Wednesday, May 24, 2006

When I began the project of this weblog back in 2002, I had multiple models abstractly in my mind of what I might want to do. My nephew, Dan Silliman, had shown me the possibility by posting his philosophy papers on his blog, or at least making them accessible through it. And there were at least three different models of critical writing that floated about in my head. One was Theodor Adorno’s Minima Moralia, another the short essays of Robert Creeley’s first collection of prose, A Quick Graph, and the third the reviews of Gilbert Sorrentino, collected into Something Said.
The number of poets from the New American generation & the one following who could reliably write poetry, fiction and criticism are exceptionally few: Creeley, Kerouac, Kelly, some folks would say Dorn. But hardly anyone seemed as completely ambidextrous – if that’s the word – as did this guy from
Not that Sorrentino loved those works uniformly. While the first five authors all were associated with journal Caterpillar, Clayton Eshleman’s journal that shared Sorrentino’s post-Projectivist/NYC perspective, Sorrentino didn’t much have time for the
Not much to say about Living with Chris, because it’s a picture-poem; a few lines of verse to a page, each page also containing a drawing, comic-strip genre, by Joe Brainard. Berrigan is a second-generation “
It’s worth underscoring here that, yes, Poetry magazine did call The Sonnets “a notable book” as early as 1968, by virtue of this passage. And that may be why Sorrentino thought to include that pamphlet.
Even in the works Sorrentino ultimately dismissed, he often took the time to ask what the poet was trying to accomplish, considering it on its own terms, rather than simply his. His passage here on Magowan’s Voyages recognizes that Magowan is an inherently uneven poet – something I’ve always thought was the consequence of not taking a position as to where he stood with poetry & its schools & histories – citing some of the very strongest lines in the book, acknowledging them as such. His section on Dodd here may well be the most serious consideration that poet’s writing ever received in print.
Many of the essays or chapters in Something Said aren’t essays, as such, but rather bundles of multiple shorter pieces published in different magazines. It gives his consideration of Paul Blackburn & Jack Spicer – he was one of the first reviewers to take both seriously & actively promote their work, writing an elegiac remembrance for Poetry for Spicer in 1965 – the feel of blog notes, except more carefully crafted. That, I think, is exactly what I was imagining when I was wandering around the foggy environs of
Sorrentino never got the big ticket acknowledgement for his accomplishments that he deserved. His fiction has too many layers for an age that thinks Philip Roth is serious writing, and he himself generally avoided the poetry scene. In all the years he was at Stanford, I never once saw him up at an event in
¹ Indeed, in Barry Alpert’s interview in Jacket 29, Sorrentino suggests that if he had to do it all over again, he might not write criticism at all.
Labels: Sorrentino
I get it now! Roth's uncool. Good thing I'm uncool too; I'm allowed to enjoy him.
Or, perhaps: this comment has too many layers for those who consider gossip about a chapbook review serious writing.
How about: that the Big Eight's School of Quietude has outmarketed the text of comments such as this is perhaps the best signal that the proper readership for Philip Roth is a small, select group that knows more about literature than daytime TV.
-- Simon
PS: I think Ron got the logic mixed up. If there is nothing wrong with Roth that is not also wrong with daytime TV that leaves open the possibility that what is wrong with Roth is the empty set. For proper snark, the sentence should be "there is nothing wrong with daytime TV that is not also wrong with Roth," given that there is, obviously to us because we are smart, everything wrong with daytime TV.
for some reason he makes me think of
Julián Ríos.
I like Rios better because he has a book
called
Monstruary
my code key is
lobrutt
lobrut-t?
lo, bruit..
I still think Goodbye, Columbus, and The Ghost Writer very good books. It may be that you have to be interested in Jewish culture to like them, maybe not. It would not, of course, be germane to insist that Roth should be measured, say, by Portnoy or The Breast, since these are, to say the least, pedestrian comic efforts not worthy of consideration (or of Roth's gifts).
