"Andrew Boryga makes the excellent observation that this is primarily because men's internal thoughts have not been popular in the ideas market in general lately2. Boryga attributes this largely to a tendency of men to express themselves in ways that chafe at women's sensibilities, which becomes disqualifying when women are hegemonic in the literary ecosystem."
@borywrites
A good point. One example that immediately comes to mind. I'm a fan of the late John Updike, whose fiction presents a complex, compassionate, critical look at masculinity in America; the Rabbit quartet is, to some extent, a 1,500 page interrogation of what we would now call toxic masculinity and its discontents. Updike was also a literary critic, an art critic, and the author of wistful short stories about childhood, adolescence and aging. Nonetheless, whenever his name comes up now what happens is that he's immediately dismissed as a misogynist, with no further engagement.
"If this is your response, I’d like to gently suggest that you're not actually interested in how men move through the world and maintain their internal lives; you are actually looking for stories about men using Instagram. Which is okay! For better or worse, systems like social media do in fact matter and influence our lives."
To me, it's the difference between going to a baseball game because you're invested in quality athleticism and skill, and going because you love hot dogs and bleachers. There's nothing wrong with either, but if I fall into the second camp it's probably misleading to call myself a baseball fan.
If you're saying that some overly online-brained novel from the straight male POV is not exactly the ideal we should be striving for, I fully agree. I don't want a straight-male Fake Accounts.
But any contemporary male novel is going to have to account for some level of online culture, as well as other modern developments, which renders older works by, say, Philip Roth, inadequate as substitutes.
I largely agree. What gives me pause about this Esquire article and similar is that it appears driven by a desire to diversify the literary appetite rather than earnest curiosity about what's going on with men these days. I see it as market forces that spark these conversations more than anything else.
I'm actually a bit more cynical than you in this regard: I see the Esquire article as emblematic of that well-intentioned but subtly demeaning strain of "make men emotional because they're scary" gender advocacy, where vulnerability in men is encouraged insofar as it's the kind of vulnerability that questions stoic fathers and locker room talk- the kind of emotion and vulnerability that values men's emotional lives more as potential ammunition against the patriarchy rather than opportunities for men to actually grapple with their darkness with the honesty afforded other demographics.
The article ends with this paragraph:
"Indeed, the books I’ve discussed show promise of an industry evolving into something entirely new. Gone are the days when only certain voices were front and center; now the new canon of male writers includes voices that are queer, Black, trans, and beyond. As I consider what literary masculinity might mean today, I’m struck by something Hansbury said to me: “If masculinity is threatened, hopefully it’s the old masculinity of extraction, violence, and domination.” I couldn’t agree more."
This doesn't sound much like a call for straight men to share their life stories, but neither is it a call to sacrifice straight men on the altar of capitalism. It's an admittance- for which I at least admire their honesty- that male representation and vulnerability in the literary industry is wanted only because men need to supply the right kind of representation and vulnerability in the fight against the patriarchy and men themselves. The vulnerability of a man who struggles with classmates calling him gay or his father wishing he played more sports is one thing- but what about the vulnerability of a man who finds dating women intimidating or thinks that porn is awesome or that modern society is becoming too feminized for people like him?
I think for a lot of men it's more natural to explore ideas through directly analytical rather than creative writing. It's generally easier in my mind to interrogate a position by just working it out instead of embodying the idea in the abstract through fiction. A lot of energy goes toward essays and articles instead of novels as a result.
"Andrew Boryga makes the excellent observation that this is primarily because men's internal thoughts have not been popular in the ideas market in general lately2. Boryga attributes this largely to a tendency of men to express themselves in ways that chafe at women's sensibilities, which becomes disqualifying when women are hegemonic in the literary ecosystem."
@borywrites
A good point. One example that immediately comes to mind. I'm a fan of the late John Updike, whose fiction presents a complex, compassionate, critical look at masculinity in America; the Rabbit quartet is, to some extent, a 1,500 page interrogation of what we would now call toxic masculinity and its discontents. Updike was also a literary critic, an art critic, and the author of wistful short stories about childhood, adolescence and aging. Nonetheless, whenever his name comes up now what happens is that he's immediately dismissed as a misogynist, with no further engagement.
Ditto Bukowski. He'd be flayed alive if he tried to sell "Women" to a publisher today.
Thanks for the mention!
"If this is your response, I’d like to gently suggest that you're not actually interested in how men move through the world and maintain their internal lives; you are actually looking for stories about men using Instagram. Which is okay! For better or worse, systems like social media do in fact matter and influence our lives."
What's the difference?
To me, it's the difference between going to a baseball game because you're invested in quality athleticism and skill, and going because you love hot dogs and bleachers. There's nothing wrong with either, but if I fall into the second camp it's probably misleading to call myself a baseball fan.
If you're saying that some overly online-brained novel from the straight male POV is not exactly the ideal we should be striving for, I fully agree. I don't want a straight-male Fake Accounts.
But any contemporary male novel is going to have to account for some level of online culture, as well as other modern developments, which renders older works by, say, Philip Roth, inadequate as substitutes.
I largely agree. What gives me pause about this Esquire article and similar is that it appears driven by a desire to diversify the literary appetite rather than earnest curiosity about what's going on with men these days. I see it as market forces that spark these conversations more than anything else.
I'm actually a bit more cynical than you in this regard: I see the Esquire article as emblematic of that well-intentioned but subtly demeaning strain of "make men emotional because they're scary" gender advocacy, where vulnerability in men is encouraged insofar as it's the kind of vulnerability that questions stoic fathers and locker room talk- the kind of emotion and vulnerability that values men's emotional lives more as potential ammunition against the patriarchy rather than opportunities for men to actually grapple with their darkness with the honesty afforded other demographics.
The article ends with this paragraph:
"Indeed, the books I’ve discussed show promise of an industry evolving into something entirely new. Gone are the days when only certain voices were front and center; now the new canon of male writers includes voices that are queer, Black, trans, and beyond. As I consider what literary masculinity might mean today, I’m struck by something Hansbury said to me: “If masculinity is threatened, hopefully it’s the old masculinity of extraction, violence, and domination.” I couldn’t agree more."
This doesn't sound much like a call for straight men to share their life stories, but neither is it a call to sacrifice straight men on the altar of capitalism. It's an admittance- for which I at least admire their honesty- that male representation and vulnerability in the literary industry is wanted only because men need to supply the right kind of representation and vulnerability in the fight against the patriarchy and men themselves. The vulnerability of a man who struggles with classmates calling him gay or his father wishing he played more sports is one thing- but what about the vulnerability of a man who finds dating women intimidating or thinks that porn is awesome or that modern society is becoming too feminized for people like him?
I think for a lot of men it's more natural to explore ideas through directly analytical rather than creative writing. It's generally easier in my mind to interrogate a position by just working it out instead of embodying the idea in the abstract through fiction. A lot of energy goes toward essays and articles instead of novels as a result.