Looking back at what was written and admired half a century ago helps us to understand what is going on today. The past still affects us, so we should continue to read and think about it.
I do not think any writer today has the stage that NM had in his day. Roth, Updike, Mailer--their books were events talked abt on late night TV, reviews in every outlet. I don't mean there aren't writers of import--they just are not as known at writers were in the 60s-70s.
Literary culture, even the carny show it steadily because in the 70's & 80's, is withering on the vine under the heavy assault of video. Which sucks, but there it is.
I would add "Harlot's Ghost" to any list about Mailer. It was supposed to be the "War and Peace" for the Cold War, but he never wrote the second volume. Still at over 1,000 pages, it's worthy, a visceral look at the insanity of the intelligence/security state.
As to canceling old books by today's standards, I've been focusing on the 19th Century novel the last couple of years, and I often laugh to myself at how utterly unacceptable this great writing would be if someone tried to publish it today.
"To complain that Norman Mailer has been cancelled is to complain that the rules of politics and art that for so long favoured middle class liberal white men are now in crisis – have perhaps been fatally undermined."
I am sorry to inform you that I don't make the grade for any of the qualifiers except for the white. So I am not sure why I'd feel bad about it.
That said: "Complaints about cancel culture constitute a perhaps predictable response to the late empowerment by social media of a wide range of minority political movements. (That these movements have often abused their online power, and have themselves trafficked in paranoid rhetoric, perhaps says less about the nature of progressive movements as such than it does about the toxic intimacy of paranoia and power.)"
he really has to be one of the most overrated writers in the history of english-language writers...his books feel more dated now than books written 2 thousand yrs ago.
just goes to show you what being a shameless and desperate media whore can do for your book sales.
Lately i've been getting this idea that so many of our known writers were just very dogged graphomaniacs (not that a bibliomaniac doesn't appreciate and rely symbiotically on a graphomaniac)...but that may just be because in our age of limited attention spans, i feel like most nonfiction books could be boiled down by at least say 30%, and i also forget that up until a few decades ago reading/writing was the only game in town (excepting radio and a few TV stations).
Either way, there are always some writers, however lauded and famous, you are underwhelmed by and immune to their charms...in my case, Mailer has always been one of those.
Thanks, Kathleen, and hope you enjoy the weekend...
I am basically with Clever Pseudonym there. I've never understood the appeal of Mailer or Bukowski (or similar 'big ape' types: Trump, Guiliani, etc.); they all just seem like assholes who maybe won't shut up already.
I liked the piece you quoted by Kevin Power better.
elm
gen x - caught in the endless crossfire between the boomers and millennials
It's interesting that during NM's time there was a small group of writers who had the connections to get covered by the NYT, the NTRB, VV, the Atlantic, Harpers-- and then they'd go on broadcast TV or NPR. They all lived in a small area of NYC. Kind of like a pre-social media control. They knew the owners of what was then "the media." So we in the bigger U.S. were only provided coverage of what these "influencers" thought was important.
Oh, well, yeah. That's the concentration of writers in New York (and LA) phenomena. That's about the economics of the situation. The tendency of the media to be hyper centrically focused on New York is just a byproduct of that. (Same with movies/TV and LA.)
The thing about NM is that he was already writing when TV arrived, so there was a period when people who had been writers in the pre-TV era when writing was more important were appearing on TV as VIPs even as TV was in turn taking The Discourse to ever lower levels. The same phenomena is at work with cable TV news, the internet & social media. Those are the main sources of communication, so content is oriented around that and becomes ever less literary.
Looking back at what was written and admired half a century ago helps us to understand what is going on today. The past still affects us, so we should continue to read and think about it.
I do not think any writer today has the stage that NM had in his day. Roth, Updike, Mailer--their books were events talked abt on late night TV, reviews in every outlet. I don't mean there aren't writers of import--they just are not as known at writers were in the 60s-70s.
Literary culture, even the carny show it steadily because in the 70's & 80's, is withering on the vine under the heavy assault of video. Which sucks, but there it is.
elm
we are a visual species
I would add "Harlot's Ghost" to any list about Mailer. It was supposed to be the "War and Peace" for the Cold War, but he never wrote the second volume. Still at over 1,000 pages, it's worthy, a visceral look at the insanity of the intelligence/security state.
As to canceling old books by today's standards, I've been focusing on the 19th Century novel the last couple of years, and I often laugh to myself at how utterly unacceptable this great writing would be if someone tried to publish it today.
I'm gonna leave art in it's place to enjoy.
"To complain that Norman Mailer has been cancelled is to complain that the rules of politics and art that for so long favoured middle class liberal white men are now in crisis – have perhaps been fatally undermined."
I am sorry to inform you that I don't make the grade for any of the qualifiers except for the white. So I am not sure why I'd feel bad about it.
That said: "Complaints about cancel culture constitute a perhaps predictable response to the late empowerment by social media of a wide range of minority political movements. (That these movements have often abused their online power, and have themselves trafficked in paranoid rhetoric, perhaps says less about the nature of progressive movements as such than it does about the toxic intimacy of paranoia and power.)"
Now there's a useful thought.
elm
everybody wants to rule the world
he really has to be one of the most overrated writers in the history of english-language writers...his books feel more dated now than books written 2 thousand yrs ago.
just goes to show you what being a shameless and desperate media whore can do for your book sales.
what is also astonishing is the amount of $$$ paid for his papers and archives. His mother saved everything. Millions. And the meticulous documentation of his every word at the Ransom Center: https://norman.hrc.utexas.edu/fasearch/findingAid.cfm?eadid=00480
Lately i've been getting this idea that so many of our known writers were just very dogged graphomaniacs (not that a bibliomaniac doesn't appreciate and rely symbiotically on a graphomaniac)...but that may just be because in our age of limited attention spans, i feel like most nonfiction books could be boiled down by at least say 30%, and i also forget that up until a few decades ago reading/writing was the only game in town (excepting radio and a few TV stations).
Either way, there are always some writers, however lauded and famous, you are underwhelmed by and immune to their charms...in my case, Mailer has always been one of those.
Thanks, Kathleen, and hope you enjoy the weekend...
I think his take on Oswald was interesting and by then I think he was over his big persona. But Ancient Evenings..unreadable.
I am basically with Clever Pseudonym there. I've never understood the appeal of Mailer or Bukowski (or similar 'big ape' types: Trump, Guiliani, etc.); they all just seem like assholes who maybe won't shut up already.
I liked the piece you quoted by Kevin Power better.
elm
gen x - caught in the endless crossfire between the boomers and millennials
It's interesting that during NM's time there was a small group of writers who had the connections to get covered by the NYT, the NTRB, VV, the Atlantic, Harpers-- and then they'd go on broadcast TV or NPR. They all lived in a small area of NYC. Kind of like a pre-social media control. They knew the owners of what was then "the media." So we in the bigger U.S. were only provided coverage of what these "influencers" thought was important.
Oh, well, yeah. That's the concentration of writers in New York (and LA) phenomena. That's about the economics of the situation. The tendency of the media to be hyper centrically focused on New York is just a byproduct of that. (Same with movies/TV and LA.)
The thing about NM is that he was already writing when TV arrived, so there was a period when people who had been writers in the pre-TV era when writing was more important were appearing on TV as VIPs even as TV was in turn taking The Discourse to ever lower levels. The same phenomena is at work with cable TV news, the internet & social media. Those are the main sources of communication, so content is oriented around that and becomes ever less literary.
elm
everyone is still in new york though
Was this the Algonquin Roundtable?