Hooking Up (20 page)
But Updike had his own unique analysis: it was the readers’ fault.
Their “tastes have coarsened,” he said in an interview. “People read less, they’re less comfortable with the written word. They’re less comfortable with novels. They don’t have a backward frame of reference that would enable them to appreciate things like irony and allusions. It’s sad.” The airport bookstores didn’t stock anything one could characterize as literature, he said, and when one got on the airplane, people were reading not literature but the trash sold at the airport bookstores. With a Twilight of the Gods resignation, he told of how it used to be, back before readers became what they are today, i.e., coarse, dumb, and dumber. “When I was a boy, the bestselling books were often the books that were on your piano teacher’s shelf … Someone like Steinbeck was a bestseller as well as a Nobel Prize—winning author of high intent. You don’t feel that now. I don’t feel that we have the merger of serious and pop—it’s gone, dissolving … The kind of readers that would make it worthwhile to print a literary writer are dwindling.”
Their “tastes have coarsened,” he said in an interview. “People read less, they’re less comfortable with the written word. They’re less comfortable with novels. They don’t have a backward frame of reference that would enable them to appreciate things like irony and allusions. It’s sad.” The airport bookstores didn’t stock anything one could characterize as literature, he said, and when one got on the airplane, people were reading not literature but the trash sold at the airport bookstores. With a Twilight of the Gods resignation, he told of how it used to be, back before readers became what they are today, i.e., coarse, dumb, and dumber. “When I was a boy, the bestselling books were often the books that were on your piano teacher’s shelf … Someone like Steinbeck was a bestseller as well as a Nobel Prize—winning author of high intent. You don’t feel that now. I don’t feel that we have the merger of serious and pop—it’s gone, dissolving … The kind of readers that would make it worthwhile to print a literary writer are dwindling.”
Were my eyes deceiving me? Was this man actually saying that the lack of interest in the “literary” novel in the year 2000 was the
readers’
fault? He, John Updike, was a victim of a new cultural disease, Reader Failure? And he was invoking the name of John Steinbeck, who wrote in a happier time, back when Updike’s piano teacher read great writers? How could he risk even
mentioning
Steinbeck—unless he actually does consciously and willfully regard himself as my stooge, a straight man whose role is to feed me such lines?
readers’
fault? He, John Updike, was a victim of a new cultural disease, Reader Failure? And he was invoking the name of John Steinbeck, who wrote in a happier time, back when Updike’s piano teacher read great writers? How could he risk even
mentioning
Steinbeck—unless he actually does consciously and willfully regard himself as my stooge, a straight man whose role is to feed me such lines?
The crowning triumph of Steinbeck’s career was
The Grapes of Wrath,
his novel of the Great Depression of the 1930s, published in 1939. He had already written a bestseller,
Tortilla Flat
(1935), and sold it to the movies, plus the highly praised and reasonably well-selling
In Dubious Battle
(1936), and was completing
Of Mice and Men
, which became an even bigger bestseller in 1937 and subsequently a play and a hit movie, when he accepted an assignment from the
San Francisco News
to write a series of newspaper articles on the Okies, who were pouring into California from the drought-stricken Southwest, seeking work on California’s sprawling agribusiness farms. Steinbeck was not interested in the money or the journalism but in amassing material for
what he envisioned as a “big book,” a novel on a grander scale than the comparatively spare books he had written so far. He bought an old pie truck, as he called it, stocked it with food and blankets, and prepared to do his fieldwork, his documenting: studying the Okies, who were living in squatters’ camps and working for wages as low as 12½ cents a day. At the time, the existence of the camps was not public knowledge, much less the appalling conditions in which the Okies lived.
The Grapes of Wrath,
his novel of the Great Depression of the 1930s, published in 1939. He had already written a bestseller,
Tortilla Flat
(1935), and sold it to the movies, plus the highly praised and reasonably well-selling
In Dubious Battle
(1936), and was completing
Of Mice and Men
, which became an even bigger bestseller in 1937 and subsequently a play and a hit movie, when he accepted an assignment from the
San Francisco News
to write a series of newspaper articles on the Okies, who were pouring into California from the drought-stricken Southwest, seeking work on California’s sprawling agribusiness farms. Steinbeck was not interested in the money or the journalism but in amassing material for
what he envisioned as a “big book,” a novel on a grander scale than the comparatively spare books he had written so far. He bought an old pie truck, as he called it, stocked it with food and blankets, and prepared to do his fieldwork, his documenting: studying the Okies, who were living in squatters’ camps and working for wages as low as 12½ cents a day. At the time, the existence of the camps was not public knowledge, much less the appalling conditions in which the Okies lived.
