On Writers and Writing

by John Gardner

A first-time collection of the essays and reviews of the late artist and critic, presenting his views on Bellow, Nabokov, Updike, and others, explores subjects ranging from religion to fairy tales, and from King Arthur to Walt Disney.

Genres: Writing, Nonfiction, Essays, Criticism, Reference, Literary Criticism, American

297 pages, Hardcover

First published January 1, 1994

About the author

John Champlin Gardner was a well-known and controversial American novelist and university professor, best known for his novel Grendel, a retelling of the Beowulf myth.

Gardner was born in Batavia, New York. His father was a lay preacher and dairy farmer, and his mother taught English at a local school. Both parents were fond of Shakespeare and often recited literature together. As a child, Gardner attended public school and worked on his father's farm, where, in April of 1945, his younger brother Gilbert was killed in an accident with a cultipacker. Gardner, who was driving the tractor during the fatal accident, carried guilt for his brother's death throughout his life, suffering nightmares and flashbacks. The incident informed much of Gardner's fiction and criticism — most directly in the 1977 short story "Redemption," which included a fictionalized recounting of the accident.

From Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Gar...

Reviews

[Illiterate]

Mainly occasionally insightful and highly abrasive reviews of American literature and culture.

[Alisa]

I skimmed most of this, tbh. It's stuffy, long-winded essays breaking down the symbolism in contemporary (to Gardner) American literature. I guess if you live in ivory towers, or ivy league towers, this could be useful to learn to write literary criticism. But if, like me, you were looking for more direction in editing or structure, you might look elsewhere.

[Jerry Jenkins]

TL;DR John Gardner just isn't for me. 3/5 stars.

I've gotta say, Gardner has been 0 out of 2 for me. I don't have much to say about this one - I think it is a case of high expectations and personal taste. Being an aspiring writer (albeit not a very good one), this book was marketed to me as the best thing since sliced bread for any ambitious writer. And while I think it was a masterclass on the technical and philosophical details of writing, I did not enjoy it. Before I get into why I didn't like it; I need to give the premise. The book is a collection of essays by John Gardner collected by one of his students. Everything from book reviews to essays on the craft of writing are present here. He pushes back on the existentialist and nihilist trends of his day, and champions the importance of technical mastery when writing. I agree with the latter opinion and am indifferent to the former.

Gardner is clearly an intelligent guy, and he obviously is a more successful person than I am. He was published, was well respected in his field, and obviously knew what he was talking about. I have not been published, am a nobody in my own field, and have no idea what the hell I am doing at any given time. However, while I do recognize that he was both a masterful writer and an intellectual titan in the literary world, I just didn't find this collection moving or, frankly, interesting. It's a classic case of "it's not you, it's me" in that I mean "It is you, but I'm trying to be polite about it." I may come back to some of these essays, particularly the ones on writing, as they have some insightful ideas in them. However, this book did not impress me, and I would say I regret buying it if I didn't get it on sale for 4 bucks.

[Jim Howell]

John Garder did not equivocate.

[Ron Peters]

What an arrogant, mean-hearted, hurtful S.O.B. he was as a critic! He is cruelly judgmental, so certain that no one except himself can possibly be an arbiter of taste in both fiction and morals. (Except that, for him it’s not a matter of taste, he is simply right.) He accuses the writers he attacks of all the things he does himself. And blithely spouts arrant nonsense: “Walt Disney is now universally recognized as the greatest artist the world has ever known, except for, possibly, Apollonius of Rhodes.” (p. 89)

Here he is describing why he likes John Cheever (and one suspects, himself), because he had: “what Tolstoy called, without apology, the artist’s correct moral relation to his material. I will not spell out in detail what all that means, especially the unspoken premise here that some opinions on life are plain right and some plain wrong, nor will I waste space explaining why nearly all the rest of our respected novelists seem to me either mediocre or fake.” (p. 134) I’m so happy I never met the man.

[Richard Jespers]

Good if not snotty discussion of the writing of fiction:

"Sophie's Choice, as I hope I have already made clear, is a splendidly written, thrilling book, a philosophical novel on the most important subject of the twentieth century. If it is not, for me, a hands-down literary masterpiece, the reason is that, in transferring the form of the Southern Gothic to this vastly larger subject, Styron has been unable to get rid of or even noticeably tone down those qualities—some superficial, some deep—in the Southern Gothic that have always made Yankees squirm" (161).

Hmmm. Why would Styron wish to tone them down?

Yet often fine writers with strong opinions are entitled to them because they just might know more than the rest of us.

[C.G. Fewston]

Great essays on the craft of writing. Must read for any writer.

