海角大神

It鈥檚 a phenomenon almost as old as literature itself: author pens fiction; fiction receives literary acclaim and blockbuster sales; work and author are deemed masterpiece and maestro, respectively 鈥� and then the backlash lands, complete with requisite attacks, character assassination, and highbrow literary condescendence.

The latest victim to fall in the crosshairs is literary megastar Donna Tartt of 鈥淭he Goldfinch鈥� fame.

Some 11 years after Tartt began writing it, the 784-page novel hit shelves and headlines to almost immediate success. It鈥檚 sold some 1.5 million copies, garnered rave reviews, claimed prime real estate on The New York Times bestseller list for seven months, picked up the Pulitzer Prize for fiction, and is on its way to becoming a movie or TV series by the producers behind 鈥淭he Hunger Games.鈥�

Its success has led news outlets to breathlessly call 2014 鈥淭he Year of the Goldfinch鈥澨齛nd proclaim the book the 鈥業t鈥� novel of the year."听

But as Vanity Fair pointed out in a recent article titled 鈥淚t鈥檚 Tartt 鈥� But is it Art?,鈥澨�鈥淚t鈥檚 also gotten some of the severest pans in memory from the country鈥檚 most important critics and sparked a full-on debate in which the naysayers believe that nothing less is at stake than the future of reading itself.鈥澨�

Critics have called the book infantile, finding fault with its plot (鈥渇ar-fetched鈥�), characters (鈥渃loying,鈥� 鈥渟tock鈥�), and concluding message (鈥渙verwrought鈥�).

鈥淚ts tone, language, and story belong in children鈥檚 literature,鈥� wrote critic James Wood in听The New Yorker,听saying it was further proof of the infantilization of our literary culture.听

鈥淎 book like 'The Goldfinch' doesn鈥檛 undo any clich茅s 鈥� it deals in them,鈥� wrote Lorin Stein, editor of听The Paris Review.听

Writing for The New York Review of Books, critic Francine Prose called 鈥淭he Goldfinch鈥� 鈥渂ombastic, overwritten, marred by baffling turns of phrase.鈥澨�

At first blush, the backlash is surprising, snarky. But it turns out it鈥檚 just the latest book to draw such polarized attention.

Jonathan Franzen and his novel, 鈥淔reedom,鈥� drew such intense praise and vitriol, folks in the literary community coined a new term, 鈥淔ranzenfreude,鈥� to describe the frenzy surrounding that polarizing book and author.

鈥淗ailed by some as a masterpiece of US literature and denounced by others as the overpraised product of a white-male racket, the most anticipated novel of the year 鈥� Franzen's first in almost a decade 鈥� has touched off a culture war pitting the elite against the masses, the literary against the commercial, men against women and everybody against The New York Times,鈥� wrote Canada鈥檚 Globe and Mail in 2010.

In Franzen鈥檚 case, it didn鈥檛 help that the author, often described as pretentious and prickly, trash-talked Oprah and called longtime New York Times reviewer Michiko Kakutani 鈥渢he stupidest person in New York.鈥�

鈥淔reedom鈥� was called 鈥渁 masterpiece of American literature鈥� and 鈥渁n indelible portrait of our times鈥� in The New York Times, and 鈥渢he novel of the century鈥� in The Guardian. Franzen was deemed a 鈥淕reat American novelist鈥� in Time magazine.

Authors Jodi Piccoult and Jennifer Weiner called foul, saying they鈥檇 love to see 鈥渢he NYT rave about writers who aren鈥檛 white male literary darlings.鈥� So began a backlash that had Newsweek run a story entitled 鈥淛onathan Franzen, the writer we love to hate.鈥�

Speaking of which, consider Exhibit C: Jonthan Safran Foer. The young Princeton graduate drew such intense praise so early with his first novel, 鈥淓verything is Illuminated,鈥� that the backlash was almost a foregone conclusion. Success appeared to have come easy to the then-25-year-old author with fantastic connections and frustrating diffidence who says he wrote the book at 19.

"I never particularly felt that writing was my calling, it was just something I did," he told the UK鈥檚 Telegraph.

The book went on to become a bestseller called 鈥渁 21st-century masterpiece鈥� and Foer was called a 鈥渨underkind.鈥�

Of course, that was before the vicious comments lambasting Foer as a hack and accusing the publishing industry of over-hyping his book. His second work, 鈥淓xtremely Loud and Incredibly Close,鈥� was almost immediately panned, drawing such negative attention as this NY Press article, entitled 鈥淓xtremely Cloying and Incredibly False.鈥�

In other words, it鈥檚 not just Tartt. Or Franzen. Or Foer. The book world appears to engage in this cruel, if predictable, cycle on a regular basis 鈥� and it has for decades, if not longer.

鈥淭he history of literature is filled with books now considered masterpieces that were thought hackwork in their time,鈥� writes Vanity Fair, listing a litany of examples.

鈥淚t isn鈥檛 worth any adult reader鈥檚 attention,鈥澨齌he New York Times听pronounced concerning Nabokov鈥檚 "Lolita."

鈥淜ind of monotonous,鈥� the same paper said about Salinger鈥檚 "The听Catcher in the Rye."听鈥淗e should鈥檝e cut out a lot about these jerks and all at that crumby school."听

鈥淎n absurd story,鈥� announced听The听Saturday听Review听of F. Scott Fitzgerald鈥檚 "The Great Gatsby,"听while the听New York Herald Tribune听declared it 鈥渁 book of the season only.鈥澨�

But for all the premature pans, there have been authors deemed geniuses whose books were later relegated to the trash heap, writes the magazine, mentioning Sir Walter Scott and Margaret Mitchell whose 鈥淕one with the Wind鈥� won a Pulitzer.

鈥淣ow it鈥檚 considered a schmaltzy relic read by teenage girls, if anyone,鈥� Vanity Fair writes.听

As to whether Tartt鈥檚 and other polarizing novels will ultimately be deemed a work of timeless literature or forgettable hackwork? Only time will tell.

Husna Haq is a Monitor correspondent.