"I thought this sort of book - the sober retelling of real-life stories, usually written by men, often sports-related - existed only so that brothers-in-law would have something to open on Christmas morning."
Gorgeous line.
I am a (relatively) long-time reader of New Journalism -- and finding it was a revelation to me. Fits my natural writing style, I think.
I got into a discussion once about whether or not New Journalism was the father of Creative Non-fiction. I'm not sure I won the argument, but I didn't lose it -- I still believe this now-popular form owes a lot to those first New York writers...
Ah thank you Graham! I must admit I’ve never read much Mailer - but I really like Wolfe. (I saw one piece saying Hannah Arendt was New Journalism too but that seems odd to me - although I couldn’t succinctly say why.) The lineage from that to the modern stuff seems fairly obvious to me - what was the argument against?
I can't remember precisely what the argument was, but if I remember right, it felt something like disavowing a crazy uncle, "It might be true we're related, but we don't talk about it..."
...which is why I say I didn't lose. I should mention that this discussion was with a creative non-fiction writer, so they knew what they were talking about. And maybe had more of their identity as a writer to win/lose in the argument than I did.
One of the things about New Journalism is that it's so undefinable -- or at least, no one's quite done it yet. It's very much a "Brat Pack" argument in my mind. Is John Cusack in the Brat Pack, even if he played a minor role in Sixteen Candles? What about Jon Cryer? The line is so thin and arbitrary that I think it only exists because people want it to exist. (For example, Nora Ephron didn't make the cut in Tom Wolfe's book, "The New Journalism", but there are many including myself who would argue she belongs firmly in the genre...) Then, when you flash forward 30 years or so, that line between literary styles of the day becomes even more muddled. Krakauer springs to mind.
So, is the New Journalism creative non-fiction? A forebearer? A sub-set? I'd say all of the above, but I'll listen to anyone who disagrees.
Ah interesting! I wonder whether this goes back to the point I outlined - that the entire genre (‘non-fiction’) is oddly, negatively defined. Which honestly probably doesn’t matter, unless writing non-fiction is your bag. But it is interesting. I wonder why anyone would want to disavow Wolfe. (I would say ‘no’ to Cusack in the Brat Pack, purely because I didn’t watch any of his films at the time.)
Yes, isn't it interesting that "truth" is labelled "not untruth". I wonder if it's the way the modern publishing world rolled out -- stories, which were published most, were "fiction", and the few that were true became a small subset of books called "non-fiction"?
As for disavowing Wolfe -- I think it was more a sense of the genre had evolved. Also, Wolfe et al. probably seemed Ivory Tower while CNF is for the masses... lol
I'd agree with you about Cusack -- I did watch his movies, and thinking back to Better Off Dead still makes me laugh. He bucked the mould only by the movies he starred in. Matthew Broderick, same thing. Jon Cryer though -- I'd put him in The Pack.
I think that was a part of what was surprising to me, about how much I enjoyed it: a lot of what I loved about it was its emotional caution and deeply analytical thinking, as well as descriptions of physical stuff that I would just never, ever be able to do or even really (in real life) be that interested in. None of which is uniquely male of course but probably very classically masculine.
Yes. In a boys own adventure way I think. It wasn’t an exclusively male story of course. Some very significant female characters in the book. I agree with you, I read a lot about Arctic and Antarctic expeditions-Worst Journey In The World type etc. But I can’t stand the least chill. Same for the maritime stuff. Armchair explorer I guess.
Oh yes - Into Thin Air sent me off onto a long spree of reading about Arctic exploration (Shackleton, bloody HELL, although I know Antarctic) and other climbing stories (Into The Void is one of the most frightening things I’ve ever read). I think wanting to explore things from the comfort of the armchair is very valid. God knows no sane person would want me on a mountain with them, I can barely manage the Pembrokeshire Coastal Path (I laughed, re-reading Into Thin Air, at Krakauer disparaging people who’d climbed Ben Nevis and Snowdon: ‘little more than vigorous walking’)
In his defence, my parents ‘accidentally’ climbed Snowdon, my dad still in his suit trousers. Having just gone out for a stroll, they ended up at the summit. I guess there is an easy path? Either that or this is an urban myth started by my parents 🤔 If so, I’m not sure I want to be disabused. It’s a charming story.
Ha ha you’re infinitely more adventurous than me. Tootling around Camden is my limit. At the risk of a recommendation, have you read In The Heart of the Sea?
Ha. Why do I get the feeling you have an example in mind ;-) I can’t quite shake off the guilt I feel at my enjoyment of authors like Krakauer and Lewis - like I’m eating sweets when I should be eating vegetables.
Yes, the peddlers of pretense would like you to think that. 😀 Just because something's unreadable doesn't make it clever, and a bit of thoughtful journalism in accessible prose is far superior to most of the bilge on the awards lists these days.
"I thought this sort of book - the sober retelling of real-life stories, usually written by men, often sports-related - existed only so that brothers-in-law would have something to open on Christmas morning."
Gorgeous line.
