• Welcome to BookAndReader!

    We LOVE books and hope you'll join us in sharing your favorites and experiences along with your love of reading with our community. Registering for our site is free and easy, just CLICK HERE!

    Already a member and forgot your password? Click here.

Tom Wolfe

novella

Active Member
Harkening back to my formative years, I so enjoyed The Electric Kool-Aid Acid Test and Radical Chic and Mau-Mauing the Flack Catchers.

Bonfire of the Vanities seemed like an anomoly. Where did this beefed-up buffoonery come from? It was like a pompous souffle, but in terms of commentary on the 80s in NY, I could accept it.

Then A Man in Full. What a dreary, cliche-ed piece o' crud. I was astonished at the reviews lauding it all over the place. The writing was pedestrian, every character was a stereotype without even a glimmer of the true human condition.

And now we have, even worse, I Am Charlotte Simmons. Wolfe must have a fabulous publicist to get panned in the NY Times on Friday(by Kakutani, who I tend to agree with), but turn up Sunday as the focus of a full-length profile of his genius. What hogwash. And I bet it gets pumped onto the bestseller list for a couple weeks at least.
 
Save me from this madness!!! It's number 14 on Amazon and it sucks and it didn't even come out yet!!! What is wrong with this world????
 
As both Bonfire and A Man in Full have been sitting unread on my shelf for years, it's good to know that I shouldn't push them into the TBR pile. It's full enough as is.
 
No no - Bonfire is terrific. Intimidating in thickness but extraordinarily welcoming and lovable once you start - I finished it in 4 days, which at 700 pages gives you some idea of how readable it is. I can't comment on A Man in Full or Charlotte Simmons though.
 
Shade said:
No no - Bonfire is terrific. Intimidating in thickness but extraordinarily welcoming and lovable once you start - I finished it in 4 days, which at 700 pages gives you some idea of how readable it is. I can't comment on A Man in Full or Charlotte Simmons though.

I beg to differ. Bonfire is full of racist cliches, banal generalizations, stereotypical characters, completely unrealistic plotting, and portrays New York's Upper East Side, the Bronx, and Wall Street exactly the way some effete Southern wanker like Wolfe would like them to be. As someone who knows all three milieus well, I can tell you that book reads like a comic strip with the ethical assumptions of Fox News.

He was really a much better writer when he was on acid and trying to imitate Kerouac. Remember, we're talking about a guy who for the past 30 years has worn nothing but three-piece white suits, pink neckties, and dapper little hats. His first-hand knowledge of the society he's trying to write about is, I think, isolated to a few blocks in the East 60s in Manhattan and perhaps three very special restaurants where they know how he likes his salad. The rest is straight off the NYC archetype shelf, strung together with the usual soapy plot threads.

If you want a good NYC rich-bad-people read, try Dominick Dunne's People Like Us. He captures the essence, in all its complexity.

(Not meant as a personal comment, Shade, just my opinion of the book.)
 
Nothing personal taken. Chacun a son gout. I think it's a first class entertainment.
 
Entertainment Weekly this week has Stephen King being not so impressed with I am Charlotte Simmons. He wanted to like it, just to piss off the critics. He even had a really humorous justification for the Bad Sex award (the book is set in college, after all.) But in the end, he described it as such:

"by page 600 or so, I felt a little as if I were listening to the longest Donna Summer disco tune ever recorded."

Ouch.
 
I'm up to page 510 and it is becoming a bit of a slog. It could have been condensed quite a bit.

I am with Charlotte, trying to stay above all the shag-athon, beer soaked antics of the students of Dupont but at the same time she comes across as a bit of a prig and needs to lighten up a bit for us to feel a bit of sympathy.

I am now wondering if she will take some sort of Colombine revenge - if not it'll be a dull book with a dull ending I expect...
 
