The desire to read from a diverse pool of authors need not be at odds with the desire to read quality writing. This gets at the balancing act you talk about. Also, reading outside your comfort zone helps keep things fresh.
I don't know if he can be called a celebrity, but Percival Everett is a contemporary author who clearly puts a lot of craft into his work. Sure, the biggest bestsellers seldom come from the best writers, but that's not a new phenomenon. Many books that are considered classics now flopped when they were originally published.
My favorite bit in your post is pointing out how it's good for us to praise those we admire. Lots to think about!
Love Percivall Everett! But, even compared to Toni Morrison Everett he pales in comparison. For instance, read his book American Desert and go read Blood Meridian which also takes place in the Desert and it looks like Lebron James playing against a high school player.
Just a thought: maybe the entire premise you’re approaching this with is flawed. For most of human history, literature was an elitist endeavor. It could be returning to that state, and that could, in the long run, be beneficial (purer artistic focus).
Good thoughts! I am skeptical however with the advention of AI and the destruction of the middle class for our future ability to create positive change through art. I do love the idea of purer artistic focus.
The utilitarian view of art is incomplete imho. Any change it does bring about seems secondary (or even tertiary) and more the function of moralism/politics, shouldn’t be the focus imho.
Very true. Literacy has been an elite trait for a long period of history, as has the past-time pleasure of reading literature.
There's probably a time period though, sometime before the invention of TV (and maybe the radio), when literacy rates must have been fairly high and literature could serve as enterntainment for the masses in terms of pulp magazines, dime novels etc. The merit of those pieces of literature can probably be debated, but we also find immensly popular writers like Dickens in that period.
The question then is whether a "popular elite of literacy and literature" could be created that could be big enough and elitist in terms of merit but not in terms of social pretense. I'm a believer in the elitist idea of the elite as an elite of humanitas, education, charity -- serving those less fortunate, educated etc. than them.
But perhaps, it's more of a question of raising the general reading level of the populace. Can a critical mass, a majority of people be educated into a higher level of empathy, rationality, interest, openness through the appreciation of art?
Or, conversely: Can a majority of the less educated be taught at least to an extent where intelligence, intellectualism, literacy etc. are not seen as something inherently suspect, something to be scorned and belittled, because deep down, it makes the outside group feel inferior?
Fredrick (?) Jameson thinks that a revolution is desirable to get rid of bourgeois capitalist culture. The urgency is too great. History is unfolding. It's too late for a literary revolution. Fuck technique. Look at punk music and three chord rock n roll. It was simple but that new language was profoundly artistic. Is there a literary equivalent? But the best thing for art is to turn over a new page. Change the material world. The superstructure will follow.
I think Jameson is quite right. I also think that revolution is very much in a race against both time (in the shape of environmental destruction, climate change etc.) and technology. What I‘m saying is, the people with the pitchforks better make up their minds before the rich have the fully weaponized capabilities to do what the system always does, that is, shield them from the consequences of centuries of exploitation.
On the other hand, that revolution very much involves a spiritual or at least intellectual revolution, does it not? How many Americans and Westerners still view Marxism, Communism, Socialism as big scares, fueled more by ignorance than knowledge and experience? How many workers who should rightly be avowed Marxists are soundly asleep in their misery, not realizing what‘s happening to them, still clinging on to some Dream (American or other) of of when they‘ll be rich and succesful. They‘ll have to be awakened, and mass media is almost entirely on the side of capitalist power, engaged in keeping everyone sedated and asleep.
So, in that sense, I don‘t see the two revolutions as mutually exclusive. They may even be quite complementary.
I don't think it's fair to say that cormac didn't change and that we changed when the passenger was the only book set in a non historic landscape and used less germanic prose. It was definitely a change for our boy cormac.
No Country For Old Men was set in the exact same year as The Passenger. He also had drafts of The Passenger done in 1980 when he was woring on Suttree and Blood Meridian. It didn't change too much over the next four decades. So he was writing it during his peak. Thanks for the support though brotha!
Oh wow I didn't know that they were in the same year. It's a cool thought to think both stories were happening at the same time in different locations. Love the content but I do think someone changed with the passenger, it has a differentness that's hard to put a finger on.
A contemporary author I fall in and out of fascination with is Chuck Palahniuk. Was all in on the guy up until I bought a hardcover copy of Snuff. That one made me feel used. I went to one of his most recent book tour stops and loved how he talked about his craft and fielded questions in a generous way. The folks in attendance were a random sampling of weirdos, outcasts, and misfits—in the best way. I feel Chuck could’ve flipped normal society upside down, but I think he and his fans tried. It just wasn’t enough to stem the societal tide of conformity and banality.
Great example! I never felt the transformational potential in his works. There were small changes I noted and still carry with me from Haunted, Fight Club, and some of his writing advice, but he never seemed to step into a leadership role. But, maybe that's why writing is doomed. Most authors are introverts!
