Unlikely

The best work of American fiction in the last 25 years is Toni Morrison's Beloved.

So saith the New York Times.

Unlikely.

It's unlikely that most of the best fiction books of the last 25 years happened to be written by the most overrated novelists of the last 50 years.  Morrison, Updike, Roth, Cormac McCarthy, and Richard Ford.

It's unlikely that most of the best books of the last 25 years were written by authors past their primes, considering that throughout the history of the novel everywhere the best novelists wrote their best books when they were in their 40s.

It's unlikely that the only contenders for best book of the last 25 years written by authors who were young when they wrote them were written at the very beginning of the last 25 years.  Which is another way of saying:

It's unlikely that none of the best books of the last 25 years was written in the last 15 years by a writer under the age of 40.

It's unlikely that The Known World by Edward P. Jones belongs on the list and his far superior collection of short stories, Lost in the City, doesn't.

It's unlikely that any list of the best fiction of any time period longer than the last 12 months would include the names Denis Johnson and Mark Helpren.

It's unlikely that a list of the best American fiction of the last 25 years would not include any of these names:  Thomas Pynchon, Robert Stone, T.C. Boyle, Russell Banks, Richard Russo, Jane Smiley, William Kennedy, Elmore Leonard, Thomas Berger, Richard Powers, Tom Robbins, Gail Godwin.

It's unlikely that the best work of fiction of the last 25 years could be chosen by 125 judges that include so many New Yorker-approved middlers and writers who were considered hot stuff at the beginnings of their careers 15 and 20 years ago but who haven't written anything to justify their early reputations since.

It's unlikely that the best work of fiction could be identified by asking those 125 people for their number one choice with the winners being the books that got the most number of votes so that the best work of American fiction is declared the best work of American fiction because it was named by 15 out 125 judges.  And for all we know it was named by the 15 stupidest or most intellectually dishonest people among the judges.

It's unlikely that if the editors had come up with any other way of deciding I'd have had respectful things to say about that process or the list of books it produced.

It's unlikely that anybody will care about this list 10 days from now, let alone 25 years from now when somebody gets the idea to do another one.

But!

It's very likely that someone will now ask:  So why bother to post about it, Lance?

Whenever I get all worked up over one of these Best Of lists, either here on in conversations in real life, some very reasonable person will pipe up to point out, reasonably, that the purpose of these lists isn't really to make sound artistic judgments, it's to stir up some controversy that will draw attention to the people who put together the list, so why do I let it get me?

To stir up controversy and draw attention to myself!  Why else?

But I do have a few things to say that matter to me as an actual reader and lover of American fiction.

Given the way the list was put together, I'd rather know which books got only two or three votes.  I think that would make a more interesting reading list.  What we have here are the usual suspects plus John Kennedy Toole.  I've read them all.

In the last 25 years there must have been dozens of excellent novels and collections of short stories I never heard of, let alone had the chance to read.

As for my thinking that it's unlikely that Toni Morrison's Beloved is the best work of American fiction from the last 25 years, well, it's unlikely that any book you could name is the best, just as it's unlikely that the lottery ticket you just bought is the million dollar winner.  Somebody's bought the winning ticket, though, and somebody's written the best book.  Could have been Morrison and it could be that book.

I don't happen to like her work much.  I loved Song of Solomon, but that was the first of Morrison's novels I read, and I think it set up expectations in me that none of her other books have met.  I keep thinking she should be one kind of writer, and she keeps insisting on being something else.

But even if it's true that Beloved is the best it is not proven by what A.O. Scott says proves it is.  Scott calls Beloved the expected winner---I don't know who expected it.  Him, I guess.  I sure didn't.---and writes:

Any other outcome would have been startling, since Morrison's novel has inserted itself into the American canon more completely than any of its potential rivals. With remarkable speed, "Beloved" has, less than 20 years after its publication, become a staple of the college literary curriculum, which is to say a classic.

Look, you don't have to be David Horowitz to believe that a book's inclusion on college reading lists is no measure of its real literary merit.

Professors choose books for lots of reasons on top of or even despite how important and excellent they might be.  Some of those reasons include readability, time constraints---short novels by novelists who usually wrote long novels are a regular feature of college reading lists because it's easier to get through The Death of Ivan Ilych than War and Peace in a few class periods---the professors' own familiarity with the book, the place the book holds in the literary history---cf. Uncle Tom's Cabin---and, gasp!, politics---cf. Uncle Tom's Cabin.