I personally believe that all the criticism that "I Am Charlotte Simmons," has come in for is a bit over-the-top. As "I am" (excuse the pun) currently in University I find that a lot of the characters are very identifiable and some of his observations such as the "**** Patois" are accurate. The book is an enjoyable read and isn't as bad as everyone claims. Although I will admit that the constant moralistic undertones can get a bit repetitive.
 
Well! Here we disagree, novella. ;) I have enjoyed all 'late Wolfe' that I've read, viz. The Right Stuff, Bonfire of the Vanities and now I Am Charlotte Simmons.

On the penultimate page of I am Charlotte Simmons, he has a character demolishing something "like Samson or the Incredible Hulk." And there you have Wolfe in a nutshell: cramming in the contemporary with the classical, as eager to display his formal erudition in Darwin and Flaubert as his ability to mimic rap lyrics (pretty plausibly, too, for a 75-year-old in a white suit). He just wants to get it all in. And when I said "Wolfe in a nutshell," that was a contradiction in terms: Wolfe doesn't do in a nutshell. If you said to him, "Less is more," he wouldn't hear you. He wouldn't hear you because he doesn't notice of any expression of a thought that lasts fewer than five sentences. It doesn't blip on his radar. I am Charlotte Simmons, like The Right Stuff and The Bonfire of the Vanities before it (and, I am willing to bet, his second novel A Man in Full too), is maximalism writ large.

And like The Right Stuff and The Bonfire of the Vanities before it, it's very good. The irony of Bonfire is that, at 700 pages, it's a daunting prospect before you crack it open: I think I had my copy on the bedside table for six months before I gulped and dived. (I had Charlotte Simmons for three months: now there's progress.) The irony bit being that once you start it, it pulls you along, gripping, funny, accessible and welcoming, far more so than most books half the length. Maybe this is because of its length, and Wolfe's verbose style makes each sentence do only a quarter the work of a sentence in a shorter, more literary book. Martin Amis said of A Man in Full (I note in passing that he files his review in The War Against Cliché in a chapter among other popular fiction, and not among the American greats he so admires):

This book will be a good friend to you. Maybe the best friend you ever had - or so it will sometimes seem. I read A Man in Full during a week of lone travel, and it was always there for me: nestling in my lap on planes and trains, enlivening many a solitary meal, and faithfully waiting in my hotel room when I returned, last thing. Like its predecessor, The Bonfire of the Vanities, Tom Wolfe's new novel is fiercely and instantly addictive.

Which is precisely how I felt about Bonfire, and now about Charlotte Simmons. Taking just over a week to read - quite a long time for me - it's always there, and always a welcome prospect instead of whatever else you might be doing. Which is not to say that it's perfect. For me it gets four stars, which would have been four-and-a-half if not for the slowdown in the last few hundred pages, where even by Wolfe's standards, everything takes many many pages to happen.

Charlotte Simmons is an 18-year-old girl heading from the tiny settlement of Sparta, North Carolina (pop. 990, principal industry: Christmas trees) to Dupont University in Pennsylvania, a prestigious seat of learning. Admission to it earns her celebrity in her home town, though Charlotte is not a celebrity kind of person: intelligent and industrious, teetotal and virginal, and ripe for a rude, in all senses, awakening. When she goes to Dupont, she is astonished to find the twin turbines of alcohol and sex everywhere, their smells getting up her nose whichever way she turns. However, she is pretty, with self-professed good legs, and the attention of various seniors who want to get fresh with a freshman soon tip her over, shattering her loneliness but bringing new sadnesses to replace it. She changes, though not into the provocative cover photo of a girl with a crop top, bejewelled belly button and waistband so low you can practically see her fundament.

