There is much to lose in having such a deep-seated resentment towards another artist, or even the entire world of modern publishing.
I hear you on a lot of these points, and I love that your point of view is so strong — that's the kind of conviction that makes me curious & want to read your own works of fiction.
But...
Do you not believe that every artist's work should have a place in the world?
Should Ben Lerner's art — whose work genuinely seems like an extension of his own spirit, for all its literary failings that you listed — be denied publishing?
Are all positive reviews of Lerner complete bullshit?
When you focus so much on the universal truths of literature, or the universal truths of humanity, you can become blind to the unique merits that a quirky piece of work can have. Even if it's not exactly Dostoyevsky.
I think her problem is that it's this type of work that's published over others' which might have more merit, but might not touch on the political and cultural themes that are popular today among publishers, or might not be written in the pretentious and overwrought yet ultimately meaningless style popular today.
Should EVERYONE's work be published? Should EVERYONE's voice be heard? Well, maybe in theory... but the reality is that not everyone's going to get backed by a serious publisher, and not everyone's going to get reviewed by well-known critics. Every author being published by a Big Five, or winning an award, or getting a big interview, is being published and promoted and lauded at the expense of someone else. So the quality of what's being published really matters, and we should hold it to a very high standard.
I don't know how that didn't hit your DNF. The examples almost put me to sleep. I know modern literature can be a chore, but I recommend Theo of Golden. Not because everyone else does, but because of what it is. You can tell it is the gentlema's first novel and that it was originally self published. I can take a little bit of head hopping. The characters, while not fully fleshed, are great and there's an emotionally resonance that carries through.
There is a spirit of whinging about this post that seems to say more about the writer's failure to attain market traction than actual literary insight. Example: Ms. Libes complains about the protagonists failure to react appropriately in the presence of a Duccio "Madonna and Child". That's the point of the author's narrative. From the NYT review of the same novel: "And when he sees a fellow museumgoer moved literally to tears by Roger van Der Weyden’s “Descent From the Cross,” his own reflections point less to reverence than to doubt. “I had long worried that I was incapable of having a profound experience of art,” Adam admits, and “was intensely suspicious of people who claimed a poem or painting or piece of music ‘changed their life’ … the closest I’d come to having a profound experience of art was probably … a profound experience of the absence of profundity.”
The author is establishing shallowness on the part of the viewer with intention.
Look, I don't care what any given author feels about another writer's work, literary criticism is sort of the point of reading. But Ms. Libes insists on dragging out the same few "classic" writers in order to disparage contemporary fiction and prop up her own efforts by comparison. It's a bit like complaining that the problem with contemporary figure painting is that the subjects don't measure up to the contorted giants in the Sistine Chapel.
Art moves along. What made art great in the past is that it emerged from that context and yet still speaks to us today. But the context has changed and the blueprint for one generation does not neatly transpose in time to the present. Ms. Libes should enjoy the moment of her own time, and find a way to celebrate her place in it rather than try and recapitulate the (rightly)tortured efforts of czarist era scribes.
But will Ben Lerner’s writing still speak to us over the years to come? This book is barely 6 years old and hardly speaking to anyone less than a decade after its publication. You might not appreciate Ms. Libes’s taste, but she’s right that contemporary fiction, including literary fiction, seems to be written and published with the purpose of being discarded. A culture where everything is disposable, from its art to its worldview to its children, is pretty grim.
I absolutely agree with you but my suspicion is that this is much more about the marketing decisions of publishers than the quality of writing being done. Just as American based companies are failing on the world stage because they focus on quarterly returns rather than long term strategies publishers look for guaranteed sales even if this same books are remaindered in the following season. It is not dissimilar in the fine arts. where art is just another fungible commodity bought purely for speculation purposes, stored and resold as quickly as possible. And yet great art is still being made and sometimes shown. Minus the fanfare.
Let us not forget how many of the classics Ms. Libes promotes had rough starts at their inception, but through the diligence of academics, book sellers and reviewers, and word of mouth managed to emerge from obscurity. Time will be the final arbiter of enduring quality.
