
A Wolfe in Hack's Clothing
Posted Thursday, Oct. 12, 2000, at 10:27 AM ETIn 1989, in an infamous j'accuse published in Harper's, Tom Wolfe took on the literary establishment. American writers are sissies, he taunted. They're afraid to grapple with contemporary society in all its pop, surreal, punch-drunk glory. Now, with every new book, he must feel that he must personally embody the rude realism his peers are too fey to handle. But having to show up one's fellow literati all the time has got to be a strain. Evidence that it is can be found in Hooking Up, a collection of previously published magazine pieces and a novella. Instead of details fresh from his steno pad (Wolfe's earlier journalistic style) or even original insights (a more conventional essay-writing technique), in these articles Wolfe offers up villains more often found in the portfolios of cartoonists of a conservative bent. Among the figures Wolfe sets up in order to knock down are sexually active teen-agers, art-world scenesters, the liberal media elite, the critics who panned his last novel, A Man in Full, and intellectuals.
Boy oh boy, does Wolfe hate intellectuals. "Sweaty little colonials," he calls them in "In the Land of the Rococo Marxists," an article also published in Harper's, "desperately trotting along, trying to catch up, catch up, catch up with the way the idols do it in France, which is through Theory, Theory, Theory." They're the most despicable people in this book, though there are many who are nearly as bad. We have heard these rants before. Wolfe hates critics who don't appreciate representative art as much as he hated them in the 1975 Painted Word; he still hates William Shawn's New Yorker (his notorious 1965 attack on that magazine is reprinted here, with commentary); he hates intrusive and self-righteous producers of network television magazine shows. (These last appear in Ambush at Fort Bragg, a novella that's an outtake from A Man in Full and the best writing in the book, though disturbing in its ferocity on the subject of gay soldiers and short, unattractive Jewish New Yorkers.) Then there are John Updike, Norman Mailer, and John Irving--the Larry, Curly, and Moe of the essay "The Three Stooges."
This is a delirious piece of work, the essay as ressentiment, completely innocent of self-restraint. All three novelists wrote reviews critical of A Man in Full, an eventuality Wolfe must have anticipated given that he had outlined the standards by which he wanted to be judged and those standards excluded almost every writer in America but himself. (The book had its own failings, too, but we'll let Slate's own Tim Noah and Marjorie Williams debate them.) "How could our two senior citizens have found the energy [to review his book] in those exhausted carcasses of theirs?" sneers Wolfe of Updike and Mailer. Asked by an interviewer, "Are you saying they're envious of your success?" he observes, "Both Updike and Mailer had books out at the same time as A Man in Full, and theirs had sunk without a bubble."
Wolfe crowing publicly over his colleagues' comparable lack of book sales is not salubrious, but it's not unexpected, either. The problem with Wolfe's book isn't his self-aggrandizement, nastiness, or whininess; these, after all, can be amusing in their way. It is that Wolfe, the apostle of the keenly observed, has adopted a cavalier new approach to the principles of "documentation" he praised so highly 11 years ago.
Take "In the Land of the Rococo Marxists." In the piece, he damns Frenchified nihilists in general and Michel Foucault, Jacques Derrida, Stanley Fish, and Judith Butler in particular. These people, he says, are bastardizers of the American mind and dashers of American pride. You'd never know from Wolfe that, actually, deconstructionists and Foucauldian theorists of power have long since been banished to the farthest reaches of the groves of academe. The French got tired of post-structuralism more than a decade ago and began rereading the works of the classical Anglo-American liberals. Butler is reeling from a knockout delivered in the pages of The New Republic by Martha Nussbaum, a cogent and old-fashioned liberal philosopher very much in the ascendant. Fish, the only professor among those who remains influential in the American academy, is a dean, but at a state school, the unprestigious University of Illinois.
Wolfe doesn't merely recycle clichés from the right-wing press. He recycles himself. The title essay, "Hooking Up: What Life Was Like At the Turn of the Second Millennium: An American's World," for instance, leads with the image of the "average electrician, air-conditioning mechanic, or burglar-alarm repairman" who vacations in "Puerto Vallarta, Barbados, or Saint Kitts" with his third wife and opens his "Ricky Martin cane-cutter shirt" shirt down to his navel so as to let his "gold chains twinkle in his chest hairs." Readers of the 1989 essay might recognize this fellow, where he served as a rebuke to affected experimentalist authors who didn't realize that their "electrician or air-conditioner mechanic or burglar-alarm repairmen might very well be in Saint Kitts or Barbados or Puerto Vallarta wearing a Harry Bellafonte cane-cutter shirt, open to the sternum, the better to reveal the gold chains twinkling in his chest hair, while he and his third wife sit on the terrace and have a little designer water before dinner."
Rifle through the rest of the essay in search of a fresh anecdote, and you will find: A) more self-plagiarism--Wolfe cribs lines about the East versus the West coasts from another essay in the book (a fantastically detailed profile of Intel co-founder Robert Noyce that would make you think Wolfe was still up to snuff if you didn't know that it was published in 1983), B) statistics taken from newspapers and magazines, and C) a single piece of reportage. This consists of entries in a Filofax belonging to a teen-age girl who probably attended at a fancy Manhattan private school not unlike the one Wolfe's own daughter must have gone to. In her calendar, the girl chronicles the minutiae of her sexual exploits in code. ("Boy with black Wu Tang T-shirt and cargo pants: O,A,6" means, presumably, that she had oral and anal sex with him and rated it a 6 out of 10.)
