US v England contemporary novels

[JBI]

I'm going to have to totally disagree with JBI on Chabon. I've read both of the novels mentioned above, and while neither one was flawless, I found Kavalier and Clay to be nearly so, giving it a 9.5. His real talent lies in developing plot, but his character creation is also wonderful. Plus, he won the Pulitzer for Kavalier and Clay, not something slouches usually accomplish.

I'm not sure what JBI means when he says, "The ending was rather weak, and he glosses over much of the important elements of history," because Kavalier and Clay (I must assume that's the book he's referring to, since Yiddish Policemen... is an alternate history/mystery novel) is a book about the history of comic books, a fictionalized history mostly, so I don't know what important parts of history are missing. Historical accuracy has little to do with it. I also found the ending good.

I don't think historical novels should gloss over history. This is world war two we are talking about in the most chaotic environment in the world, New York - you are talking racial, labour and political movements. You are talking anti-semitism, and war - conscription, loss, sons coming home, etc. Not a bunch of kids with dreams. It is a clumsy crafting.

As for the ending, he gets rid of the gay character to move the heterosexual one back in - replaces the replacement father if you will - clever and clean, a great play to the American penchant for happy endings. Let alone the intense homophobia that glosses over rather lightly.

It is a novel about comic books, but if you notice there is no real villain - a sad excuse for an American nazi, and a semi-evil rich boss. It is an applause for greatness of the American creative mind, perhaps, but it fails.

You can tell this author was trained as an author and studied creative writing. He writes like someone trained to write in a specific style, and isn't mature enough to my ear to break out of his constructive space into an individualized talent that is non-academic.

I will compare him to the bunch of painters in the early 19th century trained in the academies - contrived, commonplace, acceptable, and non-controversial.

What a lot of people here fail to grasp is that David Foster Wallace is dead and Midnight's Children was thirty years ago.

Also, if we're talking about younger writers then Junot Diaz, the author of The Brief Wondrous Life of Oscar Wao is only 44. I haven't read this but it does make a lot of the critic's lists.

JBI, as a Canadian, what do you think of Rohinton Mistry? Does his later work live up to A Fine Balance? Could you put him on the same pedestal as Atwood say?

And has anyone kept tabs on Paul Auster since he left for France? He might have done some more good work there. He certainly has the brains, though I found him a bit too pretentious for my taste.

By the way, I don't think anyone has mentioned Chuck Palahniuk yet. The man obviously has talent, but every book he's written since the first has been more polished and less inspired than the last. I stopped reading him in 2005, but he might have written himself out of the rut since then.

Mistry's work, from what I can gather, is very Canadian in content now. I must confess not reading widely beyond a Fine Balance. Now, if Canadian immigration was interesting to an international audience (which makes up much of his non-fiction), he may be better read, but he has not written as international a book as A Fine Balance since - and I think he knows it.

Still, there is no need to lambast him over it - A Fine Balance is a fine book, and should be treated as so. It is well written, well crafted and mature - a very professional book. Do I call it a Canadian novel? Well, not exactly, but it is a good novel and who cares.

I doubt he will be making a bigger contribution to literature than that already achieved in his earlier book, but then again, most authors are one-hit wonders.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

I don't think historical novels should gloss over history. This is world war two we are talking about in the most chaotic environment in the world, New York - you are talking racial, labour and political movements. You are talking anti-semitism, and war - conscription, loss, sons coming home, etc. Not a bunch of kids with dreams. It is a clumsy crafting.

As for the ending, he gets rid of the gay character to move the heterosexual one back in - replaces the replacement father if you will - clever and clean, a great play to the American penchant for happy endings. Let alone the intense homophobia that glosses over rather lightly.

It is a novel about comic books, but if you notice there is no real villain - a sad excuse for an American nazi, and a semi-evil rich boss. It is an applause for greatness of the American creative mind, perhaps, but it fails.

You can tell this author was trained as an author and studied creative writing. He writes like someone trained to write in a specific style, and isn't mature enough to my ear to break out of his constructive space into an individualized talent that is non-academic.

I will compare him to the bunch of painters in the early 19th century trained in the academies - contrived, commonplace, acceptable, and non-controversial.

Your first paragraph: Well, the roll they take in WWII and how they deal with the issues in their comics plays a large role in the story. I think where I have to really disagree with you here is that you think any story set in the era of WWII (and only a fraction of the book is) must be dark, depressing, and bleak because, obviously, that time in New York was completely dark, depressing, and bleak and no one was ever happy and therefore there were no kids with dreams . . . even though kids with dreams are who created comic books. And it isn't like the two protagonists are just a couple of happy-go-lucky buddies with not a care in the world. You know that isn't the case. And if you think it just glossed over the issue of homophobia, maybe you read a different book than I did.

