Did nobody actually read this book before it went to print?: The Emperor of Gladness by Ocean Vuong
Author
:
Ocean Vuong
ISBN-13
:
978-1787335400
Publisher
:
Jonathan Cape
Guideline Price
:
£20
Ocean Vuong's books are enormously popular but it's hard to see why. He is often an incompetent writer of prose and his plots are sentimental mush. The Emperor of Gladness (note twee title) is set in a decaying Connecticut river town called East Gladness. A young man of Vietnamese descent, Hai, considers suicide, but is talked down from a bridge by an elderly Lithuanian woman named Grazina.
Grazina is in the early stages of dementia. Hai becomes her carer. Grazina possesses cranky Lithuanian wisdom. She helps Hai work through his issues. Around them, America decays. Your heart might be warmed. Mine was not.
The prose alternates between a flat accounting ('Back in the kitchen, he picked up her rotary phone') and a shockingly ham-fisted lyricism. 'Look how the birches, blackened all night by starlings, shatter when dawn's first sparks touch their beaks.' Dawn, of course, does not spark. And Vuong does not appear to know that the subject of this sentence is the birches and not the starlings; so his grammar gives the birches beaks. (The publisher's blurb praises Vuong's 'syntactical dexterity', which must be an in-house joke – unless they really can't tell.)
[
Inside judging one of the big literary prizes: searching for sinister outside forces, table banging and some gems of books
Opens in new window
]
A paragraph later, we get a sentence that disastrously mingles the gross and the sub-poetic: 'At the lot's far edge lies the week-old roadkill, its eye socket filled with warm Coca-Cola, the act of a girl who, bored on her way from school, poured her drink into that finite dark of sightless visions.'
READ MORE
Vuong is so committed to his notion of transcendent pseudo-lyric prose that he doesn't even tell us what animal he means us to see – all he gives us is 'roadkill'. His prose wants you to feel; it certainly doesn't want you to perceive. It is, of course, Vuong's own literary vision that is sightless.
A few pages later, Hai sees a body floating in a river, 'its limbs stretched and opaque'. But it is not necessary to describe a human body as 'opaque', since human bodies are not normally translucent or transparent. Did nobody actually read this book before it went to print?
Back in the 20th century American literary prose was the gold standard. In the 21st century it is starting to look like a grotesquely inflated currency.
Kevin Power is associate professor of English at Trinity College Dublin
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Irish Times
2 days ago
- Irish Times
Attention, men: Books are sexy, but staring into a phone is not
It was one of the most erotic things I ever heard: a man I know said he was reading all the novels of Jane Austen in one summer. At first, I figured he was pretending to like things that women like to seem simpatico, a feminist hustle. But, no, this guy really wanted to read Northanger Abbey. Men are reading less. Women make up 80 per cent of fiction sales. 'Young men have regressed educationally, emotionally and culturally,' David J Morris wrote in a New York Times essay titled The Disappearance of Literary Men Should Worry Everyone. The fiction gap makes me sad. A man staring into a phone is not sexy. But a man with a book has become so rare, such an object of fantasy, that there's a popular Instagram account called Hot Dudes Reading. READ MORE Some of the most charming encounters I've had with men were about books. The film director and comedian Mike Nichols once turned to me at a dinner in Los Angeles and told me his favourite novel was Edith Wharton's The House of Mirth. I was startled because I have read that book over and over, finding it a great portrait of a phenomenon that is common in politics: someone makes a wrong move and is unable to recover, slipping into a shame spiral. (This does not apply to Donald Trump .) I went to interview the playwright Tom Stoppard in Dorset, southern England, a few years ago. The playwright has no computer and is not on social media. He writes with a Caran d'Ache fountain pen with a six-sided barrel. Stoppard had a romantic-looking bookcase full of first editions of Jane Austen and Charles Dickens . He complained that his book collection was regularly raided by 'American burglars'. It was fascinating. I felt the same when I interviewed the actor Ralph Fiennes , and it turned out that he loves Shakespeare and reciting Beckett at 3am under the stars. He recalled that his mother, a novelist named Jennifer Lash, read him bedtime stories from Shakespeare, including Henry V and Hamlet. 'My mother said, 'I'll tell you a story. There was this young man and his father's died, and he's a young prince'. And she told it to me in her own words.' The US president projects a crude, bombastic image of masculinity. I can always escape by rereading Dickens's Our Mutual Friend and falling back in love with Eugene Wrayburn, an indolent, upper-crust barrister who turns out to have every quality a man should have. I asked my friend Richard Babcock, a former magazine editor and novelist who taught writing at Northwestern University in Illinois, about the male aversion to reading. His new novel is called A Small Disturbance on the Far Horizon, set in the Nevada desert in 1954 under the shadow of nuclear bomb testing. It follows three people whose lives are entwined. 