Because most male writers are dorks. Who wish they were tough guys. Because male writers are too confused by feminism and women in general to portray "real men" on the page, much less in reality. And Palahniuk is their role model? Palahniuk is gay. How the leader of the New Manliness turned out to be a mostly closeted homosexual is a source of endless mystery to me.Take "Tool Academy," by way of example. The perfect example, really. Because it reveals that the new women are men. All those peacocks greasing up their bodies, wearing thongs and preening, crying and apologizing. These contestants are not men. They are women with penises. Gender is a masquerade. Welcome to our reality, dudes.
Where's our 21st century Kerouac? The man on the train so skullfucked by the hijacked American way that he can't help but see the world and himself truly? He's probably in diapers. It'll take a post-male man to bring literature out of the ladies room.
Update 1: Dwayne Monroe emails:
Intriguing you should bring this up.
Intriguing, because I discussed something very similar with an old friend. Or rather, she expressed her frustration while I mostly listened, sipped wine and nodded in agreement.
"Can any of these 'sad young literary men' match Chandler's achievement with Marlowe?" She asked. I couldn't think of any. We both love Marlowe and for the same reason: Chandler created an archetype who was smart and stupid and tough and vulnerable and observant and thick headed and non-racist and racist, all wrapped -- remarkably -- in a disciplined, thoroughly grown up package.
As she talked, a theory, or something close enough, came to mind which I'll flesh out as I type.
Chandler's life wasn't easy. He took great personal risks, and during the depression. By the time he moved to Los Angeles, he was pretty well seasoned. LA added its own special qualities to his thinking. In Los Angeles, no one can hear you scream. You either carve out your niche or settle into oblivion. When you have that sort of life, and Chandler's talent, a Marlowe is almost inevitable. 'Almost inevitable', because at the heart of a Marlowe is an awareness of fragility (perhaps the essence of true adulthood). The fragility of life, of comfort, of civilization even of the Earth herself. Chandler had such an awareness. He poured it into his most famous creation.
Our current crop of young male writers -- through no fault of their own (because, you live in the world as you find it) -- have nothing to match that. Mostly, they're just clever lads who enjoy a way with words. They don't have any real stories to tell. Hold on, I take that back. They do have stories to tell but they're all of a type: the 30-something suburban man-child who cheats on his wife to feel 'alive'. The 20-something suburban man-child who's unlucky in love ('unlucky' meaning, he gets laid a lot by Anne Hathaway look and sound-alikes, but scratches his head in puzzlement at their romcom antics). The 20-something who longs to be like Hemingway and so, moves to Spain...where he gets tangled up with a Penélope Cruz look and sound alike. Bottles of Amontillado are smashed, hair is tousled. Self consciously sensitive feelings are recorded. The tough talking lout who isn't really tough -- that is, ruthless like Robespierre (who dressed as a dandy but moved with the deliberateness of a python) -- but just another douchebag waving a gun around.
And on and on.
You asked:
Where's our 21st century Kerouac? The man on the train so skullfucked by the hijacked American way that he can't help but see the world and himself truly? He's probably in diapers. It'll take a post-male man to bring literature out of the ladies room.
Sounds about right to me. The 21st century is going to produce a whole lot of strange. To get through will require a tough sort of open mindedness. I think writers like William Gibson have provided extended tours of that sensibility-in-making. China Miéville is almost there, I think.
By the time I'm an old bastard, sipping my genetech dinner through a straw, I expect to start reading fiction from young men who know what they're about.
Update 2: Tomas emails:
If gender is a masquerade, what is a "real man"? Is it a tough guy? And what does Palahniuk being gay really have to do with anything?
Your comment suggests that the only way Obama could bring on a post-race discussion is if his blackness is never in question. But it's exactly his multiple shadings that allow him to view himself as both black and as many other backgrounds. If you're looking for a post-gender world, your new Kerouac's orientation will be totally irrelevant. And, besides which, sometimes those guys were gay too!
I suspect you jumped on Palahniuk largely because you don't like his writing. Maybe you would also rather his homosexuality were widely-known. But it seems to me, that as part of the masquerade, it should be perfectly normal that straight guys get macho tips even from queens.
Are you looking for some kind of masculine authenticity for the New Manliness? Perhaps someone who is sexually confident and doesn't care about our gender norms. Acts just as he feels. I'm not going for it.
The post-male hero is probably not going to be a standard tough guy, and I would think has spent time figuring out how to navigate feminism and women. And masculinity. And he could benefit from more nuanced discussion from normally thoughtful writers like you.
Update 3: Bryan Hill emails:
Male writing is largely the domain of upper middle class (white) men who suffer from emasculation issues. I'm black, I write fiction. I come from a working class background (scholarship kid, NYU grad). Back when I was repped by William Morris, I remember going to NYC lit events and feeling like I should be bouncing at the front door. Kerouac and others like him didn't come from the establishment and suddenly read FIGHT CLUB and decide they wanted to play too, but unfortunately that's where most male writers come from these days.
Every hedge fund pimp I've ever known is struggling to finish a novel about how difficult it is to be a hedge fund pimp.
There's also the crisis of masculinity itself. To me, it seems that my generation (I'm 31) defines masculinity solely through the pursuit of women. I love women. I'm married to one, but when the only rite of passage is reading "The Game", then there's a problem in the world of men. What is the male culture independent of the influence of women?
Which brings me back to gay old Chuck. How did a gay man become the icon of masculinity for the commuter crowd?
FIGHT CLUB is hip-hop for white men. (Although hip-hop is hip-hop for white men, but I digress...). Dick lit is fantasy fulfillment. It's the ridiculous idea that even if you've been a sheltered, pampered, entitled prick for most of your life -- a month doing sit ups and you can turn into Chuck Lidell. These books convince soft-natured fellas that they have a boxer's pain threshold, an animal's savagery, and a gladiator's soul. Just like rap music convinces every black kid that being black somehow makes you inherently more badass than everyone else (it doesn't), these books convince yuppies that they're not fragile.
And just like black kids who watch Scarface and miss the fact that Tony Montana dies in a hail of gunfire, alone, addicted to cocaine and insane -- the "man fans" miss the fact that FIGHT CLUB is about a narrator who is so shit-scared of asking out Marla Singer that he invents another personality in order to fuck her. FIGHT CLUB isn't about a world without women. FIGHT CLUB is about a sub-culture created because of a woman. It's not about empowerment. It's an essay about how men can't escape emasculation.
When men find motivations separate from their relationships with women, that's when we get our balls back.