Your second paragraph: I admit I don't completely remember how it ends, but I don't remember it being a complete happy ending. It was in some ways, but not for everyone. Anyways, what's wrong with happy endings?

Your third: Why does there have to be a villain? And I think it quite succeeded. For some reason, I don't think you'd ever be able get into a book that celebrates America.

As for the fourth, I just disagree.

[mortalterror]

[Which poets, beyond Adunis and Heaney, would you deem possibly worthy of being called "great"?

Missed this the first time through. In answer to your question, the poets I think which qualify as great working in the second half of the twentieth century are Pablo Neruda obviously. Dylan Thomas died in '53 but in '51 he wrote Do Not Go Gentle Into That Good Night. W.H. Auden wrote The Shield of Achilles in '52. Thomas and Auden were probably minor authors but those individual poems are great. Frost was still plugging away in the sixties. I like Adunis and Heaney, and they are certainly better than Hughes and Larkin, but I'm afraid that they are probably also minor writers as well. Zbigniew Herbert, that's a major writer. Derek Walcott, another major. Herbert's Mr. Cogito poems are marvelous and Walcott's Omeros has a lot to recommend it, even though I like some of his shorter work more. Czesław Miłosz was probably a major poet. I like some of his stuff. Billy Collins is good but minor.

The later poetry of Archibald MacLeish and Robert Penn Warren is very good, and I do like it, but they are minor poets. Robert Lowell and Theodore Roethke, talented but still minor. My exposure to Elizabeth Bishop was too brief and too long ago to recollect an opinion. Ginsberg's Howl has some great things in it, and it may be a great poem, but he is no great poet. Lawrence Ferlinghetti is garbage. Charles Olson garbage. Gary Snyder, haven't read him. James Merrill, minor. Aniara sounds like something I'd be into so I'm definitely planning to read Harry Martinson some day. And that's all the poets I can think of for now.

[Pierre Menard]

I don't think historical novels should gloss over history. This is world war two we are talking about in the most chaotic environment in the world, New York - you are talking racial, labour and political movements. You are talking anti-semitism, and war - conscription, loss, sons coming home, etc. Not a bunch of kids with dreams. It is a clumsy crafting.

Um, whaaat? Surely it's the authors prerogative to decide the boundaries of what he wants to explore history-wise? Isn't the book largely about the comics industry...not about labour, political movements and sons coming home? You make it sound like as an author, he has a responsibility to explore big 'social themes'. What if they were of no interest to him?

I honestly don't see how that is clumsy crafting?

[JBI]

Um, whaaat? Surely it's the authors prerogative to decide the boundaries of what he wants to explore history-wise? Isn't the book largely about the comics industry...not about labour, political movements and sons coming home? You make it sound like as an author, he has a responsibility to explore big 'social themes'. What if they were of no interest to him?

I honestly don't see how that is clumsy crafting?

Maybe you misunderstand, or haven't read the book. The book is not just about comics, it is about background. It very much tries to be historical. My problem is its historical setting is like a straw-man history with paper-cut heroes.

Much of the book is concerned with labour disputes, and the realities of death and war. My problem is the treatment is tacky and not realistic. It seems preoccupied with pushing forward a good American image at the cost of realism or conflict.

For example, it makes American Naziism out to be a joke in the form of a comedic buffoon of a villain. It makes American immigration seem easy, accepting, and open. It makes it seem that everyone can find their dream in the States.

Now, reality. A Czech Jew arriving without papers from a strange path via Japan would have virtually no chance of getting into the United States, let alone landing a decent paying job right when he arrived (the first day). It's enough that he wouldn't have been so fluent in English, or perhaps would have been seasick.

Next point, the world of New york in the late 30s was chaotic. A violent place, with identity, class, and racial chaos. Not some land of dreams coming true. He touches on it, but ultimately misses.

The main plot threads concern labour, concern immigration, concern WW2. My quibble is the depiction is clumsy, and contrived.

[WyattGwyon]

I haven't read McCarthy yet, so I can't say one way or the other...But, All the Pretty Horses is my next assigned reading in my American Lit. class.