Steinbeck was fascinated by the “organismal” theory of a biologist friend, William Emerson Ritter, who believed that the individual human inevitably lived, without knowing it, as part of a larger social organism, after the manner of the multiunit “superorganisms” known to marine biology, and that the whole was inevitably greater than the sum of its parts. For the same reason, no single organism could be understood without observing and comprehending the entire colony. (Which is to say, Ritter was a half century ahead in what is currently one of the hottest fields in science, “sociobiology.”)
So Steinbeck headed out into the farm country in his pie truck and toured the camps day after day, documenting the entire “organismal” complex and looking for the individual “organisms” that would bring the whole alive in story form. It was at a squatters’ camp in the San Joaquin Valley that he came across a man, his wife, and their three children living in a lean-to made of willow reeds and flattened tin cans and sleeping under a piece of carpet. The wife had just given birth to a dead child, her second stillbirth in a year. Their degradation gave him the idea for the tragedy of the Joad family. He conceived of the Joads as types, as specimens, as a cluster of people representing the whole experience of the Okies, and yet Ma Joad and her rebellious son Tom come to life in the pages of
The Grapes of Wrath
as two of the most compelling individuals in American fiction. Without departing from the Zolaesque naturalism of his approach, Steinbeck manages by book’s end to make Tom the embodiment of the Okies’ will not only to live but to fight back. Ma Joad and Tom became the soul, in Ritter’s terminology, of the whole that is greater than the sum of its parts.
The Grapes of Wrath
is a textbook American demonstration of Zola’s method of
writing the novel: leaving the study, going out into the world, documenting society, linking individual psychology to its social context, giving yourself fuel enough for the maximum exercise of your power as a writer—thereby absorbing the reader totally.
The Grapes of Wrath
as two of the most compelling individuals in American fiction. Without departing from the Zolaesque naturalism of his approach, Steinbeck manages by book’s end to make Tom the embodiment of the Okies’ will not only to live but to fight back. Ma Joad and Tom became the soul, in Ritter’s terminology, of the whole that is greater than the sum of its parts.
The Grapes of Wrath
is a textbook American demonstration of Zola’s method of
writing the novel: leaving the study, going out into the world, documenting society, linking individual psychology to its social context, giving yourself fuel enough for the maximum exercise of your power as a writer—thereby absorbing the reader totally.
And
Steinbeck
is the name Updike invokes to explain the failure of two novels of fantasy and a third set in that crack between the toes of contemporary life, “the literary world”?
Steinbeck
is the name Updike invokes to explain the failure of two novels of fantasy and a third set in that crack between the toes of contemporary life, “the literary world”?
I doubt that many people even down in that crack would dispute the proposition that the stature of the American novel has declined steadily since its palmy days, which were before the Second World War. The great period ran from the publication of Theodore Dreiser’s
Sister Carrie
in 1900 to Steinbeck’s
The Grapes of Wrath
in 1939. This was the age of John Dos Passos, Edith Wharton, Sinclair Lewis, Ellen Glasgow, Sherwood Anderson, Willa Cather, Ernest Hemingway, Scott Fitzgerald, Zora Neale Hurston, Thomas Wolfe, James T. Farrell, Richard Wright, James M. Cain, John O’Hara, and William Faulkner. It was the period in which American fiction not only began to be taken seriously in Europe for the first time but also began to influence European writers. Sartre was so impressed by Dos Passos that he wrote his World War II trilogy,
The Age of Reason, The Reprieve
, and
Iron in the Soul
, in unabashed emulation of Dos Passos’s great trilogy,
U.S.A.
