Showing posts with label endangered authors. Show all posts
Showing posts with label endangered authors. Show all posts

Tuesday, July 20, 2010

Everything You Always Wanted to Know About Audiobooks, But Were Afraid to Ask

While the world is obsessing about eBooks, Woody Allen has a different ultra-modern technology on his mind. Audiobooks.

Audiobooks by a Technophobe

From the article:

Q.
How were you persuaded to embrace the audiobook format? Do you own or regularly use any of the high-tech gadgets that play these files?

A. I was persuaded in a moment of apathy when I was convinced I had a fatal illness and would not live much longer. I don’t own a computer, have no idea how to work one, don’t own a word processor, and have zero interest in technology. Many people thought it would be a nice idea for me to read my stories, and I gave in.

Oh, Woody. What do you want to bet someone told him audio would be a nice idea...in 1974? (...She scoffs, as she runs to iTunes to fork over $1.95 for "The Whore of Mensa.")

Monday, June 28, 2010

A Harper Lee joint

Who knew there's a reclusive author out there who makes the late J.D. Salinger look like an extrovert?

Britain's Daily Mail managed to score a rare and prized interview with Harper Lee, author of To Kill a Mockingbird, in honor of the 50th anniversary of the book. The catch? She won't talk about the book. Or anything relating to the book. The extent of the interview:

"Thank you so much,’ she told me. ‘You are most kind. We’re just going to feed the ducks but call me the next time you are here. We have a lot of history here. You will enjoy it."

Something tells me she won't be hitting up Oprah next. But I found it kind of charming. You've got to respect a writer who either knows her limitations, and didn't force a bunch of less satisfying books into the market just to prove she could do it again; or who simply decided she was Over It and didn't want to publish anymore.

Of course, there's the "what literature could we have had?" argument. But while I'd be curious about that, I don't think authors really owe us anything. And I don't think I'd trade the impact of, say, Franny and Zooey for a drawn-out, increasingly morbid and self-obsessed canon (sorry, messieurs Roth and Updike).

And this article reminded me that I really do need to read To Kill a Mockingbird (instead of saying I'd read it when, really, I'd just "read" the Gregory Peck version). It's a sad fact of my public school education, English major career, and general American Lit devotion that I've managed to avoid it so far. This summer, I swear!

Tuesday, December 01, 2009

Indignation by Philip Roth

So for the last three Philip Roth books, I've talked/written about the endangered author syndrome among the mid-20th century luminaries, where they're working on a long goodbye/capstone to seal the legacy. And when it came to proving my theory, Roth was the proviest of them all. The Plot Against America = meditation on his childhood. Everyman = dying New Jerseyan reflecting on his life. Exit Ghost = end of Zuckerman. Poignant, no?

Then I read one of his latest, Indignation. Way to prove my vague and untenable theory wrong, Philip Roth. Now he's just cranking out one-off books like he used to. Which also means that I don't have to worry about approaching the book with reverence, and can admit that I didn't love it.

Indignation is the story of Marcus Messner, a New Jersey kid who tries to slip his father's suffocating anxiety and the ankle-deep blood of the family's kosher butcher shop. His blind, groping efforts to get the hell out of Newark land him on the campus of Winesburg College, a WASP-y liberal arts school in Ohio. Marcus just wants to keep his head down, not talk to anyone, get straight A's, and avoid the Korean War draft. But people have a pesky habit of getting in the way. And rather than accept this with equanimity and get on with his life, Marcus's general reaction is to melt down, and either a) make immediate plans never to talk to the offending parties again; or b) say "f--- you" in the worst possible ways and at the worst possible times.

To be fair, he seems to come across the most obnoxious people on campus: the pompous Christian dean, unbalanced roommates, and your standard fictional unstable chick--who seems awesome at first, and then lets loose with every single piece of baggage she's ever had. Guys, let this be a lesson: when a girl says that she's "only done this once before," and the next minute has the Crazy Eyes? Shut. It. Down. I'm just sayin'.

