Making lists of overrated things is overrated. It’s a natural, fun, but ultimately immature, cocktail party impulse that should be left there. An exercise in forced water-coolism.
Plus, if we are to get into rankings, Wells Tower can kinda mop the floor with everyone right now. His name alone is a better story than what most can write.
Edgar
I think it’s somewhat unfair to use one-book writers on a list like this. So much goes into a book, and if a first book is awful that doesn’t necessarily mean the writer is awful. Two books onward and we’re on, though. So I was glad Wells Tower didn’t make the list. He shouldn’t. He’s one of the most exciting and innovative new writers we’ve seen in years, already writing in what appears to be his wholly original voice, most of the time. That said, you could call him overrated since he is getting a massive handjob by the Literary Powers That Be.
I’m tempted to say someone like Charles Bock is overrated, but he has published only one book so far and has been relatively very quiet of late (and didn’t even make the NYer list), so…
But this list is generally right on: I totally agree with Junot Diaz. I thought “Oscar Wao,” while fun to read for the first half, was kind of a rehashed David Foster Wallace thing with a little Puerto Rican flair. (Is that racist? I hope that’s not racist.) In other words: not original and not by any means worth the wait…or a Pulitzer. Vollmann, Safran Foer: definitely. Cunningham: agree, but odd the dude mentions “The Hours” and not post-“Hours” work. I’d only add…don’t hate me Rumpus…Rick Moody. He’s WAY overrated and needs to do a book in a new, non-“Rick Moody” style.
Ryan Boudinot
I found that list completely stupid, a version of the old joke about a guy who complains about the lousy food in a restaurant and adds, “And such small portions!” I’ve often found that people who get this bent out if shape about writers they don’t like get flummoxed when you ask them to praise writers they do like. This list is badly written, to boot. Full of passive voice and generalities.
Andrew Altschul, Books Editor, The Rumpus
Mean spirited and useless. The Rumpus should be supporting writers, not helping douchebags tear them down.
Nicole
Authors would benefit more from engaging with writing that positively influences their own work, rather than trying to make names for themselves with lists that appeal to the catty sides of fellow authors/readers. Reading this list isn’t going to make anyone a better writer. And considering how low literature ranks on the cultural totem, what does anyone gave to gain by dismissing celebrated writers in a public forum? If an author doesn’t move you, carry on and find someone who does.
Yikes. I was the one who approved the original post. Lapse in judgment there! Sorry everybody.
Marie-Therese
There’s no such thing as bad publicity. I think we need more articles like this – at least it illustrates that some people have an opinion about literary fiction. Also, he seems to be quite right in many of his assessments!
Danni
Jeremy,
It was worth posting, if only to spark thoughtful comments in opposition to its existence.
Eva
I don’t think it was inappropriate to post a link to the article, nor was it necessary to apologize for it. The content is relevant to The Rumpus, maybe it just needs to be put into a more intellectual light: Let’s discuss what may be wrong and may be right about the article. This site touts great modern writers, and certainly a number of current authors are getting undue recognition over those with some real talent but less of a budget, fewer famous kin, or without a famed name alone to precede their talent. By all means, link to the stupid articles. They can be amusing at least and deserve Rumpus readers’ insight on their comments at best.
Zoologist
Since I have nothing better to do I have been following this article around various blogs.
I think reasonable people can differ on what authors they think are overrated.
What I do find interesting about this list is that Shivani is not “total bullshit” or a “douchebag” in terms of his pedigree. He seems to have emerged from inside same literary journals and reviews that many on the list, and on this website, emerge from. This is from Shivani’s website:
“Anis’s criticism, reviews, and interviews appear regularly in influential literary journals such as the Georgia Review, Michigan Quarterly Review, Cambridge Quarterly, Contemporary Review (Oxford), Stand, Boulevard, Pleiades, Prairie Schooner, Colorado Review, Texas Review, Harvard Review, American Book Review, Quarterly West, Notre Dame Review, South Carolina Review, North Dakota Quarterly, and others.
Online, Anis has been reviewing, writing essays, and interviewing authors frequently for the Huffington Post.
Anis is a member of the National Book Critics Circle, and frequently reviews books for newspapers and magazines such as the Boston Globe, San Francisco Chronicle, St. Petersburg Times, Kansas City Star, In These Times, Brooklyn Rail, and others.”
I bet that any one of these authors, and their publicists, would be happy to stick a medal from the NBCC on their book jacket, but suddenly lose their head and start calling names when an NBCC critic names names.
Also in his previous articles Shivani has heaped a ton of praise on people like Teddy Wayne, Manu Joseph, Eric Miles Williamson, Oe, and Chang Rae-Lee. He also seems to be a fan of Harper Perennial. I’m betting one of those last three names will be on his under-rated list, if it is ever published.
I also wish he would have included a list of elite agents who control most of the industry.
“Mean spirited and useless. The Rumpus should be supporting writers, not helping douchebags tear them down.”
Though I don’t agree with every entry on Shivani’s list — nor would I expect to — I’m not sure what “supporting writers” means in this context. Should we in the literary world tolerate mediocrity (or worse) in the interest of “supporting writers”? To me, that sort of non-critical stance is what’s useless — as is name-calling. Weak writing in an unpublished manuscript is one thing, but prosperous, award-laden careers based on the publication of weak writing is quite another — and should always be called out, in my humble opinion.
I don’t agree with the way Shivani sometimes approaches these literary questions, but it’s not a “bullshit” article at all. In fact, it’s made me want to buy his criticism on Workshops when it comes out next year.
Click here to subscribe today and leave your comment, or log in if you’re already a paid subscriber.
15 responses
Making lists of overrated things is overrated. It’s a natural, fun, but ultimately immature, cocktail party impulse that should be left there. An exercise in forced water-coolism.
