*[I'll try to avoid ad hominem, but Bryson's physique mirrors such ethical laziness. He is a man of exceeding and prideful girth, who simultaneously laments and embraces his obesity, elevating its American-ness to some state beyond any type of health concern. He can only … laugh at his heft, claiming that diets and healthy habits are, in perpetuity, beyond his grasp, that it’s just too much work and he’d much rather enjoy a second helping of turkey, even though — wink! — we know it’s bad for him. Oh, Bill. You slay us.]
Macroscopically, the countries that Bryson chronicles comprise stereotypical white-bread worlds: Australia, England, The U.S. They totter along as children of the Empire, carrying forth the First World torch of English, with goodness and integrity and little, relatively, in the way of actual, broad-base need. They are, on a larger scale, Bryson himself: a tad sloven, impeded only by minor bumps and eager to remain in the comfort of democratic election and assorted social nets. Even when in these nations, Bryson is somehow able to find himself in the most pacific areas he can, from Des Moines, Iowa, to Hanover, New Hampshire. Not exactly places that lend themselves to larger social critiques.
The closest Bryson comes to actually traveling to a country beyond the British model comes toward the end of Neither Here Nor There, when he treads into the Yugosphere, traveling among the Serbs and Croats and Bosniaks. But just as he might find something a bit different than his Western Europe quality-of-life, he peers out the back window toward a world of head-scarves and Slavism and all things Other. Then, citing fatigue and a longing for his family — and the understood fact that, why, that’s not quite Europe beyond those Dardanelles — he decamps for the wide, familiar pastures of the West. He leaves just when things might get, shudder, different.
Bryson exists only within a certain, narrow realm. Despite being a voyeur of the English language, he’s got nothing on India; despite being unduly content in the First World, he’s not yet cataloged Japan (or South Africa, or China, or Brazil, or …). Bryson, it would seem, writes within the reinforced borders of Gentlemen’s Agreements and White Man’s Burdens. He’s unwilling to move beyond and show his audience something that might expand their non-Euro knowledge in the slightest. Which is, as a multi-polar world rises, not only poor business, but also archaic and condescending.*
*[I can think of two non-Euro examples, two pieces of which I’m incredibly proud, that crop immediately to mind. My good friend Tim Faust recently traveled to Palestine — his first trip out of the country, no less — and came back with prose and photography, both masterful, that unveil the personalities and problems of innumerable Palestinians. Another good friend, Jordan Conn, recently returned from South Sudan and penned a 10,000-word piece on the new nation’s favorite son, Manute Bol, which is currently on sale at Amazon. Best $2 you’ll spend all year.]
Even when Bryson is within those countries fitting the mould, you’d be hard-pressed to find any wide-cast social critiques; instead, he's more interested in the trivialities than the troubles. He’s content to chat about peculiarities of the platypus rather than the myriad plights in aboriginal Arnhem Land. He’s fine commending government support for the Postal Service while never mentioning the slow crumble of the school system. He’s content with his rose-colored glasses, so long as he’s never asked to extend himself in any meaningful manner.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - RJ
A little insight oh, recent university graduate.... Bill Bryson--to a lesser degree--is like the Bob Marley of writing: he's one of those mind-expanding college experiences that you outgrow with time.
2 - Jordan Richardson
Yep, and when you're all grown up you'll start listening to Barry Manilow, Celine Dion, Kenny G, and other respectable "adult" artists. That's the age when your mind stops "expanding," too.
:)
3 - El Bicho
Why would someone outgrow Marley? Must be the pursuit of mind-numbing endeavors like watching football. Sounds more like ignorance instead of insight
4 - MJB
Surely you miss the point that Bill Bryson's aim is to hold the mirror up to ourselves, those college-educated, relatively comfortable, predominantly white westernised people and show us some of the absurdity of that life. He writes about what he knows and is, but not in an entirely celebratory way. You're surely meant to find the faults and maybe have a second thought about some of the comforts he describes.
To suggest that he doesn't take a stance is bordering on absurd. Granted, it may be a subtle, gentle stance but anyone who has read his critique of America's death penalty can't help but note what side he comes down on - seeing it for the cruel, hypocritical, outdated and brutal form of punishment that it is.
5 - peter.smith
MJB is right. Bill Bryson as a writer purports to be no more than what he is. Casey Michel wants him to be somebody else. Referring to the 'cowardice' of Bill Bryson is ridiculous. It's like criticizing apples because they don't taste enough like oranges.
6 - thechairman
That would be the most pompous, over-written article I've ever read in my life. Somebody give you thesaurus?
7 - Casey
RJ -- Not that I could comment on Marley, but I just received a poster of him from a few friends back home. Don't think my host babushka would appreciate a photo of him toking up on my wall, but we'll see.
