User:ADavis/sandbox: Difference between revisions

Line 237:

On the brink of the Twentieth Century, with its media ready to go heads-on with electronics, American literature had a threesome, a trio of virtual one-man celebrity shows (Twain, London, and Davis) but only Twain would prevail with the highest legacy quotient standard. All of this notoriety was because of one book, ''Huckleberry Finn'', then as now, America’s most singu-{{pg|293|294}}

lar, quintessential book. With this media-enshrined novel, Twain had touched his (and his country's) mother tongue's central nerve. Now it was exit time for London, Davis, and all earlier American writers. At the Nineteenth Century's closing, if there were to be only one man and one book standing it would be Twain and ''Huck''.

Those who question Mailer's legacy quotient might ponder this question: Will Mailer and his literary contemporaries survive such stringent legacy quotient guidelines, previews of future "cuts." Davis is an automatic no-show, too minor and ephemeral. Crane seems pinpointed with Hemingway and, thus, a Mailer dead-end. And Dreiser, who would live on into Mailer's own time, must be considered as a potential Mailer legacy/literacy "Godfather."

The Norris-Mailer connection, indeed, was vital, and mostly from Norris's twin literary trademarks—bigness and sensationalism, especially in his more abstract prophetic stance (not found in the London canon) in his "Responsibilities of the Novelist," the lead essay in a posthumous (1903) collection. There, Norris pontificated on a cosmic-global level, on the upward march of American literature, symbolizing the fulfillment of Western civilization's destiny. All of this would seem to be strong academic "meat" for a heavy thinker like Mailer. In a "nots and bolts" more practical America, the London canon remained the best media package and best rejoinder to the legacy of Mark Twain. Yes, the London career and canon were robust with survival knowledge about the nature of authorial megalomania and media response. It all came down to control. And who had it, the writer or media?

Let us consider the life and works of Jack London and their connection to Mailer. During the heady days of literary Naturalism and its Quintet, London was the one writer who came the closest to controlling the media of his time. London was his own star performer and he played quite well for two short decades joining those few select icons (Twain, Hemingway, Fitzgerald) who are still universally recognized and respected. "Wolf" London survives today in the U.S. and overseas. His legacy quotient is well earned.

A century or more in the future, will Norman Mailer be among such august literary artists? Already there are some early positive signs for the future, those budding literary quotient seeds. For example, in their shared trait of literary megalomania, Mailer's mode, unlike London's, was expressed only secondarily through his character, personality, and career—but primarily through his protean canon. Big-theme writers tend to impress "Ivory Tower"{{pg|294|295}}

canon academicians. As for being the combative media writer, Mailer, both in the ring and on the page, was a singular battler with the media, and a controller and survivor. these qualities will play an important role in determining the Mailer Legacy.

@@ Line 237: / Line 237: @@
 On the brink of the Twentieth Century, with its media ready to go heads-on with electronics, American literature had a threesome, a trio of virtual one-man celebrity shows (Twain, London, and Davis) but only Twain would prevail with the highest legacy quotient standard. All of this notoriety was because of one book, ''Huckleberry Finn'', then as now, America’s most singu-{{pg|293|294}}
+lar, quintessential book. With this media-enshrined novel, Twain had touched his (and his country's) mother tongue's central nerve. Now it was exit time for London, Davis, and all earlier American writers. At the Nineteenth Century's closing, if there were to be only one man and one book standing it would be Twain and ''Huck''.
+Those who question Mailer's legacy quotient might ponder this question: Will Mailer and his literary contemporaries survive such stringent legacy quotient guidelines, previews of future "cuts." Davis is an automatic no-show, too minor and ephemeral. Crane seems pinpointed with Hemingway and, thus, a Mailer dead-end. And Dreiser, who would live on into Mailer's own time, must be considered as a potential Mailer legacy/literacy "Godfather."
+The Norris-Mailer connection, indeed, was vital, and mostly from Norris's twin literary trademarks—bigness and sensationalism, especially in his more abstract prophetic stance (not found in the London canon) in his "Responsibilities of the Novelist," the lead essay in a posthumous (1903) collection. There, Norris pontificated on a cosmic-global level, on the upward march of American literature, symbolizing the fulfillment of Western civilization's destiny. All of this would seem to be strong academic "meat" for a heavy thinker like Mailer. In a "nots and bolts" more practical America, the London canon remained the best media package and best rejoinder to the legacy of Mark Twain. Yes, the London career and canon were robust with survival knowledge about the nature of authorial megalomania and media response. It all came down to control. And who had it, the writer or media?
+Let us consider the life and works of Jack London and their connection to Mailer. During the heady days of literary Naturalism and its Quintet, London was the one writer who came the closest to controlling the media of his time. London was his own star performer and he played quite well for two short decades joining those few select icons (Twain, Hemingway, Fitzgerald) who are still universally recognized and respected. "Wolf" London survives today in the U.S. and overseas. His legacy quotient is well earned.
+A century or more in the future, will Norman Mailer be among such august literary artists? Already there are some early positive signs for the future, those budding literary quotient seeds. For example, in their shared trait of literary megalomania, Mailer's mode, unlike London's, was expressed only secondarily through his character, personality, and career—but primarily through his protean canon. Big-theme writers tend to impress "Ivory Tower"{{pg|294|295}}
+canon academicians. As for being the combative media writer, Mailer, both in the ring and on the page, was a singular battler with the media, and a controller and survivor. these qualities will play an important role in determining the Mailer Legacy.
+{{Review}}