Excellent! And this rendered a nice little smile from me: ". . . while the rest of us were channeling the crisp, boring cadences of Strunk and White, Mathias Énard was writing . . .".
Very nicely done. I think the opposition between puritanism and art is a bit facile, as you suggest, not only can it be found, it might be fostered by such resistance. See Russian and Eastern European art over the second half of the 20th century. Far more deadly, probably, is the less than puritan situation in the United States . . . at any rate I hope to read much more from you.
Thanks, I didn't know about Binet. Now I'll have to read his work.
Regarding your last question about the cause of so much creativity in Florence: Jacob Burkhardt wrote a study called The Civilization of the Renaissance in Italy which offers a plausible explanation.
Peermohamed's line: "Even in the most puritanical of times, great art can be found, if only you know how to look for it." I would use his point to counter the insinuation that, over the last few years, we "of the Anglosphere" have written "neat little autofictions about that time someone was mean to us in our MFA program," or books that "[try] to work out whether we were good, or authentic, or racist," or that "[channel] the crisp, boring cadences of Strunk and White." Perhaps such were the books that got published, celebrated and reviewed, but a lot of us weren't writing them. Just to point out a couple of recently published books I've read, books that let rip in perhaps a more "Anglo" way, read DAYBOOK by Nathan Knapp or DELIRIUM VITAE by David LeBrun.
Binet is great, and his Barthes murder mystery was recommended by an actual French person.
Not sure why you have the idea that today we uniquely have the problem of historical fiction rife with anachronism- certainly it is something postmodernist writers reveled in, but mainstream pop fiction has always had such a tendency and the fact that today’s most often invoked practitioners of the type are Kate Quin and Kristin Hannah really does seem like a litmus test for the invoker. But good piece aside from that trendy misstep
What I needed, as a youth, was for someone-just-like-me to tell me: These are the novels that have the capacity to change you—to reprogram your phenomenological and philosophical approach to living and loving—to transform you. Because if you want to climb to high places, you should try chasing your dreams.
Alright already, I’ll read Mathias Énard.
You sure know your French literary culture, monsieur.
I'll read any fiction that includes Pontormo, even a murdered one.
Excellent! And this rendered a nice little smile from me: ". . . while the rest of us were channeling the crisp, boring cadences of Strunk and White, Mathias Énard was writing . . .".
Bravo! Thanks for this.
Curious what you think of Celine
Very nicely done. I think the opposition between puritanism and art is a bit facile, as you suggest, not only can it be found, it might be fostered by such resistance. See Russian and Eastern European art over the second half of the 20th century. Far more deadly, probably, is the less than puritan situation in the United States . . . at any rate I hope to read much more from you.
So well written. Will read Perspectives next!
Thanks, I didn't know about Binet. Now I'll have to read his work.
Regarding your last question about the cause of so much creativity in Florence: Jacob Burkhardt wrote a study called The Civilization of the Renaissance in Italy which offers a plausible explanation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacob_Burckhardt?wprov=sfti1
"And how to walk the tightrope between deference and iconoclasm?"
Bloom's Anxiety of Influence, specifically his idea of creative misreading, is really good on this, damn near solves the whole problem.
Peermohamed's line: "Even in the most puritanical of times, great art can be found, if only you know how to look for it." I would use his point to counter the insinuation that, over the last few years, we "of the Anglosphere" have written "neat little autofictions about that time someone was mean to us in our MFA program," or books that "[try] to work out whether we were good, or authentic, or racist," or that "[channel] the crisp, boring cadences of Strunk and White." Perhaps such were the books that got published, celebrated and reviewed, but a lot of us weren't writing them. Just to point out a couple of recently published books I've read, books that let rip in perhaps a more "Anglo" way, read DAYBOOK by Nathan Knapp or DELIRIUM VITAE by David LeBrun.
To The Metropolitan Review:
[https://open.substack.com/pub/warh00l/p/to-the-metropolitan-review?r=4dr41i&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web]
Binet is great, and his Barthes murder mystery was recommended by an actual French person.
Not sure why you have the idea that today we uniquely have the problem of historical fiction rife with anachronism- certainly it is something postmodernist writers reveled in, but mainstream pop fiction has always had such a tendency and the fact that today’s most often invoked practitioners of the type are Kate Quin and Kristin Hannah really does seem like a litmus test for the invoker. But good piece aside from that trendy misstep
What I needed, as a youth, was for someone-just-like-me to tell me: These are the novels that have the capacity to change you—to reprogram your phenomenological and philosophical approach to living and loving—to transform you. Because if you want to climb to high places, you should try chasing your dreams.
I ADORE Lauren Binet- his HHhH is one of the finest meditations on what it means to write historical fiction