The Weekend Update Is Neither Naked Nor Dead

With so many tributes and voices of dissent about Norman Mailer, it makes me wonder the following: could it be that Mailer's appeal is limited to his generation and the next (aka the Boomers) and by and large those younger don't really relate? Could it be that his depiction of manhood doesn't work because it rings somewhat false? Or is the fact that reactions are so polarized mean that he will, in fact, be remembered? (Though 50 years from now, I'd say more people will read Kurt Vonnegut, who died just a few months ago, than Stormin' Norman.)

And also, why is it that every clip I've heard of Mailer makes him sound like he has a vague Irish accent? I don't get it.

NYTBR: Michiko Kakutani remembers Norman Mailer, and confirms at least in my mind that most of her blisteringly negative reviews of his work stemmed from personal disappointment; Liesl Schillinger pinpoints all the problems I had with Peter Hoeg's rather frustrating literary thriller THE QUIET GIRL; and good christ, can Jay McInerney get any more fatuous?

WaPo Book World: Carolyn See learns her lesson about family from Joe McGinniss's latest true crime novel; a new biography of Bette Davis gets Charles Matthews' attention; and another of Ethel Merman implores Jonathan Yardley to indulge his fannish self.

LA Times: Christopher Sorrentino delves into Steve Erickson's latest depiction of Hollywood; Susan Salter Reynolds is entertained and unnerved by THE QUIET GIRL; and David Ulin tries to make sense of Norman Mailer's inherent contradictions.

G&M: Peter Behrens remembers the fallen heroes of Flanders Fields and beyond; Mary Ann Caws considers the latest volume in John Richardson's Picasso biography; Martin Levin ponders over which writers may be forgotten soon; and Sally Cooper appreciates the perspective Eric Wright brings to his story about modern Canadian Brits.

Guardian Review: Carrie O'Grady wishes Gilbert Adair didn't have to be so post-modern in his Agatha Christie tribute; what the hell, Mary Gaitskill's VERONICA is only out now in the UK? and from Serpent's Tail? Damn; and Laura Wilson reviews new crime books by Robert Lewis, Benjamin Black and John Mortimer, as well as Otto Penzler's latest anthology.

Observer: After reading two short story collections edited by Richard Ford and Zadie Smith, Alex Clark declares the form isn't dead yet; Peter Preston approves of a new biography of Cecil B. DeMille; and Frank McCourt tells Stephanie Merritt why he's moved into the fairy tale realm.

The Times: Jonathan Myerson revisits DOCTOR ZHIVAGO 50 years later; a doctor's death becomes the impetus for a strange investigation along the lines of Sherlock Holmes; and oh man, Nana Moskouri has a memoir out. I shouldn't be surprised but clearly I am...

The Scotsman: Brian Wilson tries to make sense of Fidel Castro's "autobiography"; Jane Gardam's new short story collection gets scrutinized by the paper's book club; and Lee Randall sees a hint of promise in Sophie Dahl's debut novel.

The Rest:

The Worcester Star-Telegram had a preview of New England Crime Bake, which took place over the weekend.

Oline Cogdill offers a two-fer in one column, reviewing new mysteries by James Swain and Jonathan Hayes.

Adam Woog's crime fiction column for the Seattle Times features his thoughts on books by Robert Harris, Sharon Rowse, Gary McKinney, Kevin Wignall, Cricket McRae and Anne Perry.

Marx Swarnholm devotes his mystery column at the Minneapolis Star-Tribune to Nordic noir books by Yrsa Sigudardottir, Arnaldur Indridason and Peter Hoeg.

At the Telegraph, Jake Kerridge reviews crime fiction by Ian Rankin, Gianrico Carofiglio, Andrew Holmes and Diane Wei Liang.

Crain's has a nice piece on the Outfit, the group blog by some of Chicago's finest crime writers.

Karen Olson tells the Connecticut Post why her latest Annie Seymour mystery, DEAD OF THE DAY, was the easiest one to write thus far.

Charles Ardai pinpoints the problems with Judith Freeman's examination of Raymond and Cissy Chandler's relationship - namely that there's too much conjecture and not enough facts.

Arturo Perez-Reverte reveals to the Telegraph why he's made war his newest novelistic subject.

The pseudonymous Jiang Rong has won the first ever Asian Man Booker Prize.

And finally, several people have asked why I don't write for the paper of my birthplace, and I offer this piece as explanation. All that space, wasted.

Comments

[Bill Liversidge]

Well, I'm a boomer and I always thought Mailer was an entertaining self-publicist whose fiction never matched his own hype. He was a poor-man's Hemingway, where Hemingway was just a poor man. The other difference was that Hemingway wrote A Farewell To Arms, which is superb, and Mailer didn't.

[Nathan Cain]

My reaction to Norman Mailer's death was to shrug. He hasn't been relevant in my lifetime, so I'd have to say that yeah, no one 30 or under really cares.

[Patrick Shawn Bagley]

Make that no one under 40. I read THE NAKED AND THE DEAD in college, because I felt I should. I do get why so many of the boomers dig him, but the experience did not make me want to seek out other of his novels.

[Elaine Flinn]

Mailer's hint of a brogue? He tried on more than one accent throughout his career - but I suspect the 'gangster' one was his favorite.

This tidbit from one over 40. Well, even more than that...

[Steve Allan]

There's no doubt that more people will read Vonnegut in 50 years than Mailer, but Mailer was more than just a writer, he was a personality. I think its fashionable to dismiss Mailer because he had such blemishes on his professional and personal life - sometimes I think the criticism is targeted more toward him than his writing. But there is a part of me that believes we need a persona like Mailer now. Wouldn't it be wonderful if there was some egotistical blowhard (but talented) writer out there creating shit storm after shit storm? Oh, to have an author competing for the limelight with Amy Winehouse or Paris Hilton, wouldn't that be absolutely grand?

[Sarah]

Steve - good points but the problem with the personality aspect is that it fades very quickly (I was talking about this with my brother last night and he pointed out that most readers have no clue what Truman Capote was like, no matter how memorable his manner was to those who knew him, even those who listened or watched on TV.) So bearing that in mind, if the work doesn't match up to the personality, it doesn't really bode well for future considerations...

Of course, with Mailer only dead a couple of days it's too early to tell how he'll be remembered. But my money's still on Vonnegut having greater lasting power.

[Cornelia Read]

I'm still under 45, by a few months, and never cared greatly about Mailer other than to think he was an annoying little misogynist. Have read HARLOT'S GHOST and his Oswald book. Verdict: meh.

[Steve Allan]

Yes, personality does fade, and Mailer will become just some writer that future generations know vaguely (sort of like Ford Maddox Ford, perhaps); but it is still too bad that we don't appreciate writers like we used to. Capote was a frequent guest on the Tonight Show with Johnny Carson, Kerouac read on the original incarnation of the Tonight Show, accompanied by the host (I forget his name) on piano. When was the last time the important writers of our time have shown up on a national stage like that? In today's world, could Mailer have been Mailer? I doubt it.

[thejamminjabber]

Zeroville was fantastic. One of Erickson's best. I recently conducted an in depth interview with Erickson over at ChuckPalahniuk.net
He gives some great answers:

http://www.chuckpalahniuk.net/features/interviews/steveerickson/

-thejamminjabber
http://thejamminjabber.wordpress.com/