# Excerpts from "A Reader's Manifesto"

[“A Reader’s Manifesto”](https://archive.is/DtsmU) is a July 2001 *Atlantic* piece by B.R. Myers that I've returned to many times. He complains about the inaccessible pretension of the highbrow literary fiction of his day. The article is mostly a long list of critiques of various quotes/passages from well-reviewed books by famous authors. It’s hard to accuse him of cherry-picking since he only targets passages that reviewers singled out as unusually good.

Some of his complaints are dumb but the general idea is useful: authors try to be “literary” by (1) avoiding a tightly-paced plot that could evoke “genre fiction” and (2) trying to shoot for individual standout sentences that reviewers can praise, using a shotgun approach where many of the sentences are banal or just don’t make sense.

Here are some excerpts of his complaints. Bolding is always mine.

The “Writerly” Style
====================

He complains that critics now dismiss too much good literature as “genre” fiction.

> More than half a century ago **popular storytellers like Christopher Isherwood and Somerset Maugham were ranked among the finest novelists of their time, and were considered no less literary, in their own way**, than Virginia Woolf and James Joyce. Today any accessible, fast-moving story written in unaffected prose is deemed to be "genre fiction"—at best an excellent "read" or a "page turner," but never literature with a capital L. An author with a track record of blockbusters may find the publication of a new work treated like a pop-culture event, but most "genre" novels are lucky to get an inch in the back pages of *The New York Times Book Review*.

> The dualism of literary versus genre has all but routed the old trinity of highbrow, middlebrow, and lowbrow, which was always invoked tongue-in-cheek anyway. Writers who would once have been called middlebrow are now assigned, depending solely on their degree of verbal affectation, to either the literary or the genre camp. David Guterson is thus granted Serious Writer status for having buried a murder mystery under sonorous tautologies (*Snow Falling on Cedars*, 1994), while **Stephen King, whose** ***Bag of Bones*** **(1998) is a more intellectual but less pretentious novel**, is still considered to be just a very talented genre storyteller.

Further, he complains that fiction is regarded as “literary” the more slow-paced, self-conscious, obscure, and “writerly” its style.

> The "literary" writer need not be an intellectual one. Jeering at status-conscious consumers, bandying about words like "ontological" and "nominalism," chanting *Red River* hokum as if it were from a lost book of the Old Testament: this is what passes for profundity in novels these days. Even the most obvious triteness is acceptable, provided it comes with a postmodern wink. **What is not tolerated is a strong element of action—unless, of course, the idiom is obtrusive enough to keep suspense to a minimum**. Conversely, a natural prose style can be pardoned if a novel's pace is slow enough, as was the case with Ha Jin's aptly titled *Waiting*, which won the National Book Award (1999) and the PEN/Faulkner Award (2000).

> If the new dispensation were to revive good "Mandarin" writing—to use the term coined by the British critic Cyril Connolly for the prose of writers like Virginia Woolf and James Joyce—then I would be the last to complain. But what we are getting today is a remarkably crude form of affectation: **a prose so repetitive, so elementary in its syntax, and so numbing in its overuse of wordplay that it often demands less concentration than the average "genre" novel.**

4 Types of Bad Prose
====================

Then he has five sections complaining about 4 different types of prose he doesn’t like (in addition to the generic “literary” prose): “evocative” prose, “muscular” prose, “edgy” prose, and “spare” prose.

“Evocative” Prose
-----------------

“Evocative” prose that “exploit\[s\] the license of poetry while claiming exemption from poetry's rigorous standards of precision and polish” is characterized by meaningless idioms and long (often meaningless) lists.

> In 1999 Proulx \[the author of “Brokeback Mountain” and other stories/novels\] wrapped up the acknowledgments in a short-story anthology titled Close Range by thanking her children, in characteristic prose, "for putting up with my strangled, work-driven ways."
> 
> That's right: "strangled, work-driven ways." Work-driven is fine, of course, except for its note of self-approval, but **strangled ways makes no sense on any level.** Besides, how can anything, no matter how abstract, be strangled and work-driven at the same time? Maybe the author was referring to something along the lines of a nightly smackdown with the Muse, but only she knows for sure.

