Generosity Gets Dinged Again

Apparently it's not just the prose by also the science that's bad:

The Caspi results, reported in Science, were never neat. Children with two copies of the protective gene might suffer depression unrelated to painful events. And older studies conflicted with the new research. In Against Depression (2005), I wrote that the Science report had "raised eyebrows on a number of grounds," and I expressed doubts that the finding of absolute stress immunity would hold up.

When it came, the debunking was dramatic. In June of this year, scientists reviewing numerous studies for the Journal of the American Medical Association found no evidence that the serotonin gene offers stress protection or, indeed, any protection from depression.


Powers' book turns on the notion—now cast in doubt—that the right genes can make a person absolutely invulnerable to stress.

To be fair, some reviews have made the claim that the plausibility of the science isn't really a point in the book–that is, it just imagines a universe where this is true and goes from there.

The review also notes that the prose is bad as well:

Worse, despite the high-literary devices, Powers clings to the low-art techniques of genre fiction. Here, I should confess to a bête noire, intolerance for the method (I date it to Ian Fleming's naming of Gordon's Gin and Kina Lillet in James Bond's Vesper martini) of signaling a character's worth by cataloging his tastes in branded products

I'll also note that the review picks up on the same disregard for nuance that Wood elaborates in his piece. For a dissenting opinion, see John Domini's positive review in Bookforum, as well as Michael Orthofer's review.


Recent Posts



Criticism Isn't Free


CR is dedicated to thoughtful, in-depth criticism without regard to what's commercially appealing. It takes tens of hours each month to provide this. Please help make this sort of writing sustainable, either with a subscription or a one-time donation. Thank you!





6 Comments

Got Something To Say:

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

Strikes me as very weird to attack style on the basis that the writer is using so-called “low-art techniques”. This attitude seems to plague a lot of literary fiction reviews. I thought the divide between high and low had been shown, ages ago, to be a very silly one.

True, getting the science right isn’t the point, but in novels where the science is wrong, the science typically gets used crudely. Fictional scientific conclusions/analyses often are a little too neat and campy, and, to me anyway (I’m a geneticist), are very shallow compared to the messiness and ambiguity of real science. I haven’t read Generosity, but I found that the science was very mediocre in Echo Maker – it came across like a parody of science, not much like the real thing. Powers uses a lot of jargon, but doesn’t work very deeply with the concepts.
Wood criticized Powers for always making his scientists talk like scientists. I don’t think they even talk like scientists.
Working scientific themes into a novel is not simply about getting the facts right (or wrong) – it’s about going beyond jargon and superficial metaphors and working the scientific concepts more deeply into fiction. I’m not as widely read as any of you here, but one of the best at this that I’ve read is Pynchon. For example, he barely mentions General Relativity (or Einstein) in Against The Day, but he does amazing things with the concept and its historical precursors.

Hey Fausto,
I think that was poor phrasing on the part of the writer. He meant to criticize such things as Powers’ characterization by the brands of products that a character buys, but I don’t think it was a dig at “low” art in general.
Obviously that kind of technique has a correct time and place, but if I’m reading the review correctly the reviewer’s quibble was trying to use this kind of characterization in an ostensibly realist work, where there are better ways to characterize.

John Domini here, & I’m unfamiliar w/ this blog or the background of this discussion — rather, someone just steered me this way. But I do know literature & criticism, & I must point out that Wood’s piece in the NY’R bears glaring earmarks of bad reading, most esp. a mean-spiritedness. Note that he won’t give Powers credit for anything, that he trashes the man’s entire oeuvre, reducing dozens of characters & situations & conflicts to the narrowest sort of paradigm. Note also Wood’s insistence that a long-gone Classic like Thomas Hardy did it better (oh sure, the dead were *always* better), while ignoring the overwhelming differences of Hardy’s status, stories, century…
Powers must be understood as a social novelist, fundamentally: reliant on research & verisimilitude to explore the challenges we live w/ now. In that mode, he’s one of the best this country ever had, demonstrating enormous invention & versatility in creating scenes & locating points of view, in order to dramatize. Pychon’s not really a good comp; Pynchon’s much more about alternative worlds. Powers uses science in the way it affects most ordinary citizens & the choices he or she has to make.
W/ that in mind, GENEROSITY is a substantial departure for Powers, more rich w/ experiment than any previous novel, & intended to an extraordinary degree as a comedy. For what it’s worth, this novel was my favorite of the five of his I’ve read.

Hi John,
Thanks for clarifying your views vis a vis Powers. I agree that Wood is often needlessly mean-spirited in his reviews . . . it’s unfortunate, and I doubt it does him much good.
I hope you’ll check out the site, as I think there’s much you’ll like here. Also check out our affiliated magazine, The Quarterly Conversation: http://quarterlyconversation.com/

Scott, ciao,
TQC is a fine place, one I’ve visited several times, & I’m glad to say so right here in the sunshine.
You may recall that you & I corresponded briefly about my new novel A TOMB ON THE PERIPHERY.
Thanks for asking, John

Shop though these links = Support this site

Recent Posts

Copyright © 2015. Powered by WordPress & Romangie Theme.