21st Century Literature discussion

This week's question comes courtesy of Linda, who was in turn inspired by a blog post from author John Connolly discussing Jim Crace's retirement (https://www.goodreads.com/author_blog...).

Linda's query: "The question of when a pro athelete should retire is often debated. While an author doesn't face quite the same physical issues as an athelete, I wonder if there might be some core competencies that authors should evaluate from time to time?"

Thoughts?

It's an interesting question. I try to think of writers who really should have retired sooner than they did, and few names come to mind. Robert Heinlein's later works were not as good as his earlier work, but I am not sorry he wrote them. From writers who are really good, even works that are not their best are still good to have.

When they're just phoning it in.

I think the key is just when they neither need nor want to write anymore. I would begrudge few people their hobby or income.

I definitely think an author ought to retire within a year or two after their death. There's definitely something fishy about authors who publish more books after their death than before.

Whenever they want. If they aren't writing good books, we aren't required to buy or read them.

I'm not sure i have an opinion about when an author should retire. I do have an opinion about when they should 'retire' a series though.

Of course, series don't happen often in literary fiction, but in fantasy and some other genres it's a regular thing. There i find that authors really drag out the storylines, and sometimes appear to be totally without inspiration, and still they keep on writing one book after another. for the money? for the contract?
i doubt the authors themselves are still proud of their latest work, but it's hard as a reader to stop reading once you're invested in a series.

Peter wrote: "I definitely think an author ought to retire within a year or two after their death. There's definitely something fishy about authors who publish more books after their death than before."

Only if they've won a Darwin award. Otherwise it seems unfair to penalize them for something that's not their fault.

Peter wrote: "I definitely think an author ought to retire within a year or two after their death...."

There are probably a few, too, we wished had waited to die until they had at least finished their current project: Edith Wharton: The Buccaneers; Charles Dickens: The Mystery of Edwin Drood; Elizabeth Gaskell: Wives and Daughters; Stieg Larsson; David Foster Wallace: The Pale King.

P.S. I became curious about my own comments and did a little searching for the opinions of others:

Ten of the best unfinished literary works
http://www.theguardian.com/books/2010...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unfinish...

Hanne wrote: "I'm not sure i have an opinion about when an author should retire. I do have an opinion about when they should 'retire' a series though.

Of course, series don't happen often in literary fiction, b..."

Hanne, I think you are on to something here! There are a couple of detective series that were great reading for at least 10 books but then they just became painful - one in particular I have kept reading because I loved the characters. But now I'm done -- I do not even like the characters anymore or I feel sorry for them because they are being put into ridiculous situations that make them act and sound foolish.

Some have stated that they find this an interesting question. I, however, don’t feel at home among those ranks. Writing, painting or indeed any form of the arts isn’t merely a job but rather a calling. It isn’t what a person does but rather what he (or she) is. I don’t think a person so gifted could retire from creating any more than other human beings could willfully stop breathing, as doing so would mean death. This said, much is written and said about burnouts and/or writing (or creative) blocks. These are real and can sometimes last for indefinite periods of time but can’t be termed as retirement; planned or forced. Writing isn’t an occupation, it is a life force.

Lily, I guess that DFW's suicide played a big role in on-going rise to superstardom. He was a well-renowned author before, but only after his death did he arrive in the consciousness of the general, non-literary masses. In my opinion, DFW is closest we get to canonical literature of the late 20th, early 21st-century.
(Or maybe I was just too young in the 90s (I was born in 1990) to know anything about his actual fame..)

Sam wrote: "Lily, I guess that DFW's suicide played a big role in on-going rise to superstardom. He was a well-renowned author before, but only after his death did he arrive in the consciousness of the general, non-literary masses. In my opinion, DFW is closest we get to canonical literature of the late 20th, early 21st-century. ..."