To condescend to Roth as if he were a Pop cultural sell-out seems to me a bit extreme. Would Ron like better Call It Sleep or Augie March? Whom would he prefer along the lines of a serious fiction writer? Is middle-class Jewish life uninteresting on its face?
Iceberg Slim, a Pair of Purdy's,
and Timothy Leary's Jail notes, wait,
how'd that get in here?
Does an In*un, a Ni**er, two Fa*s
and a Hi**y beat a J*w?
I doubt it!
Ron wrote:
<< There is nothing wrong with Philip Roth that isn't also wrong with daytime TV.>>
You suggest a logical flaw, and propose an amended version:
<< there is nothing wrong with daytime TV that is not also wrong with Roth.>>
The first version is more tentative and thus more decorous, arguably.
But a different form of the formulation seems possible, viz.:
<< There is nothing wrong with Roth except for what's wrong with daytime TV.>>
[or if one wants to be more tentative & decorous with this version:
<< There's nothing wrong with Roth beyond what might be wrong with daytime TV.>>]
(Since I neither watch daytime TV nor read Philip Roth, this is admittedly more a matter of idle logic than one of active comparison for me.)
cheers,
d.i.
Ultimately, a trivial form of what we now call "Romance fiction." I don't really think that's what Philip Roth is about.
But isn't this thread supposed to be about Gilbert Sorrentino?
Com'on, give the man his due. Roth will have his time.
Kierkergaard was on the scene O
"should we book him?" Roth inquired
"Sorentino has retired"
Zeke -- Ron has lately ponted out how he is not academic
(I think doing so through rhetorical question plus relevant facts,
such as, he doesn't teach in academia nor hold higher degrees).
But perhaps the distinction is academic.
Indeed, perhaps the idea of the "academic" isn't restricted
to institutions of higher learning per se(?)
I don't think, anyway, in current times it means Platonic,
though it may have meant that at one time.
To do with Roth? It's been a good while since I looked at anything he's been doing. A preoccupation with his own celebrity? The individual and the mass: the TV set's shallow depth of field, against which cardboard cut-outs loom.
But: when Coover or Heller apply pop-media forms to "literary" themes, the genre's conventions do what they're supposed to do: reveal themselves as such. I never caught that move in Roth. The stakes less, and the wages higher? But, like I said, it's been a while. A closed book, so to speak.
But Roth's far too intelligent to be hooked this simply. His work contains multiple ironies, all of which he controls. Lest we forget that the game involves the manipulation of those ironies in fiction.... Which is what I was saying, that he uses "reality" in a playful way. He's dithering his audience a lot of the time, tinkering with his own celebrity. Is this a waste of his time, or is he read for the "wrong" reasons? I have no idea.
I wrote grad papers for Sorrentino about Koch and O'Hara. He was far from dismissive of these poets. True, he didn't think as highly of Berrigan and some of the other 2nd generation folk. But then again, that's a justifiable position in many respects. He had no respect for Eshleman or Bly.
He did have basic respect for the project of language poetry. He was the one who turned me on to Poetics Journal, in fact. It was people like Denise Levertov who were closed minded about things like that, not Sorrentino.
disgruntled, even in a state of what might be called intellectual despair.” Only Creeley's essays compete in wrong-but-right ad hominem zingers and right-ons.
Which would suggest: What's wrong with TV's postmodernist landscape is also diagnosable in the bestseller lists (Roth standing in for the listed "best" of such). An irony that reaffirms an ironic status-quo? Not a lack of sophistication, but a sort of artistic sophistry.
But these are just wise cracks, really. And seriously, folks, I should get off it: I'm near illiterate here. My impatience with Roth's material dates back to sometime around the season "Mary Hartman, Mary Hartman" premiered. Joys and sorrows of the unexamined life.
Sorrentino's neglect, though, I fault myself for. A stockpile of "never the right moments" fits. Mea culpa, there.
<< Home