MJB -- That point is easily understood. And he's very successful in it -- never will I look at another tax form or thirty-second drive the same. And I'd not say that he's NEVER taken a stance -- simply that, when he does, he wilts before it ever becomes anything of substance. The man's an amazing writer -- there's little argument from anyone on this. But what dose he use that writing for? Lamenting the fact that he's too fat to tie his own shoes? C'mon, man. Point is: Do something meaningful with your writing. Don't just wile away the hours writing about that skunk that keeps coming back to your house.
peter.smith -- No one ever accused Bryson of being a hypocrite. Rather, it's that basic stance -- that he'd rather live a bubble-wrapped existence, where no risks are taken and little change is affected -- that makes him a coward. (Or, I suppose, entirely ignorant of his own potential, which is just as much of a shame.)
Thechairman: Sorry if the words are a bit long. (Internet's a helluva resource.) Now back to the content...
8 - Gabble
An interesting and I have to say, well written passage. You are obviously a writer of talent, despite what some of the caustic remarks have said. But your style and tone are not all that is showing; there is unfortunately a little observed immaturity in depth.
I get what you are saying about Bill Bryson, of course I do, but I think you somehow miss something along the way. Bill Bryson, thankfully, is not a tortured soul, and to be honest that’s quite refreshing indeed. Most gratuitous talent for prose emanates from madness of some guise, and spills out in contemporary fashion to the delight of those who feel they are as smart as the author. I’m not in any way saying this is wrong, just that a little maturity starts to point this out without even trying. So it’s quite hard to explain.
I am a genuine and absolute admirer of Bill Bryson’s novels. Like you I picked up ‘Short history’ for what is now a non memorable reason, and was stunned that I’d never been drawn in some way towards his writing before. I found it odd that none of my peers or educators had pointed him out. But theres the thing; his books reside in the travel section of bookshops, so usually the home these days of TV presenters or decent - but not great - journalists and non entities. So perhaps Bill becomes a bit of a guilty secret in some way. All my years and nobody told me about him, man that’s so hard to believe. I have read and re-read; listened to all his tales on audiobook over and over, and even gone as far as downloading different narrators so I can hear-it-all-again and again. Either way it works. It just does.
We know that he’s a gentle spirit and very self deprecating with an eye for making the most mundane subject marvellously interesting. Moreover his memoirs don’t recount tales of debauchery, drugs or death - well perhaps a mention or two in ‘Short History’ ?" but I’m sure you know what I mean. And if they did he wouldn’t be Bill Bryson. It’s his personality that makes his prose work so well, and his prose that presents his personality. Either way it works. It just does.
9 - Casey
Gabble,
Thanks for the compliments. No argument that it's nice to see someone as fluid and talented as Bryson come without a Xanax prescription or overwhelming drinking problem. I'd never complain about his entertainment value, his talents, his 'gentle spirit' and knack for self-deprecation. It's simply that, as I wrote above, such spirit or deprecation can't exist within a vacuum, and comes at the expense of writing about issues of greater magnitude than just what's-with-all-these-buttons-on-the-remote?
Maybe it's an issue of maturity, but I'd like to think the lack would come from his La-Z-Boy rather than my Siberian hideaway. Fortunately, Bryson's still got decades left, so perhaps he'll turn. But I won't hold my breath.
10 - Colin Casey
There are many writers out there who tackle the issues outlined in this article. Complaining that Bryson writes about what he writes about is a lille like complaining that Guinness produce stout and not latex bondage gear.
He writes for an audience that is clearly there. And if you want people to write about marginalised issues, do it yourself.
11 - Casey
I try to, and will continue to do so in the future -- though I'd stake that any issue that betters and educates is hardly "marginalized." Anyway, it appears as if you've missed the point of the piece. It's wonderful that there are "many writers out there who tackle the issues outlined in this article." Unfortunately, it's not as if there is a glut, a preponderance of writers who drown out one another in seeking to better their worlds. It's completely subjective, but it would appear that these writers form but a small (though dedicated) fraction of the writing pantheon. And it is clear that Bryson, despite his occasional moralizing, doesn't fall in this camp. Imagine the kind of good he could engender if he shifted his priorities from one-offs to actual impact. Imagine the kind of benefit he could generate if he stopped plying for little laughs and instead tried to educate, to illuminate, in matters that actually, um, mattered. Imagine if he were to join those "many writers out there." But he hasn't, and it seems he won't, which, as I said above, is a shame, and a waste.
