This essay made me think of one of my own pet theories. I am familiar with Ocean Vuong, but have not read him (and this essay makes it less likely that I ever will). But when reading those excerpts of his text, what struck me was not necessarily the poor quality of writing - as a stylist, he seems no less objectionable than other contemporary writers who go for Proustian-metaphor overload (Javier Marias, for example, did this, and I don't mind his novels). Instead, what bothered me with the passages you highlighted is that the writing did not appear to be "grounded" in anything substantial. When I think back to "Dream of Red Chambers," the technical writing (especially in translation) was not necessarily the best. But Cao Xueqin was deeply grounded in Taoist and Buddhist precepts, such that even rather banal metaphors were interesting for me to read because of the connection to a deep and rich body of knowledge. When I think of a few contemporary writers I admire (Coetzee, Ishiguro, Antonio Muñoz Molina), they are able to permeate their novels with a strong dose of humanism that makes them interesting and worthwhile to read. Molina in particular seems like he wrote a novel involving a quasi-similar theme in his novel "Sepharad." But Molina infused that novel with something that Vuong seems to lack. I suppose if one spends their entire time marinating in contemporary culture, something gets lost. And not just for PoC writers - I despise David Foster Wallace for more-or-less the same reason.
I agree. It's the choice between a metaphor and a symbol. A metaphor is something you create; a symbol is something you use, like Holden's hunting cap. If it'd just been a red baseball cap with a butterfly on it, a butterfly that's free and evanescent like his spirit (or so the text tells us), it would've been meaningless, because the butterfly-cap isn't a thing. The monarch migration IS a symbol in our culture, but it's overexplained, as if it's not something we would know about, so it's deprived of its meaning. Also, it's a novel, so he could've just easily put actual monarch butterflies into the book and made them part of the story.
There’s so much that’s good here, I like the bits about bad writing line by line and especially the “trans Thomas chatterton Williams” point but honestly my main takeaway was “she’s read Barth!!”
Lol I love old JB. I remember reading lost in the fun house and chimera and being totally convinced that the only thing left was the literature of exhaustion. Then about a week passed and I got over it.
He’s one of my favorites too! Imo the best ones are are Floating Opera through Sot-Weed, Lost in the Funhouse I liked but found a bit much too. I don’t necessarily think he’s *wrong* about the literature of exhaustion, but I’m very skeptical of that kind of spheres inside spheres eye examining itself metafiction that LOTF and Chimera do, and that DFW seemingly got stuck doing.
This essay made me think of one of my own pet theories. I am familiar with Ocean Vuong, but have not read him (and this essay makes it less likely that I ever will). But when reading those excerpts of his text, what struck me was not necessarily the poor quality of writing - as a stylist, he seems no less objectionable than other contemporary writers who go for Proustian-metaphor overload (Javier Marias, for example, did this, and I don't mind his novels). Instead, what bothered me with the passages you highlighted is that the writing did not appear to be "grounded" in anything substantial. When I think back to "Dream of Red Chambers," the technical writing (especially in translation) was not necessarily the best. But Cao Xueqin was deeply grounded in Taoist and Buddhist precepts, such that even rather banal metaphors were interesting for me to read because of the connection to a deep and rich body of knowledge. When I think of a few contemporary writers I admire (Coetzee, Ishiguro, Antonio Muñoz Molina), they are able to permeate their novels with a strong dose of humanism that makes them interesting and worthwhile to read. Molina in particular seems like he wrote a novel involving a quasi-similar theme in his novel "Sepharad." But Molina infused that novel with something that Vuong seems to lack. I suppose if one spends their entire time marinating in contemporary culture, something gets lost. And not just for PoC writers - I despise David Foster Wallace for more-or-less the same reason.
I agree. It's the choice between a metaphor and a symbol. A metaphor is something you create; a symbol is something you use, like Holden's hunting cap. If it'd just been a red baseball cap with a butterfly on it, a butterfly that's free and evanescent like his spirit (or so the text tells us), it would've been meaningless, because the butterfly-cap isn't a thing. The monarch migration IS a symbol in our culture, but it's overexplained, as if it's not something we would know about, so it's deprived of its meaning. Also, it's a novel, so he could've just easily put actual monarch butterflies into the book and made them part of the story.
There’s so much that’s good here, I like the bits about bad writing line by line and especially the “trans Thomas chatterton Williams” point but honestly my main takeaway was “she’s read Barth!!”
Lol I love old JB. I remember reading lost in the fun house and chimera and being totally convinced that the only thing left was the literature of exhaustion. Then about a week passed and I got over it.
He’s one of my favorites too! Imo the best ones are are Floating Opera through Sot-Weed, Lost in the Funhouse I liked but found a bit much too. I don’t necessarily think he’s *wrong* about the literature of exhaustion, but I’m very skeptical of that kind of spheres inside spheres eye examining itself metafiction that LOTF and Chimera do, and that DFW seemingly got stuck doing.
Lol yes I'm always like can you please just get on with telling the story?