, but his quote makes it sound like he thinks “the people” aren’t fooled by bad writing, only silly MFA students/egghead academics/whatever…. basically parroting the B.R. Meyers argument. Or am I misreading him?
I’m not sure that you’re misreading him. I do think that he has a negative opinion of MFA programs, and, as such, he would most likely believe that people who went to (or currently attend) MFA programs were more likely to be fooled–if that makes any sense.
He’s got a story called “Go Sell it On The Mountain” that I read before interviewing him for Dark Sky, where he basically shows folks who attend writing conferences to be suck asses and oddities, distanced from reality, clouded by a literary hierarchy that is more established through savvy networking than strong writing skills. I think that is, to a certain extent ,what he is saying here as well. Though I’m not sure networking hasn’t always played a part in getting respect in the literary community.
I think people wish it wasn’t a part of it (and that’s why people lose their shit when they think literary magazines are publishing their friends or when they make odd demands of their submitters like Tin House did a while back), but it is an industry like any other, and networking and the ability to represent yourself postively (or interestingly) is a well rewarded skill.
I think you can see this reflected in his choices, and I think this is why, with certain writers, he talks about their frequent visits to conferences, or their posturing of personas, or what have you. He’s arguing that they’re playing a part rather than being honest writers.
You could argue, however, that most literary figures play parts, or at the very least attempt to fill roles they find accessible to their persona and style. I mean, what the hell else are you going to do?
Shit, most everyone plays a role in life in general. At least that’s what I learned from John Hughes’ films.
Lincoln, no, you’re not misreading him.
Criticism should be honest and original; there’s hardly an original thought or idea expressed in this screed, or a coherent argument.
To me, this is more offensive than the work of writers targeted, some of which I do dislike and consider overrated.
*of the writers targeted
Bratty, juvenile article that caters to the lowest common denominator: “get off my lawn” types who don’t read contemporary lit yet are looking for an excuse to trash contemporary lit. I don’t even have to look at the comments section below the article to know how the target audience has responded (postively) to this poor man’s Dale Peck’s piece.
I have nothing against a little feuding, or even meanness. And really, in the most general sense, I agree w/ Shivani that Tan, Nelson, Olds, Foer, Lahiri, Diaz Collins, Kakutani, and possibly Oliver are all unexceptional authors. And I think I’ve expressed as much here re Diaz. I guess I’m not that interested in doing so anymore. Ultimately the Tans/Foers/Diazes of the present moment aren’t that different from the Tans/Foers/Diazes of fifty years ago, and unless someone asks me directly about them, or unless I’m writing up some essay regarding them [where I can be more in-depth], I don’t see the point in indicting them. Period pieces are period pieces, and only like a couple handfuls of writers and critics are truly creative in any given era. I once got really riled up by all the unimaginative crankturner-type literary criticism being produced right now, but there is no significant difference between it and the grist of the past. I’ve decided to simply hunker down and do the best I can on my own work, and largely avoid the bickering.
Regarding this specific article: I have no problem with a really good roast. As much as I love Vollmann and Ashbery, if Shivani had been armed w/ real insight while he ripped them to shreds, I would’ve cherished it. But if Shavani roasts anyone here it is only himself. It’s a lazy and childish rage that seethes with personal rage more than anything. (Which is why it reminded me of Peck–feels like a purging more than a breakdown, or analysis.
lazy and childish rant*
“He writes reviews and essays for a living from a small apartment in Houston, Texas. ”
I love this sentence.
Predictably, I sort of liked the parts where he said things I vaguely agreed with and disliked the parts where he said things with which I vaguely disagreed.
:)
I don’t know, I just really love the wording. I imagine it as a pithy little contributor’s note or something. “small apartment in Houston, Texas”
My problem with this type of list is that, like so many others before it like that silly B.R. Meyers, the actual argument isn’t clear. This is a pretty wide collection of authors who, if rated, are rated by different people. Is this an attack on literary authors who are widely read but not all that critically acclaimed by lit snobs? Is it a list of people only moderately rated by MFA students and unheard of by anyone else? A list of highly critically acclaimed but underrated writers?
Basically, what do Vollmann, Nelson and Lahiri have to do with each other?
