Newsgroups: bit.listserv.literary
Date:         Thu, 20 Aug 1992 16:37:06 EDT
From:         Tim Johnson <PH408014@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: hello?

>I read My Life and Hard Times two years ago, it is a seriously funny book,
>kind of a combo of John Irving, Vonnegut, and Lardner.  Lots of short,
>illustrated stories about small town life.

  I picked it up because I had been heavily encouraged to read it by
a friend who seemed to share my own sense of humor.  Maybe it was me,
maybe it was Thurber.  It was, I thought, extremely "okay."

  Perhaps it was only the anticipation.  Humor is a very tricky thing,
and for me, good humor writing has to be, I don't know, beyond the
ordinary - it has to knock my socks off to get more than a smile from
me.  And yet, despite this, my own favorite humorists are not as well
regarded - probably not even recognized at all - by most people.

  Robert Sheckley, who is a science fiction writer, is an uneven
writer - but when he is good, he pushes all of my buttons.  (For
those of you interested in checking him out, look for the out of
print collection called _Can You Feel Anything When I Do This?_.)
Sheckley has his fair share of duds, but _Options_ is a short novel
which I turn to whenever I need a shot of humor.  I can open the
book to any page and start.  It works for me.  Unfortunately, no
one else to whom I have offered the book has found it as compelling
as I have.  (See also _Mindswap_, a novel close in tone to _Options_)

  Another favorite of mine is Sergei Dovlatov.  I've mentioned him
on the list before.  A Soviet emigre who died young in 1990, he was
Estonia's own gonzo journalist, and he details his exploits there
in _The Compromise_.  _A Foreign Woman_ is another highly recommended
novel of his.

  And finally, I really enjoy James Branch Cabell (who came up on
the list not long ago, as well).  Perhaps it is only his origins
that lead me to such a sympathetic reading, but his books, too, I
pull off the shelf and open at random to read when I need a bit of
humor in my day.

  I think, however, that it is hard to discuss humor on this list,
except to note that these are authors I like - not the sort of
discussion I'd prefer to see.  But, James Branch Cabell leads me
into the second point in response to the original post:

>I read it in a class on American
>Literature betweem WWI and WWII, what a period, what a class! Faulkner,
>Hemingway, Fitzgerald, Thurber, Lardner, Parker, St. Vincent-Millay, Frost,
>and O'Neil.
>I will start a new thread here and now by stating, dogmatically and
>categorically, that this is without a doubt the greatest period in American
>fiction and probably one of the greatest in the history of literature itself.
>Of course, I never cared much for some of these European hacks.  Give me the
>Golden Age of America over the British Renaissance any day!

  Cabell wrote during that period - in his collection of essays on
life in Virginia, he wrote with great cynicism about the onset of
WWII.  A passage which made for interesting reading last year -
coinciding as it did with the Gulf War and the 50th anniversary
of WWII.  In these days, 50 years later, WWII seems like it was
indeed the right thing to do, and protest against US involvement
is largely forgotten.  The jury is still out on US involvement in
the Gulf, but comparing arguments surrounding involvement in the
1990's with arguments surrounding involvement in the 1940's cast
an interesting light on the whole affair.

  But I am digressing.  I meant to say that Cabell came from that
period (more or less) but that apart from him, I have found little
that really draws me to that period.

  I have read some O'Neill - last year I read "Desire Under the Elms"
and in two weeks ago read "A Moon for the Misbegotten."  Frankly, his
sort of melodramatic tragedy doesn't appeal to me in the same way that
Ibsen or Shakespeare does.  O'Neill's characters - big dumb New England
Farmer lunks don't draw me into their struggle.  I can't help but to
think (uncharitably) that a well enforced program of eugenics would
be the best way to handle the situation.  Still, of the two, I only
really disliked "Desire...."  "A Moon for the Misbegotten" was better,
in my opinion - the characters were more interesting, were deeper;
oh, and the title was unbeatable.  Certain books (plays, whatever) are
worth reading just for the title.  Just so you can put that on a book
list.  _Jude the Obscure_ is one of those - despite my antipathy toward
Hardy's writing style (ugh) _Jude the Obscure_ was a great title.
_Far from the Madding Crowd_ is another.  Hardy did well by titles.
But I have read enough Hardy to last for two lifetimes.  I digress
again.  Back to tragedy - somehow, tragedy involving lumbering
misshapen characters (as O'Neill's all seemed psychologically malformed)
doesn't compel a reader like a tragedy with characters that one can
associate with - or character flaws that are more subtle.  One can't
help but notice from the start that all of O'Neill's characters (from
the two plays I have read) are doomed to unhappy lives - the rest of
the play is an anti-climax; all that remains are the details.  Perhaps
I am unfair to O'Neill.  Anyone care to take counter-point?

                                       -Tim
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU