A Reader's Manifesto: An Attack on the Growing Pretentiousness in American Literary Prose

published	2002 by Melville House
binding	Paperback
isbn	0971865906 (isbn13: 9780971865907)
pages	160
description	"A welcome contrarian take on the state of contemporary American prose."-The Wall Street Journal The funny and devastating ...more [close] "A welcome contrarian take on the state of contemporary American prose."-The Wall Street Journal The funny and devastating debunking of high "literary" prose stylists, including Don DeLillo, Annie Proulx, and Cormac McCarthy, that caused a literary furor. [close]
date added	02-14-07 edit book

find at: Amazon | Half.com | Barnes & Noble | Abebooks | more...

Sign in to Goodreads to see your friends' reviews of A Reader's Manifesto: An Attack on the Growing Pretentiousness in American Literary Prose.

discuss this book

There are no discussion topics on this book yet. Be the first to start one »

groups with this book

friend reviews (0)

To see what your friends thought of this book, please sign up.

lists with this book

Where's the love? Add this book to your favorite list.

other reviews (showing 1-20 of 164)

Abigail rated it:

04/02/08

bookshelves: 5q, books-reading, literary-criticism

Read in March, 2008

recommends it for: Pomos / Anyone In Need of Reassurance That It Is OK to Think for Themselves

I once had the dubious honor of working with an English graduate student who considered me, if not his intellectual equal, then at least as someone in sympathy with his idea of the "life of the mind." This unfortunate state of affairs gave rise to a number of hilariously surreal encounters, particularly when any difference in opinion would arise between us. Of a somewhat parochial understanding, and having assigned me to the role of fellow "intellectual," he was invariably at...more I once had the dubious honor of working with an English graduate student who considered me, if not his intellectual equal, then at least as someone in sympathy with his idea of the "life of the mind." This unfortunate state of affairs gave rise to a number of hilariously surreal encounters, particularly when any difference in opinion would arise between us. Of a somewhat parochial understanding, and having assigned me to the role of fellow "intellectual," he was invariably at a loss to comprehend how I could have arrived at any judgment in opposition to his own.

Take, for instance, our discussion of the movie "Clueless," which offers a modern teenage adaptation (or satire, depending upon your view) of Jane Austen's classic novel "Emma." I can still recall our endless conversation about the (non)-virtues of the film, in which I attempted to convince my friend that although I loved Austen's work, and could appreciate the parallels between her novel and the film, the "cleverness" (?) of the project was not enough to compensate me for the sophomoric and repetitive "humor," or the atrocious performances.

Having himself decided that the movie was a brilliant literary satire, in which a classic work had been "re-clothed" in modern idiom, he was convinced that my lack of enjoyment was the result of some deficiency in understanding. Imagine a conversation in which the following exchange is repeated, ad infinitum: "I understand what the film is trying to do, but I just didn't find it that funny... But you WOULD find it funny if you TRULY understood..." I'm afraid that no effort on my part was sufficient to convince him that my distaste did not stem from a lack of comprehension, and could not be remedied by his clarification.

So it is that I am predisposed to sympathize with Myers' critique of the so-called literary elite, and their elevation of a particular style of "serious" literature. How can I resist such a literary populist, or fail to embrace the idea that readers should trust their own instincts, rather than surrender their judgment to a cabal of self-satisfied critics? It is tempting, I think, to praise Myers' work, precisely because the "literary establishment" at which he takes aim does indeed suppress a plurality of views, and discourage a diversity of literary style and genre.

As for the specific authors whose work is examined here - E. Annie Proulx, Don DeLillo, Cormac McCarthy, Paul Auster, and David Guterson - I have not read a single one, and am perhaps ill-equipped to judge the overall justice of Mr. Myers' critique. The passages which he reproduces are certainly absurd, and he assures the reader that they are representative, rather than extraordinary. Perhaps it would be more just to attempt to read some of these authors myself, although modern fiction has never been high on my list of priorities, and the excerpts quoted here are certainly no inducement.

But although in agreement with many of Myers' general points: that contemporary "literary" fiction tends to be poorly written, that it has abandoned story in favor of form, and that it patronizes and bullies its readers, attempting to hide its lack of clarity and skill behind a cloak of false profundity; I nevertheless found "A Reader's Manifesto" a strangely unappealing read. I do not find Myers malicious, as do some of his critics, and I think it patently absurd that anyone should so expose their own intellectual limitations by accusing him of being a philistine, simply because he will not fall into step with the literary majority...