He rags on MFA students in his intro, but other than Junot Diaz and maybe a few Vollmann fans I don’t think any of the fiction authors (can’t speak to poetry) he lists were ever talked about much less highly rated.
It just seems like a collection of “15 authors I don’t like for varying reasons” which isn’t really a reason to write an article.
Wait, who did Dale Peck attack??
Oh.
Just read his wikipedia page.
Was only familiar with his fiction.
The real problem with the list, though, is his explanation of good writing is really hard to take seriously:
“If we don’t understand bad writing, we can’t understand good writing. Bad writing is characterized by obfuscation, showboating, narcissism, lack of a moral core, and style over substance. Good writing is exactly the opposite”
Also, while its always fun to play the man of the people, its kind of silly to go on about how “Readers know when a much-heralded book doesn’t satisfy them. They know something is missing. But there’s the institutional apparatus telling them, You’re a fool if you don’t appreciate this book.” when the books that readers find deeply satisfying are Dan Brown, Twilight and other lowest common denominator books that I’m sure Anis would like even less than those he lists.
To the extent that I found him persuasive — and I mostly didn’t — it was for the glimpses of what you’re talking about here, as I certainly recognize the truth of it in some instances and from personal experience.
Sure, he’s definitely assuming a superior ability to spot quality, however, I would argue, that at least at some level, all critics do this. Right?
Nice.
Thanks, but why?
I have no problem with critics assuming a superior ability to spot quality, but his quote makes it sound like he thinks “the people” aren’t fooled by bad writing, only silly MFA students/egghead academics/whatever…. basically parroting the B.R. Meyers argument. Or am I misreading him?
I’m not sure that you’re misreading him. I do think that he has a negative opinion of MFA programs, and, as such, he would most likely believe that people who went to (or currently attend) MFA programs were more likely to be fooled–if that makes any sense.
He’s got a story called “Go Sell it On The Mountain” that I read before interviewing him for Dark Sky, where he basically shows folks who attend writing conferences to be suck asses and oddities, distanced from reality, clouded by a literary hierarchy that is more established through savvy networking than strong writing skills. I think that is, to a certain extent ,what he is saying here as well. Though I’m not sure networking hasn’t always played a part in getting respect in the literary community.
I think people wish it wasn’t a part of it (and that’s why people lose their shit when they think literary magazines are publishing their friends or when they make odd demands of their submitters like Tin House did a while back), but it is an industry like any other, and networking and the ability to represent yourself postively (or interestingly) is a well rewarded skill.
I think you can see this reflected in his choices, and I think this is why, with certain writers, he talks about their frequent visits to conferences, or their posturing of personas, or what have you. He’s arguing that they’re playing a part rather than being honest writers.
You could argue, however, that most literary figures play parts, or at the very least attempt to fill roles they find accessible to their persona and style. I mean, what the hell else are you going to do?
Shit, most everyone plays a role in life in general. At least that’s what I learned from John Hughes’ films.
Lincoln, no, you’re not misreading him.
Criticism should be honest and original; there’s hardly an original thought or idea expressed in this screed, or a coherent argument.
To me, this is more offensive than the work of writers targeted, some of which I do dislike and consider overrated.
*of the writers targeted
In ninth grade I made a top 15 list of the ‘bitchiest girls in my school who never say hi to me.’ I wonder if the Huffington Post will publish it.
I don’t know, I just really love the wording. I imagine it as a pithy little contributor’s note or something. “small apartment in Houston, Texas”
To the extent that I found him persuasive — and I mostly didn’t — it was for the glimpses of what you’re talking about here, as I certainly recognize the truth of it in some instances and from personal experience.
In ninth grade I made a top 15 list of the ‘bitchiest girls in my school who never say hi to me.’ I wonder if the Huffington Post will publish it.
what a nut fucker
what a nut fucker
you know they will
they all look the same. do “successful” book nerds get a universal stylist when they hit that magic club?
How is this “ballsy” in any way?
http://htmlgiant.com/web-hype/the-internet-is-for-anger/
it’s mandatory.
Omigod, please turn that into a list-style story w/ several sentences abt each girl.
you know they will
It’s kind of what I was thinking. Wenclas and Mather whine about this same kind of shit all the time.
they all look the same. do “successful” book nerds get a universal stylist when they hit that magic club?
