YES ANDREW! "Cringe" characters are HUMAN characters. People are flawed, and broken, and ridiculous and noble and vulnerable and loving and hating... human beings, in short. The characters we relate to the most are those that are full of complexity--light and dark, beauty and ugliness. Bravo on this piece. I wrote a pilot, WISENHEIMER, which has received multiple awards and accolades, primarily because of the raw and flawed nature of the characters. THANK YOU ANDREW.
Human characters---exactly right. I'm most interested in that---as are, I think, most writers. Which is why I'm so happy to see more people calling for characters that actually feel more like real people on the page, too. Thanks for reading and sharing! It is much appreciated.
Jul 26, 2023·edited Jul 26, 2023Liked by Andrew Boryga
Is it actually worse though? Reading the esquire article, I'm struck that many of these same criticisms, which are essentially the criticisms of middlebrow fiction, have been made throughout the 20th century (esp in Dwight Macdonald's "Masscult and Midcult"). I'm also not certain I'd agree with some of the characterizations. Are the characters in Emma Cline's GIRLS, who join the Manson family, really politically correct? The criticism of Uncle Tom's Cabin is also facile and typical, but it's actually a good and complex book. It contains most of the themes of 19th century slave narratives (none of which were about violent protest), and depicts a wide variety of slave owners, good and bad, to make the point that under no circumstances is slavery moral or acceptable. It's a work of deep moral seriousness--the best possible argument in favor of "sanctimony literature", so it's strange that it's often used as an argument against it
Great points, Naomi. I would offer a converse thought. I think that much of the most celebrated literary fiction has become what I'd call "elite middlebrow." It adheres to certain liberal political philosophies and features lightly flawed protagonists surrounded by clearly villainous antagonists.
Oh you're obviously correct! Most of the NYT notable books every year are middlebrow trash--unreadable and often poorly written, with overwrought "lyrical" prose--Uncle Tom's Cabin is far superior to most of these books. Just not sure if that's worse than the usual! Obviously it disappoints me, but maybe that's only because I happen to be alive now. Perhaps if I was alive in the 50s I'd have thought the same about THE OLD MAN AND THE SEA (a book called out by MacDonald in his essay).
Thanks for reading, Naomi! And for the valid points. I'm not familiar with Macdonalds, but I'll look him up. As for GIRLS, I haven't read it, but it seems to me to have been received as one of those books that dares to step outside the lines a bit. Again, I haven't read it so I can't say to what extent or how, but the gist I've gathered from reviews and what not suggests that to me. Others that come to mind is the work of Ottessa Moshfegh, Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie, Alejandro Zambra, Zadie Smith, Paul Beatty. So I agree, there are good examples. Don't mean to suggest it NEVER happens. But, judging the stuff I read when I first fell in love with reading around the early 2000s to what has been most popular in the last decade or so, I feel like in general the tone has changed. Characters felt a bit more realistic back then, they didn't feel so bottled up. As for Uncle Tom's Cabin, I agree with you there. Didn't cite that part of the essay because I also didn't think it was quite strong--especially in comparison to everything else.
It's possible! I mean when I started reading, all the Jonathans were in vogue: Franzen and Lethem in particular, and I'd say their work is far superior to, say, Ocean Vuong or Tommy Orange. But when I started reading I also wasn't a writer yet so paid far less attention than I do now.
I bet. And I hope you're right about the market turning back toward complex stories with complex, multi-faceted characters. Literature's on life support already. Trying to sterilize it and make it safe is the fastest way to the morgue.
Semi-related, I have a small favor to ask. I'll shoot you a direct email in the next week or so.
I hope I'm right, too. But I'm also wrong about tons of shit. I thought the Mets, for example, would be great this year. So we'll see. And no doubt man. Hit me up.
Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, and yes. I also find it interesting that Blythe wrote that in Esquire...because I think Esquire has become rather cringe-less in its political/cultural aesthetic.
Thank you! Interesting point, too. I can't say I read much of their books section so I wouldn't really know. But I was surprised that it appeared there. Felt like the sort of thing you might find in Harpers instead.
THIS!! I always get this with playwriting when people give me notes that my characters are unlikeable like I made them that way as a mistake. Messy people are so much for fun to watch and write!
Yeah for sure. Definitely could see the Atlantic, too. And yup, he was affiliated with them for a while, so I guess that played a big role. Happy nonetheless that they pubbed it. Again, to me at least, a hopeful sign.
YES ANDREW! "Cringe" characters are HUMAN characters. People are flawed, and broken, and ridiculous and noble and vulnerable and loving and hating... human beings, in short. The characters we relate to the most are those that are full of complexity--light and dark, beauty and ugliness. Bravo on this piece. I wrote a pilot, WISENHEIMER, which has received multiple awards and accolades, primarily because of the raw and flawed nature of the characters. THANK YOU ANDREW.
