April 4, 2008
Does D.C. Have A Novel Deficiency?
Mark Athitakis' latest article in the City Paper, "Building the Great D.C. Novel," is a fine one, and it really gets the mind grapes juicing. It takes up a noble task: how to write the classic DC novel.
His thesis, for which he builds a solid case, is this, "Though a few have come close, the Great American Novel has bypassed Washington." Along the way, Athitakis speaks to Jeffrey Charis-Carlson, a "scholar of DC literature" who's been immersing himself in the subject for his dissertation, and finds that he has "had a rough time finding a singular book that might rank with the likes of The Adventures of Augie March, The Bonfire of the Vanities, The Big Sleep, A Confederacy of Dunces—novels that drill deep into how a city operates, giving you a sense that multiple waterfronts are being covered."
That's not to say that Athitakis is harshing on the literary offerings that stem from, and speak of, this city. He isn't. He makes copious mention of authors that have been inspired by and in the city (Chris Buckley, Ana Marie Cox, Ward Just, and others). Nevertheless, it should be noted that DC lit often does get some short shrift. Browse out to the Wikipedia page devoted to DC culture, and you can stub your way through topics related to film and theatre, music and museums, but nothing on books.
That seems shortsighted. DC novels are out there: the genre-anthropologies of George Pelecanos typically spring to mind, and you've likely pored through any number of spy thriller set in the city as well. But there's much more. There are sweeping historical epics from Henry Adams (Democracy) and Gore Vidal (Washington, D.C.), a classic horror novel that's turned a staircase into a tourist attraction (Blatty's The Exorcist), snapshots of ordinary lives (Andrew Hollaran's Grief, Paul Kafka-Gibbons' Dupont Circle, Ann Beattie's Chilly Scenes of Winter), the poli-sci-lite lit of Kristin Gore, and at least one wack-ass coming-of-age story: Christina Stead's The Man Who Loved Children.
But I get what Athitakis is after. He's looking for that essential DC novel—the book that takes on the "multiple waterfronts," finds a way to integrate different races and classes, finds a sweep and scope that doesn't ignore the Federal City at the center of Washington, but doesn't get bogged down there either. He identifies four novels that break out into the component parts he finds important, but he's dreaming of a novel that knits it all together.
It's a daunting task, given the traditional transience of the city and the fact that our central industry—governance—is as apt to alienate as it is to fascinate. What to do, what to do? Well, in The Areas Of My Expertise, John Hodgman maintains that the most salable premise in novels is "all animals versus all humans." So maybe we need a novel that depicts the entire city, coming together as one to fight all the city's animals—the rats, the pigeons, the cherry-blossom chomping beavers, the snakehead fish that walk on land, and all the denizens of the national zoo. It can contain lines like:
Dammit! We've tried it your way, Kucinich! But if we want to make it through this day alive, we need to start using the things that make this city truly great! Like our deep-seated, toxic distrust of neighborhood improvements and our confusing, zone-based, taxi fare system!
And the whole thing can end with a mortally wounded Marion Barry, breathing his last as he impales Butterstick upon a DC flag, choking out the words, "Celebrate and discover, you bamboo-chomping m*therf*cker!"
Or...maybe not. Still, as Athitakis says, "The field is wide open for somebody with the nerve to give the Great D.C Novel a shot." We'll take your best pitch, commenters.
|
The correct answer is "Lost in the City," by Edward P. Jones, which is a collection of short stories, not a novel, but is as good a depiction of DC as you are going to get in fiction.
good luck trying to cover "multiple waterfronts" when most writers can barely get a character out a door.
the term "jack of all trades master of none" comes to mind.
I'm embarrassed to say I haven't read any of the novels mentioned, but I have read one I'd highly recommend - Advise and Consent. Great character development, intrigue, political symbolism. Admittedly it's not "multiple waterfronts" and its politics is dated, but for breaching homosexuality in the 50s it should definitely be in the running.
The timing of this article and topic is odd for me as I literally just finished reading The Beautiful Things... a few days ago. The only reason I bought it in the first place was because it was set in DC. It's a good book, very leisurely-paced, never in a hurry to force some kind of formula or plot into the mix. And not to give anything but there's no happy ending either (there's also not a negative ending either.)
George Pelecanos is absolutely one of my favorite novelists for his DC settings, always east of the park and his private dick crime noir style. Those who don't know him and who like realistic fiction with a DC locale should check him out.
best writer - tom robbins. irlechta!, and he understands redheads
Pelecanos might be able to read a DC map, but his characters are slightly less believable than a horoscope. By the time his blackout drunk protagonist in Down by the River gives his date a pearl necklace (after drinking all day?), I was ready to throw the book across the room. And I'm willing to put up with this greatest hits package namedropping, but after a hundred pages, it gets tiresome, like listening to hiptards testify to their street cred because they've seen all the right bands. Nowhere near the same league as Hammett, Chandler, or Cain.
gore vidal, in my humble opinion, is one of the greatest american authors and deservingly so. "washington, d.c." and his other american history novels are amazing. anyone who makes insider bureaucracy into a page-turner is nothing less than genius. i'd say he tops the list for already having written a great d.c. novel.
