Clancy Sigal

Although she writes compelling stuff, my main problem with her essay is her notion of literary legacy. She selects a few contemporary, well-regarded authors—all white, male, and straight—and designates them as heirs to Updike, Roth, Mailer, etc. simply because they’re white, male, straight, and critically esteemed. This is where her comparison (and that god awful graphic that accompanied her article) is flawed.

Roiphe’s essay implies that as heirs, authors like Eggers, Chabon, and Franzen should pick up the mantle of Mailer, etc., and vigorously and provocatively write about sex in the same vein. I’d doubt that any of these writers sees themselves as heirs in this sense. In fact, it would be interesting to ask any of them if they’re writing in the tradition of Updike, Roth, and Mailer—simply because of their racial and sexual orientation.

Is one, for example, a literary heir by such limited criteria. What if the main authors who influenced them were James Baldwin or Marguerite Duras or Kenzaburo Oe or Milan Kundera? Why should they have to write in the confines of Roiphe’s comparison? (e.g., I’m of a similar generation and ilk of of the Eggers/Chabon crowd, and I’ve never read Roth or Mailer and haven’t read Updike since high school. Literary heirs? Not.)

So, instead of critiquing their writing about sex, perhaps she could have designated them heirs of Hemingway and critiqued their war coverage. That doesn’t seem to be the subject of any of these young novelists. Does that mean they’re lacking? I don’t think any of them write road novels like Jack Kerouac either, or alcoholic trailer park stories like Raymond Carver come to think of it. Gosh, so much literary legacy for a young man to live up to.

Do you see what I mean—in the end, Roiphe’s comparison criteria is without logic. Beyond the fact that genetics and sexual orientation shouldn’t define literary legacy these days, her essay begs the question, what young, male, straight authors did she leave out? Why should Eggers, Chabon, Franzen, etc. be carrying a baton handed off by Mailer and company?

Roiphe’s essay ends up being similar to a playground taunt. She’s taken the macho high ground and is essentially teasing Eggers, Chabon, and Franzen for their sexual inadequacy.

I’m happy for the reconsideration and celebration of writing that was deemed politically incorrect, but Roiphe should take her thought a step farther.

I wrote more in my blog post on the subject: http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-32235-Oakland-Literature-Examiner~y2010m1d14-The-naked-and-the-conflicted-by-Katie-Roiphe