Meaning: This quote by Leslie Fiedler, a prominent literary critic, offers a critical assessment of the writing of Don DeLillo, a celebrated American author known for his novels such as "White Noise," "Libra," and "Underworld." Fiedler's comment suggests that DeLillo's work may lack substance or depth, despite its polished and appealing exterior. It's important to note that literary criticism is subjective, and different readers and critics may have varying interpretations of an author's work. In the case of DeLillo, his writing has sparked numerous debates and discussions among literary scholars and enthusiasts.

Leslie Fiedler's critique of Don DeLillo's writing as having "very nice surfaces, but he's got nothing underneath" raises questions about the nature of DeLillo's literary style and thematic depth. Fiedler seems to imply that DeLillo's prose may be aesthetically pleasing and well-crafted on the surface, but lacks substantial content or meaningful exploration of underlying themes or ideas. This assessment suggests that Fiedler perceives a disconnection between the form and substance of DeLillo's work, which is a significant point of contention in literary criticism.

Don DeLillo is often associated with postmodern literature, a literary movement characterized by its self-referentiality, skepticism of grand narratives, and experimentation with form and language. Within this context, DeLillo's writing is known for its intricate prose, engagement with contemporary culture and technology, and exploration of existential and societal concerns. However, critics like Fiedler raise the question of whether DeLillo's work is primarily concerned with style and surface-level observations, rather than delving into deeper philosophical or emotional territories.

In response to Fiedler's critique, it's important to consider the diverse perspectives on DeLillo's writing. Many readers and critics admire DeLillo's ability to capture the complexities of modern life, the impact of media and technology, and the existential anxieties of individuals in the contemporary world. His novels often blend elements of satire, social commentary, and philosophical inquiry, inviting readers to contemplate the nature of reality, identity, and the human condition.

Moreover, DeLillo's stylistic choices, such as fragmented narratives, non-linear storytelling, and enigmatic characters, contribute to the multi-layered nature of his work. While Fiedler's criticism suggests a lack of substance, others argue that DeLillo's writing demands active engagement and interpretation from the reader, offering rich thematic material beneath its seemingly pristine surfaces.

It's also worth noting that DeLillo's influence extends beyond the literary realm, as his work has been studied in the context of cultural studies, media theory, and postmodern philosophy. Scholars have explored the intersections of language, technology, and power in DeLillo's novels, emphasizing the depth of his thematic inquiries and the relevance of his writing to broader intellectual discourses.

In conclusion, Fiedler's critique of Don DeLillo's writing raises thought-provoking questions about the relationship between style and substance in literature. While some critics may perceive DeLillo's work as lacking depth, others appreciate the intricate layers of meaning, social critique, and philosophical musings embedded within his novels. Ultimately, the interpretation of DeLillo's writing is subjective, and his work continues to stimulate critical dialogue and scholarly analysis within the literary community.