I am a (relatively) long-time reader of New Journalism -- and finding it was a revelation to me. Fits my natural writing style, I think.
I got into a discussion once about whether or not New Journalism was the father of Creative Non-fiction. I'm not sure I won the argument, but I didn't lose it -- I still believe this now-popular form owes a lot to those first New York writers...
Ah thank you Graham! I must admit I’ve never read much Mailer - but I really like Wolfe. (I saw one piece saying Hannah Arendt was New Journalism too but that seems odd to me - although I couldn’t succinctly say why.) The lineage from that to the modern stuff seems fairly obvious to me - what was the argument against?
I can't remember precisely what the argument was, but if I remember right, it felt something like disavowing a crazy uncle, "It might be true we're related, but we don't talk about it..."
...which is why I say I didn't lose. I should mention that this discussion was with a creative non-fiction writer, so they knew what they were talking about. And maybe had more of their identity as a writer to win/lose in the argument than I did.
One of the things about New Journalism is that it's so undefinable -- or at least, no one's quite done it yet. It's very much a "Brat Pack" argument in my mind. Is John Cusack in the Brat Pack, even if he played a minor role in Sixteen Candles? What about Jon Cryer? The line is so thin and arbitrary that I think it only exists because people want it to exist. (For example, Nora Ephron didn't make the cut in Tom Wolfe's book, "The New Journalism", but there are many including myself who would argue she belongs firmly in the genre...) Then, when you flash forward 30 years or so, that line between literary styles of the day becomes even more muddled. Krakauer springs to mind.
So, is the New Journalism creative non-fiction? A forebearer? A sub-set? I'd say all of the above, but I'll listen to anyone who disagrees.
Ah interesting! I wonder whether this goes back to the point I outlined - that the entire genre (‘non-fiction’) is oddly, negatively defined. Which honestly probably doesn’t matter, unless writing non-fiction is your bag. But it is interesting. I wonder why anyone would want to disavow Wolfe. (I would say ‘no’ to Cusack in the Brat Pack, purely because I didn’t watch any of his films at the time.)
Yes, isn't it interesting that "truth" is labelled "not untruth". I wonder if it's the way the modern publishing world rolled out -- stories, which were published most, were "fiction", and the few that were true became a small subset of books called "non-fiction"?
As for disavowing Wolfe -- I think it was more a sense of the genre had evolved. Also, Wolfe et al. probably seemed Ivory Tower while CNF is for the masses... lol
I'd agree with you about Cusack -- I did watch his movies, and thinking back to Better Off Dead still makes me laugh. He bucked the mould only by the movies he starred in. Matthew Broderick, same thing. Jon Cryer though -- I'd put him in The Pack.
Into Thin Air an amazing, affecting book. Just thinking about it brings a lump to my throat. And unashamedly masculine.
I think that was a part of what was surprising to me, about how much I enjoyed it: a lot of what I loved about it was its emotional caution and deeply analytical thinking, as well as descriptions of physical stuff that I would just never, ever be able to do or even really (in real life) be that interested in. None of which is uniquely male of course but probably very classically masculine.
Yes. In a boys own adventure way I think. It wasn’t an exclusively male story of course. Some very significant female characters in the book. I agree with you, I read a lot about Arctic and Antarctic expeditions-Worst Journey In The World type etc. But I can’t stand the least chill. Same for the maritime stuff. Armchair explorer I guess.
Oh yes - Into Thin Air sent me off onto a long spree of reading about Arctic exploration (Shackleton, bloody HELL, although I know Antarctic) and other climbing stories (Into The Void is one of the most frightening things I’ve ever read). I think wanting to explore things from the comfort of the armchair is very valid. God knows no sane person would want me on a mountain with them, I can barely manage the Pembrokeshire Coastal Path (I laughed, re-reading Into Thin Air, at Krakauer disparaging people who’d climbed Ben Nevis and Snowdon: ‘little more than vigorous walking’)
In his defence, my parents ‘accidentally’ climbed Snowdon, my dad still in his suit trousers. Having just gone out for a stroll, they ended up at the summit. I guess there is an easy path? Either that or this is an urban myth started by my parents 🤔 If so, I’m not sure I want to be disabused. It’s a charming story.
Ha! I haven’t done it but my sons have, and yes, I think it’s pretty undramatic. Although I doubt I could do it in dress shoes.
Ha ha you’re infinitely more adventurous than me. Tootling around Camden is my limit. At the risk of a recommendation, have you read In The Heart of the Sea?
I haven’t, but will add it to the list! Thank you
Thank you. For another great piece.
Writing that's intended to be edifying and enjoyed, not pretentious twaddle purchased to signal the owner's membership in the cool club. Imagine that!
Ha. Why do I get the feeling you have an example in mind ;-) I can’t quite shake off the guilt I feel at my enjoyment of authors like Krakauer and Lewis - like I’m eating sweets when I should be eating vegetables.
Yes, the peddlers of pretense would like you to think that. 😀 Just because something's unreadable doesn't make it clever, and a bit of thoughtful journalism in accessible prose is far superior to most of the bilge on the awards lists these days.