Nonetheless Wolfe is acutely aware of the 21st century 'uniform' for teenagers of 'winking navels' among girls and prominent 'delts, abs, pecs, traps, lats, bis and tris' among boys. In the hierachies of body, of dress, of athleticism and of cool, Wolfe recognises that the university world is an enclosed social milieu just as sharply defined and snobbish as the yuppie broker belt in Bonfire of the Vanities. And he peoples it with a full range of characters, if not always as colourful as those in Bonfire: Jojo Johanssen, the only white basketball player on the university team; Adam Gellin, the geeky student reporter who seems like Charlotte's entry ticket into the life of the mind; Boyt Thorpe, the frat boy who seems like Charlotte's entry into a very different life; and a full complement of gaggling girl and whiney boy students, and their staff.

The overarching and interlinking plots are pretty straightforward, but the appeal is in the telling. Wolfe's dialogue is always a pleasure, and his observational eye never leaves him (no wonder, with all this eye candy for it to feed on). The setting and scenes are no doubt meticulously researched (as is the language of the students: Wolfe notes in the acknowledgements that "students who load up conversations with likes and totallys, as in 'like totally awesome,' are almost always females. The totallys now give off such whiffs of parody, they are fading away, even as I write") and the research pays off. Whether the book will be viewed in future generations - as I think Wolfe would like it to be - as a sort of guide to a small corner of the early 21st century, a sort of modern Dickens, is debatable, but since we won't be around then, all that matters is whether it works as a novel for us, now, and to me it does, offering pleasure and leisure in - why not? - equal measure.
 
In Defense of the Old Bugger

I too enjoyed 'Electric Kool-Aid Acid Test' especially as a companion read for HST's 'Hell's Angels.'

But 'Bonfire,' 'A Man in Full' and 'I Am Charlotte Simmons' are not even the same type of book. He was doing 'New Journalism' in those early books.

Starting with 'Bonfire,' he's basically been trying to reinvent the Victorian novel in a contemporary American setting. His cariacatured characters are no more extreme than Dickens' were.

The thing that amazes me about the book sales he makes is that Americans don't have the patience to read anything longer than a 'People' article, yet they buy these Tom Wolfe novels. Why? For doorstops? Paperweights?

I think he does a skillful job of reinventing the comedy of manners and teaching a 'Great Books' course all at the same time.

Of course, the Victorians wrote short stories in serial form for magazine publication, and only later collected them into a book. So Wolfe's being very derivative in terms of format. And if you look at 'A Man in Full' next to 'A Tale of Two Cities,' I don't think modern Atlanta and Oakland can compare with London and Paris during the French Revolution...
 
In spite of his intentions, I think Wolfe's results are nothing like Dickens. The plotting of something like Great Expectations is superb, and the characters have complex motives that are only discovered as they move through experience. Take Estella and Pip and Magwich. All of those characters are far from caricature in that they show surprises in their psychological complexity that Wolfe's Bonfire characters never approach.

The sad thing about Wolfe is that he seems to think he's still doing New Journalism, in the way Mailer's novels might be considered such. But his view of American 'reality' is pathetically undernourished. Further, I don't think A Man in Full and Charlotte Simmons sold well at all. Bookstore advance purchases are how the big bestseller lists are determined, but anecdotally, while everyone I know read Bonfire back when, I can't think of a person who bought either Man in Full or Charlotte. I bet time will show these two to lag far behind Bonfire in popularity and general regard.

RK, I forgot about The Right Stuff. Interestingly, that sits squarely between the old Wolfe and the new, with his reportage and fascination with 20th century culture still intact, but you can see him heading toward the overinflated melodrama that comes later.
 
novella said:
In spite of his intentions, I think Wolfe's results are nothing like Dickens. The plotting of something like Great Expectations is superb, and the characters have complex motives that are only discovered as they move through experience. Take Estella and Pip and Magwich. All of those characters are far from caricature in that they show surprises in their psychological complexity that Wolfe's Bonfire characters never approach.

