Nathanael West

[Babbalanja]

Nathanael West (1903-1940) is one of those authors people always recognize but never read. I recently started a compilation of his two best-known novels, Miss Lonelyhearts and Day of the Locust.

http://www.fantasticfiction.co.uk/images/c3/c16970.jpg

He has the scholarly wit, black humor, and literary flair of Flann O'Brien. Though I'm not surprised that his bleak satire didn't win him a huge audience in the Depression, I'm very impressed with his work.

Regards,

Istvan

[dfloyd]

although it has been sometime ago. I really liked both for their black humor. His writing reminded me of early Evelyn Waugh. The Day of the Locust was made into a pretty good movie staring Burgess Meridith. Meridith liked offbeat roles in literary dramatizations. He was also in Of Mice and Men, but perhaps he was picked here because of his short stature.

[PeterL]

I have also read those two novels, and I can understand them. Miss Lonelyhearts might be OK, if the characters were better and the plot was more complete. The Day of the Locust is one of the least pleasant reads that I have encountered. I was amazed to learn that there are people who like the book.

[dfloyd]

If you mean that one places himself in the role of that character. Crime and Punishment may be the best book I have ever read ... and I have read most of the 19th and 20th century classics. I would want to understand Raskolnikov, not identify myself with an axe murderer. If he had lived, West might have turned into a pretty fair writer. As it is, his too few books are easy reads and do not take an inordinate amount of time to get through them. I don't think they take top priority on anyone's reading list, but I would recommend them.

[Babbalanja]

Peter,

You're entitled to your opinion, of course. But I think your mistake is in thinking that West is trying to elicit sympathy for his characters. It seems to me he's remaining as aloof as possible, indifferent (as is the world itself) to the suffering of the poor souls inhabiting his stories.

In terms of Day of the Locust, your analysis suffers from the fact that there's no attempt at stream of consciousness there. You must be thinking of some other story, or the work of a completely different author.

Regards,

Istvan

[PeterL]

Peter,

You're entitled to your opinion, of course. But I think your mistake is in thinking that West is trying to elicit sympathy for his characters. It seems to me he's remaining as aloof as possible, indifferent (as is the world itself) to the suffering of the poor souls inhabiting his stories.

The rules for good fiction say that there should be at least one chaacter with whom readers can identify or, at least, like. By neglecting that,West made his books something distant from people. There are ways to have the effect on readers that I think that West wanted and to have characters that seemed like humans, so West lost.


In terms of Day of the Locust, your analysis suffers from the fact that there's no attempt at stream of consciousness there. You must be thinking of some other story, or the work of a completely different author.


That is possible. I ploughed well into The Day of the Locust, and I know that it made no sense. I was told that it was stream of consciousness, and I believed that, because it certainly was not narrative. I may be thinking of some other really poorly written novel, but I can't think of anything that had such muddy prose.

[Manchegan]

I'm not so sure that there's such a clearly defined minimum for likable characters in good fiction. I think the characters need to be interesting, not likable.

I found the Day of the Locust pretty convoluded, too, but it was an interesting story in a surreal sort of way. Never read lonely hearts, but A Cool Million was awesome. It's essentially Candide, but more gruesome and set in 1920s America. It's hilarious.

[Drkshadow03]

I recently read these two books. Same edition. I wrote a blog post on the two novels (http://beyondassumptions.wordpress.com/2009/10/25/booklist-2009-51-56/), not with my usual in-depth analysis and not written with a lot of care, degenerating into repetitiveness and sloppiness, but I think it captures some of my basic thoughts on the two books.

I like the two novels, but I didn't love them. I've read worse, and I have read better. I preferred Miss Lonelyhearts to The Day of the Locust.

[dfloyd]

seems to be that of the poster. He/she doesn't like the book, but can't remember if it was written in stream of consciousness which would ostensibly stand out like a sore thumb. Let's just say he doesn't like the book, but he can't remember much about it... but loves to post.

[Babbalanja]

he can't remember much about it... but loves to post.
:lol:

His vague recollection of disliking half a novel he read that may or may not have been by Nathaneal West really contributed to the discussion.

Regards,

Istvan

[Modest Proposal]

The rules for good fiction say that there should be at least one chaacter with whom readers can identify or, at least, like. By neglecting that,West made his books something distant from people. There are ways to have the effect on readers that I think that West wanted and to have characters that seemed like humans, so West lost.



That is possible. I ploughed well into The Day of the Locust, and I know that it made no sense. I was told that it was stream of consciousness, and I believed that, because it certainly was not narrative. I may be thinking of some other really poorly written novel, but I can't think of anything that had such muddy prose.

Just so you know, both Time and Modern Library have 'The Day of the Locust' as one of the top 100 books of the century.

I know that those lists are not perfect, but I think you may be holding back a little credit that is due West.

[PeterL]

Just so you know, both Time and Modern Library have 'The Day of the Locust' as one of the top 100 books of the century.

I know that those lists are not perfect, but I think you may be holding back a little credit that is due West.

