Excuse me for taking so much time to find this video (I do like to share these things early on, not months later), but I did want to share it regardless. Paul Auster, whom I recently read for the first time, comments on author Philip Roth's beliefs on the future of the novel:
Personally, I want to side with Auster. I want to keep the faith, but I've written along these lines before and quite honestly I agree with Roth. Auster is correct in asserting that story is cemented, but of the novel I'm doubtful. Auster seems, and I say this without accusation of any kind, out of touch with society: No computer; Mentioning radio-plays without any sense of irony. I'm in no position to accurately compare their fiction, but I'd argue that Roth is more concerned with and therefore more aware of the status of modern society than Auster by a large margin.
A question to the void: Do you agree with Auster or Roth or neither?