[Kelly Savage]

What a hateful, masturbatory pile of drivel. Aside from a few insightful thoughts and the too-seldom hints of real love of story, this collection of literary "ciriticism" reads like the GuyInYourMFA Twitter account. Gardner, it seems, thought himself the One True Authority on what makes Good Writing. No, I don't expect reviews or literary criticism to be littered with "I think"s or "in my opinion"s--that should be taken for granted when we read reviews and criticisms--but there's a tone to Gardner's writing that suggests he believes he's actually figured it out, and if you don't agree with him, you're probably boring and stupid. In truth, Gardner has simply decided what stories and writers he subjectively enjoys, heaped evidently arbitrary praise upon them (he uses a lot of words to do so but doesn't actually say much, and though he includes quotes from these authors, he does a horrendous job actually demonstrating that they're doing what he says they're doing), and relegated everything else to "trash." Woe betide us all if an author stoops so low as to play, explore, or betray an ounce of earnestness; all that can certainly only amount to melodrama or dishonesty (trust Gardner on this, he's Very Smart). Though he doesn't spend much time discussing his own work or heaping praise upon himself, and he does in certain pieces admit to faults in his own writing, in much of his general discussions of fiction or in his criticisms of other's works, there's a distinct undercurrent in which you can nearly hear him whisper in your ear, "I, Gardner, am among the artists. I am among the original, and MY work is meaningful."

This all becomes even more ridiculous and irritating once you read the provided sample of his fiction, "Julius Caesar and the Werewolf", which, in spite of its title, is banal, exceedingly boring, tedious to read in the way only bad American fiction can be tedious to read, and full of wooden characters--though with one or two actually clever descriptive images thrown in. For all his talk of "true fiction" being "meaningful" and "honest," none of his characters act in ways that feel at all alive, the story doesn't provoke any kind of thought or communicate any meaning whatever, and is written in a voice so blatantly characteristic of Male American Writer that trying to pretend it's taking place in Caesar's Rome is impossible to the point of silliness. I was vaguely interested in reading Gardner's Grendel, but after this, absolutely f that.

[Karlie]

Philosophers may enjoy it.

It’s a time capsule full of opinions from another era, but I was determined to learn something…I found a few valuable gems of advice for new writers and a few insightful predictions for the future.

My jaw hit the floor once when he said something like “most authors of fiction would do better as bus-drivers”

His way of thinking brought me back to when I was working on my bachelors in philosophy, surrounded by like-minded “stuffy intellectuals”

The book itself is a collection of essays by JG, who I guess was as a harsh a book critic as it could get between the 1950’s-1980’s.

Read if you’re looking for something specifically learned by sitting around the campfire with your highly opinionated, often rude, elders that you wish desperately you weren’t sitting next to. (In other words, read if you’re feeling scholarly and open minded)

[Sherry Cohen]

I gave this book rating of only two stars because it is really for scholars, students, and people who want to write literary fiction. It reads like an academic piece or a lecture. I would have preferred it if Gardner would have written something for the mainstream reader. I would only recommend it to college students who are taking a class in literature.

[James Weeks]

This is the book that other authors attacked, because Gardner finds fault with them. As with most of his works, this is a challenge and quite philosophical. but it is certainly worth the time. Gardner was a brilliant man and a great writer!

[Scott]

This is a collection of book reviews that are rather interesting. The real gold is the plan in the back showing his process of making a novel. Gardner is one of the few modern writers I've found that is able to walk the talk when it comes to writing.

[Shane]

Worth it just for the essay on Bartelby the Scrivener alone. A little dated in that he reviews the contemporary fiction of his time, most of which is more or less relevant today, which, unfortunately, can also be said of John Gardner's own serious fiction. Recommended for those who practice the craft of writing or those readers, like myself, who crave more tools to dig deeper into serious fiction.

[Sonstepaul]

I enjoy both John Gardner's fiction and also his instructional manuals. This posthumous collection of essays can only be of interest to someone who is a) an avid collector and reader of the entire Gardner canon and b) someone fully aware of the literature he reviews and usually attacks. Bold and controversial, it is still a lesser work of a great scholar.

[Merce Cardus]

John Gardner, an author and a creative writing teacher and also a professor of medieval literature, shows in On Writers and Writing his facet as an advocate for higher artistic and moral standards in fiction. http://bit.ly/XBzrmM

[Scott Lee]

Made me feel bad about myself, and my writerly aspirations. Taught me a great lesson about not paying attention to anything that poisons your creativity.

[Brie]

Took me a bit to finish it but I'm glad I did.

[z]

- a really terrific reading of Melville's "Bartleby the Scrivener" is included among the essays here
- also some enlightening readings of John Cheever, too