Well I know I'd never admit it.

Whoa - I'm not sure how I take that. I'm leaning towards the latter on this one. Sounds pretty arrogant. Hmmm.

He might have said it, though I don't know how much thought he put into it before saying it.
I haven't read the book, but I'd say it has more to do with Obama's need for a simple escape from his duties, rather than the supremacy of the text. The latter sounds a bit presumptive to me.

I don't think that's what he's saying. I think he's saying that any text asserts supremacy while you're reading it, that the text essentially replaces your world with it, while you're reading. I think that's debatable too--the lit-theory folks I went to school with would certainly debate the crap out of it--but I don't think it's as arrogant as saying that Obama must submit to his text.

But what do I know? Back to my next post, "My Favorite Fart Jokes and Why You Should Tell Them In Church."

Sorry, that should have been "replaces your world with its."

When I read a novel, I relinquish my own reality for the fictional reality presented by the author - for the duration of that particular sitting. One let's go of one's own internal perspective and accepts, for the moment, the supremacy of the author's perceptions. Alternatively, it can be seen as a kind of submersion into an alternative world.

That is how I interpreted O'Neill's comment, "to submit temporarily to the authority of a novel", FWIW.

I think he's just saying that reading is essentially an act of allowing your mind and imagination to be led by another - even if you disagree, the stage for your disagreement is set by the author.

“In many ways writing is the act of saying I, of imposing oneself upon other people, of saying listen to me, see it my way, change your mind. It’s an aggressive, even a hostile act. You can disguise its aggressiveness all you want with veils of subordinate clauses and qualifiers and tentative subjunctives, with ellipses and evasions — with the whole manner of intimating rather than claiming, of alluding rather than stating — but there’s no getting around the fact that setting words on paper is the tactic of a secret bully, an invasion, an imposition of the writer’s sensibility on the reader’s most private space.” — Joan Didion

Look! You're surrounded by spam on the "Most Recent" list. It does make your post stand out more.

I don't think he's actually saying that. He's talking about the act in general of reading a novel, and Obama could be "submitting" to his novel, or someone else's. He's trying to say that it's a healthy thing that Obama reads novels. And why should we be so excited to have an American president who actually reads.

And even if he was saying that. So what. He wrote a powerful social epic. That's an extremely impressive thing to pull off in this day and age of scattered values and communities. He deserves to feel on top of the world.

I took that statement to mean precisely what M. Chariot described.

He left it purposely ambiguous, but I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and hazard a guess that he is glad we have a literate president who is willing to do what all novelists wish from readers--that they submit to the world of the text and the world created by the writer of the text; that they allow the writer to "teach" them how to read their book. As a novelist myself I imagine it would be wonderful to be read by anyone (!) and especially the president. It signals that the leader of the so-called free world in the highest office in the land is capable of surrendering to a literary text at all! BUT, as you posed the question, one could always read between the lines and say that perhaps Joseph O'Neill has a healthy dose of hubris. But one of my mentors at George Mason told us that it takes quite a bit of hubris to even embark on writing a novel. You have to believe that what you are doing is better or at least as good as anything out there and that it's "important" for you to write it!

But he is saying that. Of course he is. He is saying that he thinks it's a good thing that the most powerful person in the world is submitting to the supremacy of his text. (He did also say, "In this case it happens to be mine." Meaning it could be some other novelist's text, just as easily.)

Either way you look at it, the Prez read his novel. How kick ass is that? I'd be proud if it were me, and when asked these kinds of question it would be hard not to get all philosophical about it. He was probably just trying to sound smart, came of a bit arrogant, but still, THE PRESIDENT READ HIS NOVEL!!!

well, from this snippet, anyway, he sounds a bit of a dolt. calling reading a novel a submissive act is rather silly. of course a novel is another world - and in a good one, one gets lost in that world.
but i submit that getting lost is not a submissive act. i submit that the author has no more dominion over me than i allow.

Lord, what an agreeable crew!

MC's explanation is imminently reasonable and gracious, as usual. I still find the way that O'Neill was expressing that sentiment (if that's exactly what he was expressing) unfortunate.

MAWB: Exactly.

JS wrote: "i submit that the author has no more dominion over me than i allow."

I think that gets to what I found irksome about his response. It's so presumptuous.