12 - gabe
You obviously have never read Bill Bryson's African Diary. Let us remember that you know nothing about this man and what he does with his time aside from the snippets you see in his writing. A man who shuns celebrity as completely as Mr Bryson are not going to capitalize on his popularity to build a soapbox. It also seems as though he has a much greater understanding of human nature than some. You can't open minds by clubbing them upside the head with a stick. Often it is better to merely illuminate, as Bryson does masterfully, and allow people to moralize on their own. Intelligent individuals don't need to be instructed on how to think or act once an issue is brought to their attention. Judgmental, moralizing, preachy authors don't have millions of fans. That is a much bigger population reached than if he alienated readers by becoming an obnoxious, whistle-blowing, finger-pointer as some would suggest. Lets not bash the man for being funny and writing what he knows - no one does it better. He leaves the pomposity to others.
13 - Casey
You’re right -- I haven’t read African Diary, and it’s comforting to note that Bryson spent at least a fraction of his time dedicated to messages above and beyond his humor. Still, that part is mitigated and outweighed by the litany of other pieces he’s written. And you’re precisely correct when you write that I know little-to-nothing about his free time. It’s entirely possible that he spends his free time not wheedling about his house, haranguing his wife, but instead ladling soup for the needy of Hanover.
But why would you refrain from championing the causes to which you devote these (presumed) massive chunks of your time? Why would you remain silent when your words -- your unabashed humor; your unmatched skills -- could be used as tools to multiply, perhaps exponentially, the impact that you’ve thus far made? Why would you hide this side from the world, when you know full well that myriad causes, local and otherwise, need the aid and effort of which you could so eloquently write? Why remain silent?
There are multitude ways to hawk causes without “build[ing] a soapbox,” and no one ever claimed he’d ever become an “obnoxious, whistle-blowing, finger-pointer.” You can write toward a method of improvement without coming off as “pompous.” There are narratives, and characters, and journeys about which he could inform the reader. There are periodicals and journals for the already interested in which he could write. There are a thousand ways he could use his writing -- that is, the majority of his writing -- to affect the change that he may or may not champion in his free time. He chooses none of them.
(On a side note, it seems like you’re claiming “whistle--blowing” would somehow alienate readers. I’ve yet to see an instance in which alienating readers for some greater good -- be it apolitical whistle-blowing, or anything of the sort -- is something that should be avoided. Moral break-down for the sake of retaining readership is cheap and hollow.)
It’s wonderful, I suppose, that Bryson shuns celebrity. It’s nice to have a man who lacks pomposity and arrogance, and who so willingly shares his talent. It’s nice. But that’s not enough. To turn one’s back on an obvious route toward “good” -- to ignore the opportunity of turning one’s tools toward those without -- is a moral failing. He’s funny, sure, and he writes about what he knows (though you’re clearly implying that a lay-scholar as learned as Bryson couldn’t find a bit of time to research X, Y, and Z). But until he takes a stance on, well, anything, he’s but another soft-in-the-middle comic who shuns development for book sales.
14 - Sanjay Singh
Bryson is NOT a travel writer...he probably writes travel books out of choice....he is a researcher who gives us his findings and enlightens us in an absolutely brilliant and endearingly humourous way!
15 - Catherine Bryson
You write this like you know him well, and you clearly don't as this is very far from the truth.
16 - Catherine Bryson
Oh and one more thing, no he doesn't spend his time 'ladling soup for the needy of Hanover' as he hasn't lived there for nine years.
17 - Casey
I wrote this piece based on his catalog, not based on any interactions, Catherine. This is obvious. The entire conceit of this piece is that Bryson's wasted both talent and opportunity, settling, in his public sphere, for the milquetoast lifestyle he so clearly enjoys, instead of utilizing his marked skills to write for any greater good, or any greater push for good. If you can argue this point, fine. But please don't mis-represent my words.
And your comment that 'he hasn't lived there for nine years,' as well as your name, implies that you may know Bill. If so, please pass this piece along, and cajole him into utilizing his writing for those who could truly use it, or in a manner that could actually make a difference.
18 - Dr Dreadful
cajole him into utilizing his writing for those who could truly use it, or in a manner that could actually make a difference.
Again, Casey, as you've been asked several times, why should he?
There are plenty of writers who write very effectively about the evils of the world. There are plenty who don't. Why does Bryson, of all people, need to be one of those who do?
Your criticism makes no sense. It's like decrying Tim Tebow for using his talents to pursue a career in the NFL rather than coaching kids.
