Scan barcode
aquamarine's review against another edition
4.0
This should be five stars in terms of how fascinating this book is as an insight to American writing and culture over a century. I loved reading the Ferber story and was interested in the Sherwood Anderson (though I didn't like it, ultimately, for its valorising of male violence as a kind of reaching for the stars - over the dead bodies of women) and even the Ring Lardner was intriguing. The Fitzgerald story held up brilliantly; the Hemingway was good. But I ended up giving this four stars for a couple of reasons: the mid-century male writers did not hold up well, at least in the work chosen for this volume. The women did well - O'Connor, Munro (Canadian of course but anyway) etc though not too sure about the Oates tbh.
I was surprised by how much I disliked the Faulkner story - first time I've read Faulkner (edit: I tell a lie - of course I've read A Rose for Emily so...of course I'll try him again). But I didn't believe the wooden singlemindedness of his child narrator and the fact his entire family could go to hell all around him and all he cared about was his damn nickels - that's not a child, that's a sociopath. The framing felt coy and sentimental trying to sound tough. I am grateful for this story though because it clarified something for me that is far too common in literary writing which is this: it's really effing easy to achieve dramatic irony in your story when your narrator is a child. Too easy and it's a device used far too often. Of course the reader knows more than the child narrator and sees things the narrator doesn't. Shooting fish in a barrel. But Faulkner has gone too far here and made his narrator unbelievably obtuse, even for a child and I felt this story was manipulative and didn't buy it.
I took a strong dislike to the Updike story selected, not crazy about the Roth story though it was kind of okay, the Cheever was ...okay. I didn't like the Carver story selected either though I do like Carver - just not that one. I didn't like the Ford story selected either - these portrayals of American masculinity are well-written (not always sure how insightful they are) but it's so repellent, the sodden drunken self-pity over the wife's infidelity and so on.
I think Ford is well aware of how disgusting shooting down the exquisite snow geese is but I have no idea what he's really saying about it and it's so painful to read and by that point I'd already read Updike and his character shooting pigeons and their death giving him a religious epiphany (UGH)... You could argue that's the point though I'm not sure that the kind of people who'd read a Ford story really need to be shown that. Maybe. It then surprised me how much I liked Robert Stone's story about an alcoholic war vet with PTSD who may also be overfond of his rifle.
I LOVED the James Baldwin story though and many of the women were excellent - the Katherine Anne Porter was a find - will definitely seek out more of her work. I liked the Charles Baxter and Jamaica Kincaid but not the Diaz. The Wolff was excellent, as were the Englander and Groff stories.
But here's the real reason I couldn't give this book five stars: in the editorial intro to the final stories the editor says she'd like to read 'more genre-bending and experimental stories'. WTF? This is a solidly realist collection that in its final section doesn't even include a story by Kelly Link??? Are you for real? There's an okaaayish story by George Saunders and that's about it. And you couldn't find room for Kelly Link?? Or Ken Liu? Or Ted Chiang? Or Karen Joy Fowler? Or OR OR any of the literally dozens of great spec fic and genre-bending writers we are now blessed with? I hope even George Saunders is sick of his status as the token spec fic writer accepted by the literary establishment.
There is an insane lack of brilliant spec fic and horror stories in this book that are great and defining in the American canon - where is Flowers for Algernon? Or Jackson's The Lottery? Or Bradbury's There Will Come Soft Rains, the definitive story of atomic age fear and melancholy? Or a short story by Stephen King - arguably the form he really shines in. I mean, Barthelme's The School is quite good but Flowers for Algernon is way better, come on, and is still relevant and becoming more so all the time. Or Le Guin's The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas. Even Oates' famous horror story Where are you going, where have you been? is much better than the one of hers chosen here. Or Robert Olen Butler's funny and moving fables such as Dead Husband Returns in the Form of a Parrot. So much more interesting and very much part of mainstream literature.
The book does end well but there are many better genre-bending or experimental stories that could have been included if the editor was serious about her comment - makes you wonder what she's been reading. Anyway, the book is definitely fascinating and educational and well worth reading.
I was surprised by how much I disliked the Faulkner story - first time I've read Faulkner (edit: I tell a lie - of course I've read A Rose for Emily so...of course I'll try him again). But I didn't believe the wooden singlemindedness of his child narrator and the fact his entire family could go to hell all around him and all he cared about was his damn nickels - that's not a child, that's a sociopath. The framing felt coy and sentimental trying to sound tough. I am grateful for this story though because it clarified something for me that is far too common in literary writing which is this: it's really effing easy to achieve dramatic irony in your story when your narrator is a child. Too easy and it's a device used far too often. Of course the reader knows more than the child narrator and sees things the narrator doesn't. Shooting fish in a barrel. But Faulkner has gone too far here and made his narrator unbelievably obtuse, even for a child and I felt this story was manipulative and didn't buy it.
I took a strong dislike to the Updike story selected, not crazy about the Roth story though it was kind of okay, the Cheever was ...okay. I didn't like the Carver story selected either though I do like Carver - just not that one. I didn't like the Ford story selected either - these portrayals of American masculinity are well-written (not always sure how insightful they are) but it's so repellent, the sodden drunken self-pity over the wife's infidelity and so on.
I think Ford is well aware of how disgusting shooting down the exquisite snow geese is but I have no idea what he's really saying about it and it's so painful to read and by that point I'd already read Updike and his character shooting pigeons and their death giving him a religious epiphany (UGH)... You could argue that's the point though I'm not sure that the kind of people who'd read a Ford story really need to be shown that. Maybe. It then surprised me how much I liked Robert Stone's story about an alcoholic war vet with PTSD who may also be overfond of his rifle.
I LOVED the James Baldwin story though and many of the women were excellent - the Katherine Anne Porter was a find - will definitely seek out more of her work. I liked the Charles Baxter and Jamaica Kincaid but not the Diaz. The Wolff was excellent, as were the Englander and Groff stories.
But here's the real reason I couldn't give this book five stars: in the editorial intro to the final stories the editor says she'd like to read 'more genre-bending and experimental stories'. WTF? This is a solidly realist collection that in its final section doesn't even include a story by Kelly Link??? Are you for real? There's an okaaayish story by George Saunders and that's about it. And you couldn't find room for Kelly Link?? Or Ken Liu? Or Ted Chiang? Or Karen Joy Fowler? Or OR OR any of the literally dozens of great spec fic and genre-bending writers we are now blessed with? I hope even George Saunders is sick of his status as the token spec fic writer accepted by the literary establishment.
There is an insane lack of brilliant spec fic and horror stories in this book that are great and defining in the American canon - where is Flowers for Algernon? Or Jackson's The Lottery? Or Bradbury's There Will Come Soft Rains, the definitive story of atomic age fear and melancholy? Or a short story by Stephen King - arguably the form he really shines in. I mean, Barthelme's The School is quite good but Flowers for Algernon is way better, come on, and is still relevant and becoming more so all the time. Or Le Guin's The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas. Even Oates' famous horror story Where are you going, where have you been? is much better than the one of hers chosen here. Or Robert Olen Butler's funny and moving fables such as Dead Husband Returns in the Form of a Parrot. So much more interesting and very much part of mainstream literature.
The book does end well but there are many better genre-bending or experimental stories that could have been included if the editor was serious about her comment - makes you wonder what she's been reading. Anyway, the book is definitely fascinating and educational and well worth reading.
More...