Plus, if we are to get into rankings, Wells Tower can kinda mop the floor with everyone right now. His name alone is a better story than what most can write.
I think it’s somewhat unfair to use one-book writers on a list like this. So much goes into a book, and if a first book is awful that doesn’t necessarily mean the writer is awful. Two books onward and we’re on, though. So I was glad Wells Tower didn’t make the list. He shouldn’t. He’s one of the most exciting and innovative new writers we’ve seen in years, already writing in what appears to be his wholly original voice, most of the time. That said, you could call him overrated since he is getting a massive handjob by the Literary Powers That Be.
I’m tempted to say someone like Charles Bock is overrated, but he has published only one book so far and has been relatively very quiet of late (and didn’t even make the NYer list), so…
But this list is generally right on: I totally agree with Junot Diaz. I thought “Oscar Wao,” while fun to read for the first half, was kind of a rehashed David Foster Wallace thing with a little Puerto Rican flair. (Is that racist? I hope that’s not racist.) In other words: not original and not by any means worth the wait…or a Pulitzer. Vollmann, Safran Foer: definitely. Cunningham: agree, but odd the dude mentions “The Hours” and not post-“Hours” work. I’d only add…don’t hate me Rumpus…Rick Moody. He’s WAY overrated and needs to do a book in a new, non-“Rick Moody” style.
I found that list completely stupid, a version of the old joke about a guy who complains about the lousy food in a restaurant and adds, “And such small portions!” I’ve often found that people who get this bent out if shape about writers they don’t like get flummoxed when you ask them to praise writers they do like. This list is badly written, to boot. Full of passive voice and generalities.
Mean spirited and useless. The Rumpus should be supporting writers, not helping douchebags tear them down.
Authors would benefit more from engaging with writing that positively influences their own work, rather than trying to make names for themselves with lists that appeal to the catty sides of fellow authors/readers. Reading this list isn’t going to make anyone a better writer. And considering how low literature ranks on the cultural totem, what does anyone gave to gain by dismissing celebrated writers in a public forum? If an author doesn’t move you, carry on and find someone who does.
The debate continues over at HTMLGIANT: http://htmlgiant.com/snippet/39852/#comments. I’m with Andrew. Talk about an unproductive article.
Ridiculous.
It’s essentially calling fans of those authors too stupid to know any better, which is a bit high and mighty, isn’t it?
Hey everyone. Sorry for linking to this. It’s total bullshit and doesn’t deserve your traffic.
Yikes. I was the one who approved the original post. Lapse in judgment there! Sorry everybody.
There’s no such thing as bad publicity. I think we need more articles like this – at least it illustrates that some people have an opinion about literary fiction. Also, he seems to be quite right in many of his assessments!
Jeremy,
It was worth posting, if only to spark thoughtful comments in opposition to its existence.
I don’t think it was inappropriate to post a link to the article, nor was it necessary to apologize for it. The content is relevant to The Rumpus, maybe it just needs to be put into a more intellectual light: Let’s discuss what may be wrong and may be right about the article. This site touts great modern writers, and certainly a number of current authors are getting undue recognition over those with some real talent but less of a budget, fewer famous kin, or without a famed name alone to precede their talent. By all means, link to the stupid articles. They can be amusing at least and deserve Rumpus readers’ insight on their comments at best.
Since I have nothing better to do I have been following this article around various blogs.
I think reasonable people can differ on what authors they think are overrated.
What I do find interesting about this list is that Shivani is not “total bullshit” or a “douchebag” in terms of his pedigree. He seems to have emerged from inside same literary journals and reviews that many on the list, and on this website, emerge from. This is from Shivani’s website:
“Anis’s criticism, reviews, and interviews appear regularly in influential literary journals such as the Georgia Review, Michigan Quarterly Review, Cambridge Quarterly, Contemporary Review (Oxford), Stand, Boulevard, Pleiades, Prairie Schooner, Colorado Review, Texas Review, Harvard Review, American Book Review, Quarterly West, Notre Dame Review, South Carolina Review, North Dakota Quarterly, and others.
Online, Anis has been reviewing, writing essays, and interviewing authors frequently for the Huffington Post.
Anis is a member of the National Book Critics Circle, and frequently reviews books for newspapers and magazines such as the Boston Globe, San Francisco Chronicle, St. Petersburg Times, Kansas City Star, In These Times, Brooklyn Rail, and others.”
I bet that any one of these authors, and their publicists, would be happy to stick a medal from the NBCC on their book jacket, but suddenly lose their head and start calling names when an NBCC critic names names.
Also in his previous articles Shivani has heaped a ton of praise on people like Teddy Wayne, Manu Joseph, Eric Miles Williamson, Oe, and Chang Rae-Lee. He also seems to be a fan of Harper Perennial. I’m betting one of those last three names will be on his under-rated list, if it is ever published.
I also wish he would have included a list of elite agents who control most of the industry.
“Mean spirited and useless. The Rumpus should be supporting writers, not helping douchebags tear them down.”
Though I don’t agree with every entry on Shivani’s list — nor would I expect to — I’m not sure what “supporting writers” means in this context. Should we in the literary world tolerate mediocrity (or worse) in the interest of “supporting writers”? To me, that sort of non-critical stance is what’s useless — as is name-calling. Weak writing in an unpublished manuscript is one thing, but prosperous, award-laden careers based on the publication of weak writing is quite another — and should always be called out, in my humble opinion.
I don’t agree with the way Shivani sometimes approaches these literary questions, but it’s not a “bullshit” article at all. In fact, it’s made me want to buy his criticism on Workshops when it comes out next year.
Click here to subscribe today and leave your comment, or log in if you’re already a paid subscriber.