I have long said that I don’t like books written by pastors because they read as drawn out sermons. I have suspected similarly (since I don’t read them) about books written by leftists. They read as drawn out click bait news articles. An idea you effectively confirmed in this essay. Both are bad from literary perspective, and embody the very problem you’ve been describing. The world of modern publishing has succumbed to the framework of modern marketing. Capitalize as much as possible on the fleeting sentiment and impulse of the moment. Better to sell a lot now, even if that means selling zero later.
I love your reviews you've saved me from reading a lot of terrible fiction, and this one made me laugh out loud. Especially this line, "Lerner makes no attempt to differentiate between the distinct souls of his characters, nor does he seem to comprehend that there are people in the universe who aren’t Ben Lerner." 😭😭 But I think that pretty accurately describes modern man, not just modern authors...
I feel compelled to say, for people passing through who’ve never read Ben Lerner, that The Topeka School described in this review bears almost no resemblance to the actual novel. You would think, from this review, that Lerner is principally a “morally self-righteous liberal” culture warrior interested in self-flattery more than storytelling. I cannot stress enough how detached this characterization is from the actual work and the actual artist behind the scenes.
Lerner is absolutely worth keeping an eye on for anyone genuinely interested in contemporary literary fiction. The “Adam” novels (of which this is the third) are haunted by the experience of anhedonia. From Leaving the Atocha Station on, that’s one of the primary narrative focal points. They are, if you like, “novels of the modern condition.” If you can make it through Camus and Houellebecq, and any number of “established” canon writers who flirt with nihilism, you can at least picture what it is that Lerner is doing. “Soullessness,” as somebody else on here put it, is part of what these stories are trying to explore. It’s not exactly 19th century melodrama levels of exciting, but it’s a more interesting enterprise than what this review suggests.
The review seems to take for granted the characters’ monologues are stand-ins for Lerner’s actual beliefs, and seems to believe that the novel expects us to adopt those beliefs. Maybe with other, lesser auto fiction. But one of the entire purposes of the narrative is to expose the characters’ many-layered self-conceits. They are obnoxious and oblivious and also tender and cunning by turns, and Lerner as the narrator is trying to expose their flaws. We are emphatically not expected to take them at their word or agree with their positions uncritically (even and especially the “correct politics” mentioned in the review).
And I am really, really, truly struggling to understand how the excerpts provided are meant to demonstrate Lerner’s “confusing” or “indulgent” style. Even out of context, they're fairly straightforward to manage. I really don’t know how to stress this strongly enough for someone who hasn’t read the novel. No, the enormous amount of “throwaway” references are not there for pure ego-stroking. Most of those mentioned in the review are there because one of the largest plot lines in the novel is Adam’s high school debate career, where students are encouraged to treat language in this absurd, flighty, throwaway manner. That’s one of the most consistent thematic currents in the book. Is the reference comparing Adam’s performance to Glenn Gould’s breathing over the Goldberg Variations recordings actually that hard to understand? Hard enough that it’s unclear what physical action is even taking place in the scene? (No, Adam is not the one breathing) And Jane’s self-flattery regarding the Phelps family’s insults is transparently meant to open her to the reader’s criticism. We are transparently meant to think that this is a ridiculous reaction. This is one of her clearest character flaws.
There’s a critique to be made about Lerner’s narrative philosophy and approach to “soullessness” in general. But it has to engage with what Lerner is actually doing. This feels worse than a hatchet job, because it seems to be talking about a completely different book. I’m sure a good hatchet job can be drawn up for Lerner’s novels, but absolutely not on the basis of “Lerner’s prose is confusing” or “Lerner just wants to show off his intelligence.” The Topeka School is not a masterpiece but it is absolutely, emphatically, not the book that is everything wrong with modern literature.
The mention of Horbiger was to let certain customers know that he's read Morning of the Magicians. No story to tell? Obscure references are a perfectly acceptable substitute.
