I'm officially giving up on Michael Chabon.

I am officially giving up on Michael Chabon. If I never, ever have to read anything the guy writes ever again, I will be one happy camper.

I didn't want it to be this way. I loved the movie Wonder Boys (although I don't think I ever did get around to reading the book) and people I know and respect keep liking his books, so I keep trying to like him. I've tried several times to make it past the first thirty pages of The Amazing Adventures of Kavalier and Clay, and I made it all the way through his action adventure historical fiction title Gentlemen of the Road (which he originally wanted to title "Jews with Swords"). I've tried. But they don't do anything for me. And I'm so confused by the very concept of The Yiddish Policemen's Union, which seems to be about Judaism but has cover art that signals a Native American theme and which is evidently set in Alaska, that I didn't even bother starting it.

So I was very excited to see that he had a new nonfiction collection out, titled Maps and Legends. At last, I thought. Maybe I'll have a fighting chance of understanding his nonfiction writing. It's a book about writing and reading, so naturally I thought I would find a lot to love in it.*

But, sadly, the Curse of Chabon continues, and I have decided I have to stop trying to read him or I'm going to end up hating him as if I knew him personally. Normally I don't have a problem describing what I don't like about authors, but with Chabon I'm at a loss. Take the opening sentence of his opening essay, titled "Trickster in a Suit of Lights: Thoughts on the Modern Short Story":

"Entertainment has a bad name. Serious people learn to mistrust and even to revile it. The word wears spandex, pasties, a leisure suit studded with blinking lights."

Now that's okay. That's good, evocative writing, and I'm with him. But the high doesn't last for long. Before I know it, he's on to a paragraph like this one:

"...I read for entertainment, and I write to entertain. Period. Oh, I could decoct a brew of other, more impressive motivations and explanations. I could uncork some stuff about reader response theory, or the Lacanian parole. I could go on about the storytelling impulse and the need to make sense of experience through story. A spritz of Jung might scent the air. I could adduce Kafka's formula: "A book must be an ice-axe to break the seas frozen inside our soul.' I could go down to the cafe at the local mega-bookstore and take some wise words of Abelard or Koestler about the power of literature off a mug. But in the end--here's my point--it would still all boil down to entertainment, and its suave henchman, pleasure. Because when the axe bites the ice, you feel an answering throb of delight all the way from your hands to your shoulders, and the blade tolls like a bell for miles."

What I was going to say was that I get bored of that paragraph in the middle, just like I get bored in the middle of all his paragraphs. But then as I typed it I started to get it, just a little bit. But not enough to like it. So I think this is a case where I am too lazy for the author, and me not liking him is not his fault. I'm sure Chabon'll be able to sleep easier at night, knowing that.

*I don't know what is up with Mr. CR and his willingness to look at nonfiction lately. When I told him this book wasn't for me, he said, "Yeah, I looked at it too, but...seemed like a good concept, but most of it was just really boring."

Comments

[Tripp]

Chabon is one of my favorites, but there is no point continuing on an author who isn't working for you. My case is John Irving who I cannot stand.

Policeman's Union is a tough one. The literary types all bought it, but it is Chabon's ode to the genre novel (both scifi and crime) and I think it befuddled them.

[Jessica]

I really loved Kavalier and Clay. Reading it was like falling into a well; I would pause for a break and sorta forget where I was for a minute. I do seem to remember it took me a couple of chapters to get into it, though.

[Citizen Reader]

Tripp,
I know you and Brandon over at Bookstorm really love him; that's part of the reason I kept trying him. I was about to ponder whether he appeals more to male readers than female, but then Jessica (below) jumped in and ruined my theory. So yup. It's probably just me.

Jessica,
I know, man, I have tried that novel so many times. It's just never going to happen. Chabon and Jeffrey Eugenides are two authors that I'm just NEVER GOING TO LIKE. I might as well accept it and move on. But I feel like the literati reading crowd won't accept me unless I like one of those guys!

[Tripp]

Distract them by liking someone else. Ian McEwan perhaps?