I am my own worst enemy. I'd rather fuck around on my phone or YouTube than read or write, activities I used to do consistently. I even won an award for my writing in college.
I've always wanted to write a novel, I've even written scenes from something which came to me so viscerally in dreams and while listening to music. I don't agree with everything you've said, but I know it's true for me. I need to stop fucking around. Even if what I write doesn't reach anyone or draw any interest, it's time to get to work. Playing with tech is easy... But the reading and writing brings such fulfillment and color to life.
You got this brotha! Stop fucking around and get a first draft done. Even if it takes years to get out after that, you've set it in motion once you have the skeleton down on paper!
I completely agree with your point on the modern reader. IMO, the root of the literary problem lies not in a lack of celebrity status for certain authors whose works contain literary merit, but in the character of the individuals who read these works. The majority of literary readers today (especially McCarthy fans) are not concerned with achieving this "gnosis" that you hint at. They read because they associate reading/knowledge with intelligence and show a complete neglect for any of the actual individual and societal benefits that are at the core of literature.
They indulge themselves in Pynchon, Dostoevsky, Nietzche, and Wallace without ever taking the time to read a six line Emily Dickinson poem, because they know that reading a Dickinson poem (or any poem for that matter) demands uncomfortable introspection that directly contradicts the nihilistic, atheistic, and moral-relativistic predisposition to reality that they have already decided is the "right" one to live by (thanks STEM).
The unfortunate reality is that a lot of the greatest authors' works (who we absolutely should be championing) can be read in light of this disposition, thereby diverting the act of reading away from its purpose as a means of challenging the way we think about reality, and instead using it to reinforce a consciousness that is responsible for the killing of the very artistic material that it consumes, "as if increase of appetite grew by what it fed on."
So while the Orwellian nature of the problem of literacy is certainly concerning, I am much more frightened by its Huxleyan implications. Becoming a more intelligent person does not equate with becoming a better person, and, right now, I would much rather befriend someone who does not read at all than one who reads literature on the sole basis that it makes them smarter.
So, yes, I agree with you that we need to champion the works of great authors like McCarthy, but I would also like to suggest that if everyone in the world had read Blood Meridian, but only used it as a means to reinforce their flawed worldviews, then maybe we'd be better off in a world where we all anxiously awaited the next Sarah J. Mass release instead.
Just a very quick comment: In praise of Toni Morrison and Margaret Atwood who you referenced off the top. Certainly not dead (well, not one anyway) male or white (not one anyway). Amazing writers who deserve to be read by everyone along with DFW, McCarthy, Pancho and others. As a Canadian, I will put in my own vote for the wonderful Alice Munro, just recently passed, and whose short stories are sublime. And Leonard Cohen too.
I think art in the west is in an orchestrated decline in general bit I think the case of literature, theres a whole host of reasons but I think in the culture as a whole its been put among (especially) the working class that reading is boring or uncool.
I know tons of people that haven't read a book in decades. They insist on arguing with me about everything but still...
Some thoughts, Girardian and otherwise, on the matter, some of them quite contrary to each other:
1) Someone said, „We used to have heroes, who were known for their great deeds. Today, we have celebrities who are mostly known for being known.“ A lot of the „content“ (and I hate that word) that gains massive traction today (see Mr. Beast) achieves that attention not due to the inherent qualities of that content, but due to other qualities attached to the product, which may not be the particular piece of content itself, but the qualities ascribed to the overall product sold. This boils down, quite frequently, to the „aura“ ascribed to the producer, the celebrity, the star. He‘s the model of desire.
A lot of that seems mimetic in nature: Someone gains traction, and that traction amongst others creates its own momentum. The crowd creates its own truth, its own desire, mediating it to others and forgetting that that desire did not originate with it in the first place. In this respect, we‘d need to create traction and momentum for the „product“ or „content“ we‘re trying to „sell“. Our models can serve as the mediators and catalysts to jump-start traction.
In a word, reading and writing, intellectual activity itself would need to become „sexy“ or „marketable“ to more than an intellectual niche. The qualities we see as inherently admirable (beauty of prose, depth of thought, advancement of spiritual or intellectual enlightenment, advancement of empathy, creativity etc.) would have to be rendered as such to so many more. Reach a critical mass and you achieve a kind of mimetic snowballing that can run itself for quite a while.
I suspect that‘s something you‘re inherently trying to achieve here. You probably already serve as a model to many of your followers, to an extent.
2. A genuine friendly smile will lift the days of others. Positivity itself can be mimetically infectuous. Your enthusiasm serves as exhibit A.
Vice versa, we need to consciously steer away from negativity, which is what our online culture seems mostly geared towards. This is very hard, because we‘re addicted to seeing people torn down. Often, we particularly enjoy the „fall from grace“ of exactly the celebrities we celebrated in the first place, taking glee from their misfortune, just as we admired and envied their ascent.
This does not mean steering away from constructive criticism though. Yet we should be careful to constantly celebrate the qualities of each piece of art that deserve celebration, whatever other flaws it may also exhibit.