Perhaps it is Myers' own limitations that prevent me from truly enjoying his book. As a classicist, I do not think it could be said that I have any prejudice against the literature of the past, but I did grow a little tired of the author's almost elegiac insistence upon the superiority of previous generations of writers. It would have been more instructive I think, and strengthened Myers' argument, if he had contrasted the poor quality of today's "serious" authors with some of their more skilled contemporaries. If certain genre authors are doing a better job, then by all means, showcase their accomplishment. If contemporary non-American authors have avoided this trap of pretension, then let us hear about it. It may not have been his intention, but by focusing almost exclusively on bygone authors, Myers seems to imply that accomplishment in literature can only be achieved through some kind of repetition, or return to the past. I am not sure I agree...

I am always somewhat irritated, moreover, by works that are received as brilliantly original assaults upon some accepted truth, but which are in fact just the latest salvo in an ongoing conflict. Anyone who follows the children's literature scene, and has read any works of theory or criticism in this field, will no doubt recognize the "story versus form" argument that Myers advances. As far back as 1981, children's author and editor Jane Yolen was arguing (in a book called "Touch Magic: Fantasy, Faerie and Folklore in the Literature of Childhood") that adults were being drawn to children's literature precisely because it had not abandoned storytelling for avant-garde experimentation in form. To be fair, I do not think that Myers has presented himself as any sort of vanguard, although his condescending throwaway references to the Harry Potter books are somewhat grating.

Finally, I must take a page out of Myers' own book, and judge these matters for myself. I am reluctant to accept the literary discernment of anyone who seems to have such a low opinion of Melville......less

Like this review? yes (12 people liked it)

5 comments

Christy rated it:

02/22/08

Read in January, 2006

I've noticed a couple of trends about the negative reactions to "A Reader's Manifesto":

1. That people think it is sleazy for Myers to cherrypick and mock certain passages from these authors' books

2. That people scoff at it because, after all, why should we need someone's permission to decide what literature to read/like? Why should we allow Myers to tell us what is and is not worthy of our time?

To number 1, I would invite a re-reading of the text (I know you won't do it, be...more I've noticed a couple of trends about the negative reactions to "A Reader's Manifesto":

1. That people think it is sleazy for Myers to cherrypick and mock certain passages from these authors' books

2. That people scoff at it because, after all, why should we need someone's permission to decide what literature to read/like? Why should we allow Myers to tell us what is and is not worthy of our time?

To number 1, I would invite a re-reading of the text (I know you won't do it, because you've already decided to hate it, probably because you like one or more of the authors he attacks). He makes it pretty clear that he took pains to avoid that kind of sleaziness, because it runs the risk of damaging the credibility of the entire theory. But some have decided to ignore that and attack him for the very thing he did not do. For them, I have no words. It's kind of a straw-man argument, which is annoying (I'm aware that my whole review reeks of straw-man, actually, but I don't care). Why waste my breath re-explaining that Myers analyzed passages that had already been singled out as praise-worthy by critics, thus analyzing, not the authors' "worst" moments, but moments that had been touted as their best? Okay, so I had a few words. So anyway, before you get your panties in a twist, I might mention that it's not so much an attack on the authors as it is the critics, or rather, raving lunatic magazine/newspaper book reviewers. I have not read all of the books mentioned, but I must say, the passages I've read are shockingly bad. Who are they speaking to if this is what they present as enticement? I'll tell you who: people who can't think for themselves, but want to be "smart" and "well-read" and even though they can barely suffer through what they're reading, it must be good if everybody else likes it, and people will be sooo impressed.

As for number 2, the concern that people only like this essay because they like being told what is and is not okay to like...I will bring it home and say that the fundamental point of "A Reader's Manifesto" is that we should read what we enjoy, and I, for one, enjoy reading things that agree with my own preconceived notions of what makes literature enjoyable. It's fun to laugh at bad writing, just like it's fun to laugh at typos on menus and other signage. And I like to have fun. So there.

...less

Like this review? yes (1 person liked it)

title link
avg rating
small image
med image
large image

A Reader's Manifesto: An Attack on the Growing Pretentiousness in American Literary Prose

discuss this book

groups with this book

friend reviews (0)

lists with this book

other reviews (showing 1-20 of 164)

book data (includes all editions)

blog this book

popular shelves

other editions