Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ

James is also nominated in the opening voting for historical fiction: /choiceaward...

Interesting take on Orbital vs James from a former National Book Awards judge. Includes the following:

I believe I can assure you that Orbital will never be made into a movie, one of the most complimentary things I can say about a novel.
°Ú…]
When talking about James, Everett told his interviewer, “I’d love a scathing review.� This is not it, only a belated notice. And maybe not even scathing but rather appreciative of a novelist taking the risk of taking in so many literary readers—and laughing, as it’s said, all the way to the bank. For James, Everett left his usual small-press publisher Graywolf for the mainstream promotion of Doubleday. Next up, the movie.

°¿³Ü³¦³óâ€�

That feels harsh to me - I have only read 3-4 of Everett’s novels but they are often cinematic (one is literally a James Bind parody) and not that subtle and this feels in the same vein.

On the switching to a bigger press well then Isabel Waidner, Ben Myers, Deborah Levy (who switched back to a big press), Eley Williams, Monique Roffey to name a few forum favourites lauded for their small press books - did the same. Given how very little money there is in publishing it feels hard to criticise authors here.

And while I often quote the “movie test� myself I saw this week That Cold Enough For Snow is being made into a movie so not sure it’s as good a test as I or the author think it is

Interesting how translation in another medium is the litmus test for great literature, would say that is rather one-dimensional take on literature, as is big publisher "validation". Can we even imagine contemporary literary fiction without books from presses like Fitzcaraldo and Charco?

I think the article is arguing the opposite though - that being made into a film and being published by a big publisher means a book and author is unworthy?

Both seem rather simplistic views to me even if I have in the past expressed both myself.

Gumble's Yard - Golden Reviewer wrote: "I think the article is arguing the opposite though - that being made into a film and being published by a big publisher means a book and author is unworthy?

Both seem rather simplistic views to m..."

I think the argument the article is making is quite simplistic, too.

Of course being published by a big publisher or made into a movie doesn't mean a book is bad. Mainstream books make better movies because they tend to have more plot, but some mainstream books are very good. I call James mainstream and it was very good, I think. Not my choice for the book. As you know, I loved Held. The small presses handle the literary books, of course. I've read some thematic books that aren't good at all, and since a literary novel concentrates on theme, it's hard to make them into a good movie.

I do call The Remains of the Day a hybrid, there is a plot, but I think the main concentration is on theme, and it made an excellent movie. I think James is an excellent book and will make an excellent movie as well. I loved the prose in Orbital, but I think James is the superior book overall, movie or no movie. I do think Harvey could have offered us a little conflict or greater character depth, and I don't even like heavily plotted books. I just wanted something besides poetic language. Harvey could have given us just a smidgen of conflict, just a little character development.

I'm just catching up on this thread and also want to thank David for the link to the Everett bibliography! It seems some of the earlier novels are out of print and hard to find and this is a good place to start hunting them down.

You know I loved James so much when I read it in ARC and before the hubbub began about it. I still do love it but it also feels like it's been layered with unintended meanings and good intentions from readers wishing to jump onto a revisionist take of Huckleberry Finn for its own sake, since Twain's book is both beloved and also subject to criticism for its takes about racism and slavery. What better way to feel good about your literary sensibility than to champion a retelling? But honestly it's one of those novels that is very damning to the readerly class that has championed it, in some ways. To me, it feels like a very subtle, very brilliant rewrite of Erasure, where Everett has become the meta-character of his former novel and has written a novel that white people are sure to love.

Gumble's Yard - Golden Reviewer wrote: "I think the article is arguing the opposite though - that being made into a film and being published by a big publisher means a book and author is unworthy?

Both seem rather simplistic views to m..."

That was my take too, and agree with you entirely.

Lark wrote: "I'm just catching up on this thread and also want to thank David for the link to the Everett bibliography! It seems some of the earlier novels are out of print and hard to find and this is a good p..."

I think you said it perfectly. I feel the same, but you wrote the superior post.