One thing that makes it tricky to compare contemporary writers with Victorians who still get read is we don't see the equivalent of 'best-sellers' from the day of Dickens, Thackeray, and Hardy. Ever read Sir Walter Bessant? Hardly anyone ever has, though he was WILDLY more successful in his day than Thomas Hardy. And as much as Hardy reads like a soap opera, there is so much worse that is largely out of print and forgotten. Wolfe may look like Bessant in a century, and some mid-list writer doing detailed social-documentary/commentary novels may be venerated. Someone who may be published by an indie house and working a day job right now.

novella said:
The sad thing about Wolfe is that he seems to think he's still doing New Journalism, in the way Mailer's novels might be considered such. But his view of American 'reality' is pathetically undernourished. Further, I don't think A Man in Full and Charlotte Simmons sold well at all. Bookstore advance purchases are how the big bestseller lists are determined, but anecdotally, while everyone I know read Bonfire back when, I can't think of a person who bought either Man in Full or Charlotte. I bet time will show these two to lag far behind Bonfire in popularity and general regard.

There is definitely a 'New Journalism' angle to Wolfe's novels. He researches extensively, mainly in the form of planting himself as a white-suited fly on the wall in a setting that fascinates him (a bond trading house, Buckhead, contemporary Ivy/Baby Ivy schools). I don't know if his view is undernourished as much as it's informed by his age. When researching Charlotte Simmons, I believe he said something along the lines of being shocked that the girls talked like college-age boys did when he was in school; and that the boys talked like sailors at sea did in his day.

To me the heir apparent to the 'New Journalism' school are guys like Michael Lewis, who camp themselves out by interesting characters like Billie Beane. But Lewis is an economist as much as a journalist, so his angle is always a little different than what you'd get from a guy like Wolfe back when he was following Ken Kesey around.

Or when HST was riding with Hell's Angels, before he'd taken enough drugs to make his writing suffer badly.
 
Chixulub said:
One thing that makes it tricky to compare contemporary writers with Victorians who still get read is we don't see the equivalent of 'best-sellers' from the day of Dickens, Thackeray, and Hardy. Ever read Sir Walter Bessant? Hardly anyone ever has, though he was WILDLY more successful in his day than Thomas Hardy. And as much as Hardy reads like a soap opera, there is so much worse that is largely out of print and forgotten. Wolfe may look like Bessant in a century, and some mid-list writer doing detailed social-documentary/commentary novels may be venerated. Someone who may be published by an indie house and working a day job right now.


Comparisons of Tom Wolfe and Dickens are invidious; I didn't draw the original comparison, merely followed through with my thoughts on it. Thomas Wolfe stands up much better to Dickens. At least his books have substantial social commentary and real moral dilemma.

I disagree about Thomas Hardy. His books, IMO, are not like soap operas at all. His characters are very modern, almost contemporary, which may account for his belated popularity.


There is definitely a 'New Journalism' angle to Wolfe's novels. He researches extensively, mainly in the form of planting himself as a white-suited fly on the wall in a setting that fascinates him (a bond trading house, Buckhead, contemporary Ivy/Baby Ivy schools). I don't know if his view is undernourished as much as it's informed by his age. When researching Charlotte Simmons, I believe he said something along the lines of being shocked that the girls talked like college-age boys did when he was in school; and that the boys talked like sailors at sea did in his day.

Just the fact that he admits to researching (and being surprised at!) such a thing as normal colloquial speech among college kids belies a complete isolation from the society he's writing about, which is why it seems forced and superficial.

To me the heir apparent to the 'New Journalism' school are guys like Michael Lewis, who camp themselves out by interesting characters like Billie Beane. But Lewis is an economist as much as a journalist, so his angle is always a little different than what you'd get from a guy like Wolfe back when he was following Ken Kesey around.

Or when HST was riding with Hell's Angels, before he'd taken enough drugs to make his writing suffer badly.


The spawn of New Journalism is the Nobody Memoir. The formula (locate your personal 'subject' and insert yourself into its history) is running rampant through nonfiction publishing. In fact, "Smashed: Story of a Drunken Girlhood" is probably the book Charlotte Simmons would have been if Tom Wolfe was still the Tom Wolfe he was in 1970.
 
Back
Top