Man, no love for Margaret Truman? Murder on K Street was the s**t. She really gives you the feeling of being trapped in the law offices of Long, Ropy & Brown.
Clygo, to name Gore Vidal's "Washington DC" the great DC novel would be to COMPLETELY miss the point. A great novel that happens to take place in D.C. is not the same thing as a great D.C. novel.
What Athitakis and Linkins are talking about is a novel that encapsulates the ENTIRE experience of life in D.C.: Capitol Hill, go-go and harDCore, racial/economic tension, the Redskins, Ben's Chili Bowl, Marion Barry, and everything in between.
Vidal's book doesn't even make the almost-but-not-quite list.
Trying to capture a broad canvas like DC, from the sublime to the ridiculous, is the sort of monumental task for which few if any writers are capable. The only writer that comes to mind would be Thomas Pynchon. Actually, one of his early shortstories in Slow Learner actually takes place in DC in the 1950s.
Andrew Holleran's Grief. Go read it.
Trying to capture a broad canvas like DC, from the sublime to the ridiculous, is the sort of monumental task for which few if any writers are capable.
I don't know about novels, but I've always been a fan of Dick Burns short stories.
msclguru:
have you even read vidal's washington, d.c.? i'd rather be forcefed week-old ben's chili than read your politically correct bullshit novel about the "real" d.c.
novels that encapsulate a city's essence, its myths and its legends have little to do with anything you listed. d.c. is the nation's capitol, that seat of power --- that's what we're known for, that's what we'll always be known for. whether you like it or not. regardless of how you personally feel, d.c. is on the map because a bunch of politicians in powdered wigs decided to move the country's capitol a few hours south. they are the myth and legend that the city was built on. what came after was no less important, but no more important either.
great literature doesn't abide by political correctness or rules of diversity and inclusion. why don't you try reading something they don't sell at busboys and poets.
Clygo,
Political correctness? Horseshit.
Yes, I've read Vidal's book. Yes, I enjoyed it. Thought it was wonderful, as a matter of fact. But guess what? As important as the seat of government is in D.C., it's still only part of the story. And any book that talks about D.C. as only the nation's capital is only telling part of the story.
I, for example, have lived in D.C. for seven years. I have never worked for the Federal government; I don't deal with them in my job or outside of it, and in fact only two of my friends here are government employees. Thus my experience of this town has little to do with its being the capital. And you know what? That experience is not really all that uncommon here.
Writing only about the federal government and declaring the result a "Great D.C. Novel" is like writing only about corporate culture and declaring the result a "Great New York novel." It has nothing to do with political correctness (honestly, I can't even figure out where the hell you got that from, since it has nothing to do with ANYTHING I'm talking about - and btw I've never even been to Busboys and Poets) - it's about acknowledging that there are more things going on here than just the Fed.
If you think that discussing this town as the seat of government and realm of the power brokers really tells the whole story of this place, then you really need to get out more.
msclguru: wow, seven whole years and you already know how to capitalize harDCore like a good, walk-in-line hipster. don't get your tight jeans in such a bunch.
Ohhhh, this looks like the beginning of a new DCist poster, internet slap fight!!!
Wow, first I'm a politically correct, Busboys and Poets-shopping leftist. Now I'm a tight-jeans-wearing, walk-in-line hipster.
I'm actually neither of those things--but if I were, I'd be interested to know how it was even slightly relevant.
I tried to be a tight-jeans wearing hipster, but the tight jeans revealed the fact that my weenie is tiny, and I just couldn't keep track of which micro-brews I was supposed to love, and which of the latest dumb-ass causes I had to swear fealty to without any actual independent thought or analysis.
So, sadly, I gave up. Mostly because of the tiny weenie factor.
If anybody wants my tight jeans they'll be out for trash by next week.
Wow, first I'm a politically correct, Busboys and Poets-shopping leftist. Now I'm a tight-jeans-wearing, walk-in-line hipster.
I'm pretty sure they're not mutually exclusive.
Why does DC even have to have a great novel anyway? Why do we have to get into yet another wang measuring contest with NYC/LA/London/Oxnard? Who the hell cares besides a bunch of ivory tower English lit whores who were frightened at birth by Foucault? Great stories get written any old way and whether or not they capture the "essence" of a place or time seems irrelevant to me. Great stories have been written about places and people that never existed. And yet they're eminently more readable than any tired, pooped-out Capitol Hill potboiler or gritty, Mapquest-accurate urban drama that sticks it to "the man" and fetishizes poverty, the latter being summed up by the line, "Bragging that you know how the n*****s feel cold/And the slums got so much soul."
So, yeah, it's a real goddamned shame no one's written the great DC novel. Or the great American novel for that matter. I can't wait until we get invaded by the Romulans, the Trade Federation, Kang and Kodos, and the Ant People, then we can start debating who will write the great Earth novel. But by then IT WILL BE TOO LATE! We'll all be put to work as slaves in their underground sugar mines, but look on the bright side. At least we'll have those hot, hot green Orion slave girls to dance for us.