But anyway, there's something halfhearted about the whole thing: from the smattering of anti-semitism suggestions (none of which really pan out in the plot) to the usual tortured romance, it's all very Roth, but very auto-pilot. There's no reason for this to be as small a book as it is--either in scope or in physical format (largest font ever). There was just so much more space and potential here than the "kid leaves home for college, doesn't fit in" narrative. And when the climax pretty much pops up out of nowhere and seals off the nebulous foreshadowing at the beginning of the book, it's awfully tidy and convenient. Kind of like a morbid version of the epilogue of Animal House.

I think what disappointed me most was the lack of the usual saving grace, Roth's amazing descriptive power. There just isn't much description going on in Indignation, and the novel suffers for it. What little there is, though, is good. There's a scene near the end where Roth manages to turn a frat-guy panty raid into a graphic, stomach-turning bachanal of douchebaggery. And that's the Roth I want more of. This one had the right Rothian elements (anger, sex, Newark), but they just didn't come together the way they usually do. Sad.

Saturday, February 07, 2009

Hub Fan Bids Updike Adieu

The recent Updike tributes, in the New Yorker and other magazines, were great reminders of his work outside of the Rabbits and the Witches--like an excerpt from one of my favorite sports pieces ever, "Hub Fans Bid Kid Adieu." Updike introduced me to a Fenway Park I never knew, but wish I did:

Understand that we were a crowd of rational people. We knew that a home run cannot be produced at will; the right pitch must be perfectly met and luck must ride with the ball. Three innings before, we had seen a brave effort fail. The air was soggy; the season was exhausted. Nevertheless, there will always lurk, around a corner in a pocket of our knowledge of the odds, an indefensible hope, and this was one of the times, which you now and then find in sports, when a density of expectation hangs in the air and plucks an event out of the future.

And the Updike extravaganza reminds me that I still haven't attempted to recreate his "Rockefeller Center Ho" trip (from a February 1956 issue of the New Yorker), and see if it is, in fact, possible to get from the Empire State Building to Rockefeller Center without touching 5th or 6th Avenues. I should get on that.

Sunday, October 05, 2008

New Yorker Festival 2008

Sheryl and I had the following text message conversation today:

K: I def just brushed up against Salman Rushdie.
S: Whoa. Where?
K: New Yorker Festival HQ.
S: It's like our version of a strip club.

And she's right. I'd pick a pretentious book event over Chippendales any night of the week. Maybe next year I'll stock up on $1 bills, in case there are really cute hipster writers around.

Anyway, that's why the annual New Yorker Festival is one of my favorite NYC events. You can be any schmuck getting your complimentary cappuccino in the advertisers' lounge, turn to your left, and see the world's most endangered author at your elbow.

And it feels like kind of an anniversary, as well. I didn't make it to last year's events, but two years ago, my visit that weekend was when I decided to go through with my move to New York. So I've got a soft spot for the festivities.

"The past eight years with this president have basically been one big YouTube clip."

Yesterday, I attended a panel on Political Humor. It featured a pretty great group of writer-comedians: Samantha Bee (Daily Show); Allison Silverman (Colbert Report); Jim Downey (SNL); Andy Borowitz (The Borowitz Report); and Todd Hanson (The Onion). (Hanson was replacing The Daily Show's John Oliver, whose wacky British antics were missed.) It was like the heads of the Five Families coming together--but as far as I know, no firearms had to be confiscated.

Of course, most of the discussion was about this election--Sarah Palin in particular. The moderator asked the panel if it would be better for comedy if McCain and Palin won, since Obama is difficult to mock. Nobody really committed to the idea, and Andy Borowitz piped up. "...I'd rather have a country that's run well," he said. See? The "satiro-industrial complex" does have a conscience. It may be a smug one, but it's a conscience!


"To edit humor, you have to be funny. And if you're funny, why are you editing?"

Today's Humor Writing "master class" wasn't actually a class (which means no homework, so yay!). It was more of a mini-panel with longtime New Yorker writers Mark Singer and Ian Frazier. They didn't delve too much into the hows or whys of writing funny stuff, but they did talk a lot about the role that the "casuals," or humor pieces, play in the magazine. They both read entertaining pieces of their own, and shared anecdotes about writing for the New Yorker. (FYI: I don't know what Tina Brown is doing these days, but she doesn't appear to be missed much by her former staffers.) Singer also went into a lengthy discussion of his feud with Donald Trump. I'm not even sure how a feud like that works--isn't it kind of like fighting with a wall (a 100-story, gold-painted one, no less)?