> The short stories in *Close Range* are full of this kind of writing. ["The Half-Skinned Steer"](https://archive.is/o/DtsmU/https://www.theatlantic.com/issues/97nov/proulx.htm) (which first appeared in *The Atlantic Monthly*, in November of 1997), starts with this sentence:
> 
> > In the long unfurling of his life, from tight-wound kid hustler in a wool suit riding the train out of Cheyenne to geriatric limper in this spooled-out year, Mero had kicked down thoughts of the place where he began, a so-called ranch on strange ground at the south hinge of the Big Horns.
> 
> **Like so much modern prose, this demands to be read quickly, with just enough attention to register the bold use of words. Slow down, and things fall apart**. Proulx seems to have intended a unified conceit, but *unfurling*, or spreading out, as of a flag or an umbrella, clashes disastrously with the images of thread that follow. (Maybe "unraveling" didn't sound fancy enough.) A life is *unfurled*, a hustler is *wound tight*, a year is *spooled out*, and still the metaphors continue, with *kicked down*—which might work in less crowded surroundings, though I doubt it—and *hinge*, which is cute if you've never seen a hinge or a map of the Big Horns. And this is just the first sentence!

> every so often Proulx lets a really good image stand alone: "The dining room, crowded with men, was lit by red bulbs that gave them a look of being roasted alive in their chairs." Such hits are so rare, however, that after a while the reader stops trying to think about what the metaphors mean. Maybe this is the effect that Proulx is aiming for; **she seems to want to keep us on the surface of the text at all times, as if she were afraid that we might forget her quirky narratorial presence for even a line or two**.

> The decline of American prose since the 1950s is nowhere more apparent than in the decline of the long sentence. Today anything longer than two or three lines is likely to be a simple list of attributes or images. Proulx relies heavily on such sentences, which often call to mind a bad photographer hurrying through a slide show. In this scene from *Accordion Crimes* (1996) a woman has just had her arms sliced off by a piece of sheet metal.
> 
> > She stood there, amazed, rooted, seeing the grain of the wood of the barn clapboards, paint jawed away by sleet and driven sand, the unconcerned swallows darting and reappearing with insects clasped in their beaks looking like mustaches, the wind-ripped sky, the blank windows of the house, the old glass casting blue swirled reflections at her, the fountains of blood leaping from her stumped arms, even, in the first moment, hearing the wet thuds of her forearms against the barn and the bright sound of the metal striking.
> 
> The last thing Proulx wants is for you to start wondering whether someone with blood spurting from severed arms is going to stand *rooted* long enough to see more than one bird disappear, catch an insect, and reappear, or whether the whole scene is not in bad taste of the juvenile variety.

“Muscular” Prose
----------------

“The masculine counterpart” to evocative prose is “muscular” prose, characterized by Cormac McCarthy, who writes mundane scenes in an overblown, unnecessarily epic style.

> Now read this from McCarthy's *The Crossing* (1994), part of the acclaimed Border Trilogy: "He ate the last of the eggs and wiped the plate with the tortilla and ate the tortilla and drank the last of the coffee and wiped his mouth and looked up and thanked her."
> 
> Thriller writers know enough to save this kind of syntax for fast-moving scenes: "... and his shout of fear came as a bloody gurgle and he died, and Wolff felt nothing" (Ken Follett, *The Key to Rebecca*, 1980). In McCarthy's sentence the unpunctuated flow of words bears no relation to the slow, methodical nature of what is being described. … For all the sentence tells us, it might as well be this: "He ate the last of the eggs. He wiped the plate with the tortilla and ate it. He drank the last of the coffee and wiped his mouth. He looked up and thanked her." **Had McCarthy written** ***that*****, the critics would have taken him to task for his "workmanlike" prose**. But the first version is no more informative or pleasing to the ear than the second, which can at least be read aloud in a natural fashion. (McCarthy is famously averse to public readings.) All the original does is say, "I express myself differently from you, therefore I am a Writer."

