October 1st, 2009 / 5:20 pm
Web Hype
Christopher Higgs
Web Hype
The Best of the National Book Awards
Who wrote The Best of the National Book Awards Fiction?
The Stories of John Cheever
Invisible Man, by Ralph Ellison
The Collected Stories of William Faulkner
The Complete Stories of Flannery O’Connor
Gravity’s Rainbow, by Thomas Pynchon
The Collected Stories of Eudora Welty
Tags: National book awards
I voted for Pynchon
he’s trailing badly
I voted for Pynchon
he’s trailing badly
none of that other stuff reserves to be in the same breath as GR, as much as I like O’Connor and Faulkner
none of that other stuff reserves to be in the same breath as GR, as much as I like O’Connor and Faulkner
Faulkner is very, very close but otherwise I agree
Faulkner is very, very close but otherwise I agree
Ellison.
Ellison.
i don’t know. i think this is a pretty good list, actually. though pynchon is the writer on this list i’ve read the least of, i think the others are pretty worthy contenders. they each kind of occupy a unique and important moral and artistic territory.
i don’t know. i think this is a pretty good list, actually. though pynchon is the writer on this list i’ve read the least of, i think the others are pretty worthy contenders. they each kind of occupy a unique and important moral and artistic territory.
Someone with a b&w photo.
Someone with a b&w photo.
I voted for O’Connor. If not her, Faulkner. I love that four of the six choices are Collected Stories.
I voted for O’Connor. If not her, Faulkner. I love that four of the six choices are Collected Stories.
And three of the six are “Southern Writers.”
And three of the six are “Southern Writers.”
I certainly voted for O’Connor… though pitting the collected stories of authors against individual novels doesn’t quite seem fair.
I certainly voted for O’Connor… though pitting the collected stories of authors against individual novels doesn’t quite seem fair.
interesting 1:1 ratio of white_guy to non_white_guy; sorry to bring in race but i can’t help it whenever culture is qualified. i can guarantee that the board or committee hashed the 1:1 over
interesting 1:1 ratio of white_guy to non_white_guy; sorry to bring in race but i can’t help it whenever culture is qualified. i can guarantee that the board or committee hashed the 1:1 over
Did Flannery O’Connor fake her own death and become “Eudora Welty?” That’s what it looks like to me.
Did Flannery O’Connor fake her own death and become “Eudora Welty?” That’s what it looks like to me.
I voted for Flannery, and Faulkner was my second choice. Hey.
I think it’s because I “grew up” on those two.
I voted for Flannery, and Faulkner was my second choice. Hey.
I think it’s because I “grew up” on those two.
I agree with Nathan & Blake. GR takes the cake against the rest of that wimpy list. Nathan, your caveat might be apropos had the title been one of Faulkner’s novels – but his “collected short stories”? In the same competition with GR? That’s just ridiculous no matter how you slice it.
I agree with Nathan & Blake. GR takes the cake against the rest of that wimpy list. Nathan, your caveat might be apropos had the title been one of Faulkner’s novels – but his “collected short stories”? In the same competition with GR? That’s just ridiculous no matter how you slice it.
Me too. You can’t beat O’Connor.
Me too. You can’t beat O’Connor.
O’connor.
2/3 of the southern writers are from Mississippi, yet the one I like the best is from Georgia.
Well, my, my, I do declare.
O’connor.
2/3 of the southern writers are from Mississippi, yet the one I like the best is from Georgia.
Well, my, my, I do declare.
interesting or not so interesting fact about GR. donald barthelme was the deciding vote to get that shit the national book award and pynchon actually wrote a lot of GR while being neighbors with barthelme.
interesting or not so interesting fact about GR. donald barthelme was the deciding vote to get that shit the national book award and pynchon actually wrote a lot of GR while being neighbors with barthelme.
were all of don b’s neighbors awesome writers? that man had the midas touch.
were all of don b’s neighbors awesome writers? that man had the midas touch.
It’s a tough call, but my vote goes to Cheever. Cheever all the way, man, out of those up there. But wtf, where’s Augie March?
