A few words from Tom Wolfe this weekend, from the program Comment in 1971.
In the 1960s and early 70s, people who weren’t initially drawn to literature or literary criticism found the writer/journalist Tom Wolfe a wordsmith whose work you couldn’t put down. At a time when literary boundaries were being crossed Wolf, along with figures like Hunter S. Thompson were representing a new voice, particularly in Journalism where the atmosphere had lapsed into a state of complacency or “hipper than thou” pontificating – something needed to be shaken up, and Tom Wolfe was just the writer to do it.
Kurt Vonnegut said Wolfe is “the most exciting—or, at least, the most jangling—journalist to appear in some time,” and “a genius who will do anything to get attention.” Paul Fussell called Wolfe a splendid writer and stated “Reading him is exhilarating not because he makes us hopeful of the human future but because he makes us share the enthusiasm with which he perceives the actual.” Critic Dwight Garner praised Wolfe as “a brilliantly gifted social observer and satirist” who “made a fetish of close and often comically slashing detail” and was “unafraid of kicking up at the pretensions of the literary establishment.” Harold Bloom described Wolfe as “a fierce storyteller, and a vastly adequate social satirist”. Novelist Louis Auchincloss praised Wolfe, describing The Bonfire of the Vanities as “a marvelous book”.
Critic James Wood disparaged Wolfe’s “big subjects, big people, and yards of flapping exaggeration. No one of average size emerges from his shop; in fact, no real human variety can be found in his fiction, because everyone has the same enormous excitability.”
In 2000, Wolfe was criticised by Norman Mailer, John Updike and John Irving, after they were asked if they believed that his books were deserving of their critical acclaim. Mailer compared reading a Wolfe novel to having sex with a 300 lb woman, saying, “Once she gets to the top it’s all over. Fall in love or be asphyxiated.” Updike was more literary in his reservedness: He claimed that A Man in Full “amounts to entertainment, not literature, even literature in a modest aspirant form.” Irving was perhaps the most dismissive, saying “It’s like reading a bad newspaper or a bad piece in a magazine … read sentences and watch yourself gag.” Wolfe responded, saying, “It’s a tantrum. It’s a wonderful tantrum. A Man in Full panicked Irving the same way it panicked Updike and Norman. Frightened them. Panicked them.” He later called Updike and Mailer “two old piles of bones” and said again that Irving was frightened by the quality of his work. Later that year he published an essay titled My Three Stooges about the critics.
Here he is, in conversation with Edwin Newman of NBC News, recorded and broadcast in 1971.
And while you’re here . . .