Sister Carrie
in 1900 to Steinbeck’s
The Grapes of Wrath
in 1939. This was the age of John Dos Passos, Edith Wharton, Sinclair Lewis, Ellen Glasgow, Sherwood Anderson, Willa Cather, Ernest Hemingway, Scott Fitzgerald, Zora Neale Hurston, Thomas Wolfe, James T. Farrell, Richard Wright, James M. Cain, John O’Hara, and William Faulkner. It was the period in which American fiction not only began to be taken seriously in Europe for the first time but also began to influence European writers. Sartre was so impressed by Dos Passos that he wrote his World War II trilogy,
The Age of Reason, The Reprieve
, and
Iron in the Soul
, in unabashed emulation of Dos Passos’s great trilogy,
U.S.A.
What is the vein that runs from Dreiser to Steinbeck? It was Alfred Kazin, writing in 1942 in his critical literary history of the period,
On Native Grounds,
who first isolated “the greatest single fact about our modern American literature—our writers’ absorption in every last detail of their American world together with their deep and subtle alienation from it.”
On Native Grounds,
who first isolated “the greatest single fact about our modern American literature—our writers’ absorption in every last detail of their American world together with their deep and subtle alienation from it.”
Their “absorption in every last detail of their American world” never varied, no matter what their mood. Steinbeck may have felt angry when he wrote
The Grapes of Wrath,
Dreiser may have felt disillusioned when he wrote
Sister Carrie,
Sinclair Lewis seemed to have a Menckenesque sense of the absurdity of the spectacle all around him when he wrote
Main Street, Babbitt
,
Elmer Gantry
, and
Arrowsmith,
for which he became the first American to win the Nobel Prize in Literature. But
all immersed themselves wholeheartedly in that spectacle, relished “every last detail” of it, and recognized the importance of going beyond the confines of their own personal experience to get novelistic material … Dreiser based the plot of
Sister Carrie
on the sexual liaisons of one of his sisters, but his work as a newspaper reporter in Chicago, St. Louis, Pittsburgh, and New York provided the book’s rich fabric. Lewis went forth Zola-style (and Steinbeck-style) as a reporter (using 5 x 8 cards) to gather material not only for
Babbitt
and
Elmer Gantry
but also for
Main Street
, which was about the town, Sauk Centre, Minnesota, where he grew up. Like Balzac, Dickens, Zola, and Mark Twain, they mocked, attacked, laid bare the society around them, but always as members of it. They unmasked and shocked the bourgeoisie, but never from the point of view of “artists” coming from a different world. As Kazin put it, “They were participants in a common experience” who “gave the American novel over to the widest possible democracy of subject and theme” and had a “compelling interest in people, Americans, of all varieties.”
The Grapes of Wrath,
Dreiser may have felt disillusioned when he wrote
Sister Carrie,
Sinclair Lewis seemed to have a Menckenesque sense of the absurdity of the spectacle all around him when he wrote
Main Street, Babbitt
,
Elmer Gantry
, and
Arrowsmith,
for which he became the first American to win the Nobel Prize in Literature. But
all immersed themselves wholeheartedly in that spectacle, relished “every last detail” of it, and recognized the importance of going beyond the confines of their own personal experience to get novelistic material … Dreiser based the plot of
Sister Carrie
on the sexual liaisons of one of his sisters, but his work as a newspaper reporter in Chicago, St. Louis, Pittsburgh, and New York provided the book’s rich fabric. Lewis went forth Zola-style (and Steinbeck-style) as a reporter (using 5 x 8 cards) to gather material not only for
Babbitt
and
Elmer Gantry
but also for
Main Street
, which was about the town, Sauk Centre, Minnesota, where he grew up. Like Balzac, Dickens, Zola, and Mark Twain, they mocked, attacked, laid bare the society around them, but always as members of it. They unmasked and shocked the bourgeoisie, but never from the point of view of “artists” coming from a different world. As Kazin put it, “They were participants in a common experience” who “gave the American novel over to the widest possible democracy of subject and theme” and had a “compelling interest in people, Americans, of all varieties.”
In his Nobel acceptance speech in Stockholm in 1930, Sinclair Lewis exhorted his fellow American novelists to “give America a literature worthy of her vastness.” Can anyone imagine my three stooges expressing any such sentiment? Can anyone imagine them even wondering if America is due anything at all from writers? And what’s all this about “vastness” anyway—literature as geography?
