Is Literary Fiction ''Statist'' Fiction?

Status
Not open for further replies.

LillithEve

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Aug 5, 2015
Messages
173
Reaction score
33
Location
Australia
Hey guys! Earlier today I was reading areally interesting interview with Jarett Kobek, an author who's got a book titled I HATE THE INTERNET forthcoming, earlier today (link: http://lithub.com/the-novel-is-dead-celebrity-is-a-disease-and-more/). The whole interview was very thought-provoking, but one section of it in particular stood out to me:

One of the things that I Hate the Internet tries to deal with—and now I’m going to sound like Alex Jones—is that much of what we consider literary fiction was constructed as part of the CIA’s Operation Mockingbird. The Writer’s Workshop at Iowa was funded by the CIA. The CIA engineered Dr. Zhivago’s Nobel Prize. The Paris Review was funded by the CIA. It goes on and on.The purpose of this funding was to try and create cultural artifacts celebratory of a very specific American lifestyle. In effect, propaganda. You could have characters who were tormented by their existential drama of living on Revolutionary Road, but the literature must avoid anyone thinking about the materialist circumstances which produced that drama. Basically, your characters could have mental breakdowns on hardwood floors but couldn’t ever question the complex social structures of labor and exploitation and environmental damage that produce hardwood floors. In the good novel, every medical abortion is ideology free!

The good novel was a weapon of the Cold War. Literary fiction is the novel of the state. Literary fiction is statist literature. But like half of the characters in John le Carre, it outlived its conflict and the iteration of the state it served.

Fifty years later and literary fiction is a genre that’s not only dying but inherently exclusive of diversity. By itself this is not a big deal—lots of forms and genres die out. When was the last time you jousted?

The problem arrives when you realize how much the genre has colonized the entire idea of serious fiction while being hopelessly unable to address the challenges of our present moment.

How many literary novels have you read which deal with police brutality? How many serious novels published by one of the majors in 2015 were written by someone who was working class? How many literary novels have you read not by an Islamophobic Frenchman which address something as simple as mass tourism? Basically, how many literary novels not in translation have you read that deal with anything except the melodrama of meaningless sex and death made meaningful only by the social class in which it occurs? That goes in there, that goes in there, that goes in there. Now pay the mortgage.


Thoughts? Personally, I would have classed Kobek's own writing as experimental literary fiction, so I was surprised by this take. I do think there's an element of truth, there, though -- there's a tendency to bury morality in literary circles, to avoid being didactic or ideological as if those two things are the plague, that might sometimes decontextualise struggle and render it meaningless.


 
Last edited:

Captcha

Banned
Joined
Jan 27, 2010
Messages
4,456
Reaction score
637
Hey guys! Earlier today I was reading areally interesting interview with Jarett Kobek, an author who's got a book titled I HATE THE INTERNET forthcoming, earlier today (link: http://lithub.com/the-novel-is-dead-celebrity-is-a-disease-and-more/). The whole interview was very thought-provoking, but one section of it in particular stood out to me:



Thoughts? Personally, I would have classed Kobek's own writing as experimental literary fiction, so I was surprised by this take. I do think there's an element of truth, there, though -- there's a tendency to bury morality in literary circles, to avoid being didactic or ideological as if those two things are the plague, that might sometimes decontextualise struggle and render it meaningless.



It's always hard to get a clear definition of what "literary fiction" is, which means it's kind of hard to argue against someone else's definition or classification of it.

As a Canadian, I question how much our literary fiction has been influenced by the CIA or is statist... I don't think it's inherently exclusive of diversity, either. But possibly Kobek and I have different views of what literary fiction even is?
 

Helix

socially distancing
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 31, 2011
Messages
11,676
Reaction score
12,032
Location
Atherton Tablelands
Website
snailseyeview.medium.com
Australia's Quadrant, a terminally dull right-wing litmag that specialises in whining, was funded by the CIA for a while. Until the CIA realised that no one gave a shit, which was some time in the 60s, I believe. Quadrant is still terminally dull and full of whining, but recently the whining has expanded to include the unfairness of their government funding being cut. The right-wing small government libertarians sure like their handouts.

