Goodreads | Abigail's review

Abigail's review

A Reader's Manifesto: An Attack on the Growing Pretentiousness in American Literary Prose
by B.R. Myers

[close]

blog this review

Copy/paste the text below into your blog.

<a href="http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/101435.A_Reader_s_Manifesto_An_Attack_on_the_Growing_Pretentiousness_in_American_Literary_Prose?utm_medium=api&amp;utm_source=blog_review" style="float: left; padding-right: 20px"><img alt="A Reader's Manifesto: An Attack on the Growing Pretentiousness in American Literary Prose" border="0" src="http://photo.goodreads.com/books/1171478654m/101435.jpg" /></a> <a href="http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/101435.A_Reader_s_Manifesto_An_Attack_on_the_Growing_Pretentiousness_in_American_Literary_Prose?utm_medium=api&utm_source=blog_review">A Reader's Manifesto: An Attack on the Growing Pretentiousness in American Literary Prose</a> by <a href="http://www.goodreads.com/author/show/1344447.B_R_Myers">B.R. Myers</a> 
 <a href="http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/9978390?utm_medium=api&utm_source=blog_review"><h3>My review</h3></a>
 rating: 2 of 5 stars 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...
 <a href="http://www.goodreads.com/review/list/424514?utm_medium=api&utm_source=blog_review">View all my reviews.</a>

Abigail's review
rating:
bookshelves: books-reading, literary-criticism
recommended 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 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 no...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) flag

comments (showing 1-5 of 5)

newest »

date

message 1: by Mark

04/02/2008 12:14PM

What a wonderful post, Abigail. Just a couple thoughts.

First, I can relate strongly to your previous close encounters with the intellectual friend. It reminds me of when I had hated "The Unforgiven" with Clint Eastwood, and our movie reviewer (our artsy one: she wouldn't deign to review the popular stuff) said, "I think you should watch it again. Then you'll understand." There isn't a much more aggravating insult than the one that offers you the kindness of being called a dullard.

As to BR, the only thing I've read was an Atlantic article, itself quite long, which I'm sure was a condensation of his book. I think this could be a case of a book which should have stayed a magazine article, where he could afford to be pungent without making you weary at the thought of turning another chapter.

And finally, I've had several goodreads friends post on this book, and many have said that while they generally agree with his jousting at pretension, they often have very mixed feelings about the examples he chose to skewer. Many people completely agree about DeLillo, for instance, but love Annie Proulx.

Choosing examples always makes theory a dicey enterprise. At any rate, your post was extremely well written, and all by itself, makes me want to return to the classics you so love. I certainly will check out your list carefully as a result.

post a comment »

flag abuse *

message 2: by Abigail (last edited 04/02/2008 12:51PM)

04/02/2008 12:50PM

Mark: thank you for your response! I'm flattered that you would like to take a look at my "classics" shelf," but I'm afraid I haven't gotten around to reviewing very many of my favorites. A few "classical" classics (ie: Greek), and some odds and ends... I'll work on it. :)

As for Myers, I do not object to any specific writer he chooses to single out, even if it is one of my "favorites." I'm not obliged to agree with him in every respect to glean something useful from his book, after all. Examples may be risky, but it's hard to imagine his book without them.

My pique regarding Melville, whom I consider to be a brilliant author, was directed at Myers' throwaway comments regarding him. He never really went into what he thought was wrong with his work, other than calling it "pseudo-biblical," but just made snide comments in passing. I'll consider anyone's view, but I can only do so if its presented...

post a comment »

flag abuse *

message 3: by Xysea

04/02/2008 01:24PM

After Myers, Abigail, I did read some. I've read Proulx, McCarthy and Auster. I have a Don DeLillo on my home shelf awaiting a read.

Myers did not scare me off these authors; in fact, he made me curious of them. I am not one to take a person's opinion as fact - I'll do my own research, if only to be contrary or to look for flaws in the argument! lol

:) Xy

post a comment »

flag abuse *

message 4: by Jessica

04/02/2008 09:02PM

Great review. Btw, dislike Guterson, like early but not later Auster, do not like Delillo, love Melville...

post a comment »

flag abuse *

message 5: by Koeeoaddi

04/02/2008 10:04PM

I really liked Clueless, but can still commiserate -- the movie that's far to subtle in its genius for me to appreciate is Starship Troopers.

Wonderful review, Abigail.

[...love Melville too, FWIW.:]

post a comment »

flag abuse *

all Abigail's books »