The Proletarian Novel

Daniel Aaron, in his introduction to Jack Conroy’s The Disinherited, brings up a “long debate” that is still ongoing among radical writers, critics, and readers today: what is a “proletarian novel,” and who gets to write it? Some, Aaron explains, thought that a proletarian novel could only be written by a true proletarian, while others argued that non-proles could write them as long as they were intended to be read by the working class, and some ditched the entire class-based criterion to declare that any novel could be a proletarian novel, as long as it was “shaped by Marxian ideology” and the author “made manifest his [sic] loyalty to the working class” (viii).

This argument got me thinking about my own opinions regarding so-called “proletarian novels.” As far as fiction writing goes, I think an author can write whatever she or he wants; “realism” or “truth” be damned, the whole point of fiction is that it’s not real. And if you don’t like the message you’re reading into a certain book, well, then just don’t read it and go find another book you’ll enjoy more. In this vein, I think I agree with those who argued that anyone can write a “proletarian novel.” Though out of respect for working class people I would prefer the name be changed to something else (like “Marxian novels” maybe?) because I think it’s insensitive and possibly offensive; after all, does the middle class get stereotyped in “the bourgeois novel”? And singling out a novel written from a working class perspective as a “proletarian novel” rather than just “a novel” seems to suggest that working class themes and characters are out of the ordinary, exceptions to the rule that should be noted as such.

But aside from these semantic digressions, something else made gave me pause. What about middle class or upper class authors who go out and “do research” before writing their so-called “proletarian novel” – you know, for “authenticity”? Take, for example, John Steinbeck. It certainly is cringe-worthy to think about middle-class Steinbeck, whose free-wheeling writer lifestyle was financed by his parents, and for whom his foray into the lives of working class Okies was something of a tourist trip. I’m not sure how ethical it was for Steinbeck to “research” Okies and write a hugely successful novel about them; a novel that brought him lots of money and literary acclaim but brought the Okies nothing (or in the worst case, brought them shame)? Isn’t that just as exploitative as the bosses and the bankers and the big fat capitalists that the Marxist authors of these “proletarian novels” so despise? It all comes down to the fact that you’re making money off of poor folks, whether you exploit their labor or you exploit their life stories.

But if middle and upper class writers didn’t write their “proletarian novels,” then who would? Maybe it’s a classist assumption to think that working class people won’t write about themselves, so it’s up to the more financially fortunate to write for them (actually, I’m pretty sure that is classist). After all, J.K. Rowling penned her modern masterpiece while working her way up from homelessness. I’m don’t think I can take a definite stance on this debate, especially since I’m not a working class person and most of this is conjecture. But I think that, at the very least, middle and upper class writers should think long and hard about the ethical implications of writing a “proletarian novel.” If it doesn’t make them at least a little uncomfortable, then I’m not sure how “Marxian” or “loyal to the working class” they really are.