John Gardner wrote a collection of stories about people and their relationship with Art: a story about a conductor, a painter, a musician, a young lady working in an Art studio, a boy in a house full of choir singers , a cook etc. The humanity explored in these stories is illumed by the practice or appreciation of whatever form of art they endeavor.
Gardner is an amazing technical writer, so the prose is incredibly clear and evocative, the plots are water-proof tight, and the messages are so deep and convincing that you don't mind that they leave with an ambiguous feeling. And what's most unique about him, setting him aside from most of the writers I like, he doesn't write with a chip on his shoulder. He likes people. He is completely secure, and can make penetrating observations without being condescending. The result is a frank and beautiful collection and eloquent stories that all come together to form a little piece of heaven.
I don't like fluff. Puppies and babies are cute, but I think Art is grown up work and should be taken with due seriousness. This isn't light fiction, but it's nice to be reminded that grown up, serious fiction can also be uplifting.
Has anyone else read this collection?
Edit:
I'm reading The Art of Fiction concurrently with one of my favorite books: Good as Gold. The problem is that John Gardner's dignity in prose really makes Joseph Heller seem juvenile, and not in a good way.
[ August 19, 2003, 09:33 AM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by Deirdre (Member # 4200) on :
I have it, somewhere, but I have yet to read it.
I bought a copy several years ago, new, which is rare for me. I remember something on the jacket about a meeting with Raskolnikov and some other stuff that sounded really interesting, and I was really excited to go home and start reading.
Then I lost it. I have no idea how. I don't even think I got past the first page.
Every now and then I'm tempted to go buy another copy, but I can't get over the fact that I have a BRAND NEW copy lying around somewhere, which will probably turn up the minute I fork over the scratch for a new one.
Actually, aside from the excerpts he uses in his essays, I've never read any of Gardner's fiction. A bloody shame, I know.
[ August 18, 2003, 07:09 PM: Message edited by: Deirdre ]
Posted by filetted (Member # 5048) on :
Irami,
I'm headed to the bookstore tomorrow, and that's now on my list.
thanks a lot!
mike
Posted by Deirdre (Member # 4200) on :
Anyone?
Come on, guys. I have to know if it's worth going out to buy a second copy.
Er...not that Irami's endorsement isn't enough.
(*bump*)
Posted by Alucard... (Member # 4924) on :
Being an uncultured oaf, I just feel compelled to say that there is nothing at all artistic about the way I live life, as is now obvious from this post.
An analogy of my lifestyle would be the shrinkwrapped package of a flimsy paper napkin that is too small, a cheesy plastic serrated knife, and the "spork" that is both fork and spoon.
I suppose that you could say that I revel in fluff, because for an unread, esoterically-challenged individual like myself, it is all I have left in a decent discussion such as this. But carry on!
[ August 18, 2003, 07:31 PM: Message edited by: Alucard... ]
Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
I'll check it out - it sounds great.
I am also currently raving about Madeleine L'Engle's Walking on Water, a book on Christian Art that wonderfully re-defines both Christianity and Art. It's masterful. Read it even if you hate "Christian Art" because you gotta love Madeleine L'Engle.
It talks about art as a duty and a lifestyle and a higher calling to unqualified individuals. Deep, deep, deep.
Posted by asQmh (Member # 4590) on :
I second the L'Engle vote.
I love her Crosswicks Journals; they are filled with a grace of writing that astounds me.
Q.
[ August 19, 2003, 11:15 AM: Message edited by: asQmh ]
Posted by qsysue (Member # 5229) on :
quote: I think Art is grown up work and should be taken with due seriousness
I think that must be what turns me off when people start talking about Art with a capital A. Can't stand anything that takes itself too seriously.
Deirdre, why not buy a copy used from half.com?
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
Due seriousness and a respect for the medium are the differences between hacks and artists.
I have an incredible faith and love for artists, aspiring or successful, but I don't have the same warmness for hacks.
[ August 19, 2003, 11:36 AM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
That's because you're a snob, dear. Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
I have discriminating tastes. I like snobs. They take issue with the world. They are apart of it. And once you grapple with it, realize some parts are better than others, welcome the better and try to raise the latter, I think it's good.
There is such an incredible gamut of good and bad snobbery that becoming one just gets you into the game. It's like borr's thread or Annie's thread, I'm a snob because I believe in something, and now it gets interesting. This is where the exploration comes.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
That's fine. You're wrong about this, though. "Art" isn't the ultimate divider of the worthwhile and the worthless.
Posted by Elizabeth (Member # 5218) on :
"They are apart of it."
Indeed.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
I didn't say that hacks are worthless. I'm a hack in more than a few endeavors. They don't share the same esteem as the people who take their art seriously, though. It's different, and not quite as grand and beautiful-- the effort isn't as sincere, true, or respectful to the human condition or beauty-- but it can be nice in a mellower way.
Hacking isn't "worthless," but I don't think it's as worthwhile.
[ August 19, 2003, 12:49 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by Zalmoxis (Member # 2327) on :
I have met very few people who aren't snobs. Most people just vary in what they're snobbish about.
I think the best practice is to be discriminating, but to be open to a wide variety of genres and art forms. The worst snobs are those who can only talk about opera -- or NASCAR. Omnivorous art consumption is the way to go.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
For my money, the best story in the bunch is the one about the cook, but they are all fabulous.
Posted by Deirdre (Member # 4200) on :
quote: Deirdre, why not buy a copy used from half.com?
I could, I suppose. I've had good experiences buying CDs that way. It's just really hard for me to pay money for stuff if I can't paw through it first. Also, once I decide I want something, I usually have to have it right that very second. If I have to wait even two or three days for delivery, I'll probably have lost interest by then.
<--not a patient person
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
It's been my experience, having worked a bit as a "creative" artist and knowing several other ones, that MOST creative types -- even the hacks -- tend to think of their work as being "worthwhile," and all take it semi-seriously. Danielle Steele put SOME effort into her stuff, believe it or not.
What distinguishes a snob from a man with taste, in my opinion, is not that he finds some pieces more worthwhile than others, but that he thinks it says something about him that he does. Someone with a discerning palate may not choose to eat at McDonald's, but only a snob does it because he thinks it makes him a better person.
Posted by Zalmoxis (Member # 2327) on :
Yes.
But I still maintain that the best guard against snobbery is omnivorous media consumption.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
Mmmmmm. I have to agree. Journalists are tasty. Posted by Zalmoxis (Member # 2327) on :
Irami (and anyone else who's read/ing the collection):
What's your take on "The Music Lover"?
I think I like the story -- but I may be reading it differently than others do.
It looked like it was shaping up to be a slap at both angry avant-guardists and phillistines, but instead it ends up creating sympathy and understanding for both.
Understanding for the reasons they react to music the way they do; sympathy for their inability to transcend their limited way of interacting with music.
In fact, it reminded me of Kafka's "A Hunger Artist." The pathetic thing with the hunger artist was not that his art form became unappreciated (and was never *fully* appreciated even when popular), but that the reason he didn't eat was because he couldn't:
"'Because,' said the hunger artist, lifting his head a little and speaking, with his lips pursed, as if for a kiss, right into the overseer's ear, so that no syllable might be lost, 'because I couldn't find the food I liked. If I had found it, believe me, I should have made no fuss and stuffed myself like you or anyone else.'"
I'll have to track down the Thomas Mann story Gardner references and see what he borrowed from it.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Evil]](graemlins/evil.gif)