Similarly, let us not ask of our models that they are perfect human beings (we do anyway) who have no moral flaws or issues.
3. An issue in itself is the celebrity-character which tends to obscure the art itself. The very cult of personality that may bring the art to our attention via the vehicle of the artist may be an obstacle in the way of appreciating the art itself for its qualities.
Thus, the current critical climate elevates what goes for artists these days not due to the inherent qualities of their work (which frequently range from negligible or unremarkable to non-existent, to outright harmful), but due to their identity as a person of „Group xyz“. Similarly, we tear down the greats of old for their identities more so than their work: Hemingway, Faulkner, Melville, McCarthy, DFW, and so many others —- they can‘t be appreciated in their works because they were „white“, „male“, Anglo-, Christian, in some way toxic, mistreated their spouses, or once kicked a puppy. We, as readers, make ourselves guilty by association. (Did you hear that Hitler loved Wagner?!)
Great works, coming from the wrong persons (= person with the wrong group identity card), cannot allowed to be deeper, more thoughtful, beautiful, etc. than that of the latest champion of whatever marginalized group is the flavour-du-jour. Even Shakespeare, to some, can only be appreciated under the premise he really was a woman. This is very petty and really says more about the readers so afflicted than the writers so judged.
The „school of resentment“ as Harold Bloom called it, in this way are much like Blood Meridian‘s natives, cowering in awe and fear and resentment of the Anasazi and their ‚eternal‘ homes of rock, the „dead fathers.“
4. Query: Would the way to circumvent this be moving radically away from biography, personality-worship etc., towards a second death of the author? After all, the work itself is what should decide whose names live on throughout the ages.
However, robbing ourselves off the author also robs us off the most powerful mimetic drive, the „celebrity-catalyst“. It is thus a double-edged sword that can cut either way.
Maybe, there‘s a middle way, which we could call the „Banksy-Solution“: Cultivate a persona that exists solely in your art, and make the mystery part of your branding. Choose withdrawal from the spoils and distractions of personal fame. Go the Banksy, McCarthy, Salinger, Pynchon, Tool - route.
Yet, as artists, we‘re often too ego-driven for this pathway that sacrifices our personal validation. Also literature is a much less immediately appealing medium than visual- and performative arts.
This needs more exploration.
5. A companion to (2) and the power of positivity: As McCarthy ones said, part of why we value the old Greek tragedies so much is that there are precious few of them left to us. Conversely, the sheer quantity of pseudo-literary garbage produced today drowns out a lot of what is good.
A partial key to „weeding out the trash“ may be found in paying no attention whatsoever to bad art and the personalities behind them rather than giving them the attention (and thus validation) of our scorn and mockery: The haters of Stephenie Meyer, Colleen Hoover and E.L. James did their fair share to contribute to their abominable success.
Hence, we should treat bad art and bad artists in the same way we should treat serial murderers or the most vile of criminals: Rather than elevating them by a whole circus of media attention, lending them the aura of „someone people talk about“ (and that is hence admired and thus, a model for imitation!), we should let them slide into obscurity, anonymity before it becomes an issue. In short, to prevent the spread of bad art as an individual, ignore rather than malign.
Example: Until recently, I was blissfully unaware of the existence of Rupi Kaur. There have been a few solid days though, after being exposed to her, when I had to check out her „content“ (apt descriptor here), what others were saying etc. While probably not by much, I added to the number of search results, video views etc. that had to do with her. So, in some small way, I probably bolstered interest in her. Bad move on my part.
6. So, what else to do? Re-Canonize and treat with reverence those works of art that deserve it. Raise its qualities to the state of the model. Reward and promote those qualities you‘d like to see more of, that which can make us better (smarter, more humble, more empathetic, loving etc.) human beings.
Make it clear that a canon is a canon for good reason(s) (which may be questioned and expanded). Sociological, ideological and identity-related reasons may suffice for special interest canons, of which the very best may be good enough for „THE CANON“, which should unite a culture as a whole is solely the quality of merit.
How to do so? I‘m not sure, but as a Girardian degenerate, I suspect good models play a part (And I‘m not talking about super models posing with book-props, though that could help in its own way when you give them the right books).
7. We need to celebrate the qualities of great literature as such, that which makes „reading“ and „writing“ special in our time. Many of my students see no inherent value in reading for the sake of reading. It‘s a purely practical thing to them.: I can read a sign, an instruction, a recipe, maybe a short news article. What gets them is entertainment — and on that front, the easy entertainment of TikTok, Youtube, Movies, Games has an infinite advantage over the slow and arduous art of reading.
Pico della Mirandola will be turning in his grave (Look, I’m sorry!) but: What we may need to stress — and for this, models, scientific insight into reading and neurology, statistics etc. may be of use — are at least in part practical (e.g. performance related) benefits of reading literature, the greats. Gather arguments that are irrefutable. Then hammer it in, again, and again, and again what reading will do for you, or most people. How they get successful. Don’t tell them it will make them more aware, critical, smarter, more empathetic human beings. Tell them that so-and-so-many people (preferably tolerable celebrity xy) got rich / famous / super-admirable because they read 50 books a year.