That's it--the one new artifact in the article. In the year 2000, if you are Wolfe and wish to issue wholesale condemnations of American society, all you need is to get hold of a teen-age girl's Filofax.
The Tea Party Protesters Are Getting Smarter
Slate's Mobile Site Just Got Better
Who Is Mrs. Cohen From Hadera, and Should Israelis Care Where She Puts Her Money?
What Wired, Esquire, and Hooters Magazines Think You Should Give for Christmas
Save the Planet. Eat More Brie.
How Easy Is It To Hike Into Iran Accidentally?












Reader Comments from The Fray:
[Notes from the Fray Editor: You needed your wits about you in the Culturebox Fray this week--where did Alan Wolfe [this Culturebox item] end and Tom Wolfe start? See Claude Scales' cheery take on this below. Those who had sorted out their Wolfes--Wolves?--wanted to lay into Tom Wolfe (though not for self-plagiarism--see Al's post below), or into post-structuralism: Margaret Soltan says "As a professor of English, I can assure you that Foucauldian pieties remain central in the humanities. Wolfe's attacks may be intemperate, but they're still needed." Or into Culturebox. Or two out of three: here or here. And easily the most controversial word in the article was "unprestigious":]
Ms Shulevitz,
You're a fine cultural critic; I have appreciated and learned from your frequent insights and provocations. But this response of yours to Tom Wolfe's latest manifesto depresses me no end. Wolfe attacks Frenchified, theory-addled intellectuals, and what do you do? Defend Foucault? Well, no. Charge him with gross oversimplification? Not that either. No, instead you condescendingly inform us that Wolfe simply isn't where it's at these days. Why, doesn't he know that the real intellectuals have already gone on to something else? Doesn't he realize that "Fish, the only professor among those who remains influential in the American academy, is a dean, but at a state school, the unprestigious University of Illinois"? I mean, how dreary!
I have a hard time expressing what an immense class bias that betrays. Who cares that those who couldn't get in to a first rate university (let's see, that would be one in New York or Cambridge, correct?), and who ended up studying or teaching at some [shudder!] state school, might be still wallowing around in the intellectual debris of the 1980s and 1990s? Who cares that Fish and his ideas still influence the thoughts of a bunch of Midwestern undergraduates? Nothing more need be said! Wolfe is successfully refuted--his complaints about intellectuals revealed as dated and groundless--by simply pointing out that the cutting-edge of academia, the people who are actually where it's at, have moved on to better things. Thank goodness! Here at my little school (a rather unprestigious place, I'm afraid), I've always tended to see the challenges of Wolfe and others as reflective of the same never-ending yet necessary argument over the nature of education, over the role of theory and praxis in opening minds as well as teaching skills. Silly me! Now I know that I'm not part of any such conversation at all, and neither are my students. After all, we live in Illinois!
--Russell
(To reply, click here.)
Two successive articles about men named Wolfe, both of which allege the marginalization of formerly trendy academic theorists, and both of which include slighting comments about institutions of higher education located in Illinois? Next week, I suppose, you'll favor us with a piece on how Anglophone Canadians are re-evaluating the heroic status they formerly accorded to General Wolfe, based upon the criticism of his colonializing project made by a Francophone Foucaldian whose loss of trendy status has forced him to relocate from McGill to Augustana College.
--Claude Scales
(To rpely, click here.)
Deconstructionists and theorists of power have been banished? I must have been hanging out in the wrong circles, because that's news to me. And it's true that Butler was KO'd by Nussbaum, but Nussbaum, too, flirts with the Theory so denigrated by Wolfe. (One can almost imagine her teaching a class on--could it be--Foucault!) Nussbaum just does it in an intelligible fashion. The fact that she's intelligible is sufficient for Culturebox to see her as "old-fashioned." Have we really fallen so far? (Do reread her critique of Butler to find what Nussbaum saw as unsatisfactory in Butler's approach.) And as for Fish: he's dean of the University of Illinois at Chicago. (When people refer to the University of Illinois, they typically are referring to the main campus of the university, not the University of Illinois at Chicago.) And while UIC may not be prestigious, Fish still has his charms: UIC is paying him a record (and scandalous) amount to be dean.
--Thomas
(To reply, click here.)
Culturebox is scintillating as usual; I only wish she were right about the shifting tides in academia, but I'm afraid she's not. I think there's something of a delayed reaction at work: although the most innovative thinkers have moved beyond theory-mongering, there is still a backlog of newly minted PhDs who fell in love with this dreck as starry-eyed undergrads in the 80's and early 90's, have spent long years writing dissertations on it, and are not about to drop it just as they are moving into teaching positions where they can propagate the stuff further. Just as supply-side economics has lingered in the conventional wisdom long past its heyday of the 60's and 70's, the critical-theory glut will take a long time to move through the boa constrictor of academia.
--Polargirl
(To reply, click here.)
Plagiarism consists of passing off another's work as one's own. The word comes from the Latin for kidnapping. (See Alexander Lindey on this.) "Self-Plagiarism" is, at most, deceptive labeling, something that hardly sets it apart from journalism in general.
--Al
(To reply, click here.)
(10/12)