That's a good instinct. The natural tendency for the pendulum to return after a writer/movement/style has become overly ubiquitous tends to gather a bit too much force on the backswing and things get smashed that probably shouldn't. With that said, it did feel like there was such a rush to corronate Vuong as a great novelist that his publishers, peers etc. failed to edit him as they should have. He's a good poet, but fiction is a distinct skill, and his writing feels unrefined (in a pejorative sense). Bookforum's piece on his last novel was referred to me by a friend today, and it does a nice job of picking out the technical issues in Vuong's writing that, over the course of the novel, amount to a serious failure of craft: the fact so many writers and critics in the initial press blitz were willing to give him the pass on grounds of apparent genius has contributed to the ferocity of the correction in my opinion. Whether or not it's true, when it feels like there has been some collusion to make a flawed writer blow up, people tend to sharpen their knives.
Never liked Vuong's poetry, HATE his prose, despise the attitude of weepy self-lyricizing. And yet every person gleefully proclaiming his demise past the first couple of stellar negative reviews reads to me as ugly, boring, and hemmed in by an inability to rise above trending culture wars (if I'm being generous and not just seeing it as opportunism). You're absolutely right of course, and I'm trying to remind myself of that to be more sober-minded about it all. But I fear my hatred of bad diaspora culture is matched pound for pound when I see proponents of liberal high culture (and some overeager leftists who think being sentimental and annoying is the worst crime of all) gleefully rub their hands over every diaspora celebrity’s downfall while contributing very little originality to the discourse.
The cultural conditions have aligned such that Vuong is in such a position, which is part of the thesis of the post. But, as my colleague @Sire put it above, the conditions which rushed Vuong to his position in the culture were just as rash. You can distrust the people who "turn" (though I was never personally on his side), but I wouldn't distrust the "moment," the moment is genuine.
this was an excellent piece! i found it incredibly strange at university (i studied creative writing) when we were taught to avoid ‘overwriting’ and yet vuong was on the syllabus. his work always left a bad taste in my mouth and now i feel vindicated.
Agree. While there's much about Vuong's image that is bogus (the crying in interviews, the convenient deep affinity with whatever capitalist behemoth will prop him up - see Oprah, Starbucks) I actually thought The Emperor of Gladness was a step forward for him as a novelist, and thought it was much more successful than OEWBG - the turning seems more due to the vibe shift and perhaps a bit of resentment towards the Last Big Novelist Standing than anything about the work itself. Lack of knowledge of the history of the form I v irritating tho.
Watch his video talking about Oprah and what that program meant for his mom and the other illiterate immigrant women she worked with. Enough with the classism.
I have watched that video. And initially I was very moved by it, but then I saw a number of other interviews in which he behaved in a very similar way, to the point that I felt that he was recycling a schtick. Which... unsurprising, he's building a brand, but a healthy amount of scepticism doesn't make me classist.
i think you can write a review of someone’s work without doing the extremely corny and weird “oh look maybe he was at a diddy party!” thing. it really cheapens your work
exactly. like why the fuck is that 1. funny and 2. included in what’s supposedly a serious critique of his work? it very clearly isn’t about his work when you start doing things like that
The absolute lack of generosity makes this piece ridiculous. I don't know Ocean and I try to stay out of these kinds of moments because I see them for what they are, *Writers delighting in the precieved fall of someone admired* but this is becoming shameful. People aren't perfect. If you don't like someone just say that and save us the time. Thank God the comments here are responding sensibly to how toxic and corny this is. This one shoulda been kept in the drafts. I say this with respect because I know as terrible as this is its coming from a place of need/ desire to be heard. Please know there are better and more useful ways to achieve that end.
This was a disappointing piece. If you can’t critique a writer’s work without attacking their character in loaded and out of pocket ways (the Diddy party reference? Calling a gay man a nonce?) then you come across as being so steeped in bitterness at his success that the question of whether he is a good writer or not becomes irrelevant. Some of the best writers in history split the literary community in half, fyi.
This reads like Ocean won an award you also applied for, you were pissed, and you've been waiting until a bandwagon formed so that you could jump on board and air your grievances, both real and imagined. So you don't like the writing or the books, that doesn't make them a nonce. But it does make you look bitter as hell.