It’s a tough call, but my vote goes to Cheever. Cheever all the way, man, out of those up there. But wtf, where’s Augie March?
all the men are wearin suits and ties. all the women looked real proper like.
is it possible to fairly compare books written from different periods? i mean the gooded ones. the real gooded ones.
all the men are wearin suits and ties. all the women looked real proper like.
is it possible to fairly compare books written from different periods? i mean the gooded ones. the real gooded ones.
Yeah – As I Lay Dying would be a much better choice than the short stories
Yeah – As I Lay Dying would be a much better choice than the short stories
When I started to read O’Connor as a teenager it was the first time it was not some white guy telling me a story with “historical perspective” and I went “wow”.
When I started to read O’Connor as a teenager it was the first time it was not some white guy telling me a story with “historical perspective” and I went “wow”.
I agree. “…Dying” is his best work.
I agree. “…Dying” is his best work.
There is absolutely nothing “wimpy” about Invisible Man or the stories of Flannery O’Connor.
There is absolutely nothing “wimpy” about Invisible Man or the stories of Flannery O’Connor.
If you ain’t talking about Ellison, you ain’t talking about shit.
If you ain’t talking about Ellison, you ain’t talking about shit.
Nothing wimpy about Invisible Man? Truly, you jest.
Had I the time or inclination, I would full explicate the overwhelming wimp of Invisible Man, but suffice to say:
1). At a sentence level, Invisible Man is mediocre, at best. To find an interesting turn of phrase, one would have to go hunting (in fact, I would argue that the only instance of language worth mentioning in IM would be in the section devoted to his elctroshock treatments – right after the accident at the paint company – which is a very brief section, comparatively).
2). The overall structure is inexcusably weak, the movement is stilted, episodic, and uneven (to put it kindly).
3). It suffers from a constant wavering between social engagement and social disengagement. Whereas Baldwin critiqued Invisible Man for being too belletristic (he, of course, favored Richard Wright’s work) I would take Baldwin a step farther and say: Invisible Man fails on the aesthetic level because of Ellison’s wishy-washy, halfass didacticism.
4). The unnamed main character is purposelessly hapless, not to mention the fact that the entire premise of the “invisible man” is consistently refuted by the fact that the main character is anything BUT invisible. One might argue, he is MORE visible than anyone around him.
Having studied IM relatively closely, I could continue for days and days explaining why it is a wimpy novel. And although I feel confident in my position, I would seriously love to see a thoughtful argument for why Invisible Man should be considered a great work of literature.
As it stands, I get the feeling that people praise it because they feel like they are supposed to praise it, not because it deserves it.
ps – My familiarity with Flannery O’Connor is actually pretty limited, so in her case wimpy was meant as hyperbole. :)
Nothing wimpy about Invisible Man? Truly, you jest.
Had I the time or inclination, I would full explicate the overwhelming wimp of Invisible Man, but suffice to say:
1). At a sentence level, Invisible Man is mediocre, at best. To find an interesting turn of phrase, one would have to go hunting (in fact, I would argue that the only instance of language worth mentioning in IM would be in the section devoted to his elctroshock treatments – right after the accident at the paint company – which is a very brief section, comparatively).
2). The overall structure is inexcusably weak, the movement is stilted, episodic, and uneven (to put it kindly).
3). It suffers from a constant wavering between social engagement and social disengagement. Whereas Baldwin critiqued Invisible Man for being too belletristic (he, of course, favored Richard Wright’s work) I would take Baldwin a step farther and say: Invisible Man fails on the aesthetic level because of Ellison’s wishy-washy, halfass didacticism.
4). The unnamed main character is purposelessly hapless, not to mention the fact that the entire premise of the “invisible man” is consistently refuted by the fact that the main character is anything BUT invisible. One might argue, he is MORE visible than anyone around him.
Having studied IM relatively closely, I could continue for days and days explaining why it is a wimpy novel. And although I feel confident in my position, I would seriously love to see a thoughtful argument for why Invisible Man should be considered a great work of literature.
As it stands, I get the feeling that people praise it because they feel like they are supposed to praise it, not because it deserves it.
ps – My familiarity with Flannery O’Connor is actually pretty limited, so in her case wimpy was meant as hyperbole. :)