Hi, sorry I've been an intermittent poster. I'm glad to see the question of length has been raised again. I hope it isn't too hopelessly gauche to re-phrase some things I contributed back in June or July.
Tara, I'm especially fascinated by the problem of length; for the last five years I've been moderating a couple of reading groups on long novels. One of the groups is on Arno Schmidt's doorstop of a book, "Bottom's Dream." We've been reading that for almost four years now, and we're only halfway through. I think our consensus is that he wanted to write something a magnitude longer than the book he was rivaling, "Finnegans Wake." Schmidt's book had to be 10 times the length of FW, because if it had only been, say, twice as long, people would have said it was "inspired" or "influenced" by FW. It had to be a creature of a different color. I wish Lucy Ellmann's "Ducks, Newburyport" was at least 2,000 pages, for the same reason: its stream of consciousness needs to be not just slightly greater than the nearest equivalent (recently, that would be Mathias Enard; earlier, Woolf), but an order of magnitude greater.
Back in June or July I suggested Stein's "The Making of Americans" as a parallel to "Miss MacIntosh." In Stein's book the level, uniform, repetitive, nearly faceless prose resulted in a novel more famously unread than Miss MacIntosh. (Examples: E.O. Wilson said he didn't think it was possible to finish it; the first book-length monograph on it, George Moore's, didn't appear until 1998.) Stein had a modernist interest in repetition and the dismantling of grammar and reference, and in Young I think there's a romantic impetus to incantation and immersion.
So here are three tentative reasons why some books might be long:
(1) Their authors feel their novels need to be an order of magnitude larger than whatever models they had in mind, in order to overwhelm their predecessors. (Schmidt, "Finnegans Wake," "Making of Americans")
(2) Or their authors felt they needed to pass a certain mark, say 1,000 pages, to be considered alongside their models. ("Infinite Jest," "2666," "Ducks, Newburyport")
(3) Or -- and this is what I suspect for Miss MacIntosh -- length isn't really an essential property, because the novel is the result of continuous writing without concerted planning or comparison.
But if something like that is true of Miss MacIntosh, then we're justified in thinking about excerpts, or portions, or chapters, that could represent the whole in an ideal edited version.
I knew that you wouldn't resist weighing-in on Tara's post--and I'm so glad that you did!
Per your reasons #1 and #2, I would love to know what Young considered to be her models. I've referenced in a previous post her Paris Review interview in which she tells of the dream she had of Henry James looking over her shoulder as she is writing and saying that her work is a continuation of his own. Young claimed in that interview that she didn't believe this dreamed statement by James to be an accurate description of her own work. There's also her poetry, which she claimed her prose to be a continuation of, not separate from.
I would appreciate any known statements from Young on who she thought her models to be, as well as thoughts by readers as to which works, past or present, might be considered models, in addition to the very good ones Jim provides. Did Young ever acknowledge Stein's The Making of the Americans? Has anyone here read that one (more than just the first few pages--I plead guilty) and thought this a model for MMMD?
It is very nice to hear from you. Reading "Bottom's Dream" is definitely an undertaking. I know of only one person who has finished it -- Michael Orthofer from the blog The Complete Review, who I very much admire. I'm curious to hear what you make of it so far.
While I haven't read all the novels you cited, I have read some. I believe a strong case can be made for both "Infinite Jest" and "Ducks, Newburyport" each being the perfect page count, though I'm not a huge fan of the former. I read Joyce's "Ulysses" in college, and while it's also not a favorite, I admire the swing for the fences. Just not enough to pick up "Finnegan's Wake". And as Lori knows, I adore Enard's "Compass". But a hundred and twenty pages into "The Annual Banquet of the Gravedigger's Guild" I realized I wasn't equipped with the knowledge base to approach it from any kind of critical angle.
I've been thinking about your three reasons as to why some books might be long. Maybe I'm arguing semantics, but I don't entirely buy into them. What I mean is, a book is ultimately and always the length the author decides it should be. What I want to know is how and when is the decision to write a 1000+ page novel justifiable?
