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.