November 22, 2004 - Between the Lines: Contaminating Today’s Literature

Print
Between the Lines: Contaminating Today’s Literature
By Lee Ann Alexander
November 22, 2004

It is said that Diego Rivera, the famous Mexican muralist, once proclaimed that all art is propaganda. If you glanced at the book releases this election year, you might agree. Many of the bestsellers on both fiction and nonfiction lists were overtly political in nature. 2004 saw everything from Nicholson Baker’s Checkpoint, a somewhat scandalous novel about the assassination of fictional President George jr. Bush, to several not-so-favorable first-hand depictions of the White House in action and on and on. Frankly I got tired of the election dictating our reading list. I’m sure Southhampton could remind me that it all mattered, but in the post-election fallout, I’m glad to have politics safely tucked away for another four years.

Perhaps not the most informed view, but I think in 2004 we let politics consume our literary sensibilities. In the aftermath, it seems that this wave of literature was not ultimately successful in swaying the vote. Yet such an overt campaign should prove just how important the book remains as a medium for political reform.

On the flipside, I wonder what politics has done for the book. If you survey the scope of the fiction that was turned out, it seems that such a fascination with political messages has perhaps overshadowed some of the subtle but vital elements of good literature.

A case in point is Phillip Roth’s The Plot against America, the strongest serious fiction contender to come out of this wave. Roth is no stranger to literary accolades; he has won a Pulitzer and two National Book Awards. Already it is safe to say he will be remembered as a key literary figure with a rightful place in the canon. But with publication of The Plot Against America comes mixed reviews.

Roth’s novel situates anti-Semitic Republican Charles Lindbergh as a 1940s President who makes a pact with Hitler and takes America into a dark period of Jewish oppression. Critics argue over just how pointedly Roth is drawing a parallel to President Bush and the current state of world affairs, but find interesting his portrayal of an alternate history. On a literary level, however, there is reason to pause. From excerpts, it appears that Roth’s sentence structure is cumbersome. Erik Lundegaard in a special to The Seattle Times agrees with me, “ [Roth’s] once delectable prose has become … turgid.”[1] Not everyone, of course, held similar critiques, and the prose is by no means just unbearable. But we expect more of Roth. It makes one wonder if amid the tide of political propaganda, we’ve let down our expectations and demands as readers for good writing.

Some readers are clearly happy. One Roth reviewer named Michael Schaub says, “It’s not just a perfect book; it has the potential to change the face of American literature… The real question for readers of American fiction isn’t whether Roth is the best novelist alive, but whether he’s the best American novelist who has ever lived.”[2] I am concerned by such blanket statements. Not that I don’t appreciate Roth, but I don’t want see to literature reach a place where our writing standards are negotiable. And with the politics craze that has consumed the book market this year, it seems that we can trade off some of our usual concerns about style and form for an interesting twist to history that makes a political statement.

I do appreciate that we still have the freedom to read and write almost anything about politics, but I also appreciate craftsmanship in literature. If Roth is really the “best American novelist who has ever lived,” let’s see mesmerizing writing and a style that writers for generations will emulate. Let’s see his work redefine a genre or carve out a new literary movement. Where’s the inventive form of a Faulkner or the lyricism of a T.S. Eliot?

When Aestheticism swept Europe about 130 years ago, one of the tenets stressed art for the sake of art. That is, a work had value beyond its meaning or the message. Poetry and painting were celebrated just for their beauty. Maybe we don’t need to bounce over to that extreme, but let’s not forget the artistic element in literature. I want to be proud of the artistry of today’s literature when we look back in 50 years. Or have we become so politically hyperactive that we’ve overlooked the medium in favor of driving home the message? Is political commentary more important to us now than language artistry? Perhaps this is just a common symptom of an election year. I just hope in all of our future politicizing, we do it with some style. If we’re going to be inundated with political allegories and alternative history novels, can we at least be treated to fresh approaches, innovative narrative form, and alluring prose?

[1] Lundegaard, Erik. "‘The Plot Against America’: High Expectations for Philip Roth, but this Twisting "Plot" is Boring.” The Seattle Times. October 10, 2004. http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/books/2002056256_roth10.html

[2] Schaub, Michael. “The Plot Against America by Philip Roth.” Bookslut. October 2004. http://www.bookslut.com/fiction/2004_10_003275.php