One problem: O'Niell assumes that President Obama wasn't just being polite about actually reading his book with any real intensity...What if he got sick of it, halfway through? We'll never know. Reading is a personal thing. Talking about what we read is a public act. There's a difference.

I do find it a leap to assume that someone, just by reading, becomes so fully immersed in another's writing that such power accrues.

I'm with Monsieur Chariot on the process, but I deliberately select books that make me want to engage in the process of letting an author create a reality for me. Not many books or authors make the grade.

Reading a novel asks for an implicit agreement between reader and text: that the text will provide a body of work and that the reader will for a time set aside everything to engage that singular world. O'Neill is asserting that this agreement--and the reader's follow-through--no matter what the text at hand might be, is good for Obama in particular and everyone else generally. He's celebrating, in an extremely low-key way, that we have a president who will actually engage in a text, any text, and the submission lies in fulfilling the agreement, not in bowing down the actual content.

Doesn't he know that "Reader Response" theory is, like, so 70s? It's been totally supplanted by postmodernism, which denies the very existence of the text.

:-)

/grad school wonk-assery

I know VR is labeling herself but "grad school wonk-assery" sums up how I read his comments - - it took me right back to discussions I heard there....

I can only contribute my thoughts about what I hope he means... We've just come through 8 years with a president who says, "You're either for us or against us," one who proudly claimed NOT to read, all the better to protect his world view.

Perhaps Gross is simply expressing admiration for Obama's mental flexibility and openness in being willing to "submit" for a time to a novel's different world view.

Perhaps the other implications of the statement are merely a case of accidental arrogance.

Sincerely,
Rower #9, Agreeable Crew

I chalk it up to the egotism of an artist. Why does an artist create a work in the first place? He/she has a vision of something, and there's the effort of actually doing the hard work of trying to create/recreate that vision. But once it's done, why not stick it in a drawer or the garage?

Artists also produce things for other people. Art is a vision that is shared, and every artist hopes that his vision will be the most viral and long lasting. And it's a definite plus if very powerful/influential people share the vision that I have produced.

Unfortunately, beyond any ancillary effect that the most widespread art might produce on a cultural level, its effects are unfortunately ephemeral. I got very sad on my visit to Cleveland's Rock and Roll Hall of Fame recently when I saw my most favorite 1960s San Francisco groups entombed in plexiglas. Here was my youth, embalmed, and it broadcast the betrayal of art.

Quicksilver Messenger Service and especially Jefferson Airplane deliverred messages of ultimate change, revolution, when they came out. Their message was that United States society had to radically readjust to a different path from what it had followed. And yet, from 1965 onwards the United States of America has continued to sail on its very way with underlying fundamentals and structures of its actions hardly changed at all. All the promise of revolution that the SF rock groups promised has only resulted in a groovier America, yet an America that continues to get involved in useless wars and operates of the rich, by the rich, and for the rich.

So any art, no matter what its message, or regardless of how popular or obscure it is, is still a tribute to the individual artist's own ego. When I produce a work of art, I hope that it will give me immortality, and yes there has to be a power trip there somewhere.

So when Joseph O'Neill talks about temporary shifts in power and domination when it comes to art, I take his words at face value, and I believe him.

Of course that's what he is saying. Because it is absolutely true. At least for any one who is a reader.

What zuma said. I would HOPE my book could cause a person to submit to it, but would be arrogant to assume that is happening. He gets sort of arrogant only toward the end. Someone must have been nodding and encouraging him to get the big head.

Omg I just about laughed my a** off at this remark. I think he meant reading fiction allows one the pleasure of escape to a different world, one you get to watch rather than one in which you must make decisions. Why someone who works with words can't just say that is beyond me but perhaps there's a hidden vanity at work.

Well, I , for one think that the "ownership" of the act of reading lies with the reader. Am I submitting? Escaping? Relinquishing? Accepting the offer of the author to share his tale with? Or..?

In the experience of reading, only the READER knows the experience - it is his or her own.

O'Neill seems to be expressing a point of view intended to sound nonchalant, but instead he ended up coming across as more than a little self-important.

That's some serious head rattling there!

So World War II was unnecessary, eh? All we really had to do was enroll Hitler in the Book of the Month Club.

omg, it's as though the man takes pride in his work and relishes knowing that it's compelling enough for busy people to enjoy!!

how dare he!!