'The book is about guilt, adultery, murder, a chase through the mountains – you know, the usual day-to-day stuff,' Babcock said wryly. 'Not to blame the current cultural landscape on Ronald Reagan ,' he said, 'but I think the obsession with money and wealth that arrived in the 1980s may have encouraged the false idea in men that there was little to learn from a novel. If you want tips on how to crush your rival, better to read nonfiction. 'Similarly, with the education focus turning to math and science, gateways to good-paying jobs, the value of the humanities has been degraded. And we don't hear enough about how novels, sweeping over landscapes, personalities, ideas, events can open perspectives and discipline the mind.' The writer Susan Sontag once said novels can 'enlarge your sympathies', preventing you from 'shrivelling and becoming narrower'. That's more essential as everyone is hunching over fiendish little personal devices. She called fiction an axe that 'kind of splits you open', shakes you out of your crusty habits and preferences 'and gives you a model for caring about things that you might otherwise not care about'. As Babcock pointed out, the decline of literary fiction with everyone has left romance and historical fiction, traditionally favoured by women, the dominant genres. Still, he said, he was 'a bit distrustful of the men-don't-read-novels lament', noting that 'my friends eagerly read novels, even returning to the classics such as Anna Karenina and Middlemarch. Some wonderful male writers are turning out thoughtful, dramatic books such as Daniel Mason's North Woods and Ben Shattuck's The History of Sound'. A couple of years ago, I wrote about how getting my master's degree in English literature from Columbia University underscored for me that we needed the humanities even more when technology was stripping us of our humanity. Works such as Frankenstein and Paradise Lost shed light on the narcissism of the powerful, male tech geniuses birthing a world-shattering new species: artificial intelligence . After that, a New Yorker named Paul Bergman emailed me an invitation to his book club – all men, lawyers and a judge who had got to know one another from the Brooklyn US attorney's office. 'For the last 45 years,' Bergman said in his email, 'we've been sharing our thoughts on books we've read.' Would I join a few sessions on Middlemarch? Dear reader, I did. This article originally appeared in The New York Times .
Irish Times
2 days ago
- Irish Times
South Park isn't letting go of Donald Trump's hambone any time soon
'I don't know what more we could possibly say about Trump ,' Trey Parker, one of the creators of South Park, told Vanity Fair shortly before the US presidential election of 2024. The magazine took this to mean the series was 'about done with satirising the Republican candidate'. If that was the team's intention, then intervening events have brought about a change in strategy. The candidate became president again. The president flailed like a maniac. Some of the metaphorical broken crockery belonged to South Park's corporate master. The Comedy Central satire has rarely been so explicit in its attacks on an individual as it was on Trump in the first episode of the 27th season. Broadcast on July 23rd, Sermon on the 'Mount – a reference to both its guest star Jesus Christ and Paramount, the cable channel's parent company – began with a characteristic double-edged dig at Trump's war on the liberal media. READ MORE Eric Cartman, perennially bigoted id-monster, is outraged that the administration has cancelled his favourite show on National Public Radio. We are encouraged to believe South Park's creators are equally appalled at this curtailment of cultural expression, but most of the laughs come from Cartman, hitherto a hate listener, ranting about the unintentionally hilarious enemies he will no longer get to snort at. The show is, he explains, 'where all the liberals bitch and moan about stuff'. Jesus turns up to evangelise at South Park Elementary. The town's residents wonder if that is strictly constitutional. 'I didn't want to come back,' the risen Lord eventually mutters fearfully to assembled multitudes. 'But I had to because it was part of a lawsuit and the agreement with Paramount.' This references Trump's recent suit against Paramount over an episode of the news show 60 Minutes, broadcast on the conglomerate's CBS network, and allows wider connection to be made with capitulations to the president's legal Panzerkorps elsewhere in the media. [ Maureen Dowd: CBS caving to Trump is sickening. At least South Park will still hold people accountable Opens in new window ] All of that was typically bold – The Simpsons' erstwhile digs at its own Fox network were generally more playful – but it was the depiction of Trump himself that really got media-watchers gasping. Like their version of Saddam Hussein, he is seen cosying up to a giant, oddly sensitive Satan, who expresses himself unimpressed by the imperial crown jewels. 