6 of 7 people found the following review helpful
5.0 out of 5 stars Endlessly fascinating!
It's an 800-page collection of 294 short biographies, 2 and 3 pages each on average, of as eclectic a bunch of authors as you'll ever encounter, many of whom I'm sure modern readers have never even
heard of or know little or nothing about, such as Aphra Benn, Olaudah Equiano, James Hogg, Harrison Ainsworth, Sylvanus Cobb Jr., Richard Aldington,to name a handful...
Published 19 months ago by Best Condition Books
13 of 13 people found the following review helpful
2.0 out of 5 stars Rife With Errors
Factual errors in nonfiction call into question the authority of a work. I checked this book out from my local library hoping to gain insight about favorite novelists and to discover authors unknown to me. A colleague who thumbed through the book for a few minutes discovered an error in the Margaret Atwood entry: she did not win the Booker Prize for Alias Grace. When I...
Published 18 months ago by Corey
Most Helpful First | Newest First
13 of 13 people found the following review helpful
2.0 out of 5 stars Rife With Errors,
This review is from: Lives of the Novelists: A History of Fiction in 294 Lives (Kindle Edition)Factual errors in nonfiction call into question the authority of a work. I checked this book out from my local library hoping to gain insight about favorite novelists and to discover authors unknown to me. A colleague who thumbed through the book for a few minutes discovered an error in the Margaret Atwood entry: she did not win the Booker Prize for Alias Grace. When I began to read the book in earnest, I found many other errors. I couldn't believe how easy they were to find, and was glad I didn't buy this book. Apparently, I'm not alone in my discovery. Reviewing the book for The Wall Street Journal, Allan Massie writes, "In the acknowledgments, Mr. Sutherland notes the 'support, encouragement, assistance and (all too often) corrections' of four editors and adds that 'the mistakes which remain are, alas, all mine.' There are a good many of them. I spotted 50 before I stopped counting--four in the entry on Norman Douglas alone...." Part of the joy of reading a work like this is talking with friends about interesting facts I learned. But after spotting dozens of errors, and with imperfect knowledge myself, how can I trust what the author is telling me?
6 of 7 people found the following review helpful
5.0 out of 5 stars Endlessly fascinating!,
heard of or know little or nothing about, such as Aphra Benn, Olaudah Equiano, James Hogg, Harrison Ainsworth, Sylvanus Cobb Jr., Richard Aldington,to name a handful.
Along with those, you'll also find a host of people you have heard of, both those considered highly literary, like J. D. Salinger and D. H. Lawrence and John Steinbeck and Evelyn Waugh, and those considered to be beneath serious critical notice, such as Zane Grey and Edgar Rice Burroughs and Sax Rohmer and Robert Jordan and
Stephen King and Jacqueline Susann, from whose entry one learns the reason for her most famous title and where the actual Valley was --- and it's not in California, folks.
The book is full of jewels of information: Isaac Asimov died of AIDS, which was only admitted 10 years after his death; Richard Pryor, the comedian, acknowledged Mark Twain as his inspiration, a connection I'd never have made; Dennis Wheatley referred to his diary as his `fornicator's game book'; Patricia Cornwell's Kay Scarpetta was originally a male named Joe Constable --- I could go on and on: the book is endlessly fascinating.
That one man could have this much knowledge about so many so varied writers is mind-boggling!
There is one error I've noticed: contrary to the opening sentence in his entry, Robert E. Howard DID write a novel.
1 of 1 people found the following review helpful
1.0 out of 5 stars All that potential,
3 of 4 people found the following review helpful
5.0 out of 5 stars Fun, fun, fun,
5.0 out of 5 stars A must for English teachers!,
4.0 out of 5 stars 294 Depressed Alcoholic Party Guys,
So we have all the pithy quotes and classics with a lot of Brits, but we also have all the best sellers in all the genres, and not just mystery and sci fi, but westerns and pulp, and in general, a lot of folks spurned by the establishment who laughed all the way to the bank. One hit wonders are here: Margaret Mitchell for Gone With the Wind, Malcom Lowry for Under the Volcano, and Jacqueline Susann for Valley of the Dolls. Each author is identified by his major biographers (web sites for very contemporary folks) and a listing of the author's Most Read Work.