Promise success and/or delight, then lead them into the trap of higher consciousness. Such benefits that can be used to manipulate the culture to its own greater good, yet unbeknownst to it, is something we should discuss.
8. Reading and Writing have to become desirable as a cultural practice. However, this means overcoming a rampant anti-intellectualism in America, and the West as such (see Richard Hofstadter). Imagine if our youth were as keen on reading and writing as they are on becoming the next Lionel Messi, Ronaldo, Tom Brady or Michael Jordan. Can we get them there? The way is through good models to be emulated, imitated. Maybe Mishima was onto something, minus toxic behavior and delusion…
Again though, double-edged sword. Maybe go the Banksy-route instead. (S_)He‘s popular.
9. All of this is part of the process and really inseparable from a need to educate and raise better readers. By better, we mean readers that have the most basic tools to understanding an easy-to-medium-difficulty text. That are able to focus. That constantly push and expand their attention span. That foster readerly endurance. That engage actively with a given text. That can derive „difficult pleasures“ from its challenges, as Harold Bloom may have put it. That allow themselves to be possessed by a text, and then share its gifts with others.
Wish I could have gotten a tenth point, but can‘t think of one right now.
hell yea! i am grateful finding you and this stack. i work in pub'g— children's pub'g for kids and teens. holy shit! am i ever thankful i grew up long ago enough that education was valued, and humans outranked numbers.
I'm still relatively new to your content. I've been watching/listening to some of your videos for a few weeks now, and I think I understand some of your concerns about the state of humanity, intelligence, and literacy.
I agree that:
1. People are less likely to do the intellectually challenging work of consuming challenging art (writing, stories, music, etc.). Instead, people deviate toward less challenging, more shallow, and "more entertaining" art.
2. There's a continuing decrease in the areas of literacy, comprehension, grammar and spelling.
3. We, the emerging storytellers and writers, are probably not doing as good a job as we need to.
4. For the reasons stated above (and others, I'm sure), there's basically a reading crisis occurring.
So, what should we, as emerging storytellers and writers, do?
1. Well, I don't recall which video it was, but in one of your videos, you basically said that Infinite Jest is a "healing modality," and (I'm not sure if it was in the same video or a different one), you said that our stories should uplift people.
2. In addition to giving people a new perspective and a whole host of other things, I think that's part of what good stories/writers do: take people from a lower place to a higher place; impart wisdom and understanding; give the listener/reader a vicarious experience, so that they can gain insight without having to actually live through the (often painful) experience in real life.
Given the 4 (and more) problems listed above, plus the 2 things emerging writers aim to do, I think that, to help create a literary renaissance, we may need to:
1. Understand that some people are either too far gone, are not going to be interested in the insights we have to share, or might not be able to access our writing.
2. Understand that some people hunger for what we may have to share. Even if they're not avid readers, if they're interested enough, and we can communicate with them (market to them) in a compelling way, they might be interested.
3. I think we need to create works that are timeless yet, at the same time, speak to the zeitgeist of the day. We need to look at things that are affecting us today, and examine those issues within the context of what's true and timeless.
4. People want entertainment that's easy to consume, but we want to create works that are challenging and thought-provoking.
So, why not tell stories that fulfill what they want, and what we want--stories that impart wisdom, that are challenging but at the same time, entertaining?
For example, we can write stories that have an interesting, unique premise, short chapters (at least at the beginning), short paragraphs with nice transitions, and easy-to-read sentences.
There's likely to be more that we need to do, but to the best of my knowledge, and given the time I have, that's what I can say for now.
Oh, I noticed a typo: there's a mistaken use of the word "path": "...we haven’t cultivated a new path balanced path away from..."
"Fuck Hemingway and David Foster Wallace because they didn’t do enough,"
I was with you, but then I wasn't.
I agree these guys cast a certain romantic figure during their eras and the way they waded into deeper themes feels lacking in the modern literary sphere, but... do you think it's on them to change the world? That sounds like activism, not art. These writers were greats. They turned up at the desk every day to put out great work. Not to use it as a trojan horse for some message. Quality was the only message. From my perspective, it's on the reader to recognize that and do what you can to climb up on their shoulders.
By the way, I get the sense you're on your way there, your writing has a distinct voice, you're invoking themes that resonate. That's the direction to point the compass in in my opinion. (and yes, I see how there's a touch of hypocrisy in this paragraph, after what I said in the first ha. We're all guilty of it).
The desire to read from a diverse pool of authors need not be at odds with the desire to read quality writing. This gets at the balancing act you talk about. Also, reading outside your comfort zone helps keep things fresh.
I don't know if he can be called a celebrity, but Percival Everett is a contemporary author who clearly puts a lot of craft into his work. Sure, the biggest bestsellers seldom come from the best writers, but that's not a new phenomenon. Many books that are considered classics now flopped when they were originally published.
