Relevant to Our Complicated Moment

Noting that this year's "100 Notable Books" list is balanced evenly between fiction and nonfiction, New York Times Book Review editors (i.e., Sam Tanenhaus) aver that

This indicates, most obviously, that the past 12 months have been an especially strong period for fiction. But it also suggests, perhaps, that novelists and short-story writers have begun to rediscover the uses of narrative and to find new ways of making their imagined creations more relevant to our complicated moment.

Since I haven't noticed that 2006 was "an especially strong period for fiction" (nor a particularly weak one, either), I have to conclude that this is Tanenhaus's way of encouraging novelists to "rediscover the uses of narrative" (old-fashioned storytelling = a better chance of getting a NYTBR review).

Frankly, I find this critical tic of Tanenhaus's--American fiction has abandoned narrative--rather baffling. I defy him to look at the literary fiction shelves (even allowing him to walk past the genre aisles) at Borders and Barnes and Noble and point out what books do not in fact dispense narrative in fairly heavy doses. Perhaps the powers that be in these stores occasionally set out an experimental novel or two that engage in wacky distortions of time or narrative structure, but could Tanenhaus really seriously contend that most of the displayed items do not harbor storytelling of a fairly recognizable kind behind their gaudy jackets? For most writers and readers, "story" and "novel" remain more or less synonymous terms. Perhaps Tanenhaus believes these stories are too "literary"? Too heavily concealed behind daubs of prose and a facade of "psychological realism"?

Although Tanenhaus ultimately does reveal his storytelling preference in affirming those writers who have managed the feat of "making their imagined creations more relevant to our complicated moment." This has been Tanenhaus's mantra ever since he took over the Book Review. We live in "complicated times," and only those books that contribute to the "national discussion" of our various complications are deemed worthy of inclusion in the country's ostensibly premier book review section. Never mind that this reduces the value of books--even works of fiction--to their potential role in continuing onto the book review pages the same kind of blather to be found in the rest of the New York Times, and in most of the larger American newspapers as well. (Although perhaps I shouldn't trivialize it quite so much by calling it "blather"; it's precisely this NYT-style blather that helped get us in the current "complicated" mess in Iraq.) Let's invite the same fools and charlatans who dominate the news and opinion sections over to the Book Review and make it into the same kind of intellectual sinkhole.

Thus, "imaginated creations" aren't enough. (Although there's more than enough condescension in the way that phrase is used here.) If fiction writers aren't going to stick to the facts, damn it, then they ought at least stick to the manly art of storytelling in ways we journalists can commend! Once they've turned their attention to the "relevant" subjects, and told us a nicely constructed story, we can in turn make fiction irrelevant and twist their tales into our own conventional, prefab shapes.

Comments

[Roy Rubin]

1-Hmmm, well he must be reading a different NYT front page for the last 4 years than I have?

2-Maybe navel gazing has turned the public to TV?

3-I know that sounded anti-intellectual, but remember that party scene in Five Easy Pieces where Jack tells the parlor intellectual to take her brains and shove it?

[TEV]

Dan,

For me the insidious part of ST's comment isn't "narrative" so much as "relevance," whatever the hell that means. I'm kind of old-fashioned, it has been remarked, so I have no beef with telling a linear story. But this notion of relevance in a novel seems to be his way of telling novelists to write non-fiction.

I had an exchange with an editor friend of mine, who said it best, really. Here's what he advised me:

"It's not a novelist's job to worry about the novel or the Day. That's for the rest of us. A novelist has much more pressing things to worry about--as I'm sure you know. Like how to get characters in and out of a room, or what to name the fuckers. Which require total concentration. If the evening news forces its way in there, you know, so be it, but I don't see anything wrong with the small canvas in itself. I'd rather read Portnoy's Complaint or La Princesse de Cleves than The Human Stain. It's not that there's anything wrong with engaging, I just don't think it gets you any extra points when it comes to readability or depth."

Sounds about right to me.

Best,
Mark

[Dan Green]

Mark,

I agree with you that ST clearly prefers nonfiction, fiction only to the degree it can be discussed as if it were nonfiction.

Similarly, it seems to me that in celebrating "narrative," he's really advocating for the kind of "storytelling" journalists do, not the more complex uses of narrative to be found in some novels.

[Juniper Peyri]

Narrative is easier to follow and understand (A->B->C), but I think that other literary forms such as stream-of-consciousness (A/A) and absurdism (A->K) are more relevant to modern life. As such, I share your disdain for Tanenhaus's obsession with traditional narrative. It reminds me of when I was apart of Ayn Rand's Objectivist cult and I thought that the only way to write a story was by creating an intricate Hugo-esque plot. I know better now. William Faulkner and George Saunders in particular have shown me more interesting ways of depicting the human experience.

[Damon Garr]

I should admit that I am a bit of a traditionalist myself, but I had a similar reaction to Tannenhaus's statement. But after looking at the selections and his track record, I think he was just looking for a way of explaining why they liked more fiction this year--without really knowing what he was saying.

We must remember that any review (or best-of list) is entirely subjective. To talk about "relevance" only means that he likes "relevant" books. It shouldn't slow anyone down from writing totally irrelevant books. We might all want a good review in the NYTBR, but that's not why we're writing.

[RWB]

Perhaps he is a believer in Tom Wolfe's brand of literature as Wolfe proclaimed in "Stalking the Million Footed Beast" (I think). Fiction informed by journalism. I like that kind of fiction, too (all other things being equal), but it is a very small part of the universe of good fiction, it seems to me.