The book is immensely entertaining because it's clear that Sutherland has picked some of his non-top-100 selections, the lesser-knowns, simply for the scandal and salaciousness they can offer. Benjamim Schwarz titled his review of this work in The Atlantic, "Sex Lives of Novelists." Writers have never been known for discretion in their private lives, but what a horny alcoholic, drug-addicted, depressive, divorcing, child-ignoring, spouse-abusing lot they are! Other than John Updike, religious and a family man, alcohol, drugs and abuse are only a start. You add some interest with lesbian/gay or bi. But the 3, 4 and 5 star folks are victims of abuse, abusers themselves or dying of alcohol and/or drugs. Sons of British authors who threw themselves under trains could form a small club. Four and five spouses aren't unusual. This book is fun and fascinating. I do caution that other reviewers have noted numerous factual errors. Allan Massie, in a review in the WSJ, wrote that he stopped counting errors at 50 and found four in one author's biography. But it's a fun read.
1.0 out of 5 stars A big disappointment!,
4.0 out of 5 stars Not the novelist in your life, but the life in your novelist,
My personal response to the novelists selected for inclusion in the book may be typical of many readers. The great bulk of them I had heard of and was indifferent to, about 130 of the entries. These included celebrated names, and others obviously important to Sutherland himself. A whopping 100 names I had never heard off, and I consider myself well read. This is mainly, I think, because Sutherland seems to be a specialist in 19th century best selling novelists. Nothing has such a short shelf life as a best seller, or tells as much about the times it was one. Of the 294 novelists Sutherland writes about, there were only 40 writers I liked, and 20 I strongly disliked. Despite this, I found the book fascinating. It helped get through so many pages that Sutherland concentrates on life and times material, seldom stopping for literary criticism. He delights to pass on details about subjects' sexual preferences, and the number of writers he mentions who are homosexual is surely higher than average. Here you can find out the names of the many famous women that Daphne du Maurier had sex with for example. It was this mix of personal anecdotes about writers, and social history, that made the book so readable for me.
Sutherland apologises for his selection in his preface, and calls it 'idiosyncratic'. He has no need to do so. I read somewhere recently that every year in Britain about 5,000 novels are published. Even though 4,999 probably fall still born from the press, the numbers mount up over time, and no-one writing on the novel can now be comprehensive. If the spread of internet enabled epublishing continues, there could soon be 500,000 novelists a year, and eventually as many writers as readers, a fact that might lead to the decline, not enhancement, of reading as an activity. Who knows? So diversion of this stream to genre publishing and reading is bound to increase. This means much of the output will be directed at audiences only interested in specific genres or even sub-genres, and who will ignore the rest. One such genre, though the literary mandarins and the educators don't like to admit it, is literary fiction, once called 'good' literature, produced in conformity to dictates of taste and forming, hopefully, part of a tradition and a canon. Literary historians, and I am supposing Sutherland is one, straddle an uncomfortable position, taking note of worthwhile fiction in the tradition but also acknowledging the existence of best sellers totally oblivious of such traditions. Genre readers, in the meantime, can tell you all about Robert Howard and his Conan stories, and argue endlessly about the merits of his 'continuators', and are often oblivious of the existence of books such as Ulysses. We are slowly realising that nobody need be ashamed or dismissive of this. So I understand that Sutherland has left out Joseph Heller and Catch 22, John Gardner and Nickel Mountain, Vikram Seth and A Suitable Boy, Vikram Chandra and Funeral Games, the work of Angela Carter, and underplays the significance of George Orwell. These would be part of my own 'idiosyncratic' selection. But after all, no-one's perfect.