Some book---maybe several---of Toni Morrison's belong on the reading lists for any of a number of survey courses.   There are, or there should be, whole courses devoted to her work, like courses devoted to other important authors.  But Beloved is on the reading lists for a whole lot of classes because it provides excuses for discussions that go beyond questions of artistic achievement and literary technique.

A classic is something that people besides college professors and their trapped students read.

Which may be why Beloved is a classic.  Beloved may be the best work of American Fiction in the last 25 years.  I didn't like it, but I don't like Updike's stuff much either or Cormac McCarthy's or Raymond Carver's or Denis Johnson's.  I didn't like Roth's The Plot Against America, and Don Delillo's Libra lost me about half way through.

What do you like, Lance? I hear you ask.

In fact, the best work of American fiction I've read that was published in the last 25 years was Edward P. Jones' Lost in the City.  I really think it is the American Dubliners.

Close second is Russell Banks' Continental Drift, my vote for the best novel of the last generation.  It would make my list for best novel since World War II too.  Heck, it would be on my list of Best American Novels ever.

Honorable mentions:

Ironweed by William Kennedy.

Mohawk by Richard Russo.

A Flag for Sunrise by Robert Stone.

Rounds by Frederick Busch.

The Mosquito Coast by Paul Theroux.

The Gold Bug Variations by Richard Powers.

Cryptonomicon by Neal Stephenson.

The Voice of the Butterfly by John Nichols.

Overhead in a Balloon by Mavis Gallant.

Father Melancholy's Daughter by Gail Godwin.

Your turn.
___________________

Other counties heard from:  Rob Farley is pretty well satisified with the list.  But he likes McCarthy.  Jedmunds, however, hates it and everything it stands for.

Comments

[Rasselas]

I have to say that McCarthy's Blood Meridian is one of the most astonishing books I have ever read, and I generally try to avoid books written by people who are still alive, unless they're genuine, sincere trash, because the publicity and entertainment news cycles suck the life out of them before they even hit the shelves. Sadly, I've never found his other books attractive.

[Helmut]

What about this fella William Vollmann? Haven't read him, but there's lots of noise about his superbitude.

I'll just return curmudgeonly to my Cervantes now. Maybe the tale of the asses.

[Todd]

Nice call on The Gold Bug Variations. It was brilliant.

FWIW, Thom Jones' collection of short stories The Pugilist at Rest still resonates after many years.

I'll pick up Lost in the City for sure (but what about the 57 other books waiting in my pile?).

[Shakespeare's Sister]

Hmm. I consider Beloved, well, beloved, in no small part because it is so peculiar and unconventional--the same reason that lots of people who typically share my taste in literature didn't enjoy it. A strong appeal to wide general audience shouldn't be the only requisite qualification for a work of fiction to be considered one of the best, or else The Da Vinci Code would have topped the list. (Insert your own The Da Vinci Code is fiction? joke here.) Nonetheless, it occurs to me that maybe even if it's not the only qualification, it ought to be one of them. It pains me a bit to say that, because it sounds like I'm endorsing conformity and formula, but there are unusual, quirky books that have had wider appeal. (See: Irving, John.)

I don't know if it it counts, since Jeffrey Eugenides currently resides in Berlin, but I'd probably give my vote to Middlesex. Or maybe Michael Chabon's The Amazing Adventures of Kavalier & Clay. Or Donna Tartt's The Secret History. Or Michael Cunningham's A Home at the End of the World. Or some other book that probably no one else would mention.

[Kate Marie]

Wow, Don Delillo and Philip Roth are *way* over-represented on that list, though I think Underworld and American Pastoral are both fine novels. In fact, if I were a professional writer, and you'd asked me what work in the last 25 years that I wished I myself had written, I may have chosen the prologue to Underworld.

. . . Or Gilead, which is actually my nomination for the best American novel of the last twenty five years.

Shakespeare's Sister, I loved The Amazing Adventures of Kavalier & Clay.

I'm in agreement with Lance about Toni Morrison -- and Song of Solomon is defintely her best novel.

[Tom B.]

William Vollmann is one of the best living American writers -- I'd put FATHERS AND CROWS or THE RAINBOW STORIES in a top 25. If the Times did a nonfiction list, it would be bogus if RISING UP AND RISING DOWN, his seven-volume masterclass in the history and philosophy of violence, wasn't included.

I also have great memories of reading THE PUGILIST AT REST. Tim O'Brien's THE THINGS THEY CARRIED is one of my favorites on the Times' list -- the list has some fine stuff, but too many books by too few writers -- I'd allow only one book per writer on a list like that. The list reads as if it was put together by people who don't read widely enough. It's as if they virtually stopped reading "new" novelists about 20 years ago.

