Cormac McCarthy v. Epic Novel
Posted by Joe | November 27th, 2009 | 5 Comments »
About a week ago Cormac McCarthy, surprisingly promoting the new film adaptation of his Pulitzer Prize-winning novel The Road, did an interview with John Jurgensen for the Wall Street Journal. Entitled “Hollywood’s Favorite Cowboy,” Jurgensen questions McCarthy about the post-apocalyptic novel, the difference between a novel and film, and the role having a young child plays in the author’s creative process. What I found most interesting about the interview, however, is McCarthy’s opinion of longer novels in the face of modern readers:
WSJ: Does this issue of length apply to books, too? Is a 1,000-page book somehow too much?
CM: For modern readers, yeah. People apparently only read mystery stories of any length. With mysteries, the longer the better and people will read any damn thing. But the indulgent, 800-page books that were written a hundred years ago are just not going to be written anymore and people need to get used to that. If you think you’re going to write something like “The Brothers Karamazov” or “Moby-Dick,” go ahead. Nobody will read it. I don’t care how good it is, or how smart the readers are. Their intentions, their brains are different.
I was a bit taken aback by this idea. I find as I get older I am more interested in reading longer novels and find many shorter novels I read, and short stories for that matter, to be woefully underdeveloped and lacking. That’s not to say this is the case for all shorter works, and maybe this is one of the reasons the novella is coming back, but do modern readers have such an awful attention span that the 1000 page novel is dead? Is this just a bitter McCarthy bemoaning the state of readership because his longer novels were barely noticed by the general public but his very short and most recent novel won the Pulitzer? I really don’t know what to think. Have we as a culture gotten so dulled by the immediacy that technology has brought us, we no longer have the attention to absorb longer works? Maybe we’re too busy playing with our smartphones to look up and read something that takes a little time.
I’m inclined to think McCarthy is wrong. I think the more appropriate way to look at it is that it’s harder to publish such long novels due to all the money involved; it’s more expensive to publish a 1000 page book and if the perception is that readers won’t read it, no publisher will take a chance. However, with e-readers gaining prominence the cost barrier will no longer be an issue. Will we see epic novels making a comeback? Did they ever go away? What’s so prohibitive or daunting about 1000 pages?
Related posts:
- Famous Former Cocaine and NyQuil Addict to Publish Epic 1000+ Page Novel
- With Nothing of Interest to Write, Journalist Takes Easy Shot At Joyce Carol Oates
Tags: cormac mccarthy, epic novel, john jurgensen, modern readers, novel to film, novella, pulitzer prize, the road, Wall Street Journal
November 27th, 2009 at 2:32 pm
I want to read longer novels. But at this point in my life with a career and a child, it’s just an impossibility. I actually look forward to the day when my son goes off to school and I’ll have longer then twenty minute stretches to read and possibly actually be able to finish a lengthy novel in less than three months.
November 27th, 2009 at 8:53 pm
I can understand that, Nikki. Perhaps it’s not a matter of attention span and more a matter of life getting in the way. Hell, I’m sure a lot of us wouldn’t mind spending our entire days reading… but there are other responsibilities to which we must attend. I’ve found a new place to read recently — the bus! Usually when I’m on public transit I just listen to music; I’ve never thought I could be the person who simultaneously listens to music and reads, but that is who I’ve become. I forced myself to do it and it’s added an hour of reading to my day. This new development is actually persuading me to look into e-readers. I’m weighing my options, and the Barnes & Noble Nook is really piquing my interest. Regardless, maybe there’s a place in your life you never thought you would be able to read in and discovering that place could help you tackle a big book you’ve been waiting to jump on. I’m really happy I discovered the bus as a place to read. My morning commute is much better now and I’m flying through books.
November 28th, 2009 at 12:45 pm
it’s not really more expensive to publish a 1000 page novel vs. a 200 pager but i can say with certainty that publishers are wary of putting out a huge book. the reasons for that are many and varied. it comes down to a delicious combination of a publishing industry that is, necessarily so, concerned with selling as many books as possible, a readership that simply doesn’t spend as much time reading as it used to, and, as a result of that, a culture of writers (americans. world literature does not adhere to this and is producing epic after epic) who don’t have the literary context to write most anything except memoirs. the contemporary novel in a lot of ways has become a pastiche of what the novel used to be. it’s just not the way we tell stories anymore so a lot of contemporary american novels end up being hyper self aware. this acute self awareness is a symptom of our culture and mirrors pretty damn well the way most westerners view their own lives. it makes perfect sense that the literature of our place and time would veer away from the epic.
November 30th, 2009 at 6:44 pm
I think it depends on the writer. If the book is really that good, I’ll read it for 1,000 pages. That said, most books really aren’t all that great, and I think the majority of really long ones could be pared down…Just a bit!
February 22nd, 2010 at 1:27 pm
Do a search on literary agents and find out how many of them will even look at a 1000-page manuscript and there is your answer. It’s not good, but that’s it. These agents, these editors (who famously don’t even really “edit” anymore), these publishers, the whole system is all messed up. They’ve gone bad and as a result nothing good is getting in and they’re taking the whole thing down with them. For shame.