Thanks for going to the trouble of reading this slop.How did you ever get through it? Really. I couldn't get through the examples. Who reads this stuff?
Oddly, Lerner's next paragraph brings a poem by a Liza favorite to mind - Eliot's The Hollow Men. Note first the phrasing "traces of an older medium of illumination, the shadow of devotion". Now, the light is artificial, as is the reverence. There will be no record of the devotion here, because only Hollow, stuffed, puffed-up people view it- people who fail to realize it foretells the Pieta. Which somehow our narrator knows! Between the Emotion and the Response, falls the shadow. Not so when people stood so close and still could barely see the entire painting, when the Sea of Faith was once so full. Love and devotion from a mother is expected, so it is actually less interesting than viewing what others once thought of this painting. And realizing that no one today has the slightest clue.
Sophocles knew not Arnold, Eliot, Jesus, or two thousand years of poetry and sophisticated writers, but still he heard it beat its ebbing and flowing heartbeat upon the Aegean.
But I'm probably entirely wrong; after all, I haven't and won't be reading this book.
Yup. Yesteryear was the same kind of solipsistic nonsense. It leaves you regretful of the time and effort you put forth attempting to make it what is isn't - meaningful literature.
Interesting commentary and the book..seems just bland as hell. As a suggestion - maybe read Red, white and royal blue? The portrayal of conservatives..are not great. But it's little less egotistic and superiority laden as this one seems to be. And it has drawn in much from the past and I think it is a well written piece of litreature that can move one to tears and to make laugh.
Dude you’re so funny. I don’t know if you mean to come off that way but I swear you’re a comedian at heart. It’s always such a pleasure to read your work😂
Excellent commentary and examples. The examples moved me deeply - to grab some Pepto Bismol.
There is much to lose in having such a deep-seated resentment towards another artist, or even the entire world of modern publishing.
I hear you on a lot of these points, and I love that your point of view is so strong — that's the kind of conviction that makes me curious & want to read your own works of fiction.
But...
Do you not believe that every artist's work should have a place in the world?
Should Ben Lerner's art — whose work genuinely seems like an extension of his own spirit, for all its literary failings that you listed — be denied publishing?
Are all positive reviews of Lerner complete bullshit?
When you focus so much on the universal truths of literature, or the universal truths of humanity, you can become blind to the unique merits that a quirky piece of work can have. Even if it's not exactly Dostoyevsky.
I think her problem is that it's this type of work that's published over others' which might have more merit, but might not touch on the political and cultural themes that are popular today among publishers, or might not be written in the pretentious and overwrought yet ultimately meaningless style popular today.
Should EVERYONE's work be published? Should EVERYONE's voice be heard? Well, maybe in theory... but the reality is that not everyone's going to get backed by a serious publisher, and not everyone's going to get reviewed by well-known critics. Every author being published by a Big Five, or winning an award, or getting a big interview, is being published and promoted and lauded at the expense of someone else. So the quality of what's being published really matters, and we should hold it to a very high standard.
I don't know how that didn't hit your DNF. The examples almost put me to sleep. I know modern literature can be a chore, but I recommend Theo of Golden. Not because everyone else does, but because of what it is. You can tell it is the gentlema's first novel and that it was originally self published. I can take a little bit of head hopping. The characters, while not fully fleshed, are great and there's an emotionally resonance that carries through.
There is a spirit of whinging about this post that seems to say more about the writer's failure to attain market traction than actual literary insight. Example: Ms. Libes complains about the protagonists failure to react appropriately in the presence of a Duccio "Madonna and Child". That's the point of the author's narrative. From the NYT review of the same novel: "And when he sees a fellow museumgoer moved literally to tears by Roger van Der Weyden’s “Descent From the Cross,” his own reflections point less to reverence than to doubt. “I had long worried that I was incapable of having a profound experience of art,” Adam admits, and “was intensely suspicious of people who claimed a poem or painting or piece of music ‘changed their life’ … the closest I’d come to having a profound experience of art was probably … a profound experience of the absence of profundity.”
