More Active Posts
Front Page
The sad state of fiction (and how to fix it)
 |
 16 Comments |
According to many, the novel and the short story are relatively dead, for many, many reasons. For one, novels are long and boring and don’t have as many explosions. And those are the bad novels about attorneys and spies. For another, short stories are short, but even more boring. But my general claim is that fiction is in the dumps because fiction isn’t fun like it used to be. Somewhere after Cervantes, novelists forgot that it was okay to be funny.
If you do a search for comedic novels or funny novels on Google or Amazon, you will find the results meager: A Confederacy of Dunces by Toole, Straight Man by Russo, maybe something by Dickens or Waugh. If you go to the bookstore and ask one of the green-haired cashiers for a funny novel, they might point you to a handful of contemporary novels that are touted as “funny” but are in fact just humorous, or light-hearted. They might point you to light-hearted books about nannies and babies and shopping, or unfunny books by funny people, like Steve Martin’s Shopgirl. But in the end, most novelists are trying to change the world, and you don’t make people laugh when you’re trying to do such things. It’s sad.
But there’s hope. If you like Woody Allen, then you may’ve already heard of Mere Anarchy, his new collection of short stories, some from The New Yorker, others previously unpublished. For English majors, his stories might seem ridiculous, but comedy usually is. Comedy can save the novel, and the short story, and if you’re looking for models, Woody Allen might be a good place to start.
 |
Topic: WorldMagBlog |  |
Email a friend |
 |
Keywords: books, comedy, comic, culture, education, English, fiction, literature, novels, reading, short-stories, Woody-Allen |  |
RSS 2.0 |
 |
Both comments and pings are currently closed. |  |
Share this: |
Soul searching
Wow! I was reading a novel last night that I was enjoying so much that I hated to put it down. I had no idea how rare a thing that was. My novel wasn’t preaching at me, although it does get into the history and times in which it is set. Also it does go into some detail of the quilts mentioned as the author centers her stories around them. It is mainly just a great story. Give me good characters and a good story line; the rest is icing on the cake. I also like Jon Hassler who has marvelous characters in his novels which are quite amusing.
This tells me I should be serious this week.
CS Lewis pointed out that authors don’t bother much with plot, or story, anymore. In some interior styles of fiction, nothing much happens.
Of course, he was writing in the middle of the last century, when the psychological novel was at its height; today we also have the converse problem, where novels tear through a convoluted plot with no character depth, richness of scenary, or human insight.
Perhaps the novel and short stories are dying because everyone is trying to write a story that will look good on the big screen, not realizing that writing for the big screen means destroying the narrative of which great novels are written. The great writers of the past, like Cervantes or Dickens, were providing the entertainment of their day, using words to paint an image in the mind of the reader. Prior to Cervantes, great writers produced dramas that werre meant to be acted out in front of an audience. The big screen requires writing a dramatic script so the dialog can carry the story as in the dramas of old, the novel requires writing to inspire the imagination. The movie appeals to the eyes and ears, the novel to deeper senses of the brain. While I like watching movies, I enjoy being grabbed by words and held captive for hours in a world of print.
Lots of novels that are supposed to be funny aren’t — fortunately. Huckleberry Finn, The Pickwick Papers, Lucky Jim, Cakes & Ale, Decline & Fall, The Adventures of Augie March.
Peter DeVries isn’t funny anymore. Yuppies can’t laugh at bike crashes, for instance. It’s very hard to laugh at ourselves, which is the problem with Donald E. Westlake and Elmore Leonard. who really are funny but hurt so bad. If we’re looking for laughs, we’re better off in the cold comfort of the British
The Liar and The Hippopotamus by Stephen Fry (not Stephen Frey) are funny. David Lodge is good. Terry Pratchett has 2 dozen funny novels which today are more enjoyable than Wodehouse.
I enjoy the humor in the following writers:
Nick Hornby
Jim Harrison
David Foster Wallace
Carl Hiassen
PJ Forde
Dave Eggers
Jasper Fforde
Dave Barry is a talented “short sketch” humor writer. When I heard he had published a novel, I was skeptical. However, both of his humorous novels are quite good (in my opinion).
Gabriel Garcia Marquez certainly did not forget to be funny. In some ways, his humor is similar to Mark Twain’s.
Miguel Cervantes was one of his heroes. It should be noted that he’s been quoted as saying, “When you write, you should set out to be as good as Cervantes. You won’t be, but that will get you on the right track.”
The description of a fight between Dr. Juvenal Urbino and his wife in Love in the Time of Cholera is pure genius. The book can make you blush, but it is undeniably brilliant.
The upcoming movie couldn’t possibly do the book justice. Read the book.
Peter L.
Great post #4
Amy Tan is a very funny. You know she’s good when she can find room for humor in a plot based in Burma. All her novels have LOL passages. And, while not a novel, her Opposite of Fate is a riot.
Also funny, and chicky, are Smiley, Kingslover and Michard.
Peter L.
You are quite right. I just finished a screenplay and through the whole process thought how much better the story could be told as a novel. And would have to be written very differently. They are two disticnt mediums and any attempt to blend them imperils both.
The Opposite of Fate has some insightful stuff on the difficulty of taking the incredible novel The Joy Luck Club and adapting it for film. It shows why the book is always better than the movie.
Amy Tan is one of my favorites, too.
What a unique voice.
The “sad state of fiction” certainly must occupy a unique place of relevance in the pantheon of evils-come-upon-us that is usually given by fundies as a sure sign of impending apocalypse.
“If you like Woody Allen, then you may’ve already heard…”
And if I don’t like Woody “pathetic” Allen? In fact I really dislike Allen because he is so pathetic. He’s not moved on in 20 years…
I think another aspect of the foundering of fiction is the decrepit state of high school literature textbooks. Most high school lit books are filled with “selections” and “adaptations” and “abridgments” of various works of literature that all end up sounding exactly the same: lifeless and dull. In attempting to make all literature fit the socio-economic harmonious environment that public school pedagogy seeks to create, the textbooks end up eliminating the very differences and flavour that is what makes fiction interesting. Like when you take an epic poem and make it prose: it becomes completely lifeless. Consequently, students graduate from high school without any real exposure to what fiction can really be: they often haven’t read a complete novel, much less several different types of novels and stories. Of course movies and television will seem more attractive.
“maybe something by Dickens or Waugh”? Something by Wodehouse or Waugh, you mean.
And for a bit of hilarious juvenile fantasy, there’s Tanith Lee’s The Dragon Hoard. Stop being so sour, Mr. Key.