The New York Times has a problem with memoirs. Stephen Elliott responds in his Daily Rumpus email:
“Today I read an article in The Times, The Problem With Memoirs. It’s among the meanest pieces written on the subject and people who despise memoir will find comfort. But the tragedy of the essay is it’s dismissal of an entire art form. Let’s say you didn’t like realistic paintings, there are people who don’t. It’s odd to say, Why oh why must you people paint!
“Among the many fallacies of the article (which include ascribing motives) is that it’s easy to publish a memoir. The author complains of the “share everything” generation. In fact a poorly written memoir is not easy (nor impossible) to publish. His critiques of the three memoirs may be valid, or not, I haven’t read them, but that doesn’t make any reflection on the form. Memoir, when not a strictly commercial enterprise, is an art, art is expression. A great memoir, like a great novel, is rare. Most books of every type don’t succeed. Some people prefer literary memoirs and protagonist/author novels (the two are closely linked), others prefer books where the author isn’t present, story-stories. But it’s just preferences. Certainly no one is forcing you to read a memoir, and they’re clearly marked.
“Under the author’s guidelines we wouldn’t have The Year of Magical Thinking, A Heartbreaking Work of Staggering Genius, Another Bullshit Night In Suck City, Jarhead. None of those authors “earned” the right to document their lives. You might not like these books, but do you really think the world would be a better place without them?”
