Why is George Apley overrated?

A comment by Mark Palko reminded me that, while I’m a huge Marquand fan, I think The Late George Apley is way overrated. My theory is that Marquand’s best books don’t fit into the modernist way of looking about literature, and that the gatekeepers of the 1930s and 1940s, when judging Marquand by these standards, conveniently labeled Apley has his best book because it had a form–Edith-Wharton-style satire–that they could handle. In contrast, Point of No Return and all the other classics are a mixture of seriousness and satire that left critics uneasy.

Perhaps there’s a way to study this sort of thing more systematically?

1 thought on “Why is George Apley overrated?

  1. You are right about Apley – and it's not "modernists" who judge it the best, but the public, which (correctly) found it more accessible, less ironic, and could identify with how it erected a caricature (however vivid and well-drawn)to whom everyone could feel superior. The best contrast would be H.M. Pulham, Esq., which depicts a man every bit as ridiculous, but from the inside, in such a way that we can appreciate the tragedy and complexity of a completely ordinary man who doesn't understand himself very well.
    But in general, I think you discount the orneriness of literary reputation and the awfulness of the old teaching establishment. For me as a child, Dickens was David Copperfield and The Tale of Two Cities. Bleh. To discover Our Mutual Friend and Martin Chuzzlewit for me was like being born deaf and suddenly being able to hear.

Comments are closed.