Your response was better than my essay. I have become more enamored of short fiction, actually, but I think A Visit from the Goon Squad by Jennifer Egan is very good, and Colson Whitehead's The Nickel Boys. Actually, anything by him. He's a bit infuriating to me because he's not only a terrific stylist and storyteller but he's also cool-looking. Going back to the past I cherish Song of Solomon by Toni Morrison and The Mosquito Coast by Paul Theroux. Because I wrote middle grade and YA fiction novels for a while, I think Coraline and The Graveyard Book by Neil Gaiman are superb, as is Skellig by David Almond. But there are many terrific short story collections out there or short-story sequences. Any advice would be appreciated.
The vast novels of the 19th century --Dickens, George Eliot, Dostoevsky -- surely these are maximalist and meaningful. I think your definitions are flimsy. .
Annie: I think you misunderstood my post. I agree completely with you, especially about the books by the masters you mentioned. Faulkner was the major figure I chose for my Ph.D. I read all of his novels and criticism on him. I was speaking generally of contemporary novels that are not on the level of the work you mentioned. And being primarily a prose poet, I can't stand literary criticism that "defines" genres or limits them, since the prose poem by its very nature pays homage to or subverts its neighboring genres, sometimes both at the same time. So, obviously, the fault was fine of not making this all clear. I appreciate your response.
You are correct. I responded without reading your entire essay. In fact I agree with much of what you say: I too have difficulty finding contemporary novels I can finish, let enjoy. The problem is not the length but the focus, the narcissism which seldom escapes banality, the droning monotonous voice which may be a product of MFA studies or may be a betrayal of that curriculum. Where is the splendid fractured prose of Faulkner ? (I'm glad you named him) or the jovial camaraderie and impossible coincidence of Dickens? Their vision and voice are not easily replicable. So much of what I read today is self-centered and bloated, an excess of words overlaying a deficit of meaning. I wonder if the ease of writing on a computer impels writers to gush as nauseam.... when writing with a quill pen that required frequent dipping I think writers would be more chary with their words
What was the theme of your study of Faulkner? Is there a novel of the last 25 years you value?
Your response was better than my essay. I have become more enamored of short fiction, actually, but I think A Visit from the Goon Squad by Jennifer Egan is very good, and Colson Whitehead's The Nickel Boys. Actually, anything by him. He's a bit infuriating to me because he's not only a terrific stylist and storyteller but he's also cool-looking. Going back to the past I cherish Song of Solomon by Toni Morrison and The Mosquito Coast by Paul Theroux. Because I wrote middle grade and YA fiction novels for a while, I think Coraline and The Graveyard Book by Neil Gaiman are superb, as is Skellig by David Almond. But there are many terrific short story collections out there or short-story sequences. Any advice would be appreciated.
The vast novels of the 19th century --Dickens, George Eliot, Dostoevsky -- surely these are maximalist and meaningful. I think your definitions are flimsy. .
Ha!
Annie: I think you misunderstood my post. I agree completely with you, especially about the books by the masters you mentioned. Faulkner was the major figure I chose for my Ph.D. I read all of his novels and criticism on him. I was speaking generally of contemporary novels that are not on the level of the work you mentioned. And being primarily a prose poet, I can't stand literary criticism that "defines" genres or limits them, since the prose poem by its very nature pays homage to or subverts its neighboring genres, sometimes both at the same time. So, obviously, the fault was fine of not making this all clear. I appreciate your response.
You are correct. I responded without reading your entire essay. In fact I agree with much of what you say: I too have difficulty finding contemporary novels I can finish, let enjoy. The problem is not the length but the focus, the narcissism which seldom escapes banality, the droning monotonous voice which may be a product of MFA studies or may be a betrayal of that curriculum. Where is the splendid fractured prose of Faulkner ? (I'm glad you named him) or the jovial camaraderie and impossible coincidence of Dickens? Their vision and voice are not easily replicable. So much of what I read today is self-centered and bloated, an excess of words overlaying a deficit of meaning. I wonder if the ease of writing on a computer impels writers to gush as nauseam.... when writing with a quill pen that required frequent dipping I think writers would be more chary with their words
What was the theme of your study of Faulkner? Is there a novel of the last 25 years you value?
Late to post but often wonder if an MFA is as much a handicap to writing an original novel as music school is to wanting to start a band.
I might be so inclined to say you (Peter)
are a maximalist on the surrealism prose
poem spectrum. ( See my comment under
"Making Something Out of Nothing.")
minimalism = Philip Glass
maximalism = Van Halen
or
Emperor Joseph: "Too many notes."
Mozart: " I don't understand. There are just as many notes as I require - neither more or less."