I believe there is a kind of covenant between a writer and his or her reader, much like there is between a filmmaker and his audience. The onus is on the writer/filmmaker to acknowledge the value of the reader's/audience's time, and to make the case as to why deserve a share of it. The bar is higher for the writer, in my humble opinion, because the ask is greater. What I'm not sure of is if the answer -- why this book gets to be 1000+ pages and that book should be cut in half -- is quantifiable. But that's something to work out in future letters. :-)
Tara and Lori, hi, thanks for the quick response! I suppose I'd say that there are two ways to understand the idea that a book is the length the author decides. On the one hand, there's the length the author is aiming for, and her reasons for it -- it's fascinating that Young thought of James, especially because he thought of all his books as one enormous project (that's in his introduction to his collected works in that London edition -- 1905?). Or, in Schmidt's case, the decision to outdo "Finnegans Wake" by an order of magnitude and not just a couple of hundred pages.
On the other hand, there's the author's control of their work. I teach in an art school, and I'm an art historian by profession, so I'm aware that many artists only understand small parts of their work. Gordon Lish is one of the literary world's best examples of someone who disbelieved authors understood or controlled their work. Pound's edits on Eliot's "Waste Land" are another example.
For that reason I am thinking mostly of the author's intentions, and of weighing them against the book's reception. I agree with Lori, it would be great to know more about who Young read, who she emulated, and what she said about other authors.
PS (sorry, long PS alert): Michael Orthofer never finished "Bottom's Dream"! I've been reading it long enough to know that anyone who says they have read it all just needs to start again and read more slowly. I know two readers, both German, who have read it carefully enough so they can explain, say, 75% of the allusions and citations. Schmidt used to say he wrote for 400 ideal readers, but our group has wondered if the number was ever that high. Hundreds, or thousands, of people have read "Finnegans Wake" in enough detail to be able to pick up a random page and explain it, but it is endless for the most serious scholars. Finn Fordham runs a reading group that does less than a page per meeting. Derrida once said that whenever someone told him they had read "Finnegans Wake" he smiled -- just because it has so many overlapping allusions.
I remember reading but would have to go hunting for the source that Young had described what was cut and why she agreed with the cuts. I couldn't get into poetry until I looked at paganism and wicca and then suddenly it clicked. Paganism also helped me understand Miss MacIntosh and her anger over calendars. I look forward to reading this again and delving into more and also the main point, which for me is exploring creativity or creativity unhindered. Young was also raised in a Christian home through her grandmother and she said in an interview when people said - devil get thee behind me she would whirl around to try and catch a look at the devil behind her!
I love your interest in creativity unhindered (and perhaps unhinged). This is what draws me to MMMD--the sheer abundant style of it all, for no reason or purpose other than she could and did! It would be fascinating to get some insight into what was cut. I consulted the text of the A. Scott Berg bio of Max Perkins which was the basis of the movie Genius--but no mention of Young and his having read a manuscript sample.
hehe unhinged is good! I will have a look and see if I can find it because she was specific about what was cut and why and agreed with it. Hopefully I'm not losing my mind though! lol
I was so happy to read your comment. I had a very similar experience to the one you described having. Maria Gabriela Llansol's The Geography of Rebels Trilogy, contains multiple layers of symbolism and dreams. I would have found it impenetrable without Benjamin Moser's extremely helpful afterword, which I recommend reading first. It explains that the author spent time in a "beguinage." These are medieval hostels (some still exist) originally built for women who did not wish to take holy orders, but wanted to live a life of religious contemplation and celibacy. After visiting one such beguinage Llansol “suddenly understood that ‘several levels of reality were deepening their roots, coexisting without any intervention of time." From that piece of information I was able to understand that the novel was populated by historical figures -- Christian mystics from various ages. It was a revelation.
Do you think Paganism is a key into Miss Macintosh?
My idea is that she hates and really complains about the change of the calendar and different historical figures input that leads to the change. It's led her to distrust Christian authority and she is also very much an outdoors person that has some extreme elements. I and several others that read the book back in 2019 were puzzled by it. When I looked into paganism you have the calendar through the 8 sabbats that follows the solstice and equinox. When I started following them it made me think of Miss M and how she complained that the change in the calendar upended the natural order. I'm rereading the novel in 2025 so hope to explore that more.
