Where's the irresponsibility in modern fiction?

[Kire]

The joke's on us

Howard Jacobson worries about the lack of irresponsibility in modern fiction

Saturday July 9, 2005
The Guardian

Art becomes a puzzle when we don't know what else it's for. Take a look at the nation's bookshops and galleries and you might think art and literature have never had it so good. Queues wherever there's an exhibition and three novels for every two you're willing to shell out for. Philistinism, the lot of it. We're not looking or reading, we're solving. We're cracking the code. What does it mean, the Mona Lisa smile? What was Michelangelo "really" up to?

There's no explaining the success of The Da Vinci Code, which is ill-written and fatuously conceived, outside of the satisfaction it offers to the code-breakers. When art no longers answers to a religious or intellectual impulse, yet residual respect still attaches to it, the idea that it exists to smuggle secrets is appealing.

The other proof of our philistinism is our politicising of literature. I am not thinking only of the hijacking of book programmes and literary festivals by the current-affairs mob, I also mean the excitement generated by the idea that a novel, or indeed a clutch of novels, has, say, 9/11 as its subject matter. There is, of course, no reason why it shouldn't. But there is equally no reason why it should.

The old complaint that Jane Austen left out the Napeolonic wars is making itself heard again. If a novel isn't politically au courant, if it isn't ratified by events outside itself, we have trouble remembering what it's for. Henry James's famous criticism of George Eliot ought to remind us. "We feel in her, always, that she proceeds from the abstract to the concrete; that her figures and situations are evolved, as the phrase is, from her moral consciousness, and are only indirectly the products of observation. They are deeply studied and supported, but they are not 'seen', in the irresponsible plastic way."

More: http://books.guardian.co.uk/review/story/0,12084,1523533,00.html

[madeline_con]

1. He seems to be lamenting the fact

that people write novels with 9/11 as a backdrop.

A lot of people who never pick up a newspaper might actually learn something during story time, so what's the sin in that?

Edited spelling, as usual.

[Kire]

2. the sin is that people think they should write about it

out of obligation, which is more determined by the market than any sense of art

[xchrom]

3. indeed. to use 9/11 is to manipulate

for dollars not create because you live to create.

while david was certainly a ''popular'' figure in michangelo's time -- his sculpture rose far above merely manipulating the public.

today -- especially in the case of lit. -- too many things are created according to formula.
they're dialing for dollars.

[madeline_con]

6. Not all writers do for love of writing..

some know there's money in it.

[Democrats_win]

4. I enjoyed the "Da Vinci Code." Critics say Rule of 4 was well written but

its already in paperback. It was ok, but not nearly as good as the Code which is still in hardback and on the bestseller list.

I think this guy needs to come out of his ivory tower and read a book for fun.

[pitohui]

5. oh there's plenty of fun in modern fiction

i laugh out loud plenty when i read

for irresponsible fun with the 9-11 backdrop, how about "keller's adjustment" by lawrence block, yeah, that keller, the professional hit man

there's a lot of fun and irreverance out there

suspense doesn't have to be all goopy da vinci code stuff, be honest, the fart jokes are in stephen king because they are silly and people laugh

[On the Road]

7. There Certainly IS Plenty of Fun

I think the author would approve of Chuck Palahniuk and David Foster Wallace, for example.

Mr. Jacobson, however, is living in the public world of books, and doesn't have the luxury of picking and choosing. He's stuck with the best-seller lists. But best seller lists have always been vapid.

[Goblinmonger]

8. This guy sounds like

a pretentious little prig. What a douche. Don't think there was ever anything written that was shitty during Jane Austen's time? Also sounds a lot like the traditional "Brit-thinking-American-Literature-is-inherently-trash" bullshit. Yeah, writing about what is happening in history/culture--Shakespeare never did that. Oh wait, yeah he did. Well Swift never did. OK, another bad example. Conrad didn't. Oh yeah, he did too. I think you get that I could go on for hours with examples.

People are reading. That is NEVER a bad thing. Do I like Nicholas Sparks? No. I would rather burn my eyes out with a hot iron, but reading him is better than somebody reading nothing.

There is a lot of good literature being written right now. Let's not overlook that. Middlesex is a fantastic novel and will, I believe, be considered one of the best American novels of all time.

Sorry, I just don't have much time for people with this guy's attitude. I bet he squeals with delight when he catches someone using the subjective form instead of the objective form. "To who? Indeed. I am more intelligent than you! WEEEEEEEEE"

Peace out.