Peter Childs
- Published in print:
- 2006
- Published Online:
- September 2012
- ISBN:
- 9780748620432
- eISBN:
- 9780748671700
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Edinburgh University Press
- DOI:
- 10.3366/edinburgh/9780748620432.003.0013
- Subject:
- Literature, Criticism/Theory
The short story is unfairly named. Shortness is only a quality in relation to something else, and so this epithet ‘short’ epitomises the way in which the novel has been taken as the standard for ...
More
The short story is unfairly named. Shortness is only a quality in relation to something else, and so this epithet ‘short’ epitomises the way in which the novel has been taken as the standard for modern fiction. Such bias was long ago lampooned by Ambrose Bierce in his 1911 satirical compendium The Devil’s Dictionary: ‘Novel: A short story padded. A species of composition bearing the same relation to literature that the panorama bears to art. As it is too long to be read at a sitting the impressions made by its successive parts are successively effaced, as in the panorama. Unity, totality of effect, is impossible; for besides the few pages last read all that is carried in mind is the mere plot of what has gone before.’ If Barthelme were familiar with this definition it might be argued that his story’s expanding balloon, which sacrifices unity for a sprawling quality, is a comment on the novel’s relation to the short story form that Barthelme specialised in and excelled at.Less
The short story is unfairly named. Shortness is only a quality in relation to something else, and so this epithet ‘short’ epitomises the way in which the novel has been taken as the standard for modern fiction. Such bias was long ago lampooned by Ambrose Bierce in his 1911 satirical compendium The Devil’s Dictionary: ‘Novel: A short story padded. A species of composition bearing the same relation to literature that the panorama bears to art. As it is too long to be read at a sitting the impressions made by its successive parts are successively effaced, as in the panorama. Unity, totality of effect, is impossible; for besides the few pages last read all that is carried in mind is the mere plot of what has gone before.’ If Barthelme were familiar with this definition it might be argued that his story’s expanding balloon, which sacrifices unity for a sprawling quality, is a comment on the novel’s relation to the short story form that Barthelme specialised in and excelled at.
Cathy Curtis
- Published in print:
- 2017
- Published Online:
- August 2017
- ISBN:
- 9780190498474
- eISBN:
- 9780190498504
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/oso/9780190498474.003.0008
- Subject:
- History, Cultural History, American History: 20th Century
While emphasizing a sympathetic view of her sitters’ individuality, Elaine often revealed personality-shaping forces of turmoil and discontent. Her subjects included Bill, Harold Rosenberg, Thomas ...
More
While emphasizing a sympathetic view of her sitters’ individuality, Elaine often revealed personality-shaping forces of turmoil and discontent. Her subjects included Bill, Harold Rosenberg, Thomas Hess, Merce Cunningham, Edwin Denby, Donald Barthelme, Alex Katz, Frank O’Hara, Pelé, and, most famously, John F. Kennedy. She based her “gyroscope men” on a book by psychologist Rollo May about repressed men unable to change. Her “faceless” sitters included O’Hara, easily identifiable by his characteristic posture. Other portraits with missing facial features, all of men she knew well, may have been prompted by her unresolved feelings about them. While most of her sitters were male—she was intrigued by abstract elements of men’s suits and by men’s habitual seated postures—Elaine also painted sensitive portraits of women, including the daughters of friends. Her group portraits notably included The Burghers of Amsterdam Avenue, a group of young men undergoing treatment for drug addiction.Less
While emphasizing a sympathetic view of her sitters’ individuality, Elaine often revealed personality-shaping forces of turmoil and discontent. Her subjects included Bill, Harold Rosenberg, Thomas Hess, Merce Cunningham, Edwin Denby, Donald Barthelme, Alex Katz, Frank O’Hara, Pelé, and, most famously, John F. Kennedy. She based her “gyroscope men” on a book by psychologist Rollo May about repressed men unable to change. Her “faceless” sitters included O’Hara, easily identifiable by his characteristic posture. Other portraits with missing facial features, all of men she knew well, may have been prompted by her unresolved feelings about them. While most of her sitters were male—she was intrigued by abstract elements of men’s suits and by men’s habitual seated postures—Elaine also painted sensitive portraits of women, including the daughters of friends. Her group portraits notably included The Burghers of Amsterdam Avenue, a group of young men undergoing treatment for drug addiction.
Mike Miley
- Published in print:
- 2019
- Published Online:
- September 2020
- ISBN:
- 9781496825384
- eISBN:
- 9781496825438
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- University Press of Mississippi
- DOI:
- 10.14325/mississippi/9781496825384.003.0006
- Subject:
- Film, Television and Radio, Film
This final chapter discusses how the election of Donald Trump to the presidency alters the importance and influence of game shows on American life. The chapter examines works by Chuck Barris, Donald ...
More
This final chapter discusses how the election of Donald Trump to the presidency alters the importance and influence of game shows on American life. The chapter examines works by Chuck Barris, Donald Barthelme, Max Apple, Philip K. Dick, and Jonathan Lethem to explore whether America will ever be free from the game show’s grasp, and how citizens can take control of the Land of the Game Show if escape is impossible. The chapter argues that resistance comes in the form of challenging the increasing triviality of American politics, encouraging readers to demand meaningful exchanges.Less
This final chapter discusses how the election of Donald Trump to the presidency alters the importance and influence of game shows on American life. The chapter examines works by Chuck Barris, Donald Barthelme, Max Apple, Philip K. Dick, and Jonathan Lethem to explore whether America will ever be free from the game show’s grasp, and how citizens can take control of the Land of the Game Show if escape is impossible. The chapter argues that resistance comes in the form of challenging the increasing triviality of American politics, encouraging readers to demand meaningful exchanges.