"submit temporarily to the authority of a novel"

It does read as quite arrogant. For me, this is the difference between reading the written word and hearing audibly and seeing physically the inflection, tone and seeing body language. He says in the quote above "submit temporarily to the authority of "a" novel", so he doesn't single out his novel at that time. The thing about written word, and we've ALL experienced it on here and in e-mails and even text messages, you don't always get the intention of the sender, or the receiver misinterprets, or both.

He sounded like he was really struggling for the right intellectual wording of what he wanted to say.

Sometimes when you have absolutely nothing intelligent to say, silence is golden. He would of done better to say that he is humbled when anyone takes the time to go out, purchase, and spend time to read something he had written!

I think he was pretty straightforward in making it about the nature of submitting to a novel in general. Frankly, it had to be such a thrill that he needed to over-rationalize it, and he did as good a job as anyone could have. It's nice to see you blogging so much, Kerry.

Well said Lori S! That would have been almost exactly what I would have said. Humility (true humility) is another lost art. People are so cynical when you are humble these days they will call it false. You can't win for losing. :-)

The multitude of interpretations of his comment, which are much less extensive (presumably) than his text, suggest that no reader submits to anything.

His comments soundednot just arrogant and pompous but ill mannered. The gracious thing would have been to say that any author is flattered when someone for whom it must be difficult to find free time would choose his or her text to read. O'Neill's mother is probably very unhappy with him.

That is a man with a very odd notion about what reading entails.

Personally I think it makes stage moms look bad.

;)

After a listen, I have to go with Mungular.

My feelings are that it's a flaw to take ones creative work too seriously. A novel or music and paintings may cause us to pause and reflect, but this "submission" description sounds more like brainwashing than entertainment. Ofcourse hindsight's twenty/twenty, but I think a better response would have been something like, it was an honor to have a busy man like the president take time out to read my novel. A little humility never hurt anyone.

Yes, definitely. At least he's honest. Wow, though. What a statement!

And I just realized that I somehow clicked on the wrong post. That last comment was for the Bruno Open Call.

lol.
Sorry Kerry.

Kind of amazed at all the negative reactions created by O'Neill's statement. I did not find it arrogant or lacking in humility. I think it's a testament, not just to writing, but to any art form that engages. We certainly submit ourselves to film as well as literature. Regardless of whether or not we like or appreciate or agree with it. It does have an authority. And it can absolutely be a submissive act, unless you're intentionally trying to keep yourself from getting immersed for some odd reason. It has nothing to do with the artist, be he/she a novelist, poet, filmmaker, musician... I, personally, agree with O'Neill. And it never occurred to me for a moment that he was praising himself or his own work. His praise was for Obama for whom he believes it would be healthy to allow a man with such authority and power to put both aside long enough to engage in something created by another that engages the mind, body and spirit (potentially). For me, he was speaking from a place of admiration for Obama and the art form of which O'Neill himself is a contributing member. It seems, however, that in making this comment, he unintentionally pushed a couple of buttons and put some folks on the defensive. Authority and submissiveness are not, in essence, negative words or connotations. Again, I think it's more a reflection of the reader of these comments than of the commentator himself. But that's just me...

I didn't read it that way at all. What I believe him to be saying is, the act of anyone reading anything is a an act of ceding power, and this says something about readers vs., say, non-readers, i.e. readers are able to recognize that power comes from many sources, not least of which is being willing to take a lesson from another authority source such as an author. This profundity of this truism is enhanced when the reader is someone with as much *actual* power as Obama. And he's right. An extension of this thought - it drives me nuts when people quickly assert that they only read nonfiction. As if Tolstoy and Didion and Twain didn't have anything to teach anyone because they *made it all up*.

Perhaps he could have just said "thank you."

Well, geeze, the man has got to read something...might as well be that...or better yet our blogs. Yeah, right.

Wonderful comment. I'd add that even in writing fiction you're submitting to the work's authority.

He is saying that. But he left out the part where he should have said. "Cool! I'm flattered. Thank you." I share Sandra's disdain for people who say "I only read non-fiction." Last night I even watched a MOVIE! (Not a documentary) Was I submitting to it's power? No. But the popcorn was good.

It sounds to me like he was trying to make sense of it as he was saying it. It comes across a bit high-handed, but let's remember he was responding in a radio interview, not writing a well-thought-out piece with opportunities for revision.

