Welcome to The Valve
Login
Register


Valve Links

The Front Page
Statement of Purpose

John Holbo - Editor
Scott Eric Kaufman - Editor
Aaron Bady
Adam Roberts
Amardeep Singh
Andrew Seal
Bill Benzon
Daniel Green
Jonathan Goodwin
Joseph Kugelmass
Lawrence LaRiviere White
Marc Bousquet
Matt Greenfield
Miriam Burstein
Ray Davis
Rohan Maitzen
Sean McCann
Guest Authors

Laura Carroll
Mark Bauerlein
Miriam Jones

Past Valve Book Events

cover of the book Theory's Empire

Event Archive

cover of the book The Literary Wittgenstein

Event Archive

cover of the book Graphs, Maps, Trees

Event Archive

cover of the book How Novels Think

Event Archive

cover of the book The Trouble With Diversity

Event Archive

cover of the book What's Liberal About the Liberal Arts?

Event Archive

cover of the book The Novel of Purpose

Event Archive

The Valve - Closed For Renovation

Happy Trails to You

What’s an Encyclopedia These Days?

Encyclopedia Britannica to Shut Down Print Operations

Intimate Enemies: What’s Opera, Doc?

Alphonso Lingis talks of various things, cameras and photos among them

Feynmann, John von Neumann, and Mental Models

Support Michael Sporn’s Film about Edgar Allen Poe

Philosophy, Ontics or Toothpaste for the Mind

Nazi Rules for Regulating Funk ‘n Freedom

The Early History of Modern Computing: A Brief Chronology

Computing Encounters Being, an Addendum

On the Origin of Objects (towards a philosophy of computation)

Symposium on Graeber’s Debt

The Nightmare of Digital Film Preservation

Richard Petti on Occupy Wall Street: America HAS a Ruling Class

Bill Benzon on Whatwhatwhatwhatwhatwhatwhat?

Nick J. on The Valve - Closed For Renovation

Bill Benzon on Encyclopedia Britannica to Shut Down Print Operations

Norma on Encyclopedia Britannica to Shut Down Print Operations

Bill Benzon on What’s an Object, Metaphysically Speaking?

john balwit on What’s an Object, Metaphysically Speaking?

William Ray on That Shakespeare Thing

Bill Benzon on That Shakespeare Thing

William Ray on That Shakespeare Thing

JoseAngel on That Shakespeare Thing

Bill Benzon on Objects and Graeber's Debt

Bill Benzon on A Dirty Dozen Sneaking up on the Apocalypse

JoseAngel on A Dirty Dozen Sneaking up on the Apocalypse

JoseAngel on Objects and Graeber's Debt

Advanced Search

Articles
RSS 1.0 | RSS 2.0 | Atom

Comments
RSS 1.0 | RSS 2.0 | Atom

XHTML | CSS

Powered by Expression Engine
Logo by John Holbo

Creative Commons Licence
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

 


Blogroll

2blowhards
About Last Night
Academic Splat
Acephalous
Amardeep Singh
Beatrice
Bemsha Swing
Bitch. Ph.D.
Blogenspiel
Blogging the Renaissance
Bookslut
Booksquare
Butterflies & Wheels
Cahiers de Corey
Category D
Charlotte Street
Cheeky Prof
Chekhov’s Mistress
Chrononautic Log
Cliopatria
Cogito, ergo Zoom
Collected Miscellany
Completely Futile
Confessions of an Idiosyncratic Mind
Conversational Reading
Critical Mass
Crooked Timber
Culture Cat
Culture Industry
CultureSpace
Early Modern Notes
Easily Distracted
fait accompi
Fernham
Ferule & Fescue
Ftrain
GalleyCat
Ghost in the Wire
Giornale Nuovo
God of the Machine
Golden Rule Jones
Grumpy Old Bookman
Ideas of Imperfection
Idiocentrism
Idiotprogrammer
if:book
In Favor of Thinking
In Medias Res
Inside Higher Ed
jane dark’s sugarhigh!
John & Belle Have A Blog
John Crowley
Jonathan Goodwin
Kathryn Cramer
Kitabkhana
Languagehat
Languor Management
Light Reading
Like Anna Karina’s Sweater
Lime Tree
Limited Inc.
Long Pauses
Long Story, Short Pier
Long Sunday
MadInkBeard
Making Light
Maud Newton
Michael Berube
Moo2
MoorishGirl
Motime Like the Present
Narrow Shore
Neil Gaiman
Old Hag
Open University
Pas au-delà
Philobiblion
Planned Obsolescence
Printculture
Pseudopodium
Quick Study
Rake’s Progress
Reader of depressing books
Reading Room
ReadySteadyBlog
Reassigned Time
Reeling and Writhing
Return of the Reluctant
S1ngularity::criticism
Say Something Wonderful
Scribblingwoman
Seventypes
Shaken & Stirred
Silliman’s Blog
Slaves of Academe
Sorrow at Sills Bend
Sounds & Fury
Splinters
Spurious
Stochastic Bookmark
Tenured Radical
the Diaries of Franz Kafka
The Elegant Variation
The Home and the World
The Intersection
The Litblog Co-Op
The Literary Saloon
The Literary Thug
The Little Professor
The Midnight Bell
The Mumpsimus
The Pinocchio Theory
The Reading Experience
The Salt-Box
The Weblog
This Public Address
This Space: The Fire’s Blog
Thoughts, Arguments & Rants
Tingle Alley
Uncomplicatedly
Unfogged
University Diaries
Unqualified Offerings
Waggish
What Now?
William Gibson
Wordherders