Tara & everyone,
Hi, sorry I've been an intermittent poster. I'm glad to see the question of length has been raised again. I hope it isn't too hopelessly gauche to re-phrase some things I contributed back in June or July.
Tara, I'm especially fascinated by the problem of length; for the last five years I've been moderating a couple of reading groups on long novels. One of the groups is on Arno Schmidt's doorstop of a book, "Bottom's Dream." We've been reading that for almost four years now, and we're only halfway through. I think our consensus is that he wanted to write something a magnitude longer than the book he was rivaling, "Finnegans Wake." Schmidt's book had to be 10 times the length of FW, because if it had only been, say, twice as long, people would have said it was "inspired" or "influenced" by FW. It had to be a creature of a different color. I wish Lucy Ellmann's "Ducks, Newburyport" was at least 2,000 pages, for the same reason: its stream of consciousness needs to be not just slightly greater than the nearest equivalent (recently, that would be Mathias Enard; earlier, Woolf), but an order of magnitude greater.
Back in June or July I suggested Stein's "The Making of Americans" as a parallel to "Miss MacIntosh." In Stein's book the level, uniform, repetitive, nearly faceless prose resulted in a novel more famously unread than Miss MacIntosh. (Examples: E.O. Wilson said he didn't think it was possible to finish it; the first book-length monograph on it, George Moore's, didn't appear until 1998.) Stein had a modernist interest in repetition and the dismantling of grammar and reference, and in Young I think there's a romantic impetus to incantation and immersion.
So here are three tentative reasons why some books might be long:
(1) Their authors feel their novels need to be an order of magnitude larger than whatever models they had in mind, in order to overwhelm their predecessors. (Schmidt, "Finnegans Wake," "Making of Americans")
(2) Or their authors felt they needed to pass a certain mark, say 1,000 pages, to be considered alongside their models. ("Infinite Jest," "2666," "Ducks, Newburyport")
(3) Or -- and this is what I suspect for Miss MacIntosh -- length isn't really an essential property, because the novel is the result of continuous writing without concerted planning or comparison.
But if something like that is true of Miss MacIntosh, then we're justified in thinking about excerpts, or portions, or chapters, that could represent the whole in an ideal edited version.
Hi Jim,
I knew that you wouldn't resist weighing-in on Tara's post--and I'm so glad that you did!
Per your reasons #1 and #2, I would love to know what Young considered to be her models. I've referenced in a previous post her Paris Review interview in which she tells of the dream she had of Henry James looking over her shoulder as she is writing and saying that her work is a continuation of his own. Young claimed in that interview that she didn't believe this dreamed statement by James to be an accurate description of her own work. There's also her poetry, which she claimed her prose to be a continuation of, not separate from.
I would appreciate any known statements from Young on who she thought her models to be, as well as thoughts by readers as to which works, past or present, might be considered models, in addition to the very good ones Jim provides. Did Young ever acknowledge Stein's The Making of the Americans? Has anyone here read that one (more than just the first few pages--I plead guilty) and thought this a model for MMMD?
Lori
James,
It is very nice to hear from you. Reading "Bottom's Dream" is definitely an undertaking. I know of only one person who has finished it -- Michael Orthofer from the blog The Complete Review, who I very much admire. I'm curious to hear what you make of it so far.
While I haven't read all the novels you cited, I have read some. I believe a strong case can be made for both "Infinite Jest" and "Ducks, Newburyport" each being the perfect page count, though I'm not a huge fan of the former. I read Joyce's "Ulysses" in college, and while it's also not a favorite, I admire the swing for the fences. Just not enough to pick up "Finnegan's Wake". And as Lori knows, I adore Enard's "Compass". But a hundred and twenty pages into "The Annual Banquet of the Gravedigger's Guild" I realized I wasn't equipped with the knowledge base to approach it from any kind of critical angle.
I've been thinking about your three reasons as to why some books might be long. Maybe I'm arguing semantics, but I don't entirely buy into them. What I mean is, a book is ultimately and always the length the author decides it should be. What I want to know is how and when is the decision to write a 1000+ page novel justifiable?
