Matt Zeitlin: Impetuous Young Whippersnapper

I haven’t read How Fiction Works, but I’ve re-read his infamous TNR review of White Teeth, in which he both names and disses my favorite type of fiction – Hysterical Realism – as well as throw in some barbs at just about all my favorite authors (DeLilo, Pynchon, DFW, Tom Wolfe…even Tolstoy).

Wood’s argument, that novelists should be concerned with creating characters full of sublime “lifeness,” characters that one can sympathize with and care about, as opposed to creating ridiculous worlds full of all sorts of technical contrivances, literary flourishes and all matters of absurd plotting and description, is expressed quite eloquently and convicingly. Until you realize that there isn’t a reason why we should approach fiction as Wood does, besides the fact that it’s how James Wood approaches fiction. 

Although anti-foundationalism is on rather contestable ground when it comes to science or philosophy, when it comes to literary criticism, it seems obvious that there isn’t any true ground to stand on. Sure, within the framework of a certain type of novel, we can make distinctions between good and bad. If someone is writing like Hemingway, and can’t actually communicate anything using short, clear sentences, then we can say that writer is screwing up. If someone is trying to write like Pynchon and has none of the flair, bombast or literacy with science, history and math  Pynchon does, we could easily criticise him. But the meta-question of whether or not a Pynchonian novel is better than a Hemingwayean novel (or a Jamesian better than Faulknerian better than Flaubertian etc etc) seems to have no rational or justifiable way to resolve itself.

And even if a very smart guy like James Wood could think of a universally intelligable justification for his favorite type of fiction, as a matter of sociology, we would just say (correctly) that Wood was merely taking his specific taste and then finding a set of reasons why we should all adopt it.

A quick endnote. Everyone should know that my familiarity with literary criticism is embarassingly shallow. For all I know, Northrop Frye (or some other literary critic) resolved these issues decades ago. If anyone with a background in literature wants to chime in and correct me, I’d be more than happy. (hint hint, nudge nudge)