One interesting element that came out of both sessions was that there aren't enough women writing comedy. Everyone was quick to point out that this doesn't mean women are any less funny (ah, liberal elite PC-ness), but either the humor sensibility is different, or they're scared off by the perceived sausage fest. Frazier had an interesting point: that teenage girls don't spend their time sitting around trying to outdo one another with one-liners and jokes like teenage boys do, so maybe the socialization is to blame.

The epigraph above, about editing vs. writing, comes from Frazier. It's probably true. But still...ouch.

I'm sorry I wasn't able to attend more of the events, but the terrible ticket availability (I'm pretty sure U2 tickets are easier to get) and the high prices ($25-$35 per event) just make me thankful I was able to do two of them this year. I still didn't make it to the New Yorker dance party, though. Next year! (Maybe.)

Wednesday, August 06, 2008

Joyce Carol Oates at Lincoln Triangle B&N

Joyce Carol Oates is the Law & Order of the literary world.

"But," you protest (why must you always protest?), "she's one of our most accomplished writers. She writes ridiculously academic reviews in NYROB. She's the Vegas favorite to win the National Book Award every year. How could she possibly be like the sensationalistic Law & Order?" Because beneath the fancy prose, the deft storytelling, the academic laurels, she's a true crime junkie who watches Nancy Grace to get book ideas.

Tonight at the Lincoln Center Barnes & Noble, Oates talked about her new book, My Sister, My Love. The book is the story of Skyler Rampike, whose family becomes a tabloid target when his six-year-old sister is murdered under sketchy household circumstances. The sister happens to be a budding competitive ice skater manipulated and sexualized by her parents. Sound familiar? It should. Then there's Oates's past work, including a fake autobiography about Marilyn Monroe's rise, fall, and death. And even my favorite Oates work, the creepy "Where Are You Going, Where Have You Been?" is based on a real murder. So yeah. Ripped from the headlines(tm)!

But let's forgive her, because she does it so darn well. Anyway, the talk was entertaining. Oates was chatty, and I like chatty writers. They don't make you feel guilty for forcing them to get up there and plug their own book. And the event space was amazing: big and closed off from the rest of the store. I'll definitely be attending more events there. It beats the three-stories-and-still-too-small space in the Union Square B&N. Good times!

Sunday, November 18, 2007

Norman Mailer

"Mailer had always thought it senseless to undertake an attack unless you made certain it was printed, for otherwise you were left with a determined enemy who was an unmarked man, and therefore able to repay you at leisure and by the lift of an eyebrow."

When I saw Norman Mailer speak at Harvard earlier this year, he was awfully frail. When he canceled his scheduled part in October's New Yorker Festival, it seemed ominous. And when Philip Roth's new book suggested that Mailer was next to go, it sounded likely. Well, now it looks like the foreshadowing wasn't just hokum. Mailer's gone, and with him he takes a giant chunk of literary heart.

Whatever his personal flaws were (and there were many, as the ex-wives and various stabbees could tell you), he was always fierce. Self-aggrandizing and obnoxious, sure. But he never shied from doing anything in print that he wanted to do. And up until last February at least, he was still prodding, prodding, prodding, trying to goad people into reacting to him as entertainingly as possible. It's like he never stopped being the Mailer of Armies of the Night (always one of my favorites), pissing off as many people as necessary to get to the exact intersection of politics and literary theater. We're losing the guys willing to do this without publicists, without focus groups. The mid-20th century writers were never meant to keep this energy up forever, but it still hurts to see it all dying, bit by bit.

