With Nothing of Interest to Write, Journalist Takes Easy Shot At Joyce Carol Oates
Posted by Joe | March 24th, 2009 | 2 Comments »
I know he doesn’t mean to do it. But struggling to find a thread to yank out and call it a story, Chauncey Mabe does the very same thing he accuses other journalists of doing in his article “Prolific Joyce Carol Oates struggles to write through year of loss” at the Sun-Sentinel. Mabe says “For at least 20 years, Oates has received increasingly irritable sniping from critics bewildered and annoyed by her almost superhuman productivity,” which is true; Oates has written over 1000 novels at last count, and might soon top 10,000 short stories. Maybe I’m exaggerating a bit, but this lady has written a lot and has been a famous author for over 40 years. So if you’re coming down on other journalists for hating on Joyce for writing a lot, why do you, Mr . Mabe, feel that it’s important to point out that she’s slowed down? Is it not enough to say that, since the death of her husband and because of the mere fact that she’s 70, she’s starting to ease off the two or three novels a year track she was plodding? Maybe it’s an attempt to break the story to the haters so they can all cross their arms smugly and say, “See, I knew she couldn’t keep it up.” I don’t really blame Chauncey Mabe, though. I blame this modern journalism that feels like all reporting has to have some sensationalist accent or no one will read it. The article I’ve linked is a fine article; it’s basically a biography of Joyce Carol Oates, a little plug for some conference she was at this last weekend (my finding of this article is a little tardy), and an effort to bring the reader up to speed on Oates’ life. But all this article says that has any worth, that is, all that is written in it that hasn’t been written before, is that her writing is slowing down because her husband died and she’s at a conference.
Maybe the article was just an excuse to interview Joyce Carol Oates. And why not? If Mabe told me that he interviewed Oates as a notch on his belt, I would be fine with that. But take out all the rehashed biographical details of this acclaimed writer, and you get little more than “her husband died, she’s writing less, and she’s at this conference.” I guess I question the conceit of this article. What’s the point? If the reason for the article, as I’m sure was pitched to Oates, was her being at this conference, why isn’t the conference mentioned more than once? I don’t know what the Literary Feast conference is at Nova Southeastern University. But the article states “Oates headlines a distinguished and varied slate of authors” at the conference. Who are these other writers? What’s the reason for the conference? What is Oates doing there?
I’m just confused. I’ve read biographical articles on Oates before; I’m sure hundreds have been written. Yes, she wrote “Where Are You Going, Where Have You Been?” which was based on the Bob Dylan song. Great. So why am I reading another article about all the same old stuff?
I hope the reason isn’t laziness but I’m inclined to think otherwise.
Related posts:
- Stewart Lee Takes on Modern Publishing
- What's happening to Playboy?
- Getting Back On Task: How To Write Again
- Depressing Book Statistics On College Readers
- So You're Thinking About Getting Your MFA in Writing?
Tags: bob dylan, chauncey mabe, florida, joyce carol oates, literary feast, nova southeastern university, sun-sentinel
March 29th, 2009 at 12:55 pm
Did you think to do a little research into the paper’s archives? Considering that Chauncey Mabe wrote an article about the Literary Feast that was published the exact same day as the Oates interview, it would have been redundant to go into it again.
The biographical info is for people who don’t know Oates very well, and may interest readers enough to check out the Literary Feast.
I think he feels it’s important to point out that she’s slowed down in productivity because it shows how (arguably) the two greatest passions in her life–writing and her husband–have/had a complex relationship with one another. And even if she only shared with him one or two sentences of how her husband’s death is affecting her–does that not make for interesting news?
Also, he may have even thought, “everyone knows Joyce Carol Oates; what am I going to ask her that hasn’t already been asked before?” At least he’s asking her about something timely, and not “What was it like to win the National Book Award nearly 40 years ago?”
March 29th, 2009 at 1:23 pm
Hi Kristin. Thanks a lot for your comment.
I don’t think it’s incumbent on me to read every article in a paper to analyze one story. An article should stand on its own merit. If there was an article about the Literary Feast and an article about Joyce Carol Oates, both appearing in the same edition, why were they not just combined into one article? I think that would be, ultimately, a more satisfying article. That way, I could be informed of the minor news about Oates, the fact that she’s at the Literary Feast, and what the Literary Feast is. I think an article like the one in question is just filler and maybe even takes for granted what its readership already knows; it underestimates the knowledge of its readership. You say that it would have been redundant for the writer to compose an article about Oates and the Literary Feast. I say its redundant to write the Oates article at all.
I don’t think it makes interesting news to point out that her writing has slowed down over the past year, especially when the majority of the article is a rehashed biography. I think it would, however, be interesting news to write an interview on what you’ve proposed: namely, the complex relationship between Oates’ work and her husband. But you’d have to get Oates to agree to such an in-depth interview and I know it would be hard to accomplish.
I don’t mind that Chauncey Mabe interviewed Oates, and I’m sure he did ask himself what he could ask her that hasn’t already been asked. But what’s the point in doing this article if not to be simply a notch in one’s interviewing belt? Like I mentioned in my post about it, I’m fine with that. But it doesn’t make interesting news unfortunately.
I’m very unhappy with journalism these days and I think the economic crisis and the fact that many newspapers are folding should demonstrate to journalists that it’s important to provide worthwhile content if you want to keep your job. I’m not a journalist so I don’t pretend to know everything about it, but I am a reader, hopefully an astute reader, and I think my opinions are valid. I just want a little more, that’s all. If journalists just keep rehashing old news, not providing valuable content, and take the easy route, they may soon find themselves out of work in this environment. I’m sorry if that hurts, but it’s the truth. With the internet, your readership is now worldwide and I think newspapers need to start treating it that way.
Again, thank you for your comment. I hope I adequately explained my opinion. If not, let me know.