[Citizen Reader]

Mmmmmm Ian McEwan. Done, and done!

[lesbrarian]

Yeah, I don't like him, either. He's like the anti-Hemingway: same number of thoughts per book, four times as many words. Before I gave up on belonging to book groups, I forced myself through Kavalier and Clay, promising myself that I'd surely start to like it at some point, since it was about superheroes and gay people; talk about a winning formula. Amazingly, it never happened.

I'm glad his writing is out there, it really has some strong points, but he's not my stylistic cup of tea.

[Jessica]

Love McEwan. In fact I'm sort of obsessing on him right now.

[Brandon]

Chabon rules. End of story. And anyone who disagrees can take a leap into the ocean, sans floatation.

Okay, I'm only half kidding. I can see why you wouldn't like "Kavalier & Clay." That's a monster of a book.

I think part of Chabon's--I don't know what to call it, unappeal?--is that you can't really shoehorn him. When he gets done with comics, he writes a children's book. When he's done with that, he writes a sci-fi/detective novel. When he's done with that, he turns in a nonfiction book. Just look at his books. He's never written the same thing twice. Seriously, he's all over the place. Thing is, you never know what you're getting with him. Most authors work because they have a formula; I bet if you looked at a paragraph by Roth, or McEwan, or DeLillo, you'd be able to match the paragraph to the author. Chabon, you really couldn't do that, because he has no formula. You mentioned the cover to "TYPU." I rest my case. I'd heard it won a bunch of sci-fi awards, so I went into it thinking, "Spaceships, aliens, time-travel." Nope. In fact, I hesitate to call it sci-fi. It's a fucking detective story! If anything, it should've been up for an Edgar or something along those lines, not the Nebula.

Look, here's why I enjoy Chabon: the guy is just fucking COOL. I read his stuff and I picture him as the kind of guy who drives the badass muscle car, smokes good dope with you, and takes you to the awesomest party ever. He's like the guy with the coolest music collection, the coolest comics, the coolest everything.

Another thing: I think some people just think too much about Chabon. He may be considered literary, which makes people want to put on their thinking caps, but that's not the case. His brand is closer to pop fiction than anything else. He's not stupid like Koontz or Baldacci, but he won't break your brain like Pynchon or something. Chabon isn't sending out subliminal messages or burying archetypes and symbolism within his work. He's not showing off. He's just telling stories. And that's his point in the paragraph you quoted. He could show off if he wanted to, but he won't sacrifice story or entertainment just to show how big his brain is. He's really a literary author for Everyman: just smart enough that you'll listen to him, but not so brainy that he becomes a nerd and loses you. Pynchon, the nerd, hides from everyone; you can picture Chabon having a social life and a job, just like anyone else.

That's just my three bucks. If you don't like him, that's cool.

[Citizen Reader]

Brandon,
Are you kidding about the "sans flotation" part? :) You really mean that, don't you?

I think your response to this post rules. I am glad you like Chabon, and, if you'll note, I do think it's just not my cuppa--I do think the man can string a sentence and a paragraph together, and for that I appreciate him. Ditto on the writing all over the map--something I'm traditionally very fond of.

I do sometimes wonder what Chabon's and his wife's (writer Ayelet Waldman) household looks like, and how they get all that writing done. I get a charge out of Ayelet, actually, who took some heat for once saying that sometimes she loves her kids more than she loves him. Which I think was just honest and thoughtful, myself. I'm pretty sure she did qualify it with the "sometimes."

Thanks for the three bucks. Have you read his "Gentlemen of the Road" yet? Seems like you might like it.

[zia]

You and I are PEEPS man. I have never felt the Chabon love.

[Citizen Reader]

Zia, my long-lost sister! I knew we were peeps when you disliked that stupid "Tomato Girl" book. Let's never read Chabon again, 'k?

[bybee]

I've got Chabon-love, but can't warm up to Eugenides, though.

[Citizen Reader]

Bybee,
I've really got no problem with anyone who has the Chabon-love. But I am glad not to be alone on feeling "meh" about Eugenides!!