'I can't even see anything, it's so small,' the Lord of the Flies says of Trump's penis. At the close, now bespectacled and talkative, the first member dangles from a hyperrealistic, AI-generated version of the naked Trump. How do we know this attack struck home? Because the White House said it didn't. 'This show hasn't been relevant for over 20 years and is hanging on by a thread with uninspired ideas in a desperate attempt for attention,' a hopelessly needy White House statement whined. 'No fourth-rate show can derail President Trump's hot streak.' Asked, at the Comic-Con event in San Diego, what he made of the response, Parker, sitting beside his collaborator Matt Stone, did not break a smile before snapping: 'We're terribly sorry.' The reply needed no ironic intonation to confirm its insincerity. And they are not finished. There was no episode this week, but a teaser trailer for next Wednesday's outing has Trump feeling up Satan's leg at a public event. South Park isn't loosening its jaws from this hambone. Why does this matter more than the countless volleys that have come Trump's way over the past decade? A glance (just a glance, I promise) at the increasingly feeble Saturday Night Live gives a few clues. The sheer flaccidity of the sketch show's satire is one factor. Another is that sense of us knowing which wet-liberal safe house the SNL team emerge from each miserably predictable weekend. These skits are not intended to irritate the Maga base. They are there to comfort those already certain of their own cosy opposition. Remember the execrable 'cold open' that had a white-clad Hillary Clinton – in the supportive form of Kate McKinnon – warble Leonard Cohen's Hallelujah to a blubbing audience straight after the real Hillary lost to Trump? Such obsequiousness towards a politician (any politician) would be inconceivable on South Park. Over the past 28 years Stone and Parker have made a virtue of wrong-footing those who think they have the team's politics nailed down. Way back in 2005, scores of leftish critics raged that Team America: World Police, their now-classic 'Supercrappymation' feature, spent as much time slagging off liberal celebrities as attacking the administration. 'People assumed that Trey and I were going to devote every frame to bringing down George Bush,' Stone, laughing, told me at the time. One side has never forgiven them. The other may not forget their current jihad against Trump. But that uncertain political territory is the best place for satirists to pitch base camp. Nobody should feel safe. They could be after your penis next.
Irish Times
3 days ago
- Irish Times
Gratefully and Affectionately. Mary Lavin and the New Yorker: A rich trove of insights
Gratefully and Affectionately. Mary Lavin and The New Yorker Author : Gráinne Hurley ISBN-13 : 978-1-84840-930-9 Publisher : New Island Guideline Price : €27.95 'Getting published in The New Yorker was – and still is today – notoriously difficult,' Gráinne Hurley writes in the introduction to her captivating account of Mary Lavin 's relationship with the famous magazine. Hurley's sources are numerous, but consist mainly of 400 letters exchanged between Lavin and her editor, Rachel MacKenzie. Most letters dealt with editorial matters but, as a friendship grew, they became personal and provide valuable insights into Lavin's writing process and her everyday life. The book is arranged chronologically and charts Lavin's career from the moment she was introduced to The New Yorker by JD Salinger in 1957. By then she was already a well-established writer but the New Yorker catapulted her into international fame and provided her with a good income, which, as a widow with three children, she needed. Who'd rely on short stories for a living? Well, someone with a 'first reading' contract with the New Yorker, back then anyway. The first story published funded a deposit on the mews on Lad Lane, which became Lavin's Dublin home. It was initially a bit of a shambles – but still. READ MORE This book demonstrates the link between literature and money. Lavin always wrote what she wanted to write. But when the New Yorker was publishing her regularly, she was under pressure to produce excellent short stories regularly and often. Would her output have been smaller had she lacked the financial incentive the magazine offered? The New Yorker published 16 stories, including many of her best, over about 20 years. [ Mary Lavin: 'Writing for her was a kind of need. It was the thing that was going to get her through' Opens in new window ] Several were rejected, too, but Lavin usually found other homes for those that were 'not quite right for us', or 'too strong'. Before anything was published, intense editing was the norm. Sometimes the amendments are amusing. A description of a baby's leaking nappy had to be excised. (Too strong?) This well-researched book is a rich trove of information on Lavin's wonderful writing, and on the key role of the editor in the production of literature. Like other powerful publishers, the New Yorker was able to shape literary history. Éilís Ní Dhuibhne is a writer and critic. She is Laureate for Irish Fiction