How is this “ballsy” in any way?
http://htmlgiant.com/web-hype/the-internet-is-for-anger/
it’s mandatory.
Omigod, please turn that into a list-style story w/ several sentences abt each girl.
It’s kind of what I was thinking. Wenclas and Mather whine about this same kind of shit all the time.
Oh for fucks sake, why are there even poets on that list at all? Nobody is out there rating poets. No poets are getting rich off of being overrated. Leave the poor poets to bitch at each other about who’s winning what contest and who was whose student and all that mess. Jesus.
Other than that I am sincerely shocked that Franzen didn’t make the list. I love him, but I still think he’s overrated.
Exactly. What “rating” means in this article is completely baffling.
I guess I find it ballsy because he obviously had to know the fallout of putting something like that up in such a public space. Not many people are willing to put themselves out there like that. Like I said, I’m not down with his methods and only a couple of his conclusions, but he fucking said what he thought.
I’m cool with people splashing haterade around, but honestly I’m not sure how ballsy it is to attack Billy Collins, Lahiri, Safran Foer or, hell, any poet in the year 2010.
I think you’re not seeing it from the perspective I’m talking about. I’m not saying he was ballsy for WHAT he said; I’m saying he must have some serious balls for saying things he must have known would piss people off. We don’t that around these HTML parts, but direct attacks on “famous” writers (poets excluded, I guess) aren’t that common in mainstream media. Are they? Am I totally off base?
I feel like lots of people have attacked writers like Foer and Lahiri in the media?
Like, in his article he lists the following writers as bad “cloying” writers: Denis Johnson, Amy Hempel, Lydia Davis, Aimee Bender, and Charles D’Ambrosio.
To me, putting those 5 writers on an overrated list would be a lot more ballsy than attacking Foer and Billy Collins. Also much less defensible, since those writers are great (weird to call them cloying, i feel like many of those are normally attacked for being not emotional enough or overly bleak… but maybe he means cloying stylistically or something?)
Maybe you’re right.
Oh for fucks sake, why are there even poets on that list at all? Nobody is out there rating poets. No poets are getting rich off of being overrated. Leave the poor poets to bitch at each other about who’s winning what contest and who was whose student and all that mess. Jesus.
Other than that I am sincerely shocked that Franzen didn’t make the list. I love him, but I still think he’s overrated.
Exactly. What “rating” means in this article is completely baffling.
I guess I find it ballsy because he obviously had to know the fallout of putting something like that up in such a public space. Not many people are willing to put themselves out there like that. Like I said, I’m not down with his methods and only a couple of his conclusions, but he fucking said what he thought.
I’m cool with people splashing haterade around, but honestly I’m not sure how ballsy it is to attack Billy Collins, Lahiri, Safran Foer or, hell, any poet in the year 2010.
I think you’re not seeing it from the perspective I’m talking about. I’m not saying he was ballsy for WHAT he said; I’m saying he must have some serious balls for saying things he must have known would piss people off. We don’t that around these HTML parts, but direct attacks on “famous” writers (poets excluded, I guess) aren’t that common in mainstream media. Are they? Am I totally off base?
I feel like lots of people have attacked writers like Foer and Lahiri in the media?
Like, in his article he lists the following writers as bad “cloying” writers: Denis Johnson, Amy Hempel, Lydia Davis, Aimee Bender, and Charles D’Ambrosio.
To me, putting those 5 writers on an overrated list would be a lot more ballsy than attacking Foer and Billy Collins. Also much less defensible, since those writers are great (weird to call them cloying, i feel like many of those are normally attacked for being not emotional enough or overly bleak… but maybe he means cloying stylistically or something?)
Maybe you’re right.
everyone here is pissy and defensive because HTMLGIANT is a direct product of exactly the literary culture he’s criticizing (a defining characteristic being the reluctance to talk shit about bad writers)
Have you read anything here?
I think he means ‘indie’ writers. I generally like the work I read from people who post here, but goddamn if it doesn’t make me feel icky, sometimes, reading the responses to even mild criticisms of those involved in indie lit. Then, of course, you have posts by peeps like Lily Hoang, who shit all over anything remotely genre, implying that *its* readers are somehow the lemmings…
haha, yeah I thought this website was known for being big mean jerk-faces to everyone they didn’t like?