> > \[They\] walked off in separate directions through the chaparral to stand spraddlelegged clutching their knees and vomiting. The browsing horses jerked their heads up. It was no sound they'd ever heard before. In the gray twilight those retchings seemed to echo like the calls of some rude provisional species loosed upon that waste. Something imperfect and malformed lodged in the heart of being. A thing smirking deep in the eyes of grace itself like a gorgon in an autumn pool. (*All the Pretty Horses*)
> 
> It is a rare passage that can make you look up, wherever you may be, and wonder if you are being subjected to a diabolically thorough *Candid Camera* prank. I can just go along with the idea that horses might mistake human retching for the call of wild animals. But "wild animals" isn't epic enough: McCarthy must blow smoke about *some rude provisional species*, as if your average quadruped had impeccable table manners and a pension plan. Then he switches from the horses' perspective to the narrator's, though just what *something imperfect and malformed* refers to is unclear. The last half sentence only deepens the confusion. Is the *thing smirking deep in the eyes of grace* the same thing that is *lodged in the heart of being*? And what is a *gorgon* doing in a *pool*? Or is it peering into it? And why an *autumn* pool? **I doubt if McCarthy can explain any of this; he probably just likes the way it sounds.**
> 
> No novelist with a sense of the ridiculous would write such nonsense.

“Edgy” Prose
------------

Characterized by Don DeLillo, this is the style characterized by pseudo-philosophical but ultimately banal critiques of consumerism, media, alienation, suburbia, etc.

> Not all contemporary writing is marked by the Proulx-McCarthy brand of obscurity. Many novels intimidate readers by making them wonder not what the writer is saying but *why* he is saying it. Here, for example, is the opener to Don DeLillo's *White Noise* (1985).
> 
> > The station wagons arrived at noon, a long shining line that coursed through the west campus. In single file they eased around the orange I-beam sculpture and moved toward the dormitories. The roofs of the station wagons were loaded down with carefully secured suitcases full of light and heavy clothing; with boxes of blankets, boots and shoes, stationery and books, sheets, pillows, quilts; with rolled-up rugs and sleeping bags, with bicycles, skis, rucksacks, English and Western saddles, inflated rafts. As cars slowed to a crawl and stopped, students sprang out and raced to the rear doors to begin removing the objects inside; the stereo sets, radios, personal computers; small refrigerators and table ranges; the cartons of phonograph records and cassettes; the hairdryers and styling irons; the tennis rackets, soccer balls, hockey and lacrosse sticks, bows and arrows; the controlled substances, the birth control pills and devices; the junk food still in shopping bags—onion-and-garlic chips, nacho thins, peanut creme patties, Waffelos and Kabooms, fruit chews and toffee popcorn; the Dum-Dum pops, the Mystic mints.
> 
> **This is the sort of writing, full of brand names and wardrobe inventories, that critics like to praise as an "edgy" take on the insanity of modern American life. It's hard to see what is so edgy about describing suburbia as a wasteland of stupefied shoppers, which is something left-leaning social critics have been doing since the 1950s.** Still, this is foolproof subject matter for a novelist of limited gifts. If you find the above shopping list fascinating, then DeLillo's your man. If you complain that it's just dull, and that you got the message about a quarter of the way through, he can always counter by saying, "Hey, I don't *make* the all-inclusive, consumption-mad society. I just report on it."
> 
> Of course the narrator, a professor called Jack Gladney, can't actually see what's inside the students' bags; he's just trying to be funny. So is there really a caravan of station wagons, or is that also a joke? **How much of the above passage, for that matter, are we even supposed to bother visualizing?** Similar questions nag at the reader throughout *White Noise*.