But the whole piece hinges on literary fiction as an American construct, which seems just a tad insular.

How many literary novels have you read which deal with police brutality? How many serious novels published by one of the majors in 2015 were written by someone who was working class? How many literary novels have you read not by an Islamophobic Frenchman which address something as simple as mass tourism? Basically, how many literary novels not in translation have you read that deal with anything except the melodrama of meaningless sex and death made meaningful only by the social class in which it occurs?

I hate it when I have to do all the work. It makes me think that the person putting forward these assertions might just be making up stuff.
 

Old Hack

Such a nasty woman
Super Moderator
Absolute Sage
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jun 12, 2005
Messages
22,454
Reaction score
4,956
Location
In chaos
Hey guys! Earlier today I was reading areally interesting interview with Jarett Kobek, an author who's got a book titled I HATE THE INTERNET forthcoming, earlier today (link: http://lithub.com/the-novel-is-dead-celebrity-is-a-disease-and-more/). The whole interview was very thought-provoking, but one section of it in particular stood out to me:

One of the things that I Hate the Internet tries to deal with—and now I’m going to sound like Alex Jones—is that much of what we consider literary fiction was constructed as part of the CIA’s Operation Mockingbird. The Writer’s Workshop at Iowa was funded by the CIA. The CIA engineered Dr. Zhivago’s Nobel Prize. The Paris Review was funded by the CIA. It goes on and on.The purpose of this funding was to try and create cultural artifacts celebratory of a very specific American lifestyle. In effect, propaganda. You could have characters who were tormented by their existential drama of living on Revolutionary Road, but the literature must avoid anyone thinking about the materialist circumstances which produced that drama. Basically, your characters could have mental breakdowns on hardwood floors but couldn’t ever question the complex social structures of labor and exploitation and environmental damage that produce hardwood floors. In the good novel, every medical abortion is ideology free!


The writer seems to think that literary fiction is only published in America, and only written by graduates of Iowa. And he's being dismissive of literary fiction in a way which indicates he doesn't know the genre very well, and doesn't like it much either.

The good novel was a weapon of the Cold War. Literary fiction is the novel of the state. Literary fiction is statist literature. But like half of the characters in John le Carre, it outlived its conflict and the iteration of the state it served.

Fifty years later and literary fiction is a genre that’s not only dying but inherently exclusive of diversity. By itself this is not a big deal—lots of forms and genres die out. When was the last time you jousted?

I'm not sure I'd classify le Carre as literary fiction--I don't think he does, either. And I definitely disagree that as a genre it's dying, or that it's exclusive of diversity.

The problem arrives when you realize how much the genre has colonized the entire idea of serious fiction while being hopelessly unable to address the challenges of our present moment.
How many literary novels have you read which deal with police brutality? How many serious novels published by one of the majors in 2015 were written by someone who was working class? How many literary novels have you read not by an Islamophobic Frenchman which address something as simple as mass tourism? Basically, how many literary novels not in translation have you read that deal with anything except the melodrama of meaningless sex and death made meaningful only by the social class in which it occurs? That goes in there, that goes in there, that goes in there. Now pay the mortgage.

He has not read widely in the genre. Nor does he seem to appreciate the huge history of literary fiction: writers like Doris Lessing and Margaret Drabble, who wrote politicised fiction decades ago and are, to some extent, still writing it now (well, Lessing was up to her recent death). And what's his problem with fiction in translation? Why can't we count that as part of the canon? It disproves his claims that there's a lack of diversity and activism in literary fiction: might that be why?

Thoughts? Personally, I would have classed Kobek's own writing as experimental literary fiction, so I was surprised by this take. I do think there's an element of truth, there, though -- there's a tendency to bury morality in literary circles, to avoid being didactic or ideological as if those two things are the plague, that might sometimes decontextualise struggle and render it meaningless.

I don't know Kobek's writing so can't comment on that. But I do read a lot of literary fiction and it is not represented by his comments.
 