Sutherland quotes Jacques Bonnet in his prologue: "Authors are just fictional people [of whom we know] never enough to make them truly real". I think this is significant. Entering the world of fiction should confront us with the fact that the novelist is just as much a creation, by himself and his critics and readers, as his fiction. So is a history of fiction (fiction is a lie that strives to tell the truth). Sutherland closes his preface with this admission: "It will be easy to see why most of those writers who did get in got in [the book]. What they have in common is that they are all novelists who have meant something to me, or who have come my way over a long reading career and stayed with me, for whatever reason". The next step to comprehensiveness would be an encyclopaedia, and they are usually not as readable as this book.
The bulk of the book concerns modern literature of the 20th and 21st centuries, over 170 authors: 19th century writers have 100 entries, and those working earlier a mere 25. So there are no revelations here about the history of the novel. The vast number of women writers of the time of Henry Fielding (including his sister Sarah) are mentioned as exhaustively as Ian Watt does in his 1957 book The Rise of the Novel (though that was a study of Defoe, Fielding and Richardson). I mean not at all. It is no surprise to see entries for Defoe, Richardson, Fielding and Sterne, but good to see an entry for the fascinating Aphra Behn and her confusing mix of autobiography and fiction (Aphra is of course also famous as a founder of the 18th century British drama). One can only shake one's head over the entry of John Cleland, a sub de Sade writer writing to escape debt and with no serious social purpose as de Sade had (but he is entertaining to hear of). And pornography, or at least written pornography, is as hard to write without being ludicrous, in the 18th century as it has been ever since.
It is at the end of the 18th century entries that Sutherland starts to surprise. There is an entry for Robert Bage. Who is Robert Bage? An industrialist who came upon hard times, influenced by ideas that resulted in the French Revolution, and, like Walter Scott, wrote himself out of financial difficulties. His novels, though he began with little literary skill, reflected the progressive ideas of the time and were very popular. Around 1800 anybody you mentioned Robert Bage to in England would have known whom you were talking about.
Another once famous name was Mrs Catherine Gore, the mother of 10 children who survived more than one period of abject poverty, was defrauded of her fortune, lost her husband, went blind, yet was very wealthy indeed when she died. Her secret? Her ability to write as many as two novels a week, her speciality being lurid accounts of the 'lower upper classes' (the British class system is complex - the group Mrs Gore wrote about were not aristocrats but tolerated by them as acquaintances). All very shades of Mills and Boon and similar production houses, yet admirable in a horrible kind of way. I try not to think of all those lower middle class wives devouring Mrs Gore's books, satisfied to think the better off were no better than they should be.
Other female writers follow such as "`Fanny Fern' ... a bestselling novelist, serial wife and newspaper columnist (some accounts say the first columnist in the country [USA], others merely the highest paid)". The enormous contribution 19th century female novelists made to feminism by, first of all, existing, often precariously; highlighting the fact there was a huge female audience for novels; and expressing the wants and concerns of females, in a time when males were oblivious to all these situations, should always be recognised. They are usually left out of literary histories on the grounds they aren't very good. Yet histories of the novel always leave in Harold Robbins and Mickey Spillane, who weren't very good either, possibly to a greater extent than female novelists usually ignored, though grossing as highly in their day. Sutherland covers about 80 female authors in his book.
Something I liked was the exploration Sutherland gives to end of the century novelists, a period with a feverish kind of dated progressiveness, a kind of fussy permissiveness (a bit like the 1960s in a way). I learned about Ouida, Ambrose Bierce, Bram Stoker, Mrs Humphrey Ward, Marie Corelli, and favourite authors Arthur Conan Doyle and Kenneth Grahame. The best seller greats are mentioned, HG Wells, Somerset Maugham and Theodore Dreiser, and the best sellers (but not so great) like Edgar Wallace, Edgar Rice Burroughs and Zane Grey. And the scandalous life of Norman Douglas and the inspiring one of Erskine Childers. My love of detective stories made the entries on Grant Allen, Agatha Christie, Sax Rohmer, Raymond Chandler, Earle Stanley Gardner and Dashiell Hammett enjoyable to read.