> In this excerpt from *White Noise*, Jack and his family go shopping.
> 
> > In the mass and variety of our purchases, in the sheer plenitude those crowded bags suggested, the weight and size and number, the familiar package designs and vivid lettering, the giant sizes, the family bargain packs with Day-Glo sale stickers, in the sense of replenishment we felt, the sense of well-being, the security and contentment these products brought to some snug home in our souls—it seemed we had achieved a fullness of being that is not known to people who need less, expect less, who plan their lives around lonely walks in the evening.
> 
> Could the irony be any less subtle? And the tautology: *mass, plenitude, number; well-being, contentment*! The clumsy echoes: *size, sizes; familiar, family; sense of, sense of; well-being, being*! I wouldn't put it past DeLillo's apologists to claim that this repetition is meant to underscore the superfluity of goods in the supermarket. The fact remains that here, as in the *Toyota Celica* scene, the novel tries to convey the magical appeal of consumerism in prose that is simply flat and tiresome.
> 
> At least that paragraph is coherent. Most of the author's thoughts, regardless of which character is speaking them, take the form of disjointed strings of elliptical statements. This must be what satisfies critics that they are in the presence of a challenging writer—but more often than not "the dry shrivelled kernel," to borrow a line from Anne Brontë, "scarcely compensates for the trouble of cracking the nut." Here, for example, Jack Gladney tells a woman why he gave his child the name Heinrich.
> 
> > "I thought it was forceful and impressive ... There's something about German names, the German language, German *things*. I don't know what it is exactly. It's just there. In the middle of it all is Hitler, of course."
> > 
> > "He was on again last night."
> > 
> > "He's always on. We couldn't have television without him."
> > 
> > "They lost the war," she said. "How great could they be?"
> > 
> > "A valid point. But it's not a question of greatness. It's not a question of good and evil. I don't know what it is. Look at it this way. Some people always wear a favorite color. Some people carry a gun. Some people put on a uniform and feel bigger, stronger, safer. It's in this area that my obsessions dwell."
> 
> So Gladney thinks there is something forceful about German names. This is such a familiar idea that we naturally assume DeLillo is going to do more with it. Instead he gives us a frivolous non sequitur about television, followed by a clumsy rehashing of the first point. If the narrator's obsessions dwell "in this area," shouldn't he be able to tell us something we don't know, instead of "Some people put on a uniform and feel bigger, stronger, safer"?

> Another source of spurious profundity is DeLillo's constant allusions to momentous feelings and portents—allusions that are either left hanging in the air or are conveniently cut short by a narrative pretext. … they are perhaps the most consistent element of his style. In *Underworld* (1997) a man's mouth fills with "the foretaste of massive inner shiftings"; another character senses "some essential streak of self"; the air has "the feel of some auspicious design"; and so on. This is the safe, catchall vagueness of astrologists and palm readers. DeLillo also adds rhetorical questions or other disclaimers to throw his meaning out of focus. Here, to return to *White Noise*, is another of Jack's musings.
> 
> > "We edge nearer death every time we plot. It is like a contract that all must sign, the plotters as well as those who are the targets of the plot."
> > 
> > Is this true? Why did I say it? What does it mean?
> 
> The first and third of those questions are easily answered; after all, we edge nearer death every time we do anything. So why, indeed, does Jack say this? Because DeLillo knew it would seem profoundly original to most of his readers. Then he added those questions to keep the critical minority from charging him with banality.

> To anyone who calls that excruciating, DeLillo might well respond, "That's my whole point! This is communication in Consumerland!" **It isn't unlikely, considering how the dialogue loses its logic halfway through, that the whole thing was written only to be skimmed anyway.**

“Spare” Prose
-------------

This is a repetitive, superficial style characterized by Paul Auster.

> Anyone who doubts the declining literacy of book reviewers need only consider how the gabbiest of all prose styles is invariably praised as "lean," "spare," even "minimalist." …
> 
> Another hallmark of Auster's style, and of contemporary American prose in general, is tautology. Swing the hammer often enough, and you're bound to hit the nail on the head—or so the logic seems to run.
> 
> > His body burst into dozens of small pieces, and fragments of his corpse were found ... (*Leviathan*, 1992)
> 
> > Blue can only surmise what the case is not. To say what it is, however, is completely beyond him. (*Ghosts*, 1986)
> 
> > My father was tight; my mother was extravagant. She spent; he didn't. (*Hand to Mouth*, 1997)
> 
> > Inexpressible desires, intangible needs, and unarticulated longings all passed through the money box and came out as real things, palpable objects you could hold in your hand. (*Hand to Mouth*)
> 
> > Still and all, Mr. Bones was a dog. From the tip of his tail to the end of his snout, he was a pure example of *Canis familiaris*, and whatever divine presence he might have harbored within his skin, he was first and foremost the thing he appeared to be. Mr. Bow Wow, Monsieur Woof Woof, Sir Cur. (*Timbuktu*)
> 
> This sort of thing is everywhere, and yet the relative shortness of Auster's sentences has always fooled critics into thinking that he never wastes a word. His style has been praised as "brisk, precise" (*The New York Times*) and "straightforward, almost invisible" (*The Village Voice*). Dennis Drabelle, in *The Washington Post*, called it "always economical—clipped, precise, the last word in gnomic control," which looks like something Auster wrote himself.