Also, my problem with the article is that he doesn’t have any real point, just a bunch of different reasons for disliking different authors who really have nothing to do with each other. If he’d had a specific argument against a specific culture or type or writing that would have been more interesting.
everyone here is pissy and defensive because HTMLGIANT is a direct product of exactly the literary culture he’s criticizing (a defining characteristic being the reluctance to talk shit about bad writers)
Have you read anything here?
I think he means ‘indie’ writers. I generally like the work I read from people who post here, but goddamn if it doesn’t make me feel icky, sometimes, reading the responses to even mild criticisms of those involved in indie lit. Then, of course, you have posts by peeps like Lily Hoang, who shit all over anything remotely genre, implying that *its* readers are somehow the lemmings…
haha, yeah I thought this website was known for being big mean jerk-faces to everyone they didn’t like?
Also, my problem with the article is that he doesn’t have any real point, just a bunch of different reasons for disliking different authors who really have nothing to do with each other. If he’d had a specific argument against a specific culture or type or writing that would have been more interesting.
“(a defining characteristic being the reluctance to talk shit about bad writers)”
Ding!
//Oh for fucks sake, why are there even poets on that list at all? Nobody is out there rating poets. No poets are getting rich off of being overrated. Leave the poor poets to bitch at each other about who’s winning what contest and who was whose student and all that mess. Jesus.//
(Don’t know why my comment didn’t appear, but I’ll make it again.)
Laughed my ass off. Not sure whether the poets concerned would prefer Shivani’s frying pan or Catherine’s fire! Still laughing!
“(a defining characteristic being the reluctance to talk shit about bad writers)”
Ding!
No, this sucks. He’s wrong on Vollmann in a way which makes me doubt that he’s ever read Vollmann. 6 / 16 on the list are poets, and it’s impossible for a poet to be overrated now. This doesn’t read like a list of overrated writers, it reads like an assortment of writers that Anis Shivani (who?) doesn’t like.
//Oh for fucks sake, why are there even poets on that list at all? Nobody is out there rating poets. No poets are getting rich off of being overrated. Leave the poor poets to bitch at each other about who’s winning what contest and who was whose student and all that mess. Jesus.//
(Don’t know why my comment didn’t appear, but I’ll make it again.)
Laughed my ass off. Not sure whether the poets concerned would prefer Shivani’s frying pan or Catherine’s fire! Still laughing!
No, this sucks. He’s wrong on Vollmann in a way which makes me doubt that he’s ever read Vollmann. 6 / 16 on the list are poets, and it’s impossible for a poet to be overrated now. This doesn’t read like a list of overrated writers, it reads like an assortment of writers that Anis Shivani (who?) doesn’t like.
[…] what Shivani must have expected. Jezebel takes him to task for perceived anti-feminist stance, HTMLGIANT finds it ballsy if nothing else, The Rumpus comments then decides it isn’t worth comment, and Poets and […]
I wrote a longer response to this if anyone is interested
http://thefastertimes.com/fiction/2010/08/10/overrated-overrated-lists/
I don’t agree with the list but I also don’t agree with the fact that Shivani doesn’t know what he’s talking about.
His criticism citations are more than any one I’ve seen in recent history.
http://anisshivani.com/criticism/
z
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/anis-shivani/interview-with-calvert-mo_b_595704.html
“His criticism citations are more than any one I’ve seen in recent history.”
————————
Then he’s the #1 most overrated critic in the history of criticism.
I wrote a longer response to this if anyone is interested
http://thefastertimes.com/fiction/2010/08/10/overrated-overrated-lists/
I don’t agree with the list but I also don’t agree with the fact that Shivani doesn’t know what he’s talking about.
His criticism citations are more than any one I’ve seen in recent history.
http://anisshivani.com/criticism/
z
“His criticism citations are more than any one I’ve seen in recent history.”
————————
Then he’s the #1 most overrated critic in the history of criticism.
[…] read Anis Shivani’s attack on what he calls the fifteen most overrated writers in America. Many writers have already spoken out about how useless such a list is. But I’m not posting to […]
[…] Alexis Orgera at <HTMLGIANT>) Tags: Hugh […]