The author is establishing shallowness on the part of the viewer with intention.
Look, I don't care what any given author feels about another writer's work, literary criticism is sort of the point of reading. But Ms. Libes insists on dragging out the same few "classic" writers in order to disparage contemporary fiction and prop up her own efforts by comparison. It's a bit like complaining that the problem with contemporary figure painting is that the subjects don't measure up to the contorted giants in the Sistine Chapel.
Art moves along. What made art great in the past is that it emerged from that context and yet still speaks to us today. But the context has changed and the blueprint for one generation does not neatly transpose in time to the present. Ms. Libes should enjoy the moment of her own time, and find a way to celebrate her place in it rather than try and recapitulate the (rightly)tortured efforts of czarist era scribes.
Keep on keeping on.
But will Ben Lerner’s writing still speak to us over the years to come? This book is barely 6 years old and hardly speaking to anyone less than a decade after its publication. You might not appreciate Ms. Libes’s taste, but she’s right that contemporary fiction, including literary fiction, seems to be written and published with the purpose of being discarded. A culture where everything is disposable, from its art to its worldview to its children, is pretty grim.
I absolutely agree with you but my suspicion is that this is much more about the marketing decisions of publishers than the quality of writing being done. Just as American based companies are failing on the world stage because they focus on quarterly returns rather than long term strategies publishers look for guaranteed sales even if this same books are remaindered in the following season. It is not dissimilar in the fine arts. where art is just another fungible commodity bought purely for speculation purposes, stored and resold as quickly as possible. And yet great art is still being made and sometimes shown. Minus the fanfare.
Let us not forget how many of the classics Ms. Libes promotes had rough starts at their inception, but through the diligence of academics, book sellers and reviewers, and word of mouth managed to emerge from obscurity. Time will be the final arbiter of enduring quality.
the Mann comparison really shows the difference of actual great writing vs this contemporary overexplained self-indulgent bullshit
I have long said that I don’t like books written by pastors because they read as drawn out sermons. I have suspected similarly (since I don’t read them) about books written by leftists. They read as drawn out click bait news articles. An idea you effectively confirmed in this essay. Both are bad from literary perspective, and embody the very problem you’ve been describing. The world of modern publishing has succumbed to the framework of modern marketing. Capitalize as much as possible on the fleeting sentiment and impulse of the moment. Better to sell a lot now, even if that means selling zero later.
I love your reviews you've saved me from reading a lot of terrible fiction, and this one made me laugh out loud. Especially this line, "Lerner makes no attempt to differentiate between the distinct souls of his characters, nor does he seem to comprehend that there are people in the universe who aren’t Ben Lerner." 😭😭 But I think that pretty accurately describes modern man, not just modern authors...
I feel compelled to say, for people passing through who’ve never read Ben Lerner, that The Topeka School described in this review bears almost no resemblance to the actual novel. You would think, from this review, that Lerner is principally a “morally self-righteous liberal” culture warrior interested in self-flattery more than storytelling. I cannot stress enough how detached this characterization is from the actual work and the actual artist behind the scenes.
Lerner is absolutely worth keeping an eye on for anyone genuinely interested in contemporary literary fiction. The “Adam” novels (of which this is the third) are haunted by the experience of anhedonia. From Leaving the Atocha Station on, that’s one of the primary narrative focal points. They are, if you like, “novels of the modern condition.” If you can make it through Camus and Houellebecq, and any number of “established” canon writers who flirt with nihilism, you can at least picture what it is that Lerner is doing. “Soullessness,” as somebody else on here put it, is part of what these stories are trying to explore. It’s not exactly 19th century melodrama levels of exciting, but it’s a more interesting enterprise than what this review suggests.