[Greg]

1. What SS and KM said above... Kavalier & Clay was the best I've read in the last 10 years.

2. Lonesome Dove (McMurtry).

[Kevin Wolf]

Don't read as much fiction as I used to; that colors my judgement, I think. I read Kavalier & Clay and despite some good scenes it didn't impress me overall. Not bad, of course, but... Maybe as a one-time hardcore comic book fan I was just too familiar with the whole set up.

The Things They Carried is absolutely brilliant.

I second Todd's mention of Thom Jones.

You're correct, Lance. These lists are idiotic at best.

[Linkmeister]

Clearly I'm a benighted heathen, as I've only read a couple of those the NYT's judges selected.

Pfui. I use Nero Wolfe's favorite expletive because when he was once told he was the greatest detective in the world he said (paraphrasing) "probably not. The greatest detective in the world might well be an uneducated member of an African tribe."

I'm with Wolfe. For all I know, the greatest work of American fiction over the past 25 years is still languishing in some editor's slush pile, or in somebody's desk drawer with 14 rejection slips attached.

[Stephen Stralka]

I like your comment about the best novelists writing their best novels in their 40s. That means that in just three years, I'm really going to be cooking.

[Kate Marie]

By the way, is that really true about novelists doing their best work in their forties? I guess it all boils down to which works count as a novelist's best. I'm trying to think of exceptions . . . what about Henry James?

[Chuck]

I like Morrison's novel quite a bit, but now find myself disagreeing with many of their choices including the overrated Updike, Roth, Cormac McCarthy, and Richard Ford (I've never understood the McCarthy cult).

Like Shakespeare's Sister, I'd put Kavaleir and Clay at the top of my list. It's a wonderful read and a joy to teach. If I ever have to teach fiction again, I'm sure that I'll find a way to put it on my syllabus.

[Chuck]

Kate, just noticed your comment. William Faulkner is clearly one exception to that rule. He was 32, I believe when he rote The Sound and the Fury and and in his late 30s when he wrote Absalom, Absalom. Granted he spent a lot of time in Hollywood in his 40s (and a lot more time drunk), but he is one exception.

[burritoboy]

Damn you all! Damn you for reminding me that I really should read more books that don't include either a semi-naked woman, a dead body or a gun (preferably all three) on the cover!

[Linkmeister]

Put down the Spillane, bb. Gently. That's right. Now back away slowly.

The last chapter of "I, the Jury" was pretty compelling, now that I think of it.

[Laura]

I thought the best of Morrison's novels was the one critics liked least: Tar Baby. I didn't care for Beloved.

My vote for the best American novel of the past 25 years (and I'm enthusiastic enough to say "best" not "favourite", even though it's all subjective blah blah) is Russell Hoban's Riddley Walker. (Hoban counts as American.) But mainly these lists make me feel guilty about not reading enough fiction...

[Holden Lewis]

When I saw the headline for that article on the Times's website, I paused before clicking on it and asked myself what I would vote for. "Blood Meridian," I said to myself, without thinking about it much, and I was surprised to see it listed third.

The first time I read a Denis Johnson story, I hated it. A fan of Johnson pushed "Jesus' Son" on me. I loved it. Thom Jones' "The Pugilist at Rest" was wonderful, too.

I wish the definition of "American" could include Alice Munro. Perhaps the Times could have added the adjective "North" to "American." I think she's the best English-language writer alive.

A.O. Scott's essay mentions that the last time a similar poll was conducted, "Invisible Man" beat out some other beloved novels, including "Lolita." In retrospect, "Lolita" would have been a more worthy choice. Fifty years from now, it's a safe bet that one of the top 22 novels on the Times's 2006 list (22 books got multiple votes) will be considered the best book published between 1980 and 2005, but it won't be "Beloved."

[The Heretik]

Tom Robbins lost me in translation. Must have been the skinny prose and all. Or maybe the life was too still with woodpecker.

[sfmike]

"American Tabloid" and "The Cold Six Thousand" by James Ellroy, the wildest political novels ever written in America. "Vineland" by Thomas Pynchon, a sweet, profound book, also about politics in America. Anything written by Samuel R. Delaney, the 1960s sci-fi author/1990s academic linguist.

And books I'm sure I haven't yet read as you've pointed out, but certainly not most of the books on the NYT's silly list. I've been meaning to read Toni Morrison for some time, so I'll start with "Song of Solomon." But first I need to read Ellison's "Invisible Man" which has one of those reputations that is fairly daunting. I WILL, however, read it.