That's too bad. Their are four or five of his novels that are better: Suttree, Blood Meridian, The Crossing, I even think his first novel, The Orchard Keeper was better.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Maybe you misunderstand, or haven't read the book. The book is not just about comics, it is about background. It very much tries to be historical. My problem is its historical setting is like a straw-man history with paper-cut heroes.

Much of the book is concerned with labour disputes, and the realities of death and war. My problem is the treatment is tacky and not realistic. It seems preoccupied with pushing forward a good American image at the cost of realism or conflict.

For example, it makes American Naziism out to be a joke in the form of a comedic buffoon of a villain. It makes American immigration seem easy, accepting, and open. It makes it seem that everyone can find their dream in the States.

Now, reality. A Czech Jew arriving without papers from a strange path via Japan would have virtually no chance of getting into the United States, let alone landing a decent paying job right when he arrived (the first day). It's enough that he wouldn't have been so fluent in English, or perhaps would have been seasick.

Next point, the world of New york in the late 30s was chaotic. A violent place, with identity, class, and racial chaos. Not some land of dreams coming true. He touches on it, but ultimately misses.

The main plot threads concern labour, concern immigration, concern WW2. My quibble is the depiction is clumsy, and contrived.

Oh yeah? . . . well . . . it won the Pulitzer, so it's GOOD! So there!

[Kafka's Crow]

As the latest turn in the argument shows, each of the two nations is doing well with their literature in their own sphere. American Literature for Americans, English for the Britons. You can not understand what we are doing, nor do you need to either, nor are we in a position to judge what is going on across the pond. Each to their own. There is no empire and there is no imperial culture any more. JBI is right, English Literature, as a discipline, was designed to influence the thinking of the Indian subjects of the empire (see Gauri Viswanathan's The Masks of Conquest). As far as the readership in the UK is concerned, we'd put our cup of tea back in its saucer and say, "we are dong very well, thank you." The literary scene is hugely diverse, vibrant and satisfactory and is serving its primary function of increasing the number of readers and I really do hope that the the North American readers can say the same about their own literature.

I love seeing Danielewski's name pop up. I just finished House of Leaves. Man, what a trip. I'm looking forward to seeing where he goes.

I read about 50 pages of The House of Leaves, reminded me of Blair Witch Project. I might read this books some time. His sister, Poe , is a singer (she actually released a song called 'five and a half minute hallway') and I watched an interview in which he called Poe's songs something like parallel or complimentary texts to his book. Still, too much of a Blair Witch Project for my liking. It is in my wishlist on Amazon and I will read it pretty soon.

[Paulclem]

What a lot of people here fail to grasp is that David Foster Wallace is dead and Midnight's Children was thirty years ago.

Rushdie has continued to write since Midnight's Children. I referred to this as a book I know with the implication that he hasn't slipped his unconventional approach.

I read about 50 pages of The House of Leaves, reminded me of Blair Witch Project. I might read this books some time. His sister, Poe , is a singer (she actually released a song called 'five and a half minute hallway') and I watched an interview in which he called Poe's songs something like parallel or complimentary texts to his book. Still, too much of a Blair Witch Project for my liking. It is in my wishlist on Amazon and I will read it pretty soon.

How was the writing like The Blair Witch Project? (I didn't like the film, but applaud the attempt).

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

I read about 50 pages of The House of Leaves, reminded me of Blair Witch Project. I might read this books some time. His sister, Poe , is a singer (she actually released a song called 'five and a half minute hallway') and I watched an interview in which he called Poe's songs something like parallel or complimentary texts to his book. Still, too much of a Blair Witch Project for my liking. It is in my wishlist on Amazon and I will read it pretty soon.

Well, I liked The Blair Witch Project, thought it was creative and it always creeps me out.

I get the comparison, but I think the book is so much more. I guess the biggest similarity one could point out is that both try extremely hard to portray themselves as actual occurrences and not works of fiction.

[Kafka's Crow]

Well, I liked The Blair Witch Project, thought it was creative and it always creeps me out.

I get the comparison, but I think the book is so much more. I guess the biggest similarity one could point out is that both try extremely hard to portray themselves as actual occurrences and not works of fiction.

Blair Witch Project was cheap. I found the actors they used for developing an impression of reality thoroughly implausible. I can recall one of the so-called professors commenting on the video, the guy with tinted glasses, he looked like an out of work pornstar instead of a university professor. It was creepy and scary but not because of the 'footnotes' but because of the story-line. The rest was padding to support a 30 minute film. Can we say the same about The House of Leaves?