Unless they have been keeping it to themselves, my three stooges haven’t a clue as to why their “literary world” is in such a decline—or why they themselves have become so insular, effete, and irrelevant. And here we come upon the supreme irony of American literary history so far. In the twentieth century the United States outstripped Europe in every respect save one. In matters “intellectual,” as I mentioned on pages 113-30 herein, we remained sweaty little colonials forever trying to keep up with Europe and, above all, with France. In the 1830s Balzac, Stendhal, and Dickens had introduced the novel of intense everyday realism—of
petits faits vrais
, in Stendhal’s phrase; of “naturalism,” in Zola’s—to bring alive in story form the new condition of Europe
in the wake of the French and Industrial Revolutions. This became the “modern” approach to art, so much so that in 1863 even Baudelaire, whose influence would eventually be something quite different, went into raptures (in his essay “The Painter of Modern Life”) about a painter named Constantine Guys who delighted in leaving the studio, observing the promiscuous hurly-burly of the Paris streets, the sporting fields, the wartime battlefronts, recording with meticulous care the clothing, the uniforms, the coaches, the carriages, horses, weapons, hairdos, expressions, and gestures of the moment. No longer was the timeless, classical, high-minded approach to art sufficient unto itself, said Baudelaire. To capture the beauty of modern life the artist had to know how to combine the sublime with the intensely real, with Stendhal’s
petits faits vrais
of the here and now.
petits faits vrais
, in Stendhal’s phrase; of “naturalism,” in Zola’s—to bring alive in story form the new condition of Europe
in the wake of the French and Industrial Revolutions. This became the “modern” approach to art, so much so that in 1863 even Baudelaire, whose influence would eventually be something quite different, went into raptures (in his essay “The Painter of Modern Life”) about a painter named Constantine Guys who delighted in leaving the studio, observing the promiscuous hurly-burly of the Paris streets, the sporting fields, the wartime battlefronts, recording with meticulous care the clothing, the uniforms, the coaches, the carriages, horses, weapons, hairdos, expressions, and gestures of the moment. No longer was the timeless, classical, high-minded approach to art sufficient unto itself, said Baudelaire. To capture the beauty of modern life the artist had to know how to combine the sublime with the intensely real, with Stendhal’s
petits faits vrais
of the here and now.
This approach elevated literature to a plateau from which it is impossible to back down without sacrificing the medium’s full power—and losing much of its audience. But intellectual fashion was another matter. As Europe’s reigning intellectual fashion, naturalism lasted barely fifty years. The intellectual historian Arnold Hauser recounts how in 1891 a French journalist, Jules Huret, asked sixty-four prominent French writers whether or not they thought naturalism remained a vital literary tradition and, if not, what would take its place. Overwhelmingly they characterized naturalism as dead, finished, and expressed enthusiasm for the new Symbolist poetry, the work of Mallarmé, Rimbaud, Verlaine, and, above all, Symbolism’s progenitor, Constantine Guys’s old fan, Baudelaire. It is at this point that poetry, if it is to be considered serious, becomes difficult. The serious poet begins to make his work hard to understand in order to show that he is elevating himself above the rabble, which is now known of course as the bourgeoisie. He is writing for what the French critic Catulle Mendès referred to as “a charming aristocracy,” “an elite in this age of democracy.” There was something vulgar and common about harping on “meaning.” Poetry existed to produce wafts of sensibility, Mallarméstyle. Exquisite wafts; “exquisite” became a very important word. That
fashion has never weakened; it has only grown stronger and spread throughout the West. Today all “serious” poets are hard for the reader—any reader—to understand, although some are more “accessible” than others. I love this word “accessible.” It is as if serious poets live in caves. Some you can reach in your 4 x 4 off-road SUV. Some you can get only within several hundred yards of by vehicle; the rest of the way it’s hand over hand up a hanging vine. Some you can’t reach at all; you can only admire them from a great distance. Today Edgar Allan Poe, far from being accepted for publication in any self-respecting universiy literary quarterly, would be working for Thompson Creative, the company that specializes in radio jingles. It is at this point also that the “literary world” is created, to be inhabited exclusively by us, by “literary” writers, as distinct from the writers read by ordinary readers, who, as we already know, are coarse and deaf to the exquisite music of allusion and irony.
