Waters, please enlighten me re Toni Morrison
 

I find Toni Morrison unreadable, but everything she publishes the Times automatically calls one of the greatest novels ever. She's won a Nobel Prize (I find most Nobel Prize winners of late unreadable, actually). I wonder what it would take for her to get a bad review from the Times. Help! I don't get it.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/14/bo...prod=permalink

Have you attempted to read A Mercy? I have not, but it sounds interesting by that description. What are these "unreadable" pieces? I've only read two of her novels, but I thought they were both well-done.

She's not a bad author. But she's not one of the giants either.

I mean, would James Clavell have merited a Nobel Prize. What about Le Carre?

Yet somehow Toni Morrison rises above all the riff-raff and is a giant upon the earth.

Best to not pay attention to such things and just let the work speak for itself.

I'm not a big fan of stream of consciousness. It's been done; see Ulysses. I am pretty much only a reader of novels that strive for depth and artistry, that have poetic imagery, attention to cadence and voice, philosophical or spiritual hemes, character development, etc. Yes, Morrison's novels reach for all of that. But I like narrative drive; a cohesive plot and a certain amount of economy, which are not Morrison's strengths. The best novels fuse the appeal of literary and commercial fiction. I also think her novels are overtly didactic and overly sentimental and melodramatic, and despite the claims of those who praise her to the contrary, they have few new insights.

I think Waters nailed it with his two posts. The awards and like recognitions are now 100% politicized. They're total rubbish, and as we've already seen in our short lifespans, the great and not so great and bad novels tend to sort themselves out over time regardless of the accolades.

Why doesn't anyone criticize Spielberg's "Schindler's List" as overwrought exploitative sentimental garbage?

We know the answer to this.

Some artists hit the sweet spot in style and content, that makes them immune to the usual critics and contempts.

I don't read a lot of contemporary fiction, but it seems to me that who gets singled out as "great" in a contemporary sense is probably typically a partly political choice. I don't have a problem with that. I enjoy some sentimentality, and I don't need much economy.

I looked up the list of Nobel Laureates in Literature, and I have to say I have read only a handful of their works. Which is not to say I haven't read a lot of great literature. Did you know Winston Churchill won the prize in 1953? My point being that I don't know how some become "the chosen" but I can take or leave their accolades. And I think Morrison is fine or better than fine. I better read A Mercy and report back later. Why not?

Have we forgotten what the Nobel Committee person said about American literature this past year? I wonder if his view of Bush and the War in Iraq had anything to do with his sentiment, at a deep level?

Waters is mostly right that we should just judge the work on its own terms.

Problem is that prizes and accolades are great signaling mechanisms for us to know which work to judge on its own terms with the finite and limited time we have. Are we going to discover a great novel by browsing the bookstacks? Hard to do.

For the first time in my life, I received a recommendation yesterday to read a book only available on the internet. As in you read it on webpages. I wonder if it is actually good.

Several years back, I was searching around for a good novel to get someone for Christmas. I looked to lists like the NY TImes does, among other places. As you say, where is the starting point for finding a new good book? I know for a fact that the person started the book but never finished it. hated it. I haven't looked back to the NY Times list for a recommendation since.

I have also given others books I personally have read and loved, and often the recipient does not share my view. Subjectivity rears its ugly head.