19 - Casey
Why should he? Because he can. (I'm unsure as to how to italicize in the comments, but imagine I used it here.) Indeed, there are plenty of writers -- hundreds, thousands, more -- who are in the same boat. I singled out Bryson because his talent, in my mind, surpasses most, and yet is squandered for chit-chat about what he's found in his pantry, or lard-about walkings through places we already know. I chose Bryson because he *could* have gone to these foreign areas, but *didn't.* I'm singling out Bryson because, as someone with his moral bent, he's obviously attuned to issues of ignorance and environment, and well-placed to address them. But he *doesn't.*
FWIW, Tebow, at the least, avails himself to using his talents to make some semblance of positive, meaningful difference. He's modeled himself in a manner that is remarkable, and can influence those who would have otherwise gone without such role model. Tebow's achieved the greatest venue for parlaying this message. Bryson, after reaching his apex, instead chooses to waddle through and forgo any touchy subject. He avoids controversy like it's ebola. He avoids alienation of any readership, and for that, and the reasons cited above, displays cowardice.
20 - Dr Dreadful
That's just it, Casey. This is in your mind. You don't know that he'd be good at writing that sort of thing; you just think he would.
And it still doesn't mean he should. Just because Bryson writes about travel, and writes it well, doesn't mean that he has to be a literary ambassador for the world's problems, any more than it means Arthur Frommer has to.
Let's try this. I might look at your work and think to myself that you could write one heck of a crime novel. But I'm not going to write an article calling you a coward if you don't.
(Incidentally, to put something in a comment in italics, you put the letter "I" in between angled brackets (< and >) at the beginning of what you want to italicize, then "/I" between angled brackets to close the italics. (You don't need the quote marks!) If you prefer emphasizing in bold type instead, you can put "B" instead of "I". PLEASE remember to close italics, because if you don't it italicizes everything else below it on the page!)
21 - Casey
You're exactly right: I only surmise, based on his past moralizing and writings, that he could easily transfer his skills into something meaningful, and less white-bread. It's presumption, perhaps, but only in the sense that he's not seen it through. And I'd maintain that his cowardice reveals itself once more in the fact that he's never made such a stab. He's never moved beyond his comfort. He's never taken a chance.
But that's only part of my argument. The second part lies in the fact that he's relegated himself to the higher reaches of the First World. He squishes himself into the Anglo-sphere -- forgoing South Africa, India, Belize, etc. -- and has displayed an unwillingness to move into anything foreign, into anything that would reveal the Other, very much still around, to an American audience. And that has nothing to do with writing for a cause or a concern -- it's the exact same as he's done in Western Europe, or the Antipodes. He's a proven travel writer. Why won't he spend that travel writing flitting through somewhere that could, as it were, actually use it?
Had Bryson traveled through, say, Iranian flats, or the northern Caucuses, or inner Baghdad, his readership would not only have a further fleshed-out idea of the peoples and cultures composed -- it would have a humanizing, mitigating affect when war-drums begin. It would tighten bonds that seem disparate, and would allay tension on personal and political levels. But, instead, Bryson's fine with Parisian wine, or Australian beer, or British grog. He lets the truly foreign nations -- the ones of which the American populace should be educated -- alone. (And FWIW, Frommer at least promoted excursions to such foreign lands. Stuck in Bryson's world, you'd never know these lands existed.)
22 - Dr Dreadful
Perhaps the subject matter simply doesn't interest him as a writer, Casey - just as writing a crime novel might not interest you, much as I might think you'd be great at it.
(Oh, and nice job with remembering to close your italics! ;-) )
23 - El Bicho
Casey, sounds like the people who whined about Dylan going electric. You aren't his publisher, so why do you think you get to dictate how he uses his skills?
If you think something is not being covered that should be, go cover it yourself. Otherwise, don't project your cowardice on others.
24 - zingzing
"Why would someone outgrow Marley?"
because when someone digs into reggae, they find a much richer world than "legend." marley was played to death in college, particularly "legend," and it's pretty much driven me away from him. he writes okay songs, but many are incredibly sanitized for white people consumption. (and yes, i do realize that his stuff was designed to be beyond its reggae context for various reasons, although those reasons are pretty much limited to "goes good with a toke" these days.)
that said, the weirder strains of reggae are completely fascinating. and keith hudson (yes, that's a real link...) shoulda been marley. or shoulda been the next marley. not that he didn't give it a shot... on-u, studio one, wackies, basic channel and basic replay, upsetters stuff... so much goodness out there beyond the marley trap.
marley is to reggae as nickelback is to rock, if only in popularity and blandness. marley is better than nicelback though. not that that needed saying. not that any of this does...
funny to agree with rj on anything. just can't stand marley. ugh.
25 - Casey
Entirely possible that it doesn't interest him. My argument'd be that his interests should take back-seat to his potential. Great power, great responsibility, etc.
Ha, glad I got the italics down -- I'm glad to be done with those asterisks. And, strangely, you're the second person in as many weeks that's suggested I write crime fiction. May give it a stab. BlogCritics will be the first to know.