Such lists are created for the amusement of people who make them up. Just imagine the way they laughed when they added The Day of the Locust.

[Babbalanja]

Such lists are created for the amusement of people who make them up. Just imagine the way they laughed when they added The Day of the Locust.:rolleyes:

Maybe they read the half you didn't.

Regards,

Istvan

[Drkshadow03]

Okay, instead of making this yet another lit-net thread about who can retort with the wittiest comeback, how about we actually discuss the book?


Just so you know, both Time and Modern Library have 'The Day of the Locust' as one of the top 100 books of the century.

I know that those lists are not perfect, but I think you may be holding back a little credit that is due West.

Modest Proposal, what did you find so compelling about The Day of the Locust? Do you think it should be on those two lists? If so, why? Also, do you think it a better novel than Miss Lonelyhearts (which is really more of a novella)?

[Modest Proposal]

First off, let me be perfectly honest in saying the book was not a favorite of mine. It was, however, extremely poignant in its portrayal of California--and specifically Hollywood/LA's moral terpetude--. I am from California and the novel resonates with me in much the same way, I think, 'All the Kings Men' resonates with the American South. I do not mean to say that either is purely topical or that their meaning fails to transcend geographic boundaries, but rather it exemplifies the particulars of some specific area and allows for them to be understood outside that area. The proverbial 'slice of life'.

I don't know what belongs on those lists, I'm sure if I made the lists people would take exception. What I was trying to do, was get the posters to think a little past: 'I liked it' or 'I thought it was pointless'. Part of the role of a cannon is to inform people that something is 'respected'. It doesn't mean the reader will love the book necissarily, but that they will take into their reading the knowledge that the book was influencial and was deemed worthy of reading/study by many people.

This isn't the answer to whether West's book is great or not, just dilating on my last point. It wasn't a fluke on one list, but made it onto both of the most well known centenial booklists in America. What does that mean? Will or should everyone like it? No. Should we give it more than half a read before dismissing it? Probably.

[PeterL]

First off, let me be perfectly honest in saying the book was not a favorite of mine. It was, however, extremely poignant in its portrayal of California--and specifically Hollywood/LA's moral terpetude--. I am from California and the novel resonates with me in much the same way, I think, 'All the Kings Men' resonates with the American South. I do not mean to say that either is purely topical or that their meaning fails to transcend geographic boundaries, but rather it exemplifies the particulars of some specific area and allows for them to be understood outside that area. The proverbial 'slice of life'.

I don't know what belongs on those lists, I'm sure if I made the lists people would take exception. What I was trying to do, was get the posters to think a little past: 'I liked it' or 'I thought it was pointless'. Part of the role of a cannon is to inform people that something is 'respected'. It doesn't mean the reader will love the book necissarily, but that they will take into their reading the knowledge that the book was influencial and was deemed worthy of reading/study by many people.

This isn't the answer to whether West's book is great or not, just dilating on my last point. It wasn't a fluke on one list, but made it onto both of the most well known centenial booklists in America. What does that mean? Will or should everyone like it? No. Should we give it more than half a read before dismissing it? Probably.

I disagree. I think that it was a fluke or a joke for it to be considered one of the hundred best novels of the 20th century. That doesn't mean that there is no value to the thing, but there certainly are more than a hundred 20th century novels that are better.

If one is looking for something about the morals of Hollywood in that period, then the pickings might be thin, but I don't think that's a reason to elevate such a poorly written book to any high status.

The first time I tried to read The Day of the Locusts I got through about thirty pages. It was for a college course in satire. I read more than anyone else in the class, and I spent a while railing about bad writing, then we moved on. I picked it up some time later and found it to be poorly written and having characters that I would not want anything to do with. I don't recall how much of it I read, but I did not finish it. I can't see reading a book about people that I wouldn't want anything to do with in the real world, so West failed in his writing.

[dfloyd]

The depiction of 1930s LA/Hollywood is its principal attribute. A little later, the novels of Raymond Chandler were to depict a more brutal LA full of murder and mayhem. The reading of both West and Chandler give the reader a description of Hollywood of the 30s and LA of the 40s which has never been equalled. Chandler was criticized because he didn't have nice characters. But as one critic said, 'Raymond Chandler took murder out of the English drawing room and into the back alleys of LA where it belongs."

[Modest Proposal]

I disagree. I think that it was a fluke or a joke for it to be considered one of the hundred best novels of the 20th century. That doesn't mean that there is no value to the thing, but there certainly are more than a hundred 20th century novels that are better.

If one is looking for something about the morals of Hollywood in that period, then the pickings might be thin, but I don't think that's a reason to elevate such a poorly written book to any high status.

The first time I tried to read The Day of the Locusts I got through about thirty pages. It was for a college course in satire. I read more than anyone else in the class, and I spent a while railing about bad writing, then we moved on. I picked it up some time later and found it to be poorly written and having characters that I would not want anything to do with. I don't recall how much of it I read, but I did not finish it. I can't see reading a book about people that I wouldn't want anything to do with in the real world, so West failed in his writing.

