I suppose everyone has heard, but thought I would mention the death of John Updike on this blog. Two things interested me from the Yahoo article linked to this site.
One was the line: "On purely literary grounds, he [Updike] was attacked by Normal Mailer as the kind of an author appreciated by readers who knew nothing about writing." As a writer myself, I wonder what is so laughable in giving your audience what it wants. Is Stephen King the best writer ever? Not even close. But he makes millions because he gives people what they want - horror stories - and he does it well. And even if they are genre books, isn't it good enough that people are at least reading, when they could be playing video games or watching TV?
I guess my question is what makes a good writer good: is it the amount of awards they get? By how many books they sell? The accolades lavished on them by the "expert" reviewers or by their peers? And what makes one writer a peer and another not: The same awards won? Being in the same genre or print medium? Do you have to know anything at all about writing (besides being able to read it) to enjoy it? Or do "serious" readers need to be able to dissect Joyce's "Ulysses" before they can appreciate writing?
The other item of interest was Updike's stand on the digital future of publishing. The article states that he "delivered a passionate defense of bookstores and words, words on paper, at publishing's annual national convention ... [H]e scorned this 'pretty grisly scenario' and praised the paper book as the site of an 'encounter, in silence, of two minds ... So, booksellers, defend your lonely forts.'" I wonder if many other writers feel this way, especially if they are of older generations (Updike was 76 when he died). This 2006 NY Times article suggests that authors' feelings are mixed; and one great part reminds us that books themselves are a relatively new construct, coming on the heels of oral storytelling's long history; and that mass-producing books is a relatively new phenomenon, as well, putting caligraphers and bookbinders out of business. Sounds vaguely familiar... Brave new world, indeed. (That last line would have been awesome if I was writing about Aldous Huxley! Does anyone have a good Witches of Eastwick quote?)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
How you define what is "good" in the end comes down to personal values, right? One person's goals for their life may be quite different from the next's, and those goals will strongly impact what each person sees as being worthwhile. Mailer's comment seems hopelessly elitist to me; "appreciated by readers who keow nothing about writing" carries the clear implication that Mailer knows lots about writing and is therefore better in some way than those readers are. He could have just as easily said "I don't like his stuff. It's too light for my taste," something which would have made it clear it's an issue of taste, not of absolutes of quality.
ReplyDeleteWhat makes a good writer good, I would say, has to do with how much people enjoy or appreciate their writing. It doesn't really have to go any farther than that; there doesn't need to be a Timeless Truth imparted to make something good writing. "'Twas brillig, and the slithy toves, did gyre and gimble in the wabe: all mimsy were the borogroves, and the mome raths outgrabe" doesn't have much in the way of Timeless Meaning, or even perceptible meaning, but fans of Lewis Carol are quick to laud Jabberwocky as excellent writing. To be sure, there are many people who derive their enjoyment of a book (or of anything else, really) from the discussion of Timeless Truths, and that is a perfectly valid way to appreciate a book--but it's no more valid than appreciating a Stephen King novel because it's absorbing and thrilling, or even than appreciating a rousing round of Halo 3.
"I hope his dick is bigger than his I.Q."
ReplyDeleteI think that's just from the movie, but it might still be fitting.
Huxley borrowed that Brave New World bit from Shakespeare. Who borrowed a lot from Ovid (among others). Maybe one measure of a writer's reach is widely his work is appropriated by others. Or how seamlessly he can appropriate the work of others, and make it his own...
ReplyDelete