fashion has never weakened; it has only grown stronger and spread throughout the West. Today all “serious” poets are hard for the reader—any reader—to understand, although some are more “accessible” than others. I love this word “accessible.” It is as if serious poets live in caves. Some you can reach in your 4 x 4 off-road SUV. Some you can get only within several hundred yards of by vehicle; the rest of the way it’s hand over hand up a hanging vine. Some you can’t reach at all; you can only admire them from a great distance. Today Edgar Allan Poe, far from being accepted for publication in any self-respecting universiy literary quarterly, would be working for Thompson Creative, the company that specializes in radio jingles. It is at this point also that the “literary world” is created, to be inhabited exclusively by us, by “literary” writers, as distinct from the writers read by ordinary readers, who, as we already know, are coarse and deaf to the exquisite music of allusion and irony.
What we are looking at here in the France of Mallarmé’s time is a
fashion
among self-consciously literary people, which, like a clothing fashion, exists solely to confer some special status upon the wearer. Readers were something else again. When Huret published his survey results in 1891, readers’ tastes had not changed in the slightest. Zola remained the most popular writer in France (and probably in the world), and Maupassant was second. In America in the 1890s, writers like Dreiser and Frank Norris were influenced by French naturalism, not because it was French and fashionable, but because it had such power over readers. The only sort of American novelist who was immediately influenced by French aestheticism was an émigré like Henry James. James, like Proust, Joyce, and George Meredith, turned away from this vulgar business of Dickensian characters and melodramatic plots to the point where, as Hauser puts it, his characters “seem to move in a vacuum compared with the world of Stendhal, Balzac, Flaubert, Tolstoy, and Dostoevsky.” James didn’t even care to vie for the attentions of the coarse herd, which is to say, plain readers. He became the first great sensibility wafter in American literature.
fashion
among self-consciously literary people, which, like a clothing fashion, exists solely to confer some special status upon the wearer. Readers were something else again. When Huret published his survey results in 1891, readers’ tastes had not changed in the slightest. Zola remained the most popular writer in France (and probably in the world), and Maupassant was second. In America in the 1890s, writers like Dreiser and Frank Norris were influenced by French naturalism, not because it was French and fashionable, but because it had such power over readers. The only sort of American novelist who was immediately influenced by French aestheticism was an émigré like Henry James. James, like Proust, Joyce, and George Meredith, turned away from this vulgar business of Dickensian characters and melodramatic plots to the point where, as Hauser puts it, his characters “seem to move in a vacuum compared with the world of Stendhal, Balzac, Flaubert, Tolstoy, and Dostoevsky.” James didn’t even care to vie for the attentions of the coarse herd, which is to say, plain readers. He became the first great sensibility wafter in American literature.
It was not until just after the First World War that there came into
being that sweaty colonial, the American “intellectual,” who would value a James above a Dreiser, a Dos Passos, or a Sinclair Lewis. It was our colonial intellectuals who finally managed to transplant the “charming” and “aristocratic” French distaste for naturalism into American literary circles in the early 1950s, leading to the supreme and supremely cockeyed piece of irony I mentioned at the outset.
being that sweaty colonial, the American “intellectual,” who would value a James above a Dreiser, a Dos Passos, or a Sinclair Lewis. It was our colonial intellectuals who finally managed to transplant the “charming” and “aristocratic” French distaste for naturalism into American literary circles in the early 1950s, leading to the supreme and supremely cockeyed piece of irony I mentioned at the outset.
Other books
A Tempting Christmas by Danielle Jamie
Mourning Doves by Helen Forrester
Superheroes Anonymous by Lexie Dunne
Cut Cords of Attachment by Rose Rosetree
Underground Captive by Elisabeth-Cristine Analise
The Making of Us by Lisa Jewell
Our Father Who Are Out There...Somewhere by AJ Taft
Moon Princess by Barbara Laban
Dragon Blood 3: Surety by Avril Sabine
Glitter and Glue by Kelly Corrigan