This post is exactly what I am talking about in mine. Your not liking something does NOT denote poor writing. That is what I was I was talking about in my post. Unless you have some proof that it is poor writing, it doesn't seem logical to accept your opinion against two such distinguished lists. And no, it is by definition NOT a fluke, because it happened twice and not in some spur of the moment situation but by a careful and calculated voting process among literati.

As to my real exception to your post I find it silly that you are passing judgement on something you didn't finish. Say you don't like it. Say you didn't care for the style but I am sorry you have ZERO critical credibility if you actually pass judgement on something that you did not finish. This is a widely accepted belief and I do not think ANY major critic would say otherwise.

Finally because you didn't like that it's 'about people that [you] wouldn't want anything to do with in the real world', I wonder what it is you think books should do and more interestingly what you think they should not do. Some books, some very, very good books, are about people you may not feel freindly towards. Are you truly saying that the book does not deserve it's place granted by the literary community because you didn't like the characters? Are you really saying that likeable characters trump all the other major achievements a book can accomplish? In my opinion 1984 had no likeable characters they were either weak or totalitarian. One could even complain that the aethetics of the writing is not too commendable. But I have never met someone who thought it didn't deserve vast respect. I respect it for the political pitfalls, human failings and forboding outlook it proposed.

[PeterL]

This post is exactly what I am talking about in mine. Your not liking something does NOT denote poor writing. That is what I was I was talking about in my post.



Apparently you didn't bother to read my post.

[Modest Proposal]

I spent a while railing about bad writing, then we moved on. I picked it up some time later and found it to be poorly written and having characters that I would not want anything to do with. I don't recall how much of it I read, but I did not finish it. I can't see reading a book about people that I wouldn't want anything to do with in the real world, so West failed in his writing.

You say you railed about 'bad writing' and found it 'poorly written' and end with 'West failed in his writing.'

Do you see the difference between that and saying, 'I didn't like it.'

Your saying it is bad is what I'm talking about. You don't put any responsibility on yourself as a reader to find what thousands found good in it, but rather assume they are all wrong and that the writting is bad.

If someone asked me to, I could find proof of weaknesses in Harry Potter. They are there: repetitiveness, poor metaphoric choices, et al. I'm saying that if you are not going to state your opinion that you didn't like something, but are rather going to go against critical analysis and say it wasn't good, then the burden of proof is on you. Sure you have a right to an opinion, but on a literature forum it seems you should bring more to bear for your claims than just saying it is 'bad writing'.

[Babbalanja]

I don't recall how much of it I read, but I did not finish it. I can't see reading a book about people that I wouldn't want anything to do with in the real world, so West failed in his writing.
So you can't see reading it. But you can see criticizing it as if you're some sort of expert, or as if you had actually read the book.

Who's the real failure here?

Regards,

Istvan

[Drkshadow03]

First off, let me be perfectly honest in saying the book was not a favorite of mine. It was, however, extremely poignant in its portrayal of California--and specifically Hollywood/LA's moral terpetude--. I am from California and the novel resonates with me in much the same way, I think, 'All the Kings Men' resonates with the American South. I do not mean to say that either is purely topical or that their meaning fails to transcend geographic boundaries, but rather it exemplifies the particulars of some specific area and allows for them to be understood outside that area. The proverbial 'slice of life'.


So you feel a book about 1920s California still captures the moral attitudes of modern California? In what way? What do you find immoral about the Californians in the books and the people of California today?

Why did you not like the book as much as some other books?


The depiction of 1930s LA/Hollywood is its principal attribute. A little later, the novels of Raymond Chandler were to depict a more brutal LA full of murder and mayhem. The reading of both West and Chandler give the reader a description of Hollywood of the 30s and LA of the 40s which has never been equalled. Chandler was criticized because he didn't have nice characters. But as one critic said, 'Raymond Chandler took murder out of the English drawing room and into the back alleys of LA where it belongs."

But what do you make of West's emphasis on all the people coming from the East to California?

[Jozanny]

This thread has reminded me I have to find my old edition of West from my courses. I like his work, though Locust has more thematic import.

To me he is one of the quiet minor great Americans, and may set the stage for the rise of the post-moderns like John Gardner.

[Nick Capozzoli]

I remember reading a story by West that I thought was fantastic, way ahead of its time...I believe it was called "The Short Happy Life of Balso Snell," or something close to that. Maybe I'm conflating it with the Hemingway story about the cuckolded hunter... Anyhow, this story is a kind of noir Horatio Alger.

[Nick Capozzoli]

I remember reading a story by West that I thought was fantastic, way ahead of its time...I believe it was called "The Short Happy Life of Balso Snell," or something close to that. Maybe I'm conflating it with the Hemingway story about the cuckolded hunter... Anyhow, this story is a kind of noir Horatio Alger.

Oops...I just remembered, it was "the Dream Life of Balso Snell.":mad:

[Nick Capozzoli]

And, A Cool Million is the Horatio Alger noir, with Lemuel Pitkin being reduced (literally) by his misfortunes. I like both of these stories more than Locust or Lonelyhearts.