Sutherland's book errs on the side of comprehensiveness when it comes to the (unstated) 'English' criteria. Novelists from England, Ireland, Scotland and Wales, North America and Australia, even New Zealand, are included, but also novelists who wrote in English at some stage. Naturally, Vladimir Nabokov and Joseph Conrad, but also Olaudah Equiano from Nigeria, Pearl S Buck from China, Cabrera Infante from Cuba, VS Naipaul from Trinidad, Chinua Achebe from Nigeria and Rana Dasgupta, born in England to Indian parents, living now in India, first published in Australia, a symbol of the indefiniteness national and cultural boundaries can have (do I have to add, in the modern world?). As an Australian I was glad to see two Australian authors included, sad that they were the brilliant, unreadable genius Patrick White and the stogy, unreadable Peter Carey, an advertising man who always reserves the film rights. Could have been Henry Handel Richardson, George Johnston, Christina Stead or David Malouf. And if Edgar Allen Poe and Katherine Mansfield were included, why not Henry Lawson or Charmian Clift? Guess you really can't fit everyone in.
Probably the most valuable section of the book is the largest, on 20th and 21st century writers. Writers of the past are well documented. Best sellers of the past not so well, but Sutherland's book remedies this lack quite well too. Modern writers, however, are rarely seen in context, as authors. They are usually seen as product, and you are urged to buy their book, the greatest story ever told, with dozens of unknowns telling you so on the book jacket. Sutherland juxtaposes Salman Rushdie and Patricia Cornwell, Ian McEwen and Michael Crichton, Julian Barnes and Jeffrey Archer, and slowly you get an idea these are all engaged in the one process, and that all of this diverse material is read, by a enormous public with a voracious appetite for reading matter. Perhaps we all read for different reasons, but we all exercise our minds the same way, decoding symbols at a greater than light speed and recreating the words through our imaginations. Quite strenuous really, and unique among human occupations.
One is left with thoughts on the very different readers authors write for, and the very different writers the public read for. The psychopaths who read Mickey Spillane's zestful descriptions of someone hammering a human skull to fragments with a pistol while dodging the spurting blood and brains (lots of these as he's still the best selling crime author). The history posing as fiction of George MacDonald Fraser or the fiction posing as history of Georgette Heyer. The way some writers can explore their times while writing genre stories, like Chester Himes, while others resolutely exploit those genres, like Stephen King. The marketers and hustlers who always negotiate the movie rights like Jacqueline Susann and the painstaking slow writers who write what they must like John Kennedy Toole. People who seem accidentally to become best sellers like William Golding or John Fowles, others who mine genres, creatively like Raymond Chandler, or exhaustively and ultimately in a sterile way like Chandler's friend Earle Stanley Gardner.
For those who want more, Sutherland includes a reference to a full length biography when there is one, and suggests a key work for each author. Only the obsessive will want more of most of the writers Sutherland mentions, and the worthwhile ones will already have their fans, but his book is a useful look outside genres for most readers. Through it we can explore what the snobs are reading, the crass taste of the plebs, the sometimes strange story of the superannuated best seller. It's a good way to see the novel in English. And I bet Sutherland hasn't reserved the movie rights (make a nice little maxi series on TV). Myself, I'm looking forward to Lives of the Novelists II, in which Sutherland will include the lives of the 294 novelists inexplicably left out of the first volume. Bound to be more entertaining than reading the authors themselves.
5.0 out of 5 stars A great book,
5.0 out of 5 stars Simply fantastic,
Each bio is about 4 or 5 pages, so it you get a bit bored you can just hop ahead to the next one. Incredible end of day reading: curl up in bed, read a fascinating bio and review of a body of work, and then slip off to sleep dreaming about newly-discovered authors.
Most Helpful First | Newest First
Lives of the Novelists: A History of Fiction in 294 Lives by John Sutherland