I don't like Vuong's writing really at all, for about the same reasons you don't. But your reasons as for why he has been compelling to so many people are, I think, incomplete, and even ungenerous. I know multiple asian-american people who aren't 'bougie' who really like Vuong's writing: I think much more because it recreates (and probably amplifies) certain problems that they've faced, than because it satisfies their desire to like, have a more authentically tragic childhood or whatever.
I also think that Vuong has a real eye for compelling images despite how annoying his writing is in getting it all across. The tough-talking straight-passing boy in the army helmet and the summer heat picking tobacco who falls in love with you is, if nothing else, a perfect gay teenage fantasy right?
And in fact a lot of different aspects of Vuong's life are just, like, *interesting*, right? Strong, vocal personalities with fraught and intense relationships to one another. Even in the plainest language (like that of a memoirist without literary ambitions whatsoever), I think the story could be read and appreciated. It would be striking to hear told to you over the course of a very long conversation at a party: a memorable and seriously lovely night, can't you imagine it? Vuong does a quite competent job recognizing and emphasizing the most 'interesting' parts of his life, too.
My point is, I guess, that liking or even loving Vuong's work, even if it might make one a bit of a philistine, is not a reflection of, like, an incomplete or crass relationship to one's own racial identity, some deformation in your character. Some people want quite different things out of books than 'literary types', and literary types can be quite awful at predicting what those wanted things are.
You’re a hater. Why can’t we just celebrate mainstream success of a POC writer while recognizing they are also human and flawed? And what gives you the right to dictate what is art? I hated reading this…
Man, I was underwhelmed by Gladness too, but this goes way too far. I'd love to think that a "miss" and some bad press will not derail an entire career. Moreover, while he still tried to work in some of his poetic prose, Gladness was clearly an attempt at a more traditional narrative (as opposed to On Earth). So he kind of failed? Why are we killing him? As if great writers have never written mediorce books.
Also, you may not like On Earth or his stylistic choices. But the panning of his prose as "terrible" or "all bad" is reductive. He may miss the mark at times, but there is a lot of beauty there too. I'd happily provide examples, but it seems as though Vuong's critics, as here, would prefer wholesale execration than nuanced analysis.
I only recently started reading literary criticism, but I thought a good critic focused on the art? From your essay it seems you've read neither of Vuong's novels (neither have I tbh) so I'm curious what you've based your critic on?
Brandon Taylor's review of "Gladness" focused entirely on fiction craft in the novel. It also highlighted parts that worked, parts that didn't, and tried to explain why. You can use that as a model for next time.
Finally I'm not so sure about comments on Faulkner being as useful to read as Baldwin to get racial perspectives of America. To an extent, yes; but I recall Baldwin penned a famous essay questioning Faulkner's commitment to racial equality and desegregation.
To be clear I just wanted to highlight that both Faulkner and Baldwin eventually diverged on that issue. I'll also stress that it's probably best to read both men; more perspectives never hurt anyone!
This brought up a lot for me (admittedly, I come from a poetry background, so I like the first book)—but how can someone in good faith call a writer’s novels “dog shit” and “slop” when they admit to reading a total of 12 pages? Sure one can cite Big Critics who dissed the book but is this not just piling on?
Okay. This piece is extremely dishonest and ugly. You hate the man, just say it with a full chest and stop hiding in some intellectual bullshit talk. Not a fan of Ocean, but this piece right here even makes me want to read.
Couldn’t stand this dude’s writing and was even more put off by his persona when he gave a lecture at my college during my sophomore year, most of which was spent w/ him on the verge of tears talking about the shape of the letter “T”, and how that meant something about imperialism…or the soul…or something. As with so many of the identitarian grifters, the incoherence of the whole thing is the most offensive part.
Calling a refugee from Vietnam who was raised in actual poverty (if you know ANYthing about this person, you’d know that) an “identitarian grifter” is so gross, dude. Probably he had something intelligent to say about connecting “T” with imperialism when he visited your college. Probably it went over your head because it was too subtle, so you mocked it. Tale as old as human history.
The idea that he was “near tears” — yeah, he does often sound like that — literally who tf cares? He was also recently “near tears” on Stephen Colbert when talking about how all the fellow Vietnamese women immigrants at his mom’s nail salon always had Oprah on at 4 PM every day, it was their access to culture even though they were all illiterate, and he’s moved that Oprah chose his book — the audience laughed uncomfortably at first because they’re not used to hearing from people from his background and thought he was joking and that this was all a punchline.
