Sunday Morning! “Never Come Morning” by Nelson Algren

Rufus F.

Rufus is a likeable curmudgeon. He has a PhD in History, sang for a decade in a punk band, and recently moved to NYC after nearly two decades in Canada. He wrote the book "The Paris Bureau" from Dio Press (2021).

Related Post Roulette

23 Responses

  1. LeeEsq says:

    I like Nelson Algren and the urban low life genre he wrote about. It’s kind of rare these days.Report

    • Rufus F. in reply to LeeEsq says:

      I definitely liked A Walk on the Wild Side and could appreciate this one. Yeah, it definitely has become much rarer. That’s kind of what I was thinking of with the “professionalization” claim- I suspect there were more mid-century writers who had more than a toe in that world themselves and were more comfortable writing about it.Report

      • LeeEsq in reply to Rufus F. says:

        It also became rarer because fewer Americans have direct experience with urban low life because of suburbinzation, although that goes with having a toe in that world. But it isn’t just the authors having a toe in that world that matters. You need readers to have at least some working knowledge of it even if they don’t have direct experience. Urban low life or really low life isn’t exactly praised these days and will be treated as poverty porn.Report

      • LeeEsq in reply to Rufus F. says:

        Another thought is that urban low life fiction was the something of the escapism of it’s day. Now most bougie readers go to speculative fiction for their escapism. It is also possible that the people who would write urban low life fiction these days are now writing and drawing graphics novels and comics rather than urban low life novels. As my brother notes, the type of urban low life doesn’t even exist much in reality these days.Report

  2. Regarding the valid point on fiction writing having been “professionalized”: The great fighter Marvin Hagler had one of those great insights into life, that he was referring to boxing but applies to just about anything: “It’s hard to get out of bed in the morning to go for a run when you’re sleeping in silk sheets.” Not that the struggle is essential for success, but the struggle of dealing with success is a different struggle all together. We like our rags-to-riches stories, or riches-to-rags stories. The market for a rags-to-working middle class story where the protagonist rises from poverty to balance that second car payment against the rising cost of their HMO coverage doesn’t make a good pitching blurb, however relatable it might be.Report

    • Yeah, I think part of it is that, in order to go into most creative fields at this point, you sort of need to have another source of wealth, either parental or spousal. The struggle is different than it used to be when a stock boy would sit up all night writing stories to send to the New Yorker. I think it’s why there are fewer novels about stock boys or taxi drivers than there used to be.Report

      • Rufus F. in reply to Rufus F. says:

        Well, no, I’m simply looking at a different problem with a longer timeframe than the current AI labor issue.Report

        • Rufus F. in reply to Rufus F. says:

          Yeah, I know. I wrote two books, a bunch of plays, and recorded a few albums while doing that job. Having “spare time” to create is not the same thing as entering into that industry as a working professional, which usually starts with either an MFA or a low-paying, often unpaid internship in New York or LA. The difference between talented amateurs who “sell art on the side” and working professionals in a creative field is increasingly dependent on having external wealth, something that has changed over the course of a generation.
          And I am not even remotely the first person to point this out.Report

      • Saul Degraw in reply to Rufus F. says:

        I don’t think the New Yorker ever really published fiction about stock boys or taxi drivers that much. I have not done an exhaustive study but I have read short stories from the New Yorker from the mid-20th century and a lot of it does have a ring of “young bougie person in love problems.” It is not exactly like today but there are rhymes and similarities.

        Nelson Algren was a product of a very specific time and culture. One that was working class but also Jewish so deeply seeped in a literally tradition and one with a deep appreciation for book learning. The lack of technology also helped those stock boys write stories in their spare time.Report

        • Rufus F. in reply to Saul Degraw says:

          Yeah, I can’t remember who it was that recalled his early days at a grocery store, sitting up all night writing on the kitchen table. For some reason, I thought it was Bernard Malamud, but of course, he was teaching.

          Weird thing is John Cheever, the sort of ur-WASP writer, started off writing his stories in cramped Chelsea apartments and living out of friend’s places for a time. There was one publisher who broke a contract for a novel by telling him he should go into more legitimate employment.Report

  3. Never play cards with a man called Doc. Never eat at a place called Mom’s. Never sleep with a woman whose troubles are worse than your own.Report

  4. Saul Degraw says:

    There was a weird publishing trend in the 1950s or 60s that gave serious novels slightly salacious covers. I think the implication was that the book was going to be somewhat erotic.

    “And so, my working theory has been that this boredom I feel when reading contemporary novels stems from the generational “professionalization” of fiction writing, which has certainly has produced a great deal of semi-interesting writing, and no masterpieces that come to mind.”

    I’m not sure I fully agree that the fiction has been professionalized but it probably has to do with sociological and educational trends in general and/or the product of who reads literary fiction. There are plenty of novelists that come from non-elite backgrounds and/or immigrant backgrounds like Nelson Algren but this is going to look very different in 2023 than it did in the mid-20th century when Nelson Algren was writing. What I have roughly noticed is that Asian-Americans are currently going through their Saul Bellow and Philip Roth phrases (rough comparison is rough) for literature. Many of these authors do not appear from elite backgrounds, they are often the children of immigrants who worked in tough jobs but it is still the year 2023 and not 1932. Everything has become more professionalized which is why dim-lit boxing rings are not such a thing. Now it is glossier and more corporate MMA.