[Gregory Thelen]

I know actual cowboys--I ran into a bull rider this afternoon in the normal courses of our lives--and I am here to tell you that Cormac McCarthy's Border trilogy is as fake as a John Wayne war movie, or Faulkner's south.
As for Invisible Man being daunting, don't believe it. Dive right in. It's as American as James Ellroy.

[Ryan]

I don't know if Lance realizes that he is stealing the over 40's bit from Ford Madox Ford. I've never read of anybody else ever thinking or talking about that, at least... I don't know if this was Ford's boasting, but he insisted that before 40 he never sought out to write a serious novel. He didn't think he would have the life experience. Then, at 40, set out and wrote The Good Soldier, which puts to shame most of what is listed in here. I'm biased, of course, but I think one should at least credit one's sources... Although I'm sure that the lowly Ford (Hemmingway's pet, they all call 'im...) doesn't warrant it when we're talking about... who?

[Mad Monk]

I'm a Pynchon nut to begin with, but I'm wondering if others found Mason & Dixon as stupendous as I did. I've got a very long plane ride coming up at the end of the month, and plan to bring along Cryptonomicon, as I hear it's in the same league.

[Ted Raicer]

I'm more a Dickens/Poe/Twain/Patrick O'Brian sort of reader of fiction (though mostly I read nonfiction). If the remainder lives up to the first volumes I'd list George R.R. Martin's fantasy epic A Song of Ice and Fire as my favorite fiction of the last 25 years. ("Best" in this context can only mean "favorite.")

[sfmike]

Dear Mad Monk: I've found Pynchon's "Mason & Dixon" hard to get started on (I still haven't even gotten as far as Africa), but you're the second person I would trust who found it "stupendous" so I'll try again. And thanks, Mr. Thelen, I'll begin "Invisible Man" as soon as I stop writing and start reading again.

[harry near indy]

these "best of" lists remind me of fanboy attitudes.

a fanboy is a comic book dweeb who gets into arguments such as "marvel rulz! dc sux!" and things like that. usually, those arguments are made with a passion way out of proportion to the subject matter. when you discuss which comic book publisher is better, please don't do it in anger and at the top of your voice.

i know about fanboy because i have a little bit of him in me.

lists like the one the ny times published aren't usually made for the sake of discussion; they're often made for the sake of controversy.

the best fiction? john cheever once said literature is not the super bowl.

now, if some of these critics were honest enough to say which books were their favorites, those lists would be more interesting to me.

[Lance]

Harry, what are your favorites? That's what I want to know.

Kate Marie: is that really true about novelists doing their best work in their forties? I guess it all boils down to which works count as a novelist's best. I'm trying to think of exceptions . . . what about Henry James?

KM, It depends on whether you think Portrait of a Lady is James' best or The Golden Bowl is. What's your vote?

Ryan: I don't know if Lance realizes that he is stealing the over 40's bit from Ford Madox Ford... but I think one should at least credit one's sources...

Actually, Ryan it was a professor back in college who first pointed that out to me, and I've read it and heard it a dozen times since. Maybe one time it was Ford. But it's not a particularly original observation as it's an obvious deduction after you've read the biographies of a lot of writers. The same goes for poets too. Robert Frost said his head was full of junk until he was about 36.

[daveminnj]

i certainly agree with sfmike about james
elroy- american tabloid and the cold 6000 as
well are brutal alternate american histories-gore vidal transmuted through nick tosches.
but you cannot omit the la quartet-black dahlia, the big nowhere, la confidential and white jazz. they're too great to be left off the list.

[Ryan]

I'll give you that you heard it anywhere, or even that it is obvious...

I don't know if most writers think it is obvious. Hemmingway wrote drunken crap at 50 and James doddered off into insensible senility not soon after. I think there are a fair amount of writers who think one thing and a fair amount who know the other. I've only heard that particular observation described clearly and underlined (as in the prefaces to many of his books) by Ford. If it is an ongoing meme from pre-John the Baptist times I think you'd have to tell Byron, Swinburne, Keats and every pre-1900 poet out there when they produced their best work.

I think if you'd ever tried to waddle through the Cantos of Ezra Pound, you'd know when his best work was produced. As with Joyce...

My guess is that it depends. Some writers are craftsmen, some are eulogists or emotional spouters or whatever you want to call it. To develop the craft, it takes, as with the Celtic poets, a very long number of years to perfect the craft. For the emotionalists, blast it!!!, fill the page with what you feel or what you see or what you experience. Each works in different ways for some.

Ford himself wrote some amazing stuff before he was forty. He only considered five of his works to be worthy to be considered literature. But that is how he defined it, and, as far as I know, the only person to put that particular idea (that you can't write serious fiction or serious literature until you are 40) into print. Perhaps the meme latches on. I would guess that Robert Frost was in no small way influenced by Ford (who couldn't be, in the early 20th century? He gave voice to all of the avant-garde of the entire era.).

My only beef is that there is a lot of cultural influence that comes from one man who never gets any credit for it. I don't know what it is. He's too hard... but not hard enough as Joyce to appeal to the idiot intellectuals. He's sad, I think, that's all... But, then again, most of us are pretty sad too, so give it what you will...

[Lance]

Ryan,

I don't think Ford is in danger of being forgotten. For one thing, he's always going to take up a chapter or three in any biography of Joseph Conrad. And there's even a blogger who's named his webpage in honor of the guy.

[mac macgillicuddy]

"To develop the craft, it takes, as with the Celtic poets, a very long number of years to perfect the craft."

It was Horace who said, "Let your literary compositions be kept from the public eye for nine years at least."

Centuries later, Alexander Pope agreed with this.

The premise being that if what one writes can stand the test of a decade of time, and still be relevant, then it can also be said to have importance.

Obviously different rules apply to a letter from college requesting money.

[Ryan]

Ah, but you haven't seen my hit list...

I'm sure it will spike for a day after that reference (so thanks, wow! hits!), but I don't think Ford will gain any exposure over most of the twaddle I write...

[harry near indy]

thomas mann was one exception to the rule. he finished the confessions of felix krull, confidence man, when he was in his late 70s. i enjoyed it.

[Walter]

Lance, I love Mavis Gallant, too. But isn't she Canadian? (If we can include the Canadians, though, I'll put Alice Munro's Open Secrets at the top of my list and dare anyone to name a better collection of short stories since 1990.)

[Scott]

I need to post myself, but apart from Roth being so not underrated your complaints seem solid to me. Oddly, I couldn't finish Beloved but like Song of Solomon too...

[burritoboy]

"James doddered off into insensible senility not soon after"

Huh? He wrote What Maisie Knew at 54, The Wings of the Dove at 58 and The Outcry (one of my favorites) at 67. It's true his productivity did decline after around 1910, but he was well into his sixties by then.

[burritoboy]

Ok, I did actually have a suggestion:

Dean Bakopoulos' Please Don't Come Back from the Moon

It's some really great shit about what happens when de-industrialization hits (wow, an American novelist who actually pays any attention to the fact that people have jobs!).

[manan]

I really don't like Toni Morrison. Delillo, McCarthy, Roth are great writers though. Updike is a brilliant stylist, but he has nothing to say.

I'd say McCarthy's 'Blood Meridian' was the best American novel of the last 25 years. Fake, yes, but fiction is fake. Anyway, fake or not, its certainly got great language. And a healthy understanding of evil.

'Underworld' was very good too. Messy, not as sharp as 'White Noise', but in the end, brilliant. I found Roth's 'The Human Stain' very good too.

Richard Powers cannot write. He'd do better to stick to equations. Richard Ford, on the oter hand, is really good. Then you have Franzen, Eggers, Foster Wallace and that's a bunch I'm not particularly familiar with. David Foster Wallace seems to be compared to Thomas Pynchon a lot.

I read a little of 'Vineland', but decided that if I wanted to read Pynchon, I might as well read Gravity's Rainbow one more time. And that's all the Pynchon I read. 'Mason and Dixon' seemed like fun, what with the talking dog and all that, but I didn't have it in me to read another 700 pages of Thomas Pynchon.

[John]

Well, it has been refreshing to stumble onto this page, especially after typing in "Top American Novels", and yes, seeing all this material I had not read, daunting and expected. Looking for the next ultimate classic for a sophisticated high School bunch. I have been reading international stuff lately,such as, Haruki Murakami and Orhan Pahuk. Any suggestions for giving hope to the young, blasting their minds open without resorting to the excesses of a culture spinning out of control.........

[brad]

Were they really not going to jump at the opportunity to give it to a non-white female? This is the literary establishment we're talking about here. Ethnic, ethnic, ethnic. Ride that white guilt/pat yourself on the back for being p.c. mechanism until its legs are broken. If a red headed man from Nebraska named Bill Owens wrote 'Beloved' it's buried in a slush pile to this day. A lot of people don't get anything out of McCarthy because he's just a pure storyteller with nothing to do with the ethnic bandwagon and the cultural sensitivity masturbation doesn't have any place in it. That's why a lot of people see no use for it.