THEN everyone got silent because they realized the profundity of what he was saying.
Sounds like you’re stuck in the first response. You otherwise share somewhat thoughtful notes with some misses, but FYI this one was super shitty.
Do you really think he made a subtle point connecting the letter T to imperialism?
It's interesting that women defend people like this, probably because they are also used to crying to get what they want
In Vuong’s defense, at least he doesn't seem like a bully. I think he has some talent as a poet but was clearly pushed into doing prose because it's a bigger market, and his prose is really bad.
making sexist side comments about women's propensity for crying really discredits anything valuable you could contribute to this conversation. you're weird!!!
The description you pulled of making the bed (dandelions) made me laugh; a couple years ago, when I was gathering my thoughts around On Earth We’re Briefly Gorgeous, I couldn’t get past his ridiculous description of a Jolly Rancher.
I really struggle to connect with Vuong’s writing but I find myself trying really hard to like him because he seems so kind and I generally want him to succeed. Which may be why other people have lifted him up. I also fear backlash around him because if we start turning on a writer for being too soft, too empathetic, too flowery, I worry about a swing to the right, as with politics, where we find ourselves back in the aughts. Which was admittedly a more fun time, but it could also be a cruel time and required some backbone.
To be fair to said magazine, I had a pleasant professional interaction with the editor, who accepted the initial negative piece, then edited it. Why he then ghosted remains a mystery. No explanation was ever given.
I really, really distrust these moments when everyone turns on a writer at the same time
That's a good instinct. The natural tendency for the pendulum to return after a writer/movement/style has become overly ubiquitous tends to gather a bit too much force on the backswing and things get smashed that probably shouldn't. With that said, it did feel like there was such a rush to corronate Vuong as a great novelist that his publishers, peers etc. failed to edit him as they should have. He's a good poet, but fiction is a distinct skill, and his writing feels unrefined (in a pejorative sense). Bookforum's piece on his last novel was referred to me by a friend today, and it does a nice job of picking out the technical issues in Vuong's writing that, over the course of the novel, amount to a serious failure of craft: the fact so many writers and critics in the initial press blitz were willing to give him the pass on grounds of apparent genius has contributed to the ferocity of the correction in my opinion. Whether or not it's true, when it feels like there has been some collusion to make a flawed writer blow up, people tend to sharpen their knives.
https://www.bookforum.com/fiction/states-of-grace-62313
Never liked Vuong's poetry, HATE his prose, despise the attitude of weepy self-lyricizing. And yet every person gleefully proclaiming his demise past the first couple of stellar negative reviews reads to me as ugly, boring, and hemmed in by an inability to rise above trending culture wars (if I'm being generous and not just seeing it as opportunism). You're absolutely right of course, and I'm trying to remind myself of that to be more sober-minded about it all. But I fear my hatred of bad diaspora culture is matched pound for pound when I see proponents of liberal high culture (and some overeager leftists who think being sentimental and annoying is the worst crime of all) gleefully rub their hands over every diaspora celebrity’s downfall while contributing very little originality to the discourse.
The cultural conditions have aligned such that Vuong is in such a position, which is part of the thesis of the post. But, as my colleague @Sire put it above, the conditions which rushed Vuong to his position in the culture were just as rash. You can distrust the people who "turn" (though I was never personally on his side), but I wouldn't distrust the "moment," the moment is genuine.
"Fight the real enemy," I say, tearing up a photo of David Baldacci.
Well that's cool because I really, really distrust those moments when The Machine canonizes a writer as great at the same time. Guess we cancel out.
You mean a “moment” like when a book is published? Yeah, real mysterious… must be a conspiracy.
And who is “everyone”?
this was an excellent piece! i found it incredibly strange at university (i studied creative writing) when we were taught to avoid ‘overwriting’ and yet vuong was on the syllabus. his work always left a bad taste in my mouth and now i feel vindicated.
Many of us aren't turning on him, because we refused to jump on the bandwagon in the first place.
Agree. While there's much about Vuong's image that is bogus (the crying in interviews, the convenient deep affinity with whatever capitalist behemoth will prop him up - see Oprah, Starbucks) I actually thought The Emperor of Gladness was a step forward for him as a novelist, and thought it was much more successful than OEWBG - the turning seems more due to the vibe shift and perhaps a bit of resentment towards the Last Big Novelist Standing than anything about the work itself. Lack of knowledge of the history of the form I v irritating tho.