Human characters---exactly right. I'm most interested in that---as are, I think, most writers. Which is why I'm so happy to see more people calling for characters that actually feel more like real people on the page, too. Thanks for reading and sharing! It is much appreciated.
Is it actually worse though? Reading the esquire article, I'm struck that many of these same criticisms, which are essentially the criticisms of middlebrow fiction, have been made throughout the 20th century (esp in Dwight Macdonald's "Masscult and Midcult"). I'm also not certain I'd agree with some of the characterizations. Are the characters in Emma Cline's GIRLS, who join the Manson family, really politically correct? The criticism of Uncle Tom's Cabin is also facile and typical, but it's actually a good and complex book. It contains most of the themes of 19th century slave narratives (none of which were about violent protest), and depicts a wide variety of slave owners, good and bad, to make the point that under no circumstances is slavery moral or acceptable. It's a work of deep moral seriousness--the best possible argument in favor of "sanctimony literature", so it's strange that it's often used as an argument against it
Great points, Naomi. I would offer a converse thought. I think that much of the most celebrated literary fiction has become what I'd call "elite middlebrow." It adheres to certain liberal political philosophies and features lightly flawed protagonists surrounded by clearly villainous antagonists.
"Lightly flawed" is precisely right. Just enough to claim them as flawed, but also plenty of restraint so that they never cross the party line.
Yup.
Oh you're obviously correct! Most of the NYT notable books every year are middlebrow trash--unreadable and often poorly written, with overwrought "lyrical" prose--Uncle Tom's Cabin is far superior to most of these books. Just not sure if that's worse than the usual! Obviously it disappoints me, but maybe that's only because I happen to be alive now. Perhaps if I was alive in the 50s I'd have thought the same about THE OLD MAN AND THE SEA (a book called out by MacDonald in his essay).
Thanks for reading, Naomi! And for the valid points. I'm not familiar with Macdonalds, but I'll look him up. As for GIRLS, I haven't read it, but it seems to me to have been received as one of those books that dares to step outside the lines a bit. Again, I haven't read it so I can't say to what extent or how, but the gist I've gathered from reviews and what not suggests that to me. Others that come to mind is the work of Ottessa Moshfegh, Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie, Alejandro Zambra, Zadie Smith, Paul Beatty. So I agree, there are good examples. Don't mean to suggest it NEVER happens. But, judging the stuff I read when I first fell in love with reading around the early 2000s to what has been most popular in the last decade or so, I feel like in general the tone has changed. Characters felt a bit more realistic back then, they didn't feel so bottled up. As for Uncle Tom's Cabin, I agree with you there. Didn't cite that part of the essay because I also didn't think it was quite strong--especially in comparison to everything else.
It's possible! I mean when I started reading, all the Jonathans were in vogue: Franzen and Lethem in particular, and I'd say their work is far superior to, say, Ocean Vuong or Tommy Orange. But when I started reading I also wasn't a writer yet so paid far less attention than I do now.
Great stuff here, Andrew! People be messed up. Pretending we're not is a disservice to us all.
Gonna check out that Equire article and, of course, the Paul Beatty essay.
Thank you, Amran! And yeah man, check it out. I thought it was fantastic and is the sort of thing that still feels so relevant today.
I bet. And I hope you're right about the market turning back toward complex stories with complex, multi-faceted characters. Literature's on life support already. Trying to sterilize it and make it safe is the fastest way to the morgue.
Semi-related, I have a small favor to ask. I'll shoot you a direct email in the next week or so.
I hope I'm right, too. But I'm also wrong about tons of shit. I thought the Mets, for example, would be great this year. So we'll see. And no doubt man. Hit me up.
Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, and yes. I also find it interesting that Blythe wrote that in Esquire...because I think Esquire has become rather cringe-less in its political/cultural aesthetic.
Thank you! Interesting point, too. I can't say I read much of their books section so I wouldn't really know. But I was surprised that it appeared there. Felt like the sort of thing you might find in Harpers instead.
Nice! Read my stuff all real all super cringe all wrong!
THIS!! I always get this with playwriting when people give me notes that my characters are unlikeable like I made them that way as a mistake. Messy people are so much for fun to watch and write!
They really are man. Thanks for reading!
Yes, it is far more Harper's or Atlantic Monthly, isn't it? But Blythe was an Esquire editor at one point, I think
Yeah for sure. Definitely could see the Atlantic, too. And yup, he was affiliated with them for a while, so I guess that played a big role. Happy nonetheless that they pubbed it. Again, to me at least, a hopeful sign.