Saturday, July 17, 2010

Better Critics Please

Posted by Aaron Bady on 07/17/10 at 02:05 PM

On hearing that Shirley Jackson is getting a Library of America volume, Malcolm Jones was suspicious that “the Library of America is running out of writers”:

Latest reasons for suspicion: at the end of April, the LOA will publish a slim volume containing John Updike’s famous New Yorker farewell to Ted Williams, “Hub Fans Bid Kid Adieu,” fleshed out with a little more eulogizing, published when Williams died. There has already been a LOA volume devoted to baseball writing, joining other volumes about American subjects (food, New York, Los Angeles, the legacies of Lincoln and Twain, the environment). You could file all these volumes under the heading, “Cleverly Curating the Franchise.” But somehow the Updike volume seems not just physically thin but insubstantial—too much made of a good thing. And then, in May, here comes an entire volume dedicated to …. Shirley Jackson? A writer mostly famous for one short story, “The Lottery.” Is LOA about to jump the shark?

…In uniform, black-jacketed editions, the works of Melville, Twain, Wharton, Faulkner and dozens of other Rushmore-sized American authors have marched onto our bookshelves…In the last couple of years, as John Cheever, John Ashbery and Raymond Carver got their own volumes, it became clear that the LOA wasn’t going to wait any longer for time’s verdict. It was almost like the production schedule was dictating the editorial decisions. Hurry up, we’ve got to have some more great writers for the fall list! But the inclusion of those authors never raised critical eyebrows (perhaps they should’ve—taken a good look at all of Cheever lately? Not pretty). Nor did the more interesting editorial choices of the past few years—Nathaniel West, Powell. But Shirley Jackson? Not a bad writer, but her inclusion seems so random, haphazard. Why Jackson before Jean Stafford, or Peter Taylor, Wallace Stegner, or why not simply more of James M. Cain than The Postman Always Rings Twice?

Laura Miller, on the other hand, is suspicious of Malcolm Jones:

The question of whether a figure like Jackson is sufficiently “Rushmore-sized” (Jones’ term) to deserve inclusion in a series of collections dedicated to such writers as Mark Twain and William Faulkner was again brought to mind by a blog posting by Lee Siegel at the New York Observer. [here] “Where Have All the Mailers Gone?” it was called, and in it Siegel lamented the irrelevance of fiction since the heyday of such titans as “Bellow, Updike, Mailer, Roth, Cheever, Malamud” and pointed to the ascendancy of nonfiction in its stead. Even the commercial fiction of yore, Siegel maintains, “mattered to people” more than today’s bestsellers. The soapy epics of Herman Wouk and Marjorie Kellogg “illumined the ordinary events of ordinary lives ... and they were as primal as the bard singing around the pre-Homeric fire.”

While Siegel’s posting was for the most part too silly and uninformed to bother responding to, it serves as a reminder of just how arbitrary, unreliable and tiresome the Literary Greatness Sweepstakes can be. Make no mistake: Mid-20th-century Americans believed that novels by the jostling alpha males on Siegel’s list were important and “central to their lives” largely because a chorus of cultural authority figures united to tell them so. That’s not to say that those novelists weren’t fine writers, or that the depiction of an upwardly striving middle-class descended from relatively recent immigrants (many of them Jewish) didn’t provide lively new subject matter. But it certainly wasn’t everyone’s story (as it was often made out to be), or a literature that everyone found interesting or that everyone would have consumed with “existential urgency and intensity” in absence of those endorsements.

