by Johannes Goransson on Nov.30, 2010
Can be found on slate: http://www.slate.com/id/2275733/
This article is based on the distinction between “New York City” writers and “MFA” writers:
“The best young NYC novelists go to great lengths to write comprehensible prose and tie their plots neat as a bow. How one longs, in a way, for endings like that of DeLillo’s first novel, Americana, where everyone just pees on everyone else for no reason! The trend toward neatness and accessibility is often posited to be the consequence of the workshop’s relentless paring. But for NYC writers—despite their degrees—it might be better understood as the result of fierce market pressure toward the middlebrow, combined with a deep authorial desire to communicate to the uninterested.”
But my favorite discussion happens in the comment section. One commentator says he/she can’t imagine Bolano in an MFA situation, and another points out that a lot of the books are actually in some ways about workshops.
Also: A lot of discussions about the lack of what I (don’t know where I got it from) called “filters” in the post below: complaints about the inability to sift through all the novels. But of course does anyone ever complain about the inability to sift through all the movies, Internet sites, TV shows? This is why I like the corny phrase “filter” – you can just move through it and find different paths.