Excellence vs. Greatness

I haven't really felt like doing much these past few days, to tell the truth. There have been some things I could post on--for example, the Times' Book Review had a passel of books about obesity and eating disorders this week. I picked up a haughty ignorance in the reviewer of the "can't people just stop eating or stop worrying about it" variety. Made me wonder what Ms. Heffernan's addiction-o'-choice is. American=Addict as far as I'm concerned. Haven't met anyone without some sort of addiction problem, this in the greatest country in the world.

I don't have a problem saying it's the greatest country in the world. I would have a problem calling the Unraveling States of Addiction an "excellent" country, however. Very few books or plays or artworks or policies are both excellent and great. Shakespeare's The Tempest comes to mind as one, as does Chekhov's Three Sisters and the Social Security system. Greatness is something that is socially determined, whereas excellence is about staying true to a vision of something. For me the classic distinction between Excellence and Greatness can be short-handed to James Jones vs. Ernest Hemingway. Jones is the humbly excellent writer whereas Hemingway is (merely) great. While Jones' books were respectable sellers with some critical acclaim, Hemingway was lifted by the cultural moment into a certain sphere only occupied by individuals such as Victor Hugo and Fyodor Dostoevsky.

I can think of one writer--F. Scott Fitzgerald--who was capable of penning both great works (The Great Gatsby) and Excellent ones (The Crack-Up). Hemingway for all I know did write excellent pieces. There are a b'zillion stories I have not read. I have read a couple of his novels--his stories are much better IMHO. "A Clean Well-Lighted Place" haunts me.

[Sidebar: Hemingway is a distant relation of mine. I don't know if by blood or what, but I have a great-great-grandmother whose last name was "Hemenway" which other branches took to spelling the Ernest way.]

I think all writers are capable of writing excellent pieces. They can strive for mere greatness if they choose to, but I don't feel it would be as satisfying. When I talk of greatness, commercial success is an aspect of it, but it shouldn't be confused with being the same thing. As much as I love J.K. Rowling's Harry Potter series, I can't say that it is excellent or great particularly. Entertaining, addictive--I've just finished reading Book 4 for the seventh time(!) and am on to HP and the Order of the Phoenix for the fourth (only because I'd read the whole series 5 times before I'd gotten book 5). Would Jonathan Franzen's The Corrections qualify as a great book? I wonder. Time will have to tell on that. I'm pretty sure Michael Cunningham's The Hours should qualify.

While I'm obviously partial to the excellent book, I have an occasional affinity for a great one. I enjoyed the Cunningham, and tolerated well the Franzen. I've read quite a bit of Louise Erdrich's novels, and thoroughly enjoyed the great Beet Queen, and slogged through her excellent Love Medicine. I could go on about these things, but suffice it to say, this is something best continued with others pitching in their insights... (Feel free.)