noon magazine & 'kmart realism'

i like noon magazine

i'm going to type a lot of things that i'm just thinking about right now

noon publishes deb olin unferth, rebecca curtis, lydia davis, and clancy martin in almost every issue and i like those writers

i think the writers i like most are all associated somehow with raymond carver, ann beattie, joy williams, bobbie ann mason, frederick barthelme, and mary robison

i like all those writers, who people used to talk shit about by calling them 'k-mart realists'

i think they are all funny, almost always only use 'said' or 'says' for dialogue tags (joy williams uses 'screams' a lot but in a way like she is talking shit about people for overreacting to things), do not explain very much, do not have that much rhetoric or description, seem weary or disillusioned or disenchanted with the world (in that they seem rarely enthusiastic or excited, unless sarcastically so; they do not exaggerate or dramatize, but are detached and factual mostly), and have a lot of dialogue

and a lot of their characters seem 'depressed' or 'disillusioned' but not in a way that makes them do melodramatic things, 'act out,' be an asshole to other people, have reckless sex, do drugs, or become angry but in a way that makes them withdraw, talk in a monotone, talk sarcastically, or observe things with a neutral facial expression

in the 80's all those writers were in best american short stories almost every year

ann beattie, raymond carver, richard ford, and anne tyler all edited best american short stories and chose each other; raymond carver blurbed ann beattie and joy williams and bobbie ann mason, ann beattie blurbed joy williams, etc.

richard ford and anne tyler liked the main kmart realists but were less extreme in not explaining things (frederick barthelme, raymond carver), in being severely detached (joy williams), and maybe had more plot than all the main 'kmart realists' so were able to become more famous and win awards and sell many copies; they were just less extreme in all areas, maybe

but ann beattie, mary robison, frederick barthelme, and bobbie ann mason were all published in the new yorker a lot in the 80's; frederick barthelme's first story-collection was almost completely published in the new yorker

joy williams only had one story in the new yorker, because maybe she was too extreme and too detached and existential

i think raymond carver was most associated with gordon lish, who edited raymond carver, and that was the main start of 'kmart realism'

gordon lish later published at knopf diane williams, amy hempel, etc. and so they all became associated a little with 'kmart realism'

noon is edited by diane williams

i think the writing in noon by deb olin unferth, rebecca curtis, lydia davis (maybe less so), and clancy martin is similar to writing by 'kmart realists' in that they are very colloquial without using many idioms or cliches, are funny, do not explain much, do not include world events, and use mostly only 'said' and 'says' for dialogue tags

but noon also publishes people more similar to those that gordon lish published after raymond carver; noon publishes gary lutz and christine schutt who to me are very different (christine schutt less so) than the 'kmart realists' but still closer to the 'kmart realists' than say salman rushdie or whoever

i think writers similar to these like 30-50 years ago would be richard yates and ernest hemingway (in some ways) and jean rhys (frederick barthelme and joy williams both cite jean rhys); richard yates' last story-collection is very much like 'kmart realism'

i think what is similar of all of these writers is that they write only from an existential viewpoint, they write about specific people and do not become 'distracted' by things 'not existential' like politics, society, current events, etc.; for example i don't think any of these writers would write a novel that included 9/11 or the holocaust, unless to use it as a topical thing, in order to say something existential (which is what almost everyone who writes about say 9/11 or the holocaust says, that they are using a specific event to say something about 'the human condition'; though most writers who do use these events feature them, while i think when frederick barthelme and the others use them they use them in a way that i think makes them have less, and maybe more accurate, significance)

they are i think completely focused on existential themes (death, limited-time, the unidirectional nature of time, the arbitrary nature of the universe, the paradox of consciousness in a universe without messages, the physical aloneness of all physical objects, that only one thing can occupy one space in one moment in time, the inherently reality-distorting and therefore untruthful or inadequate nature of language and other forms of communication, and the oftentimes incompatible nature of (1) genetically encoded demands to pass on genetic material and (2) moral, societal, and philosophical demands having to do with anything-other-than-pass-on-genetic-materials) or maybe just write knowing that those themes affect everyone equally (from a point of view without preconception) whether the person is in a war or homeless or rich or middle-class, and so they write about themselves and their own situations and surroundings since they know those situations and surroundings better

and since they are not in wars, are not murdered, addicted to drugs, in a foreign country, in a political campaign, homeless, in poverty, or uncovering political secrets they are viewed by those who talk shit about them, i think, as 'unimportant'

anytime i used quotes like 'this' in this post it means i'm not being serious and think the word or phrase inside the quotes is bad if not used unsarcastically

i made a post about 'kmart realism' a long time ago