My favorite bit in your post is pointing out how it's good for us to praise those we admire. Lots to think about!
Signed,
A soccer fan with a nose piercing
Love Percivall Everett! But, even compared to Toni Morrison Everett he pales in comparison. For instance, read his book American Desert and go read Blood Meridian which also takes place in the Desert and it looks like Lebron James playing against a high school player.
Dad, I’m doing my best; I’m just stupid. Give me some time to make a masterpiece, sheesh!
My son, I just added a couple new paragraphs that clarify that you don't need to write a masterpiece!
Love the post and passion.
Just a thought: maybe the entire premise you’re approaching this with is flawed. For most of human history, literature was an elitist endeavor. It could be returning to that state, and that could, in the long run, be beneficial (purer artistic focus).
Good thoughts! I am skeptical however with the advention of AI and the destruction of the middle class for our future ability to create positive change through art. I do love the idea of purer artistic focus.
The utilitarian view of art is incomplete imho. Any change it does bring about seems secondary (or even tertiary) and more the function of moralism/politics, shouldn’t be the focus imho.
Very true. Literacy has been an elite trait for a long period of history, as has the past-time pleasure of reading literature.
There's probably a time period though, sometime before the invention of TV (and maybe the radio), when literacy rates must have been fairly high and literature could serve as enterntainment for the masses in terms of pulp magazines, dime novels etc. The merit of those pieces of literature can probably be debated, but we also find immensly popular writers like Dickens in that period.
The question then is whether a "popular elite of literacy and literature" could be created that could be big enough and elitist in terms of merit but not in terms of social pretense. I'm a believer in the elitist idea of the elite as an elite of humanitas, education, charity -- serving those less fortunate, educated etc. than them.
But perhaps, it's more of a question of raising the general reading level of the populace. Can a critical mass, a majority of people be educated into a higher level of empathy, rationality, interest, openness through the appreciation of art?
Or, conversely: Can a majority of the less educated be taught at least to an extent where intelligence, intellectualism, literacy etc. are not seen as something inherently suspect, something to be scorned and belittled, because deep down, it makes the outside group feel inferior?
Fredrick (?) Jameson thinks that a revolution is desirable to get rid of bourgeois capitalist culture. The urgency is too great. History is unfolding. It's too late for a literary revolution. Fuck technique. Look at punk music and three chord rock n roll. It was simple but that new language was profoundly artistic. Is there a literary equivalent? But the best thing for art is to turn over a new page. Change the material world. The superstructure will follow.
I think Jameson is quite right. I also think that revolution is very much in a race against both time (in the shape of environmental destruction, climate change etc.) and technology. What I‘m saying is, the people with the pitchforks better make up their minds before the rich have the fully weaponized capabilities to do what the system always does, that is, shield them from the consequences of centuries of exploitation.
On the other hand, that revolution very much involves a spiritual or at least intellectual revolution, does it not? How many Americans and Westerners still view Marxism, Communism, Socialism as big scares, fueled more by ignorance than knowledge and experience? How many workers who should rightly be avowed Marxists are soundly asleep in their misery, not realizing what‘s happening to them, still clinging on to some Dream (American or other) of of when they‘ll be rich and succesful. They‘ll have to be awakened, and mass media is almost entirely on the side of capitalist power, engaged in keeping everyone sedated and asleep.
So, in that sense, I don‘t see the two revolutions as mutually exclusive. They may even be quite complementary.
I don't think it's fair to say that cormac didn't change and that we changed when the passenger was the only book set in a non historic landscape and used less germanic prose. It was definitely a change for our boy cormac.
No Country For Old Men was set in the exact same year as The Passenger. He also had drafts of The Passenger done in 1980 when he was woring on Suttree and Blood Meridian. It didn't change too much over the next four decades. So he was writing it during his peak. Thanks for the support though brotha!
Oh wow I didn't know that they were in the same year. It's a cool thought to think both stories were happening at the same time in different locations. Love the content but I do think someone changed with the passenger, it has a differentness that's hard to put a finger on.
Beautifully written Ian. I have read it a few times and will continue to read it until it speaks to me on a deeper unconscious level.
Lol! The only thing you need to reread is the Rumi poem! Infinite wisdom in there.
A contemporary author I fall in and out of fascination with is Chuck Palahniuk. Was all in on the guy up until I bought a hardcover copy of Snuff. That one made me feel used. I went to one of his most recent book tour stops and loved how he talked about his craft and fielded questions in a generous way. The folks in attendance were a random sampling of weirdos, outcasts, and misfits—in the best way. I feel Chuck could’ve flipped normal society upside down, but I think he and his fans tried. It just wasn’t enough to stem the societal tide of conformity and banality.
Great example! I never felt the transformational potential in his works. There were small changes I noted and still carry with me from Haunted, Fight Club, and some of his writing advice, but he never seemed to step into a leadership role. But, maybe that's why writing is doomed. Most authors are introverts!
I am my own worst enemy. I'd rather fuck around on my phone or YouTube than read or write, activities I used to do consistently. I even won an award for my writing in college.
I've always wanted to write a novel, I've even written scenes from something which came to me so viscerally in dreams and while listening to music. I don't agree with everything you've said, but I know it's true for me. I need to stop fucking around. Even if what I write doesn't reach anyone or draw any interest, it's time to get to work. Playing with tech is easy... But the reading and writing brings such fulfillment and color to life.
Thanks for the kick in the ass.
You got this brotha! Stop fucking around and get a first draft done. Even if it takes years to get out after that, you've set it in motion once you have the skeleton down on paper!
I completely agree with your point on the modern reader. IMO, the root of the literary problem lies not in a lack of celebrity status for certain authors whose works contain literary merit, but in the character of the individuals who read these works. The majority of literary readers today (especially McCarthy fans) are not concerned with achieving this "gnosis" that you hint at. They read because they associate reading/knowledge with intelligence and show a complete neglect for any of the actual individual and societal benefits that are at the core of literature.
They indulge themselves in Pynchon, Dostoevsky, Nietzche, and Wallace without ever taking the time to read a six line Emily Dickinson poem, because they know that reading a Dickinson poem (or any poem for that matter) demands uncomfortable introspection that directly contradicts the nihilistic, atheistic, and moral-relativistic predisposition to reality that they have already decided is the "right" one to live by (thanks STEM).
The unfortunate reality is that a lot of the greatest authors' works (who we absolutely should be championing) can be read in light of this disposition, thereby diverting the act of reading away from its purpose as a means of challenging the way we think about reality, and instead using it to reinforce a consciousness that is responsible for the killing of the very artistic material that it consumes, "as if increase of appetite grew by what it fed on."
So while the Orwellian nature of the problem of literacy is certainly concerning, I am much more frightened by its Huxleyan implications. Becoming a more intelligent person does not equate with becoming a better person, and, right now, I would much rather befriend someone who does not read at all than one who reads literature on the sole basis that it makes them smarter.
So, yes, I agree with you that we need to champion the works of great authors like McCarthy, but I would also like to suggest that if everyone in the world had read Blood Meridian, but only used it as a means to reinforce their flawed worldviews, then maybe we'd be better off in a world where we all anxiously awaited the next Sarah J. Mass release instead.
Just a very quick comment: In praise of Toni Morrison and Margaret Atwood who you referenced off the top. Certainly not dead (well, not one anyway) male or white (not one anyway). Amazing writers who deserve to be read by everyone along with DFW, McCarthy, Pancho and others. As a Canadian, I will put in my own vote for the wonderful Alice Munro, just recently passed, and whose short stories are sublime. And Leonard Cohen too.
I think art in the west is in an orchestrated decline in general bit I think the case of literature, theres a whole host of reasons but I think in the culture as a whole its been put among (especially) the working class that reading is boring or uncool.
I know tons of people that haven't read a book in decades. They insist on arguing with me about everything but still...
At work today, I was thinking about the notion of shallow entertainment, and I came up with this quote:
Shallow entertainment (entertainment without much lasting value) is like junk food: it tastes good, but it's not nourishing.
Some thoughts, Girardian and otherwise, on the matter, some of them quite contrary to each other:
1) Someone said, „We used to have heroes, who were known for their great deeds. Today, we have celebrities who are mostly known for being known.“ A lot of the „content“ (and I hate that word) that gains massive traction today (see Mr. Beast) achieves that attention not due to the inherent qualities of that content, but due to other qualities attached to the product, which may not be the particular piece of content itself, but the qualities ascribed to the overall product sold. This boils down, quite frequently, to the „aura“ ascribed to the producer, the celebrity, the star. He‘s the model of desire.
A lot of that seems mimetic in nature: Someone gains traction, and that traction amongst others creates its own momentum. The crowd creates its own truth, its own desire, mediating it to others and forgetting that that desire did not originate with it in the first place. In this respect, we‘d need to create traction and momentum for the „product“ or „content“ we‘re trying to „sell“. Our models can serve as the mediators and catalysts to jump-start traction.
In a word, reading and writing, intellectual activity itself would need to become „sexy“ or „marketable“ to more than an intellectual niche. The qualities we see as inherently admirable (beauty of prose, depth of thought, advancement of spiritual or intellectual enlightenment, advancement of empathy, creativity etc.) would have to be rendered as such to so many more. Reach a critical mass and you achieve a kind of mimetic snowballing that can run itself for quite a while.
I suspect that‘s something you‘re inherently trying to achieve here. You probably already serve as a model to many of your followers, to an extent.
2. A genuine friendly smile will lift the days of others. Positivity itself can be mimetically infectuous. Your enthusiasm serves as exhibit A.
Vice versa, we need to consciously steer away from negativity, which is what our online culture seems mostly geared towards. This is very hard, because we‘re addicted to seeing people torn down. Often, we particularly enjoy the „fall from grace“ of exactly the celebrities we celebrated in the first place, taking glee from their misfortune, just as we admired and envied their ascent.