Watch his video talking about Oprah and what that program meant for his mom and the other illiterate immigrant women she worked with. Enough with the classism.
Classism? Oprah...is...a...billionaire...
I have watched that video. And initially I was very moved by it, but then I saw a number of other interviews in which he behaved in a very similar way, to the point that I felt that he was recycling a schtick. Which... unsurprising, he's building a brand, but a healthy amount of scepticism doesn't make me classist.
i think you can write a review of someone’s work without doing the extremely corny and weird “oh look maybe he was at a diddy party!” thing. it really cheapens your work
Agreed. Cheap shot.
Also not realizing the implications of accusing a gay man of being a predator, even as a joke
exactly. like why the fuck is that 1. funny and 2. included in what’s supposedly a serious critique of his work? it very clearly isn’t about his work when you start doing things like that
thats where i stopped reading.
Yes, agree, very unnecessary
The absolute lack of generosity makes this piece ridiculous. I don't know Ocean and I try to stay out of these kinds of moments because I see them for what they are, *Writers delighting in the precieved fall of someone admired* but this is becoming shameful. People aren't perfect. If you don't like someone just say that and save us the time. Thank God the comments here are responding sensibly to how toxic and corny this is. This one shoulda been kept in the drafts. I say this with respect because I know as terrible as this is its coming from a place of need/ desire to be heard. Please know there are better and more useful ways to achieve that end.
This was a disappointing piece. If you can’t critique a writer’s work without attacking their character in loaded and out of pocket ways (the Diddy party reference? Calling a gay man a nonce?) then you come across as being so steeped in bitterness at his success that the question of whether he is a good writer or not becomes irrelevant. Some of the best writers in history split the literary community in half, fyi.
This is vacuous. Self-serving. Reactionary.
I’m no connoisseur of literature or Ocean specifically, but this is less than useful. Just author scratching their itches in public.
It is not about Ocean at all.
Not sure what all this sour sarcasm does other than attempt to entertain people who are otherwise already bitter and look for the same frequency.
This reads like Ocean won an award you also applied for, you were pissed, and you've been waiting until a bandwagon formed so that you could jump on board and air your grievances, both real and imagined. So you don't like the writing or the books, that doesn't make them a nonce. But it does make you look bitter as hell.
That is such a specific accusation lmao
Not an accusation but a read
idk the diddy party one was too but go off
I don't like Vuong's writing really at all, for about the same reasons you don't. But your reasons as for why he has been compelling to so many people are, I think, incomplete, and even ungenerous. I know multiple asian-american people who aren't 'bougie' who really like Vuong's writing: I think much more because it recreates (and probably amplifies) certain problems that they've faced, than because it satisfies their desire to like, have a more authentically tragic childhood or whatever.
I also think that Vuong has a real eye for compelling images despite how annoying his writing is in getting it all across. The tough-talking straight-passing boy in the army helmet and the summer heat picking tobacco who falls in love with you is, if nothing else, a perfect gay teenage fantasy right?
And in fact a lot of different aspects of Vuong's life are just, like, *interesting*, right? Strong, vocal personalities with fraught and intense relationships to one another. Even in the plainest language (like that of a memoirist without literary ambitions whatsoever), I think the story could be read and appreciated. It would be striking to hear told to you over the course of a very long conversation at a party: a memorable and seriously lovely night, can't you imagine it? Vuong does a quite competent job recognizing and emphasizing the most 'interesting' parts of his life, too.
My point is, I guess, that liking or even loving Vuong's work, even if it might make one a bit of a philistine, is not a reflection of, like, an incomplete or crass relationship to one's own racial identity, some deformation in your character. Some people want quite different things out of books than 'literary types', and literary types can be quite awful at predicting what those wanted things are.
You’re a hater. Why can’t we just celebrate mainstream success of a POC writer while recognizing they are also human and flawed? And what gives you the right to dictate what is art? I hated reading this…
Because the writing is terrible and pretending it isn’t is condescending.
I hope you have this energy for Colleen Hoover and other white, straight authors who are terrible writers and wildly successful
I do!
Man, I was underwhelmed by Gladness too, but this goes way too far. I'd love to think that a "miss" and some bad press will not derail an entire career. Moreover, while he still tried to work in some of his poetic prose, Gladness was clearly an attempt at a more traditional narrative (as opposed to On Earth). So he kind of failed? Why are we killing him? As if great writers have never written mediorce books.