    Plus the whole NYC v. MFA debate is over a decade old at this point. The MFA has seemingly as far as I can tell from observations.

    I also think the so-called “professionalization” is a product of who reads literary fiction, bougie people.Report

    • Rufus F. in reply to Saul Degraw says:

      Yeah, but I think we’re closer to agreeing here than disagreeing. I’ve heard more than a few publishing folks on lit twit asking if we should even publish novels by writers who don’t have an MFA. It’s become a sort of rite-of-passage that presupposes a certain background. So, you kind of assume these writers probably aren’t hanging out in dive bars with young boxers, or whatnot. And, like you said, the urban environment is a lot more bougie anyway.

      None of it’s really a problem, aside from narrowing down the market for serious fiction. I’ve also heard more than a few publishing people suggest that men don’t really read fiction and don’t really write it anymore. Which seems a little blinkered to me.Report

    • LeeEsq in reply to Saul Degraw says:

      Bougie people were also the readers of literary fiction but used urban low life novels as a type of escapism and probably had more passing familiarity with it since it was a real thing in the early to mid-20th century. Now escapism mainly takes the form of fantasy and science fiction rather than imagining you are from the wrong side of the tracks and tough as nails docker or cocktail waitress rather than an account or pre-school teacher. There was probably also more societal respect for this type of toughness and school of hard knocks in the past while these days the school of hard knocks is generally not that respected.

      Some writers still write urban or not so urban low life genres. Barbara Kingsolver apparently rewrote David Copperfield but updated it to Appalachia and called Demon Copperhead. Probably a lot more sex in this version too. It won the Pulitzer Prize and got generally raving reviews but the interesting dissent was from The Boston Globe, which called it poverty porn and had this to say about it In seeking to raise awareness of child hunger and poverty in the United States, Kingsolver turns her characters’ lives into tales of misery and the inevitability of failure. Her characters wallow in dark hollows with little light, condemned to forever repeat the horrific mistakes of previous generations. She makes the people of Appalachia into objects of pity, but in doing so, also intimates that falling into drug abuse, rejecting education, and ‘clinging’ to their ways are moral choices.”[11]

      This is a pretty big damnation of the urban low life genre of fiction from a 21st century bougie liberal standpoint. That is while poverty is systematic, there is also an individual way out of poverty that is basically embracing middle class disicipline and educated yourself while not engaging in proudly dysfunctional behavior as a moral choice. While I suspect most readers of Demon Copperhead don’t agree with this, a less skilled writer of the low life genre might bring out this reaction more.Report

      • Rufus F. in reply to LeeEsq says:

        I feel like Jim Harrison was pretty skilled at writing about a sort of hardscrabble rural life. Many of his characters are just scraping by, but you never feel they’re especially miserable about it. It’s been decades since I read Stephen King, but I seem to remember many of his characters being about the same. Of course, they had bigger things to worry about, like haunted vampire refrigerators and whatnot.Report

  5. LeeEsq says:

    In my mental wonderings about prom customs in different areas, it has been pointed out by different people that the type of minor rebellion and rule pushing that used to be expected in high schoolers and college students is now not really supported. Cameras are everywhere, so there is always a record of any minor or major mischief that can be used to punish you later even if the intent of the photo or the video was not to punish in the first place. The middle class and above kids can’t really use their class privilege to avoid punishment as much as they did in the past.

    There is also a greater defense of keeping kids safe from harm. When I graduated high school in 1998, prom was held on a Thursday, mainly because of venue costs in the NYC area. Many kids would go to the Hamptons and do some minor partying with alcohol and skip the next day of school. I didn’t go to the prom but I did skip the next day. From what I was informed the prom is still on Thursday but the schools stopped senior skip day or the Hamptons trip by moving graduation to the Friday right after the prom.

    The urban low life genre depended on a certain amount of allowed rule breaking and a lack of concern for safety being allowed in real society. Sure you weren’t supposed to have the policy game in the back of your grocery store but everybody knew it existed. Same with minor but ritualized teen rule breaking. Since there is a greater emphasis on safety, the type of society that could be literalized in Nelson Algren or depicting in a Edward Hooper painting now longer exists.Report

    • Rufus F. in reply to LeeEsq says:

      This is especially relevant in 2023’s overpoliced NYC where I’ll often see police questioning teenagers for the questionable behavior of being outdoors together.Report

      • LeeEsq in reply to Rufus F. says:

        I can definitely see arguments about how the current society is better in some ways, but also worse because of decreased freedom/street life even though it is safer and more open to say be LGBT than it was during Algren’s years. During the mid-20th century, being LGBT could force you into the low life even if you were temperamentally and physically unsuited for it. The current society could be more equitable and fairer but at the same time lacking in certain ways.Report