Jackson, mostly unendorsed, wrote during more or less the same period, but where the fiction of Mailer and Bellow is expansive, hers is (intentionally) claustrophobic. She was the bard of the domestic nightmare (as Ruth Franklin astutely pointed out in a recent essay for the New Republic), of people who were trapped, excluded, usurped and pushed in a corner to wither away unnoticed. If there was anything Homeric about her—and come to think of it, I believe there was—it was the serene pitilessness with which she dispensed their doom….Those “meek little wives” Raymond Chandler wrote about at the beginning of “Red Wind”—the ones who, under the influence of the Santa Ana, suddenly begin to “feel the edge of the carving knife and study their husbands’ necks”? Those are Jackson’s people. Was their experience any less American—or any less “central”—than Alexander Portnoy’s or Rabbit Angstrom’s?

Is Jackson as “great” a writer as Bellow or Malamud? Oh, I don’t know. I suppose not, by whatever conventional standards of greatness are still being propped up by the mugs who advocate such competitions. But, as someone who has manfully hacked her way through the anecdotal thickets of “The Adventures of Augie March” ("What I want to know,” I crankily asked a friend about two-thirds of the way through, “is when the adventures are going to start"), I can say that such questions come to seem more meaningless to me every day.

Among other things, I’m struck by the performance aspect of both Jones’ and Siegel’s pieces. Miller actually makes a positive case for the terms in which Shirley Jackson is good—the case for the defense, as it were; biased, but usefully so -- and you can agree or disagree, however you want. But I feel like both Jones and Siegel are just performing the usual rote rendition of “literary curmudgeon” without any burden to defend or define the alternative to whatever it is they’re diagnosing (except some vague sense that something would/could/should be better). Perhaps this is what the Newsweek website means when it describes Jones as serving as an “all-purpose culture writer”?

After all, while I get a clear sense for why Miller values Shirley Jackson’s work—which would seem to be an important thing for a critic to do—one looks in vain for a sense of why “Jean Stafford, or Peter Taylor, Wallace Stegner, or more of James M. Cain” seem so obviously a better choice than Shirley Jackson. He just says it as if it’s obvious. Which is to say, even if we grant that Malcolm Jones could recount their virtues as writers in glorious detail, the fact that he didn’t is more telling to me: his argument proceeds not so much by asking you to take his word for their superiority, but rather, by implying that the case is so intuitive and obvious that he doesn’t even have to make it, establishes an “us” of the critical know-betters, defined pretty much only in terms of our preference for writers besides Shirley Jackson. Note, for example, that he doesn’t  actually argue that Jackson is undeserving, either;  to do would mean actually to engage with the nature of her writing, and he has no apparent interest in doing that. Easier to damn her faint praise (“A writer mostly famous for one short story…Not a bad writer”) and then rely on your ignorance (now officially confirmed) of all the other stuff she wrote.


Comments

All of the critics, Miller included, beg the larger questions: what is it about Jackson’s estate that might be making this the choice for now?  What is it about her appeal?  I don’t know the answer to the former, but that might be why her and not another writer.  The latter question, though, is important: Jackson is known for one story, sure, but it’s a story that everyone remembers reading in middle school and actually enjoyed reading.  Which means they might be tempted actually to read this damned thing.  (Unlike, say, the Pound’s translations volume.)

Which brings me to another point.  There are definitely poets the LoA should be publishing—Zukofsky, Reznikoff, Oppen, Brogan, Roethke, Olson—but no one reads poetry. 

I think Jackson is a great choice.  I’ve enjoyed everything I’ve read by her.  She’s definitely as fine a choice as Cheever, for god’s sake.

By on 07/18/10 at 12:31 PM | Permanent link to this comment

Jones and Siegel seem to be making the same “I know it to be so” move as Ebert does in your more recent post (and with the same curmudgeonly motivation).  Jones and Siegel’s “argument” is also extremely reminiscent of baseball traditionalists’ anti-statistical arguments about, for instance, whether a player deserves to be elected to the Hall of Fame.  Such arguments always come down to how you just know that so-and-so is or isn’t a Hall of Famer, based on one’s gut feeling rather than on an examination of their body of work (Jackson’s fiction, the player’s statistics).

By tomemos on 07/20/10 at 05:48 PM | Permanent link to this comment

Actually, Luther, Theodore Roethke does have a volume in the LOA’s “American Poets Project” already. Anthony Hecht, however, does not. Nor does Weldon Kees.

Looking over my Summer 2010 “Complete List of Titles,” the truly embarrassing omission is Richard Wilbur, a poet who has been producing stunning work for over half a century. In my opinion, and I’m not alone, he is America’s greatest living poet.

Presumably you don’t have to be dead to be on the rolls—since Anne Stevenson is on the list (and Philip Roth too, among non-poets).

By Cynthia Haven on 07/23/10 at 03:58 PM | Permanent link to this comment

Add a comment:

Name:
Email:
Location:
URL:

 

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Please enter the word you see in the image below: