In this analysis, I have chosen two articles written by two great American writers from the early 1960s. From James Baldwin, I have chosen “As Much truth as One can Bear” and from Philip Roth, “Writing American Fiction”, both criticisms and diatribes against the literary culture of that era. Both writers make claims about the duty every writer has to the culture they live in, and it is these claims that make their points of view both reassuring and persuasive.
In both Baldwin’s and Roth’s manifestos, there is at least a tacit insinuation that the writer should be highly valued in a culture. James Baldwin says it outright. However, Roth mentions it in an almost plaintive way, as if the prominence of “the genius” is being concealed by a media that outstrips its craft, or an “actuality [that] is continually outdoing our talents” (224). In Baldwin, on the other hand, there is not even an inkling of grievance against journalism, aside from his aloof complaint that literary critics are not recognizing the talent in their midst rather than succumbing to the urge of nostalgia. James Baldwin is the Stoic whereas Philip Roth, the truth-teller turned cloistered mystic. Perhaps this last comparison is a bit extreme; however, at the end of the Roth article, he does make mention of what might seem like an inevitability: a form of …show more content…
However, it seems to me that James Baldwin’s position is a little more provoking and “balls out.” For this reason, I prefer Baldwin’s prosaic philosophy over Roth’s. Nevertheless, both men are inspiring and encourage writers to extend their muscles their full range of motion when they are challenging the mores and stupidities of their time. I think both manifestos, in their combined state, produce enough napalm and itch to make any lazy writer stand to attention and reconsider their duty in our intellectually starved and neglected
In both Baldwin’s and Roth’s manifestos, there is at least a tacit insinuation that the writer should be highly valued in a culture. James Baldwin says it outright. However, Roth mentions it in an almost plaintive way, as if the prominence of “the genius” is being concealed by a media that outstrips its craft, or an “actuality [that] is continually outdoing our talents” (224). In Baldwin, on the other hand, there is not even an inkling of grievance against journalism, aside from his aloof complaint that literary critics are not recognizing the talent in their midst rather than succumbing to the urge of nostalgia. James Baldwin is the Stoic whereas Philip Roth, the truth-teller turned cloistered mystic. Perhaps this last comparison is a bit extreme; however, at the end of the Roth article, he does make mention of what might seem like an inevitability: a form of …show more content…
However, it seems to me that James Baldwin’s position is a little more provoking and “balls out.” For this reason, I prefer Baldwin’s prosaic philosophy over Roth’s. Nevertheless, both men are inspiring and encourage writers to extend their muscles their full range of motion when they are challenging the mores and stupidities of their time. I think both manifestos, in their combined state, produce enough napalm and itch to make any lazy writer stand to attention and reconsider their duty in our intellectually starved and neglected