I believe there is a kind of covenant between a writer and his or her reader, much like there is between a filmmaker and his audience. The onus is on the writer/filmmaker to acknowledge the value of the reader's/audience's time, and to make the case as to why deserve a share of it. The bar is higher for the writer, in my humble opinion, because the ask is greater. What I'm not sure of is if the answer -- why this book gets to be 1000+ pages and that book should be cut in half -- is quantifiable. But that's something to work out in future letters. :-)
Thank you so much for reading and commenting!
Tara and Lori, hi, thanks for the quick response! I suppose I'd say that there are two ways to understand the idea that a book is the length the author decides. On the one hand, there's the length the author is aiming for, and her reasons for it -- it's fascinating that Young thought of James, especially because he thought of all his books as one enormous project (that's in his introduction to his collected works in that London edition -- 1905?). Or, in Schmidt's case, the decision to outdo "Finnegans Wake" by an order of magnitude and not just a couple of hundred pages.
On the other hand, there's the author's control of their work. I teach in an art school, and I'm an art historian by profession, so I'm aware that many artists only understand small parts of their work. Gordon Lish is one of the literary world's best examples of someone who disbelieved authors understood or controlled their work. Pound's edits on Eliot's "Waste Land" are another example.
For that reason I am thinking mostly of the author's intentions, and of weighing them against the book's reception. I agree with Lori, it would be great to know more about who Young read, who she emulated, and what she said about other authors.
PS (sorry, long PS alert): Michael Orthofer never finished "Bottom's Dream"! I've been reading it long enough to know that anyone who says they have read it all just needs to start again and read more slowly. I know two readers, both German, who have read it carefully enough so they can explain, say, 75% of the allusions and citations. Schmidt used to say he wrote for 400 ideal readers, but our group has wondered if the number was ever that high. Hundreds, or thousands, of people have read "Finnegans Wake" in enough detail to be able to pick up a random page and explain it, but it is endless for the most serious scholars. Finn Fordham runs a reading group that does less than a page per meeting. Derrida once said that whenever someone told him they had read "Finnegans Wake" he smiled -- just because it has so many overlapping allusions.
I remember reading but would have to go hunting for the source that Young had described what was cut and why she agreed with the cuts. I couldn't get into poetry until I looked at paganism and wicca and then suddenly it clicked. Paganism also helped me understand Miss MacIntosh and her anger over calendars. I look forward to reading this again and delving into more and also the main point, which for me is exploring creativity or creativity unhindered. Young was also raised in a Christian home through her grandmother and she said in an interview when people said - devil get thee behind me she would whirl around to try and catch a look at the devil behind her!
Hello Nownewstrue,
I love your interest in creativity unhindered (and perhaps unhinged). This is what draws me to MMMD--the sheer abundant style of it all, for no reason or purpose other than she could and did! It would be fascinating to get some insight into what was cut. I consulted the text of the A. Scott Berg bio of Max Perkins which was the basis of the movie Genius--but no mention of Young and his having read a manuscript sample.
Thanks for joining us here,
Lori
hehe unhinged is good! I will have a look and see if I can find it because she was specific about what was cut and why and agreed with it. Hopefully I'm not losing my mind though! lol
Nownewstrue -
I was so happy to read your comment. I had a very similar experience to the one you described having. Maria Gabriela Llansol's The Geography of Rebels Trilogy, contains multiple layers of symbolism and dreams. I would have found it impenetrable without Benjamin Moser's extremely helpful afterword, which I recommend reading first. It explains that the author spent time in a "beguinage." These are medieval hostels (some still exist) originally built for women who did not wish to take holy orders, but wanted to live a life of religious contemplation and celibacy. After visiting one such beguinage Llansol “suddenly understood that ‘several levels of reality were deepening their roots, coexisting without any intervention of time." From that piece of information I was able to understand that the novel was populated by historical figures -- Christian mystics from various ages. It was a revelation.
Do you think Paganism is a key into Miss Macintosh?
My idea is that she hates and really complains about the change of the calendar and different historical figures input that leads to the change. It's led her to distrust Christian authority and she is also very much an outdoors person that has some extreme elements. I and several others that read the book back in 2019 were puzzled by it. When I looked into paganism you have the calendar through the 8 sabbats that follows the solstice and equinox. When I started following them it made me think of Miss M and how she complained that the change in the calendar upended the natural order. I'm rereading the novel in 2025 so hope to explore that more.