Sam -- certainly the tragedy surrounding DFW did provide media visibility in this sometimes star-driven age of ours. But if his works are truly canonical (and of course, not everyone agrees on that, at least not yet), then all the sadder that we lost what he might have produced, whether or not it would have proved to be judged of the caliber of or beyond what he had already created. Or, at least, those are my feelings. So be it, such is life, sadly, unfortunately.

I think terminating an artistic career by suicide should not be allowed, but it certainly wasn't the writing that drove DFW away, and it is the elemental despair that he deals with that makes me feel like he's a friend. I should use the past tense but I can't.

I agree wholeheartedly with Thom. Bukowski said something to the effect that if you aren't driven to create, you're not a creator and you should do something else.

However, Philip Roth retired when he turned 80, and the article in the Crimes seems to justify it for me. How can I judge a guy who is 80 and has written 31 books and says he doesn't want to struggle anymore.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/18/boo...

If writing is too much of a struggle for a great one like Roth, I have no hope for anyone else who is out there trying and I laugh at myself.

Alice Munroe announced in June 2013 that she was retiring from writing, saying she did not want to be so alone anymore, that she had become sociable at the wrong end of her life. http://arts.nationalpost.com/2013/06/...

But after winning the Nobel, she conceded that she was more ambivalent about not writing because the ideas kept coming. http://www.theguardian.com/books/2013...

I think that authors are like atheletes - some get tired of the grind and toil it takes to do what they do. Others find, upon announcing retirement, that they really aren't ready. Still others just keep on, even when they are just, as Deborah put it, "just phoning it in." Their public, whether sports fans or readers, will have their own opinions, but as many of you have said, it is, I think, ultimately, a decision only they can make.

For certain authors I have in mind, the answer is Soon. For one in particular, the answer is Sooner.

I am not in any way being snarky, just an honest answer.

Peter wrote: "I definitely think an author ought to retire within a year or two after their death. There's definitely something fishy about authors who publish more books after their death than before."

Recalled your post, Peter, when I saw this lead headline for the New York Times Book Update this afternoon (3/14/14):

"Judging the World
By CYNTHIA OZICK
The first two volumes of the Library of America's three-volume collection of Bernard Malamud's work include 36 stories, six of which Malamud himself never saw in print, and five novels."

http://www.nytimes.com/indexes/2014/0...

Malamud died in 1986.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernard_...

Don't know whether anything additional of his has been published since his death, but still caught my eye. I had chuckled, and still do, at your post.

You make some valid points Sheila but you neglect to acknowledge the vast amount of new literature coming on the marketplace each year, making it an increasingly saturated market. Really new and innovating ideas are diminishing while the numbers of published authors continue to grow. This is one of the reasons for the increasing number of series and sequels. More than forty years ago I started reading the early works of Harold Robbins. The Carpetbaggers, 79 Park Avenue and A Stone for Danny Fisher formed the cornerstone for my love for this writer’s works. Like Stephen King and James Patterson, Robbins had an undeniable talent for catching the reader’s attention and keeping it. It is my firm belief that like graphic artists, writers go through stages in their development. These changes can have many reasons such as advances in social and technical conditions or maybe something more personal. The Betsy, for me, marked the change in Robbins. The books preceding this one stayed within perimeters and standards (much as earlier films) and spent more time and effort in plot and character building than only action. His later books, such as Goodbye, Janette, The Pirate and Stiletto were very different from his early stories. Sex and money played a much greater role as society had changed and his readers expected the same conversion. Some writers have more trouble with the transition over many years and some, historical fiction authors, for example are exempt from style change. Most readers read fiction for pleasure. If you can go with the flow and enjoy stories without dissecting them with a critical eye many books can provide hours of reading pleasure. If you are searching for something new, unique and refreshing, you will have a long search. Writing is art and art is the lifeblood of the artist; may they all live long and creative lives.

The Amazon Kindle special today (3/28/14) is another of those books published after an author's death that never received the author's editing and rewriting:

The Eternal Wonder by Pearl S. Buck

I had not encountered this one previously. I feel as if I am beginning to collect a list.