Tuesday, November 06, 2007

Exit Ghost by Philip Roth

Junior year of college, I had an American Lit professor who seemed positively insane. He'd rant and rave about the inherent pornography of narrative, and tie everything somehow to sex and primal urges. On the morning of September 11, he kept us cooped up in the TV-less classroom, and railed for an hour about how we (as a generation) had been given an amazing historical opportunity. So yeah. Kinda nuts. But he taught me how to read literature in a much more mature way (my high school self never interpreted The Great Gatsby as a love story between Nick and Gatsby)--and he introduced me to the writing of Philip Roth, whom I've enjoyed quite a bit since that fall. Turns out the professor was a friend and editor of Roth's. After I read a few more of the books, Crazy American Lit Prof made a lot more sense. And I found myself thinking of him often as I read the latest (last?), Exit Ghost.

If Roth and the professor are correct, then life really does come down to the basest of human issues: sex drive and control over one's own body. Exit Ghost is a meditation on the end of both of those--and it's terrifying. It's pretty clearly the end of Nathan Zuckerman, the Roth alter ego from so many of this books. Zuckerman can't pee properly and can't get it up, thanks to a prostatectomy, and this isn't really a problem for him--until it is. The plot is set in motion by his emergence from his self-exile, when he leaves his Berkshires hideaway to get medical treatment in New York. The exhilaration of being back in his old city leads him to answer a home-swapping ad (which resolves my longstanding question of who responds to those strange ads in the back of NYROB); and he becomes involved with a young married couple who ignite his long-dormant alpha male urges. (Zuckerman wants to one-up him and possess her.) The infatuation gets out of hand extremely fast, and he struggles with his total impotence (both physical and game-wise, since he can't elicit more than mild curiosity out of young Jamie). Meanwhile, he's dealing with a minor literary scandal, as an old boyfriend of Jamie's is trying to publish an expose on Zuckerman's former mentor. That's when everything becomes a weird tangle of sublimated urges and frustration.

Roth creates a tangible sense of physical deterioration around Zuckerman, who obsesses over his own state. Zuckerman does it in a curiously detached way, though: while he talks almost incessantly about his incontinence and lack of libido, it takes 162 pages before the word "penis" even shows up. He can't face it directly, so he takes the literary route of describing the hell out of it. He also writes around it, creating a strange play of how things should have gone between himself and Jamie. Since seduction is the one thing he can't do, it becomes the charged focus of their fake flirtation. And it's incredibly sad. He gives "Jamie" all sorts of qualities and expressions he never sees in the real girl--qualities that are suspiciously like his dead mentor's young mistress, who made an incredible impression on him back in the 1950s. Said mistress comes back into Zuckerman's life as well, but as a flawed old woman. The parallel between then and now, as Zuckerman starts to disintegrate in every way possible, is painful to see, but pretty fascinating.

One might argue that this is Zuckerman's swan song, not necessarily Roth's...but the sense of finale is hard to ignore. Roth likes to do books in groups, or arcs--why not finish the same way? The Plot Against America was the end of youth. Everyman was the end of the man (no pun intended). And now Exit Ghost is the end of the creation. I think this might be it for him. There's a section where the line between Zuckerman and Roth becomes especially blurred, when Zuckerman talks about the death of George Plimpton, and the concurrent death of American literature. The parts where Zuckerman derides the upcoming generation of literati are extra steely and angry, even beyond the narrator's usual indignance. It's almost like Roth is daring the reader to compare character and author. Eerie, and yet fitting for a writer who has based so much of his career on daring people to look away--from sex, from class, from politics.

If he is going out, he's going out with some excellent, very Rothian writing. Some passages I liked especially:

"I started toward the subway to take a train downtown to Ground Zero. Begin there, where the biggest thing of all occured; but because I've withdrawn as witness and participant both, I never made it to the subway. That would have been wholly out of character for the character I'd become. Instead, after crossing the park, I found myself in the familiar rooms of the Metropolitan Museum, wiling away the afternoon like someone who had no catching up to do."

"To possess control over one's bladder--who among the whole and healthy ever considers the freedom that bestows or the anxious vulnerability its loss can impose on even the most confident among us? I who'd never thought along these lines before, who from the age of twelve was bent on singularity and welcomed whatever what was unusual in me--I could now be like everyone else.
As though the ever-hovering shadow of humiliation isn't, in fact, what binds one to everyone else."