Also, you may not like On Earth or his stylistic choices. But the panning of his prose as "terrible" or "all bad" is reductive. He may miss the mark at times, but there is a lot of beauty there too. I'd happily provide examples, but it seems as though Vuong's critics, as here, would prefer wholesale execration than nuanced analysis.
I only recently started reading literary criticism, but I thought a good critic focused on the art? From your essay it seems you've read neither of Vuong's novels (neither have I tbh) so I'm curious what you've based your critic on?
Brandon Taylor's review of "Gladness" focused entirely on fiction craft in the novel. It also highlighted parts that worked, parts that didn't, and tried to explain why. You can use that as a model for next time.
Finally I'm not so sure about comments on Faulkner being as useful to read as Baldwin to get racial perspectives of America. To an extent, yes; but I recall Baldwin penned a famous essay questioning Faulkner's commitment to racial equality and desegregation.
Agreed about the comparisons between Baldwin and Faulkner, 0 depth in this “analysis” piece.
To be clear I just wanted to highlight that both Faulkner and Baldwin eventually diverged on that issue. I'll also stress that it's probably best to read both men; more perspectives never hurt anyone!
This brought up a lot for me (admittedly, I come from a poetry background, so I like the first book)—but how can someone in good faith call a writer’s novels “dog shit” and “slop” when they admit to reading a total of 12 pages? Sure one can cite Big Critics who dissed the book but is this not just piling on?
Autofiction is the influencer culture of the art world
I think this is a naive and unfair position.
If you want a deeper analysis then check out a short piece I wrote : https://open.substack.com/pub/chiccritique/p/autofiction-is-a-grave?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=69i4wf
Okay. This piece is extremely dishonest and ugly. You hate the man, just say it with a full chest and stop hiding in some intellectual bullshit talk. Not a fan of Ocean, but this piece right here even makes me want to read.
Couldn’t stand this dude’s writing and was even more put off by his persona when he gave a lecture at my college during my sophomore year, most of which was spent w/ him on the verge of tears talking about the shape of the letter “T”, and how that meant something about imperialism…or the soul…or something. As with so many of the identitarian grifters, the incoherence of the whole thing is the most offensive part.
Calling a refugee from Vietnam who was raised in actual poverty (if you know ANYthing about this person, you’d know that) an “identitarian grifter” is so gross, dude. Probably he had something intelligent to say about connecting “T” with imperialism when he visited your college. Probably it went over your head because it was too subtle, so you mocked it. Tale as old as human history.
The idea that he was “near tears” — yeah, he does often sound like that — literally who tf cares? He was also recently “near tears” on Stephen Colbert when talking about how all the fellow Vietnamese women immigrants at his mom’s nail salon always had Oprah on at 4 PM every day, it was their access to culture even though they were all illiterate, and he’s moved that Oprah chose his book — the audience laughed uncomfortably at first because they’re not used to hearing from people from his background and thought he was joking and that this was all a punchline.
THEN everyone got silent because they realized the profundity of what he was saying.
Sounds like you’re stuck in the first response. You otherwise share somewhat thoughtful notes with some misses, but FYI this one was super shitty.
Do you really think he made a subtle point connecting the letter T to imperialism?
It's interesting that women defend people like this, probably because they are also used to crying to get what they want
In Vuong’s defense, at least he doesn't seem like a bully. I think he has some talent as a poet but was clearly pushed into doing prose because it's a bigger market, and his prose is really bad.
making sexist side comments about women's propensity for crying really discredits anything valuable you could contribute to this conversation. you're weird!!!
The description you pulled of making the bed (dandelions) made me laugh; a couple years ago, when I was gathering my thoughts around On Earth We’re Briefly Gorgeous, I couldn’t get past his ridiculous description of a Jolly Rancher.
I really struggle to connect with Vuong’s writing but I find myself trying really hard to like him because he seems so kind and I generally want him to succeed. Which may be why other people have lifted him up. I also fear backlash around him because if we start turning on a writer for being too soft, too empathetic, too flowery, I worry about a swing to the right, as with politics, where we find ourselves back in the aughts. Which was admittedly a more fun time, but it could also be a cruel time and required some backbone.
To be fair to said magazine, I had a pleasant professional interaction with the editor, who accepted the initial negative piece, then edited it. Why he then ghosted remains a mystery. No explanation was ever given.