This does not mean steering away from constructive criticism though. Yet we should be careful to constantly celebrate the qualities of each piece of art that deserve celebration, whatever other flaws it may also exhibit.
Similarly, let us not ask of our models that they are perfect human beings (we do anyway) who have no moral flaws or issues.
3. An issue in itself is the celebrity-character which tends to obscure the art itself. The very cult of personality that may bring the art to our attention via the vehicle of the artist may be an obstacle in the way of appreciating the art itself for its qualities.
Thus, the current critical climate elevates what goes for artists these days not due to the inherent qualities of their work (which frequently range from negligible or unremarkable to non-existent, to outright harmful), but due to their identity as a person of „Group xyz“. Similarly, we tear down the greats of old for their identities more so than their work: Hemingway, Faulkner, Melville, McCarthy, DFW, and so many others —- they can‘t be appreciated in their works because they were „white“, „male“, Anglo-, Christian, in some way toxic, mistreated their spouses, or once kicked a puppy. We, as readers, make ourselves guilty by association. (Did you hear that Hitler loved Wagner?!)
Great works, coming from the wrong persons (= person with the wrong group identity card), cannot allowed to be deeper, more thoughtful, beautiful, etc. than that of the latest champion of whatever marginalized group is the flavour-du-jour. Even Shakespeare, to some, can only be appreciated under the premise he really was a woman. This is very petty and really says more about the readers so afflicted than the writers so judged.
The „school of resentment“ as Harold Bloom called it, in this way are much like Blood Meridian‘s natives, cowering in awe and fear and resentment of the Anasazi and their ‚eternal‘ homes of rock, the „dead fathers.“
4. Query: Would the way to circumvent this be moving radically away from biography, personality-worship etc., towards a second death of the author? After all, the work itself is what should decide whose names live on throughout the ages.
However, robbing ourselves off the author also robs us off the most powerful mimetic drive, the „celebrity-catalyst“. It is thus a double-edged sword that can cut either way.
Maybe, there‘s a middle way, which we could call the „Banksy-Solution“: Cultivate a persona that exists solely in your art, and make the mystery part of your branding. Choose withdrawal from the spoils and distractions of personal fame. Go the Banksy, McCarthy, Salinger, Pynchon, Tool - route.
Yet, as artists, we‘re often too ego-driven for this pathway that sacrifices our personal validation. Also literature is a much less immediately appealing medium than visual- and performative arts.
This needs more exploration.
5. A companion to (2) and the power of positivity: As McCarthy ones said, part of why we value the old Greek tragedies so much is that there are precious few of them left to us. Conversely, the sheer quantity of pseudo-literary garbage produced today drowns out a lot of what is good.
A partial key to „weeding out the trash“ may be found in paying no attention whatsoever to bad art and the personalities behind them rather than giving them the attention (and thus validation) of our scorn and mockery: The haters of Stephenie Meyer, Colleen Hoover and E.L. James did their fair share to contribute to their abominable success.
Hence, we should treat bad art and bad artists in the same way we should treat serial murderers or the most vile of criminals: Rather than elevating them by a whole circus of media attention, lending them the aura of „someone people talk about“ (and that is hence admired and thus, a model for imitation!), we should let them slide into obscurity, anonymity before it becomes an issue. In short, to prevent the spread of bad art as an individual, ignore rather than malign.
Example: Until recently, I was blissfully unaware of the existence of Rupi Kaur. There have been a few solid days though, after being exposed to her, when I had to check out her „content“ (apt descriptor here), what others were saying etc. While probably not by much, I added to the number of search results, video views etc. that had to do with her. So, in some small way, I probably bolstered interest in her. Bad move on my part.
6. So, what else to do? Re-Canonize and treat with reverence those works of art that deserve it. Raise its qualities to the state of the model. Reward and promote those qualities you‘d like to see more of, that which can make us better (smarter, more humble, more empathetic, loving etc.) human beings.
Make it clear that a canon is a canon for good reason(s) (which may be questioned and expanded). Sociological, ideological and identity-related reasons may suffice for special interest canons, of which the very best may be good enough for „THE CANON“, which should unite a culture as a whole is solely the quality of merit.
How to do so? I‘m not sure, but as a Girardian degenerate, I suspect good models play a part (And I‘m not talking about super models posing with book-props, though that could help in its own way when you give them the right books).
7. We need to celebrate the qualities of great literature as such, that which makes „reading“ and „writing“ special in our time. Many of my students see no inherent value in reading for the sake of reading. It‘s a purely practical thing to them.: I can read a sign, an instruction, a recipe, maybe a short news article. What gets them is entertainment — and on that front, the easy entertainment of TikTok, Youtube, Movies, Games has an infinite advantage over the slow and arduous art of reading.