"The light fading, the room getting smaller, a cab or two going by in the street, the city receding while everything around them becomes close and dark. These two people taking their time with each other, listening to each other. So sexual and so sad. Thick with each of their pasts, though neither knows much of the other's. The pace of it, all that silence and what might be in there. Each of them desperate for entirely different reasons."

"For this wholly unautobiographical writer, blessed with his genius for complete transformation, the choice was almost inevitable. It's what opened his predicament out for him and enabled him to leave the personal behind. Fiction for him was never representation. It was rumination in narrative form."

Tuesday, July 03, 2007

Saturday by Ian McEwan

At 59, Ian McEwan isn't quite an Endangered Author (tm)...but he's working on it. In his 2005 novel Saturday, he dips his toe into the post-midlife mortality pool. And while there's less morbid self-interest than, say, the last couple of Philip Roth books, there's a good deal of naval-gazing for the older white male. It's almost as though the narcissism and arrogance that get us through adolescence and the 20s (I can't vouch for any other decades, sorry) starts ripening into extra neurosis with age. This may not hold up, though--otherwise, how would Woody Allen not have imploded by now?

McEwan's protagonist here is Henry Perowne, a fancy-schmancy brain surgeon in London. He wakes up early one morning--quick, guess which one!--and the book follows him throughout his day. Simple premise, and McEwan doesn't deviate much from the promise of the title. At first, it looks like McEwan may be making the bold choice of just following some dude around on a boring day. Henry sees a plane on fire, and gets excited thinking it might be terrorism. After that proves to be anticlimactic, he kinda hangs out with his jazz musician son, putters around, wakes up his wife for a little nookie, dozes, showers, etc. Nothing too exciting. Things pick up when he ventures out to his weekly squash game and has to deal with a quick mashup (literally) of his comfy lifestyle, history (Londoners are gathering downtown to protest the incipient Iraq invasion), and the dark underbelly ('cause there's always a dark underbelly) of the city he loves. After this he becomes fairly unhinged, despite attempting to go about the rest of the day normally; and his worries about his life, his family, and the outer world dominate the rest of his day.

The violence in the climax is largely literal, but it might as well be metaphorical. It's almost a fantasy of what could happen after a random encounter. There's a strange, physical neatness to the ending--a surprising bloodlessness, despite an emergency surgery. If it were a TV show, we'd all be bellyaching about how nobody's guts got sprayed all over, say, a diner.

McEwan manages to get his power across in other ways. For example, none of the characters is quite what one would expect from the setup. Henry is anxious about his son's future, and whenever they cross paths, you almost expect one of those teary, "You don't understand my art!" screamfests that make for good novel tension. Same deal with the daughter, although she brings them a little closer to drama. But the relationships ebb and flow like real ones, with the unspoken dotage and concerns between actual parents and kids. And with the wife--not only does she not have a poolboy on the side somewhere, they get it on (twice!) and seem to like one another. Crazy. Once you realize that McEwan is trying for something honest, that's pretty potent.

Also, the language is remarkable. McEwan is so good at describing place, along with everyday thoughts and processes, that it's easy to overlook the built-in tedium of setting several hundred pages in a single day. This helps things feel balanced between the less dramatic early parts with the plot-heavier latter half. There are other threads too (the whole post-9/11 world thing, Henry's passion for his career, etc.) that unify the whole story, but nothing binds better than a consistent authorial voice. For the length of the novel, he keeps up the conflict between the solidity of everyday life with the fragility of the human brain. Much of that is done with the thrust of the inner dialogue; a lesser writer would have hit the reader over the head with that point early, and never let up. It's much more pleasant and organically done here.

Accordingly, I had a lot of favorite bits. Believe it or not, this is a reduced list from my earlier notes. This is a book that needs to be read aloud--with company or without should depend on how good one's British accent is.

"Standing here, as immune to the cold as a marble statue, gazing towards Charlotte Street, towards a foreshortened jumble of facades, scaffolding and pitched roofs, Henry thinks the city is a success, a brilliant invention, a biological masterpiece—millions teeming around the accumulated and layered achievements of the centuries, as though around a coral reef, sleeping, working, entertaining themselves, harmonious for the most part, nearly everyone wanting it to work."