The review seems to take for granted the characters’ monologues are stand-ins for Lerner’s actual beliefs, and seems to believe that the novel expects us to adopt those beliefs. Maybe with other, lesser auto fiction. But one of the entire purposes of the narrative is to expose the characters’ many-layered self-conceits. They are obnoxious and oblivious and also tender and cunning by turns, and Lerner as the narrator is trying to expose their flaws. We are emphatically not expected to take them at their word or agree with their positions uncritically (even and especially the “correct politics” mentioned in the review).
And I am really, really, truly struggling to understand how the excerpts provided are meant to demonstrate Lerner’s “confusing” or “indulgent” style. Even out of context, they're fairly straightforward to manage. I really don’t know how to stress this strongly enough for someone who hasn’t read the novel. No, the enormous amount of “throwaway” references are not there for pure ego-stroking. Most of those mentioned in the review are there because one of the largest plot lines in the novel is Adam’s high school debate career, where students are encouraged to treat language in this absurd, flighty, throwaway manner. That’s one of the most consistent thematic currents in the book. Is the reference comparing Adam’s performance to Glenn Gould’s breathing over the Goldberg Variations recordings actually that hard to understand? Hard enough that it’s unclear what physical action is even taking place in the scene? (No, Adam is not the one breathing) And Jane’s self-flattery regarding the Phelps family’s insults is transparently meant to open her to the reader’s criticism. We are transparently meant to think that this is a ridiculous reaction. This is one of her clearest character flaws.
There’s a critique to be made about Lerner’s narrative philosophy and approach to “soullessness” in general. But it has to engage with what Lerner is actually doing. This feels worse than a hatchet job, because it seems to be talking about a completely different book. I’m sure a good hatchet job can be drawn up for Lerner’s novels, but absolutely not on the basis of “Lerner’s prose is confusing” or “Lerner just wants to show off his intelligence.” The Topeka School is not a masterpiece but it is absolutely, emphatically, not the book that is everything wrong with modern literature.
The mention of Horbiger was to let certain customers know that he's read Morning of the Magicians. No story to tell? Obscure references are a perfectly acceptable substitute.
Thanks for going to the trouble of reading this slop.How did you ever get through it? Really. I couldn't get through the examples. Who reads this stuff?
@Kabir Altaf
in case you don't know what the distance recurrence is.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piet%C3%A0_(Michelangelo)#/media/File:Pieta_de_Michelangelo_-_Vaticano.jpg
Oddly, Lerner's next paragraph brings a poem by a Liza favorite to mind - Eliot's The Hollow Men. Note first the phrasing "traces of an older medium of illumination, the shadow of devotion". Now, the light is artificial, as is the reverence. There will be no record of the devotion here, because only Hollow, stuffed, puffed-up people view it- people who fail to realize it foretells the Pieta. Which somehow our narrator knows! Between the Emotion and the Response, falls the shadow. Not so when people stood so close and still could barely see the entire painting, when the Sea of Faith was once so full. Love and devotion from a mother is expected, so it is actually less interesting than viewing what others once thought of this painting. And realizing that no one today has the slightest clue.
Sophocles knew not Arnold, Eliot, Jesus, or two thousand years of poetry and sophisticated writers, but still he heard it beat its ebbing and flowing heartbeat upon the Aegean.
But I'm probably entirely wrong; after all, I haven't and won't be reading this book.
Yup. Yesteryear was the same kind of solipsistic nonsense. It leaves you regretful of the time and effort you put forth attempting to make it what is isn't - meaningful literature.
Oh, my Lord. Thank you. I might have, in some weak moment in an actual book store, bought this book. I could barely even make it through the quotes.
Interesting commentary and the book..seems just bland as hell. As a suggestion - maybe read Red, white and royal blue? The portrayal of conservatives..are not great. But it's little less egotistic and superiority laden as this one seems to be. And it has drawn in much from the past and I think it is a well written piece of litreature that can move one to tears and to make laugh.
Dude you’re so funny. I don’t know if you mean to come off that way but I swear you’re a comedian at heart. It’s always such a pleasure to read your work😂