> It is from Auster, however, that Guterson seems to have learned how to create writerly cadences through tautology: "a clash of sound, discordant," "an immediate blunder, a *faux pas*," "Wyman was gay, a homosexual," "She could see that he was angry, that he was holding it in, not exposing his rage."

Some Prose He Thinks Is Good
============================

> In fairness, it must be said that McCarthy's style was once very different. *The Orchard Keeper* (1965), his debut novel, is a masterpiece of careful and restrained writing. An excerpt from the first page:
> 
> > Far down the blazing strip of concrete a small shapeless mass had emerged and was struggling toward him. It loomed steadily, weaving and grotesque like something seen through bad glass, gained briefly the form and solidity of a pickup truck, whipped past and receded into the same liquid shape by which it came.
> 
> There's not a word too many in there, and although the tone is hardly conversational, the reader is addressed as the writer's equal, in a natural cadence and vocabulary. Note also how the figurative language (*like something seen through bad glass*) is fresh and vivid without seeming to strain for originality.

> When Hemingway wrote "small birds blew in the wind and the wind turned their feathers" ("In Another Country," 1927), he was, as David Lodge points out in *The Art of Fiction* (1992), creating two sharp images in the simplest way he could. The repetition of *wind*, in subtly different senses, heightens the immediacy of the referent while echoing other reminders of Milan's windiness in the fall.

> When DeLillo describes a man's walk as a "sort of explanatory shuffle ... a comment on the literature of shuffles" (*Underworld*), I feel nothing; the wordplay is just too insincere, too patently meaningless. But when Vladimir Nabokov talks of midges "continuously darning the air in one spot," or the "square echo" of a car door slamming, I feel what Philip Larkin wanted readers of his poetry to feel: "Yes, I've never thought of it that way, but that's how it is." The pleasure that accompanies this sensation is almost addictive; for many, myself included, it's the most important reason to read both poetry and prose.
> 
> Older fiction also serves to remind us of the power of unaffected English. In this scene from Saul Bellow's *The Victim* (1947) a man meets a woman at a Fourth of July picnic.
> 
> > He saw her running in the women's race, her arms close to her sides. She was among the stragglers and stopped and walked off the field, laughing and wiping her face and throat with a handkerchief of the same material as her silk summer dress. Leventhal was standing near her brother. She came up to them and said, "Well, I used to be able to run when I was smaller." That she was still not accustomed to thinking of herself as a woman, and a beautiful woman, made Leventhal feel very tender toward her. She was in his mind when he watched the contestants in the three-legged race hobbling over the meadow. He noticed one in particular, a man with red hair who struggled forward, angry with his partner, as though the race were a pain and a humiliation which he could wipe out only by winning. "What a difference," Leventhal said to himself. "What a difference in people."
> 
> Scenes that show why a character falls in love are rarely convincing in novels. **This one works beautifully, and with none of the "evocative" metaphor hunting or postmodern snickering that tends to accompany such scenes today.** The syntax is simple but not unnaturally terse—a point worth emphasizing to those who think that the only alternative to contemporary writerliness is the plodding style of Raymond Carver. Bellow's verbal restraint makes the unexpected repetition of *what a difference* all the more touching. The entire novel is marked by the same quiet brilliance. As Christopher Isherwood once said to Cyril Connolly, real talent manifests itself not in a writer's affectation but "in the exactness of his observation \[and\] the justice of his situations."