I came across an interesting article today from the Toronto Star--"Why novelists are nervous." The article, by the Star's books columnist Philip Marchand, made me grunt, swear, beat my fist upon the unsuspecting and innocent dining-room table and, since she was within earshot, share especially frustrating points with my partner. You, incidentally, are also within proverbial earshot.
We have often discussed and lamented the very things brought up in the article. Marchand notes changes in practice, if not policy, at this year's International Festival of Authors in Toronto, to which I won't have the time to go. "It used to be," he writes, "that non-fiction writers need not apply to appear at the International Festival of Authors--unless they were literary biographers." This year, the IFOA, starting at Harbourfront today, has expanded its non-fiction entries available and will highlight the Charles Taylor Prize for literary non-fiction. And a number of prominent writers--Charlotte Gray, Larry Gaudet, David Gilmour, and Rudy Wiebe--will be there specifically because of their non-fiction work.
What's so bad about opening the festival up a bit? Nothing, really. I'm all for inclusion--there is a great deal of very good non-fiction work being produced. The question is whether literary fiction coverage will be reduced, or pushed aside, to accommodate the inclusion. Does it mean, as 'some nervous novelists' feel, that literary fiction is slowly losing its footing in our culture? Marchand says that particular complaint is being raised more often from various quarters--"'literary fiction is losing market share to memoirs and genre fiction'" (from Australian Book Review, April 2005), and '"literary fiction has lost its authority in the culture'" (from Publishers Weekly, Sept. 10). John Updike, quoted by Marchand, also thinks people are becoming less comfortable with the novel, in part because readers no longer have the "backward frame of reference that would enable them to appreciate things like irony and allusions. It's sad."
It is sad. I've certainly noticed less allusion in modern fiction (with notable exceptions), certainly allusion to older forms--literary, as well as cultural, linguistic, and religious. More often now, allusions are to popular culture, or music, or other contemporary forms. Again, I don't decry these. But I worry that there is an erosion of culture where much of the former depth is lost, that deep, nutrient-rich vertical accumulation out of which successive generations have grown, and that we'll be left with only a thin layer of often artificially enhanced and fertilized topsoil. Without that depth, we lose perspective, and without perspective we lose strength, especially to weather storms. Pardon the extended agricultural metaphor.
Philip Roth is also quoted, responding to a question about the conditions for literary fiction, in which he states that there's no doubt that the conditions have deteriorated. He says the status of literature has gone down since he began writing, and that there are also fewer serious critics, fewer serious readers, and many more distractions. He points to 'the screen' as a major distraction--the movie screen, the television screen, and the computer screen. We may as well throw in souped-up cell phones, iPods, and gaming machines that provide both auditory and visual distractions. And then, of course, there are the distractions, brought to young people in large part by ubiquitous advertisements, of mass consumerism.
Marchand, perhaps to balance the article's perspective, approaches both the festival's artistic director, Geoffrey Taylor, and independent booksellers. Taylor, not surprisingly, assures readers that the change does not portend a decline in literary fiction. They have added to, not subtracted from, the program. "But we're trying to be more reflective of what people read," he adds, and "[r]eal readers will read all kinds of things."
Independent booksellers in Toronto, Marchand finds, don't think there is a decline in literary fiction. But I think they, like the festival organizer, are the wrong people to ask. It is in their best interests to sound upbeat about it all. How else can they continue to sell? It might be more instructive to ask the owners/managers of large bookstore chains. First, they carry enough of everything to not care so much about the decline of any one area, and second, because they are so much larger, they are better able to recognize and predict overall trends.
What I would have liked more of a focus on is the decline of literacy, something to which he refers, almost as an afterthought, in a paragraph mentioning the impact of the events of 9/11 on the New York publishing industry. And "the situation is different in Canada and the United States," he adds. Yes, perhaps, but mainly in degree. In many areas we are fast catching up. And not in a good way, either.
