Comments on: Jane Smiley vs New York writing scene

By: Jimmy Montague

Jimmy Montague — Thu, 23 Apr 2009 00:03:33 +0000

The gist of what’s going on here, as far as I’m concerned, is this: If what Smiley said had been said about any city OTHER THAN New York, there wouldn’t have been any argument at all. And that is precisely the problem.

To state it more plainly: There are some good writers in New York; a few New York writers are great. But even the greatest of them publishes the occasional piece of crap, of which Norman Mailer’s ‘Ancient Evenings’ is a prime example. The problem is that New Yorkers can never own the fact.

New York publishing needs to pull its literary nose out of its literary backside and sniff some of the air that wafts across the river from the rest of the country. There are scads of good writers all across the United States who cannot make themselves heard. New York publishing houses these days become great publishing houses, not by publishing more great writers but by buying each other out and downsizing quality staff.

The business model adopted by New York publishers is the same business model that drove the rest of the American economy into a hole from which it will take a hundred years to climb out. If New York publishing won’t listen to anybody short of a critic such as Dorothy Parker or E.B. White then New York publishing is truly doomed, because there are no writers of that caliber present in New York today.

By: Celeste

Celeste — Sun, 29 Mar 2009 23:03:39 +0000

B. Short, I agree with your point completely–that “novels and stories should come out of the world, should represent shifting populations, cultures, styles, not just emerge wholly formed from the tastemaking machines of the literary establishment.” But why on EARTH should it be “sacrilegious” to “mention any writers in the same sentence as Updike”? No writer should ever have to apologize for liking writers other than Updike, Bellow, and Mailer–or have to offer a disclaimer anytime they’re NOT mentioned after the words “my favorite”! I think it’s this kind of uber-reverence towards writers like Updike that inspires ire like Smiley expressed.

By: B. Short

B. Short — Sat, 28 Mar 2009 23:15:20 +0000

God bless Jane Smiley. I mean, not for (almost?) blasting Updike (which seems really strange and not at all justifiable to me), but for trying to diversify (I realize that this is a generous reading) the contemporary literary imagination. Novels and stories should come out of the world, should represent shifting populations, cultures, styles, not just emerge wholly formed from the tastemaking machines of the literary establishment. Michelle Tea’s Valencia and Stephen Elliot’s Happy Baby mean as much to me–if not more–than Pigeon Feathers; despite the fact that Updike is describing a world–small-town PA–that I am very familiar with, it still isn’t quite my world he is describing. It feels sacrilegious to mention any writers in the same sentence as Updike like I did, but that’s the point, isn’t it? I think Smiley is trying to be honest about how books affect us, and that means not allowing independent (I almost want to say ’secular’) sensibilities to be steamrolled by the literary mainstream. Breece D’J Pancake should mean more in West Virginia. Donald Harington should matter more in the Arkansas Ozarks. Michael Byers should matter more in the Pacific Northwest. There’s a kind of spiritual journalism here that can–and really should–only be communicated by someone who knows the place they are writing about thoroughly. Was it Milosz who said writers are ’secretaries of the invisible?’ But doesn’t what’s invisible change as you drive down the 5, from San Francisco to Los Angeles?

By: Celeste

Celeste — Wed, 25 Mar 2009 15:30:58 +0000

I wonder if Smiley wasn’t trying to question our deification of authors like Mailer, Updike, and Bellow, rather the New York scene. Granted, her spat with McInerney ended up moving in that direction. But maybe her real point was that we talk about the deaths of these literary giants and start prematurely wringing our hands about the death of American Literature… whereas, in fact, there are plenty of authors out there–many of them removed from the New York/East Coast literary scene–who are also important parts of American Literature, but who are often overlooked in favor of the “colossals” Mailer et al.

Okay, Frederick Manfred might not have been the best example for her to choose. But that justifiable indignation–that important writers are getting overlooked in favor of The Big Guys–often comes out as a jab against the east coast in general and New York in particular, because that tends to be where those big names center, as well as where the adulation for them swirls up most. In other words, The “Big Guys. vs Overlooked Little Writers” debate and the “New York vs. rest of country” debates often get conflated, and it looks to me like that’s what’s happening here with both Smiley and McInerney.

On the Big Guys vs. Overlooked Little Writers front, I understand Smiley’s tartness. I have little patience for handwringing myself, and it seems silly to ask “Hey, these three great writers have died; do you think that’s–gasp!the END OF AN ERA?” It would be even more frustrating, I bet, if I were a successful and Pulitzer-Prize winning novelist getting asked this silly question. Because really, underneath that question is the suggetion that American Literature is withering and dying away. And if we think that’s true–just because Updike and Mailer and co. are dead–what are we all doing here at Fiction Writers Review?

By: astameshkin

astameshkin — Wed, 25 Mar 2009 14:55:44 +0000

As I re-read this, I’m also struck by how I managed to take an event about an international award and turn it into an entirely US-based issue. Someone please be offended (in an intelligent way) or I’ll be forced to take issue with myself.