[On Theo's music] "He moves on up the fret and the diffidence begins to carry a hint of danger. A little syncopated stab on the turnaround, the sudden chop of an augmented chord, a note held against the tide of the harmony, a judiciously flattened fifth, a seventh bent in sensuous microtones. Then a passing soulful dissonance. He has the rhythmic gift of upending expectation, a way of playing off triplets against two- or four-note clusters. His runs have the tilt and accent of bebop. It's a form of hypnosis, of effortless seduction."

[On the wife, Rosalind] "Solitude and work were less threatening to her inner world than kisses."

[On waking up next to his wife] "This commonplace cycle of falling asleep and waking, in darkness, under private cover, with another creature, a pale soft tender mammal, putting faces together in a ritual of affection, briefly settled in the eternal necessities of warmth, comfort, safety, crossing limbs to draw nearer—a simple daily consolation almost too obvious, easy to forget by daylight. Has a poet ever written it up?"

[on losing at squash] "The game becomes an extended metaphor of character defect. Every error he makes is so profoundly, so irritatingly typical of himself, instantly familiar, like a signature, like a tissue scar or some deformation in a private place. As intimate and self-evident as the feel of his tongue in his mouth. Only he can go wrong in quite this way, and only he deserves to lose in just this manner. As the points fall he draws his remaining energy from a darkening pool of fury."

Thursday, February 22, 2007

Norman Mailer at Harvard

Now Mailer was often brusque himself, famous for that, but the architecture of his personality bore resemblance to some provincial cathedral which warring orders of the church might have designed separately over several centuries, the particular cathedral falling into the hands of one architect, then his enemy. (Mailer had not been married four times for nothing.) If he was on many an occasion brusque, he was also to himself at least so supersensitive to nuances of manner he sometimes suspected when in no modest mood Proust had lost a cell mate the day they were born in different bags. (Bag is of course used here to specify milieu and not the exceptional character of the mothers, Mme. Proust and Mrs. I. B. Mailer.) At any rate, boldness, attacks of shyness, rude assertion, and circumlocutions tortured as arthritic fingers working at lace, all took their turn with him, and these shuttlings of mood became the most pronounced in their resemblance to the banging and shunting of freight cars when he was with liberal academics.


I'll admit that part of me expected this 1967-fied, Armies of the Night Norman Mailer to show up at the First Church in Cambridge for the Harvard Book Store-sponsored leg of his latest book tour. That evaporated for a minute as the 84-year old writer hobbled to the stage on two canes. But even without a podium and a drink, Mailer was able to bring the feisty--while settled comfortably in an armchair, no less. It was difficult to hear him at first; the church, while beautiful and clean and open, had lousy acoustics for Old Man Voice with Crappy Microphone. But his voice got stronger as he got into the interview (the name of his interviewer escapes me right now, but it's his official biographer), and you could tell he still gets off on being the center of attention.

Just about all of the topics focused on his new book, The Castle in the Forest. Based on the given description of the book as a deeply imagined look at Hitler's early years, I'm not sure I'll pick it up--at one point, the interviewer mentioned that the first fifteen pages are essentially an SS officer talking about incest. Maybe I'll catch Mailer on the next novel. By the way: he mentioned that the book ends with a "To Be Continued?" First of all, risky game, tempting the calendar like that. Second, are real writers actually allowed to do that? Anyway, I'm not super keen on Hitlerian history, and it sounds like there's much Freudian stuff mixed in. So all WWII/mother obsessives, have at it, and let me know how it turns out.

When the floor opened up to questions, things took a much more current, political slant. I'm pretty sure "Don't you hate Bush?" has been a theme at 90% of the book events I've been to in the past year. But Mailer seemed game, and took whatever bait was thrown by offering opinions on the war, Hillary and Obama, etc. At one point he tried to goad the biographer guy into insulting him, just to generate God knows what kind of soundbite, but unfortunately the guy demurred. Probably out of respect or something. Lame. A Pulitzer winner asks you to insult him, you do it, dammit.

As Mailer is definitely an Endangered Author, I'm quite pleased to have gotten to listen to him while he's still in some kind of prime. It's not every day that you get to hear someone who's been fiercely literary, fiercely talented, and just plain fierce in his time.