Ravioli

Crazy Cat Lady
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 4, 2015
Messages
2,699
Reaction score
423
Location
Germany, native Israeli
Website
annagiladi.wixsite.com
To me, this is like saying driving cars is national-socialist because Nazis "came up with" the still very popular Volkswagen. Literary fiction by far transcends whatever the CIA did with it, as cars do Hitler motorcades. Plus, the CIA is an american institution and the world, including the world of literature, revolvesn't around the united states of america. Literary fiction is created everywhere, before, during and after the CIA's workshop.

And even if the CIA had truly invented LF, it still wouldn't make the entire concept statist. Literary fiction is a form of fiction and a form of literature, both of which are not invented by the CIA. To go back to my car allegory, Hitler may have "invented" Volkswagen, but today, everyone including Jews drives a VW with either no knowledge of, or no interest in its origins. And that's okay. Origins cease to matter at some point. My origins are in Iraq, it doesn't matter because I got no citizenship there, don't speak the language, and don't look Middle Eastern - and then some. I got nothing to do with Iraq and am hence not Iraqi. At some point, roots shrivel and get gobbled up by worms and rodents.

So I think that's nonsense.
 

Twick

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Oct 16, 2014
Messages
3,291
Reaction score
715
Location
Canada
He seems to be asking why does literary fiction not deal exclusively with Marxist constructs. In other words, why isn't it the type of political propaganda he likes?
 

ttwrite

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Nov 11, 2016
Messages
86
Reaction score
4
It's always hard to get a clear definition of what "literary fiction" is, which means it's kind of hard to argue against someone else's definition or classification of it.

I agree. Also, with this statement:

How many literary novels have you read which deal with police brutality? How many serious novels published by one of the majors in 2015 were written by someone who was working class?

Kobek seems to be equating "literary novels" with "serious novels." So is a literary novel and a serious novel one in the same? Or does a novel have to be serious, among other things, in order to be literary?

There are too many vague definitions involved in order for me to get a clear idea of what it is he's trying to say.
 

Roxxsmom

Beastly Fido
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Oct 24, 2011
Messages
23,057
Reaction score
10,704
Location
Where faults collide
Website
doggedlywriting.blogspot.com
Fifty years later and literary fiction is a genre that’s not only dying but inherently exclusive of diversity. By itself this is not a big deal—lots of forms and genres die out. When was the last time you jousted?

So he's saying books by writers like Alice Walker and Toni Morrison aren't literary fiction? What are they then? And I've never heard that literary fiction was only produced by US-American writers and only since the cold war. Would a writer like James Joyce not count as a producer of literary fiction (were he writing today)?
 
Last edited:

LillithEve

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Aug 5, 2015
Messages
173
Reaction score
33
Location
Australia
So he's saying books by writers like Alice Walker and Toni Morrison aren't literary fiction? What are they then? And I've never heard that literary fiction was only produced by US-American writers and only since the cold war. Would a writer like James Joyce not count as a producer of literary fiction (were he writing today)?

Yep! Toni Morrison, Alice Walker, Arundhati Roy, Salman Rushdie etc are all favourite writers of mine that came to mind when I was reading this. I do think he's trying to talk about a very specific kind of literary fiction, produced by a very specific kind of writer, but is paining with overly broad brush strokes. It's an attempt to make his point more strongly, but (as with most generalisations) it makes it easier to dismiss him.


There is a certain truth in what he's saying in *specific* literary circles. I've definitely experienced the pressure to be apolitical/the assumption that the political or topical is ''dirty'' and not to be grappled with directly in more academic creative writing circles. But that is a) not representative of all academic settings (#notallMFAs!) and is definitely not representative of literary fiction, as a whole.
 
Last edited:

TedTheewen

AW's Most Adorable Sociopath
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 7, 2009
Messages
29,517
Reaction score
4,412
Location
In a van parked outside of your house.
Website
tedscreepyvan.blogspot.com
Interesting line of questioning, to be sure.

Now I'm thinking about when I've seen a recent LF novel that wasn't left of the mainstream or something that defended the Far Right.

But if Kobek is right, then the CIA/NSA is reading this, and I'd like to take this opportunity to say I'd be a great writer of propaganda for a regular paycheck. I'd smile for the camera and do readings in coffee houses all day long. Feel free to PM me through my television's smart chip if you're interested.

But really, it's no surprise government involvement in the arts for propaganda purposes has historical precedence. The only question is do they bother with literature anymore?
 
Joined
Apr 22, 2017
Messages
22
Reaction score
1
Hey guys! Earlier today I was reading areally interesting interview with Jarett Kobek, an author who's got a book titled I HATE THE INTERNET forthcoming, earlier today (link: http://lithub.com/the-novel-is-dead-celebrity-is-a-disease-and-more/). The whole interview was very thought-provoking, but one section of it in particular stood out to me:



Thoughts? Personally, I would have classed Kobek's own writing as experimental literary fiction, so I was surprised by this take. I do think there's an element of truth, there, though -- there's a tendency to bury morality in literary circles, to avoid being didactic or ideological as if those two things are the plague, that might sometimes decontextualise struggle and render it meaningless.



Is there any proof of his claims or is he just a really boring whiner?
 

Xelebes

Delerium ex Ennui
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Aug 8, 2009
Messages
14,205
Reaction score
884
Location
Edmonton, Canada
I am reminded of Penderecki (composer) who departed from the art scene considerably in 1970s when he realised the ambitions of "universalism" that was commonly sought seemed entirely counter-productive to any of its stated ambitions and producing entirely uninteresting stuff that aspired to maintain class stratification. In a way, he finally understood what the whole "Proletarian" movement in the Soviet Union was all about and as a consequence, went rather conservative for the rest of his career, staying away from any elements of tone clusters and twelve-tone serialism that he had become famous for.

A lot of concern with art scene in the Cold War West was whether or not you could use it to differentiate yourself from people who could not have access to it. This is a carryover from the days where classicism was rife and transitioned with the debate between "serious" and "pop" at the beginning of the 20th century. I believe it was Sergei Rachmaninoff in 1923 who balked at the whole debate and said serious art could very well be popular art. When World War I wrought its wake through the art scene, the Soviets observed that popular music was superior to serious music and strove to promote it. Hence you have the ever hummable tunes of Prokofiev and Khachaturian.

In the United States, you have a more mixed medley of popular and serious music prior to World War II. Aaron Copland with his "Fanfare for the Common Man", Leonard Berstein's "Rhapsody in Blue", Samuel Barber's "Adagio". Very popular tunes for orchestra repertoire. But then World War II and these tunes become a lot rarer. They are reserved for Hollywood and Broadway and not Carnegie Hall. The New School in New York City becomes very important for some reason. And I do have to wonder if there we see the CIA funding there too. Hm. What is known is that a lot of Austrian and German composers moved to the United States after World War II. Even more hm.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Apr 22, 2017
Messages
22
Reaction score
1
Are you asking a legitimate question or are you simply being opportunistically rude? Read the Newbie Guide.

He begins his interview with "I’m going to sound like Alex Jones", now Alex Jones is the one who said Sandy Hook did not happen, correct? To me he seems to be telling a conspiracy story that IMO is highly unlikely to be true.
I am only seeking truth. Is there any evidence for his claims such as: "we consider literary fiction was constructed as part of the CIA’s Operation Mockingbird. The Writer’s Workshop at Iowa was funded by the CIA. The CIA engineered Dr. Zhivago’s Nobel Prize. The Paris Review was funded by the CIA. "
and
"Literary fiction is statist literature."
and
"How many serious novels published by one of the majors in 2015 were written by someone who was working class"

To me he sounds like a Marxist who argues from emotion and not facts and is dangerous.

Now, I read the newbie guide, thanks for the link!!! And I saw it said to respect each other and do not say anything that could hurt another member's feelings. I get that. I do. Really. But my mild insult was directed at a piece someone posted from another site. I thought that was ok. I see people trash King and JK Rowlings on here....real writers and some of the most successful ever. Did not know the line was criticizing someone not a member of this site who claims "I’m going to sound like Alex Jones".
 

morngnstar

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Nov 9, 2014
Messages
2,271
Reaction score
296
Yeah, sounds like Alex Jones.