And BWP also created a 'cult-following' like The House of Leaves has recently done, did not last long though.

How was the writing like The Blair Witch Project? (I didn't like the film, but applaud the attempt).

There are footnotes and fabricated academic debates about the truth of a documentary on pages along with the narrative itself like the debates and 'expert opinions' in the movie. Bulk of the book is made up of these footnotes and excerpts from journals.

I recently read William Hope Hodgson's The House on the Borderland dealing with the subject of a house that defies space and time. Spooked me out well and truly.

Early this morning I finished reading A S Byatt's Possession. I started reading it many years ago but gave up because of the slow pace of her story. On second attempt I thoroughly enjoyed the novel and finished it within a week. Still through all those years I kept on looking for some information on Randolph Henry Ash, Victorian poet and contemporary of Dante Gabriel Rossetti and Swinburne. During those years more and more information is become available on RH Ash thanks to the internet and now, finally after so many years, am I able to see through Byatt's ruse.

[Paulclem]

Cheers - I might give it a whirl. It does remind me of the more basic approach taken by Stoker in Dracula, (and other of course), with the journal entries. I suppose he was after a similar effect using a limited method.

[Kafka's Crow]

Cheers - I might give it a whirl. It does remind me of the more basic approach taken by Stoker in Dracula, (and other of course), with the journal entries. I suppose he was after a similar effect using a limited method.

Have a look at the edited message!

As far as Dracula is concerned, see here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SKdGwfMD8u8

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Can we say the same about The House of Leaves?

Well, you can't. You only read fifty pages.

House of Leaves is two stories (at least two main stories; others are peppered throughout). One is the actual story of the haunted house, told through interpreting a film documented by the owners of the house. I found the theme of dissociation quite fascinating. We are shown the core of the story, a haunted house story (sections of which are quite creepy) first through the lens of the people behind the camera documenting it (we get no insight into the actual characters thoughts) then we get another lens because we aren't actually seeing the movie, but reading a book about the movie (in that the book portrays itself as nonfictional discussion of the movie, sometimes in academic terms), and then there,s a further lens placed over that in the footnotes we get by the editors and the man who goes mad while reading House of Leaves, his footnotes being a whole other story, also scary, as it's a first person account of a man going insane. There're layers and layers, and without the "padding," it would be just another haunted house story. Which he could have done. He had enough material concerning the story of the house to write a book about that only, but then it would be just another horror story and nothing special.

I need to write a review on the book, as it is definitely one of the most fascinating things I've read, maybe the most fascinating since I read Moby Dick. I can easily see why someone wouldn't like it, as it is always easy to see with strange literature, but I can't imagine the amount of time that went into creating this labyrinthine creation.

P.S. How much of Blair Witch Project was comprised of experts and stuff? Wasn't it like the first ten minutes, at most?

[Kafka's Crow]

Well, you can't. You only read fifty pages.

House of Leaves is two stories (at least two main stories; others are peppered throughout). One is the actual story of the haunted house, told through interpreting a film documented by the owners of the house. I found the theme of dissociation quite fascinating. We are shown the core of the story, a haunted house story (sections of which are quite creepy) first through the lens of the people behind the camera documenting it (we get no insight into the actual characters thoughts) then we get another lens because we aren't actually seeing the movie, but reading a book about the movie (in that the book portrays itself as nonfictional discussion of the movie, sometimes in academic terms), and then there,s a further lens placed over that in the footnotes we get by the editors and the man who goes mad while reading House of Leaves, his footnotes being a whole other story, also scary, as it's a first person account of a man going insane. There're layers and layers, and without the "padding," it would be just another haunted house story. Which he could have done. He had enough material concerning the story of the house to write a book about that only, but then it would be just another horror story and nothing special.

I need to write a review on the book, as it is definitely one of the most fascinating things I've read, maybe the most fascinating since I read Moby Dick. I can easily see why someone wouldn't like it, as it is always easy to see with strange literature, but I can't imagine the amount of time that went into creating this labyrinthine creation.

P.S. How much of Blair Witch Project was comprised of experts and stuff? Wasn't it like the first ten minutes, at most?

As I said, I want to read the House of Leaves but I am a bit cautious when dealing with things which have a cult following: Doctor Who, Lost, The X Files etc. Blair Witch Project had such following but it did not last long and the sequel was a traditional horror flick and fans went to watch it any how. I watched TBWP very long time ago. Can't recall most of it except for the stickmen, hand-prints, the ending and that 'professor' who literally made me laugh out loud.