Pico della Mirandola will be turning in his grave (Look, I’m sorry!) but: What we may need to stress — and for this, models, scientific insight into reading and neurology, statistics etc. may be of use — are at least in part practical (e.g. performance related) benefits of reading literature, the greats. Gather arguments that are irrefutable. Then hammer it in, again, and again, and again what reading will do for you, or most people. How they get successful. Don’t tell them it will make them more aware, critical, smarter, more empathetic human beings. Tell them that so-and-so-many people (preferably tolerable celebrity xy) got rich / famous / super-admirable because they read 50 books a year.
Promise success and/or delight, then lead them into the trap of higher consciousness. Such benefits that can be used to manipulate the culture to its own greater good, yet unbeknownst to it, is something we should discuss.
8. Reading and Writing have to become desirable as a cultural practice. However, this means overcoming a rampant anti-intellectualism in America, and the West as such (see Richard Hofstadter). Imagine if our youth were as keen on reading and writing as they are on becoming the next Lionel Messi, Ronaldo, Tom Brady or Michael Jordan. Can we get them there? The way is through good models to be emulated, imitated. Maybe Mishima was onto something, minus toxic behavior and delusion…
Again though, double-edged sword. Maybe go the Banksy-route instead. (S_)He‘s popular.
9. All of this is part of the process and really inseparable from a need to educate and raise better readers. By better, we mean readers that have the most basic tools to understanding an easy-to-medium-difficulty text. That are able to focus. That constantly push and expand their attention span. That foster readerly endurance. That engage actively with a given text. That can derive „difficult pleasures“ from its challenges, as Harold Bloom may have put it. That allow themselves to be possessed by a text, and then share its gifts with others.
Wish I could have gotten a tenth point, but can‘t think of one right now.
hell yea! i am grateful finding you and this stack. i work in pub'g— children's pub'g for kids and teens. holy shit! am i ever thankful i grew up long ago enough that education was valued, and humans outranked numbers.
Hi Ian,
I'm still relatively new to your content. I've been watching/listening to some of your videos for a few weeks now, and I think I understand some of your concerns about the state of humanity, intelligence, and literacy.
I agree that:
1. People are less likely to do the intellectually challenging work of consuming challenging art (writing, stories, music, etc.). Instead, people deviate toward less challenging, more shallow, and "more entertaining" art.
2. There's a continuing decrease in the areas of literacy, comprehension, grammar and spelling.
3. We, the emerging storytellers and writers, are probably not doing as good a job as we need to.
4. For the reasons stated above (and others, I'm sure), there's basically a reading crisis occurring.
So, what should we, as emerging storytellers and writers, do?
1. Well, I don't recall which video it was, but in one of your videos, you basically said that Infinite Jest is a "healing modality," and (I'm not sure if it was in the same video or a different one), you said that our stories should uplift people.
2. In addition to giving people a new perspective and a whole host of other things, I think that's part of what good stories/writers do: take people from a lower place to a higher place; impart wisdom and understanding; give the listener/reader a vicarious experience, so that they can gain insight without having to actually live through the (often painful) experience in real life.
Given the 4 (and more) problems listed above, plus the 2 things emerging writers aim to do, I think that, to help create a literary renaissance, we may need to:
1. Understand that some people are either too far gone, are not going to be interested in the insights we have to share, or might not be able to access our writing.
2. Understand that some people hunger for what we may have to share. Even if they're not avid readers, if they're interested enough, and we can communicate with them (market to them) in a compelling way, they might be interested.
3. I think we need to create works that are timeless yet, at the same time, speak to the zeitgeist of the day. We need to look at things that are affecting us today, and examine those issues within the context of what's true and timeless.
4. People want entertainment that's easy to consume, but we want to create works that are challenging and thought-provoking.
So, why not tell stories that fulfill what they want, and what we want--stories that impart wisdom, that are challenging but at the same time, entertaining?
For example, we can write stories that have an interesting, unique premise, short chapters (at least at the beginning), short paragraphs with nice transitions, and easy-to-read sentences.
There's likely to be more that we need to do, but to the best of my knowledge, and given the time I have, that's what I can say for now.
Oh, I noticed a typo: there's a mistaken use of the word "path": "...we haven’t cultivated a new path balanced path away from..."
Those are beautiful and very necessary words and thoughts. Thank you.
"Fuck Hemingway and David Foster Wallace because they didn’t do enough,"
I was with you, but then I wasn't.
I agree these guys cast a certain romantic figure during their eras and the way they waded into deeper themes feels lacking in the modern literary sphere, but... do you think it's on them to change the world? That sounds like activism, not art. These writers were greats. They turned up at the desk every day to put out great work. Not to use it as a trojan horse for some message. Quality was the only message. From my perspective, it's on the reader to recognize that and do what you can to climb up on their shoulders.
By the way, I get the sense you're on your way there, your writing has a distinct voice, you're invoking themes that resonate. That's the direction to point the compass in in my opinion. (and yes, I see how there's a touch of hypocrisy in this paragraph, after what I said in the first ha. We're all guilty of it).