Literary fiction is academic. It's not made for a broad audience, it's made for people who make literature for a broad audience, like concept cars or runway fashion.

It's not supposed to address social issues. That'd be like giving the Pritzger Prize to a bus station. It's not supposed to serve the people. It's supposed to serve the people who serve the people.
 

Ari Meermans

MacAllister's Official Minion & Greeter
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 24, 2011
Messages
12,852
Reaction score
3,041
Location
Not where you last saw me.
He begins his interview with "I’m going to sound like Alex Jones", now Alex Jones is the one who said Sandy Hook did not happen, correct? To me he seems to be telling a conspiracy story that IMO is highly unlikely to be true.
I am only seeking truth. Is there any evidence for his claims such as: "we consider literary fiction was constructed as part of the CIA’s Operation Mockingbird. The Writer’s Workshop at Iowa was funded by the CIA. The CIA engineered Dr. Zhivago’s Nobel Prize. The Paris Review was funded by the CIA. "
and
"Literary fiction is statist literature."
and
"How many serious novels published by one of the majors in 2015 were written by someone who was working class"

To me he sounds like a Marxist who argues from emotion and not facts and is dangerous.

Now, I read the newbie guide, thanks for the link!!! And I saw it said to respect each other and do not say anything that could hurt another member's feelings. I get that. I do. Really. But my mild insult was directed at a piece someone posted from another site. I thought that was ok. I see people trash King and JK Rowlings on here....real writers and some of the most successful ever. Did not know the line was criticizing someone not a member of this site who claims "I’m going to sound like Alex Jones".

GoreQuill NachoVidal, you are most welcome for the link. Here's the thing about RYFW: There are nearly 69,000 worldwide members of AbsoluteWrite. It's best, therefore, to proceed from the premise that you do not and cannot know who is and who is not a member here. (In fact, you'd likely be quite surprised at who is a member here.)

It is perfectly permissible to take issue with ideologies and written works. "Boring whiner" took that into the realm of the personal and that is not permitted in either the Contemporary Literature or the Roundtable subforums. Your friendly neighborhood mod is serious about "Respect Your Fellow Writer (RYFW)." Totally serious.
 

Old Hack

Such a nasty woman
Super Moderator
Absolute Sage
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jun 12, 2005
Messages
22,454
Reaction score
4,956
Location
In chaos
Literary fiction is academic. It's not made for a broad audience, it's made for people who make literature for a broad audience, like concept cars or runway fashion.

It's not supposed to address social issues. That'd be like giving the Pritzger Prize to a bus station. It's not supposed to serve the people. It's supposed to serve the people who serve the people.

This is wrong on all points.
 

Xelebes

Delerium ex Ennui
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Aug 8, 2009
Messages
14,205
Reaction score
884
Location
Edmonton, Canada
Yeah, sounds like Alex Jones.

Literary fiction is academic. It's not made for a broad audience, it's made for people who make literature for a broad audience, like concept cars or runway fashion.

It's not supposed to address social issues. That'd be like giving the Pritzger Prize to a bus station. It's not supposed to serve the people. It's supposed to serve the people who serve the people.

I never got that impression. For the most part, literary fiction circa 1950 seemed to be literature composed for those who completed high school. It was fiction for adults. Throughout the 1950s with the rapid expansion of universities, this meant appealing to a larger audience who completed university. So you see more experimental stuff, for sure, but you still also see material aimed at adults. The complaint that this stuff seemed to centre entirely around upper middle-class anxieties I think is a reflection of the growing appeals towards those who completed university: doctors, businessmen and socialites. I don't think literary was ever designed to be the domain of teachers, writers and aspiring writers. It was designed to appeal to those interested in curating personal libraries of literature.
 

gbondoni

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jul 12, 2016
Messages
95
Reaction score
9
Location
Buenos Aires
Interesting line of questioning, to be sure.

Now I'm thinking about when I've seen a recent LF novel that wasn't left of the mainstream or something that defended the Far Right.

This was exactly the same thing that crossed my mind - it seems to me like Kobek's out of date by at least 30 years!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.