I believe that many writers achieve a much higher degree of clarity with the written word than the spoken word (perhaps why they write)

And, I am with the crowd here that it is indeed an act, maybe not of submission, but certainly of acceptance to give over your time, attention, and mind to a fictional world created by another...and that is what makes reading fiction so cool. I think the author is trying to say that he doesn't want to come across (& we shouldn't all be) jumping up & down like teenagers, screaming,

"OMG - the President is READING A [MY] NOVEL!!!!"

I have to say I'm surprised at the reaction to O'Neill's comments. His first remarks are clear in his perspective:

"Well, I mean, I'm a bit of an Obama fan and was a supporter during the election so, and in the primary, so I was thrilled privately. But on the other hand, I suppose, if I sort of reflect about it, I sort of feel, in a way, that it would be wrong to be too thrilled, because why shouldn't a president read a novel? In this case it happens to be mine."

To me it is clear that he IS expressing humility - he says he was privately thrilled (same as being flattered) but then realizes it's wrong to take Obama's reading of his book too personally, as if it were somehow a reflection of his outsized talent that Obama chose an *O'Neill* novel - he is saying "presidents, like any other people, choose to read novels, and he happened to choose mine, and this is more a reflection of how ordinary he is in his love of reading, than how extraordinary I am in my writing." His further comments simply amplify that reading is a particularly good thing for powerful people to do - it is an act of submitting yourself to a different perspective, suspending your disbelief in place of another's. To say "that only happens to the degree that I *choose* to let it happen" seems counterproductive to the act of reading - if you choose not to suspend all of your disbelief and keep reminding yourself, "yeah but this is just Twain making shit up, and Huck would probably be a racist in real life" then why bother reading?

He's exactly right. And as you are reading this particular comment, you are submitting to the primacy of this text. I mean, isn't that what he means? Just that if someone chooses to read this thing or that thing, that person is prioritizing it, acknowledging that it's more important for that moment--and hoping, perhaps, that its importance will last much longer and deeper--than anything else.

I totally got what he was saying (I happened to hear it out of his own mouth, as I also listened to that interview) and thought it was wise and appropriate.

What Lainey said.
:-)

I think he's high as a kite when he posted or said this in response to an interview...what was he on?

What ever the reason and no matter what Obama does as he reads, can you think of a better way to increase the number of copies you sell other than have the President mention your book? I sure people who would never give you the time of day will buy a copy to see what the President is reading.

Sandra's comment at 3:18 is pitch perfect. I think it's weird that people think his comment is weird.

I think he is just saying that reading a novel is a submissive act in which the party known as the reader agrees to be led blindly by the author to the end of the story. And that it is a good thing to have the most powerful person in the world do regardless of who did the writing.

Uhm, he's "sort of" saying that.

Interesting....I suppose anything we read, for a moment at least, has supremacy. Anything we write. But in the grand scheme...I'm a supreme monkey at a keyboard.

Can people stop being so picky. Any writer ought to be happy to be read by anyone. Grateful even. Sheesh. And get him an editor. Those sentences hurt my head.

Seriously, I bet Obama reads Harry Potter to his kids. What does that mean..............?

oops. first sentence: can authors stop.....(not people).

note to self: find brain left in glove box of car.

just to find out ANYONE much less the President of the United States of America is reading something i wrote would have me dancing in the streets. this, for mr. o'neill, might be a case of "i'm acting all cool on the outside...but on the inside? i'm racing down the street screaming 'whoo-peee!'"

I think O'Neill is full of himself. Hasn't he heard about "The Death of the Author"?

Oh artists....

Of course he's not saying Obama is submitting to supremecy of HIS words.... just that the act of reading a novel means you must submit your time and attention to it... but hey, I think he was just trying to pull any BS answer out in order to not geek-out that the president is reading his stuff...

Hey Obama... you wanna read mine... ANYTIME!!! (Although i would definately geek-out)... check it out on http://themayberrylane.blogspot.com

I think he is indeed saying this. Because, after all, he said it.

One can read a novel for enjoyment, for education, for amusement, for all kinds of things - I get the sense this author believes that one cannot, however, read a novel with a "critical eye" (HIS novel, at least).


So much can be revealed in the smallest statements (including big egos).