Fantastic statement of intent. Loved the first ARX-Han piece. Consider commissioning something from Sam Kriss, he's such an incredible prose stylist, and the way he blends criticism and fiction is genuinely original. Thanks for making a new home for critical writing 🙏
You'd think it would be the easiest thing in the world for a critic to give their honest opinion but somehow it's a rare thing. Narratives are created overnight and it can be hard to go against them. The reviews posted so far have the clarity of balanced, honest opinions, and it's great to see that. I hope you'll review movies, there hasn't been much good film criticism since Roger Ebert died.
Just joined Substack recently because I'd heard of the Metropolitan Review and thought, "Well look at this here... some cool stuff's going down."
I think some of the comments attacking the Review are strange. Who cares if there's some criticism of "the literary establishment" — isn't that kind of refreshing? Maybe I'm new enough to the platform that I'm unaware of it not being refreshing anymore for some people.
But the first piece I read on Bullwinkel's Headshot was so enjoyable because the critic actually engages with the shortcomings of the prose. The writing! Only place I've seen that on the New York Times is David Gates's hilarious review of David James Duncan's Sun House: "Duncan is a serial over-insister, especially when he tries to eff the ineffable: Characters continually find themselves 'undone,' 'stunned'... and 'moved beyond words.' True, some words are best moved beyond." Zing!
This sort of thing's great. It's not pedantry for the reviewer to criticize a line wherein a character hits their opponent "with their hand," or shoves an opponent "into the ropes of the ring." What the critic is calling out is this: any writer, not just of "literary fiction," I mean any Good Writer, would cut those lines automatically (without even having to stop and consider it) upon edits and revisions BEFORE even querying agents. Those lines still existing in a published product long-listed for the Booker Prize is an obvious indictment on the author as well as the current state of the publishing industry, and therefore it is appropriately addressed in the review.
Calling out bad prose and the institutions that allow it is just plain necessary.
I understand that you've got to defend what you're doing, but you give a false answer to John Warner's question about why you are not editing to a unifying voice. You reply by saying the old publications that you revere displayed great diversity in what they wrote about, but Warner is not complaining about the "what." He is asking about the "why," and the why, for any great newspaper, whether it is a "brawling" political daily or a cultural weekly like the Voice (for the most part), creates a "why" for people to come to, a "why" that they can get in no other place. The "why" is what creates the community that every great paper creates for its readers, and I am sorry to say (sorry because it is hard and not easy) that the only way to create this community is to have good editors who lead everyone in the newsroom (whether virtual or physical) toward its creation. Good editors know that a great paper is a living, breathing thing, they hear that siren call that beckons them to create this living thing with every stroke of their pen. You will never make a great newspaper without editors -- a full roster of them. Great news editors taught me to write but more importantly, they taught me to think. You cannot do it without them. I wish you well, and I will follow the new review with interest, but I suggest that you commit now to finding a coterie of good editors and then you stick with them. There is a huge amount of unused talent lying around now that most of the dailies are dead. Hire them, even if can only pay them in stock options, and stick with them. Make it clear which one is in charge and support him (or her) no matter what.
Respectfully, I think that Warner cooked you guys in that comment section and raised a legitimate point about a lot of the reviews so far inveighing against a corrupt literary establishment. If, as you predict, Substack becomes the primary arena for literary criticism and writing in general, you won’t be able to rely on this dissident stance forever. Randall Jarrell wrote “The Age of Criticism” in the middle of the last century—I wonder what he would think now of a world where, in addition to lit mags and newspapers, there’s a thousand people on substack here to tell you that actually, really, Sally Rooney stinks.
Any course correction of the environment many of your reviewers are railing against begins with the championing of previously unknown or under appreciated writers (and I mean the writers of the novels, not the people writing reviews). The publication’s mission statement acknowledges as much, and there have been at least a few pieces dedicated to that. But still. I understand we’re all working in an attention economy now, and nothing juices engagement like a takedown of a popular (this being a relative term in the world of litfic) novel. But maybe now that you’ve thrown some chum in the water to get subscribers interested, we can see more a little more about what we’re missing.
Respectfully, we've now published around 10 pieces since launch and there are 2, at best, that hold any significant critique of the literary establishment. Only 1, Alex's, would qualify as a legitimate takedown. Are you reading what actually appears in TMR? Did you read Chris today? Vanessa on Thursday? Adelle? I have problem critiquing the literary world but the idea that this is all we do is absurd.
I did read (and enjoy) Chris’ review today. But similarly, it was a bit of a trojan horse, using the vehicle of the book review to litigate another popular gender discourse. It was deftly executed and still compelling to read however. And I think that sort of thing can be extremely effective if the review involves multiple works, so that you are examining that particular discourse from multiple viewpoints. And to qualify myself further, I think it would be silly not to situate works within larger contexts. But there is of course a difference between that and going full Substack brain, where every new work is an opportunity to rehash the same grievances.
So I guess it could rephrase my criticism, it would be that I don’t want the book reviews to merely be jumping off points for the same stuff that is being discussed all over Substack. It’s clear you don’t think that’s the case, so I’ll read the other work with care and good faith.
Fantastic statement of intent. Loved the first ARX-Han piece. Consider commissioning something from Sam Kriss, he's such an incredible prose stylist, and the way he blends criticism and fiction is genuinely original. Thanks for making a new home for critical writing 🙏
https://samkriss.substack.com/p/theres-someone-on-the-ice
Sam is on our list!
Am a proud and eager subscriber.
I like these ideas, and I’m very pleased to be a small part of this magazine.
You'd think it would be the easiest thing in the world for a critic to give their honest opinion but somehow it's a rare thing. Narratives are created overnight and it can be hard to go against them. The reviews posted so far have the clarity of balanced, honest opinions, and it's great to see that. I hope you'll review movies, there hasn't been much good film criticism since Roger Ebert died.
You've peaked my interest,Ross, and will be checking online for your New Book, Thank You, and will reStack ASAP 🙏💯👍
Just joined Substack recently because I'd heard of the Metropolitan Review and thought, "Well look at this here... some cool stuff's going down."
I think some of the comments attacking the Review are strange. Who cares if there's some criticism of "the literary establishment" — isn't that kind of refreshing? Maybe I'm new enough to the platform that I'm unaware of it not being refreshing anymore for some people.
But the first piece I read on Bullwinkel's Headshot was so enjoyable because the critic actually engages with the shortcomings of the prose. The writing! Only place I've seen that on the New York Times is David Gates's hilarious review of David James Duncan's Sun House: "Duncan is a serial over-insister, especially when he tries to eff the ineffable: Characters continually find themselves 'undone,' 'stunned'... and 'moved beyond words.' True, some words are best moved beyond." Zing!
This sort of thing's great. It's not pedantry for the reviewer to criticize a line wherein a character hits their opponent "with their hand," or shoves an opponent "into the ropes of the ring." What the critic is calling out is this: any writer, not just of "literary fiction," I mean any Good Writer, would cut those lines automatically (without even having to stop and consider it) upon edits and revisions BEFORE even querying agents. Those lines still existing in a published product long-listed for the Booker Prize is an obvious indictment on the author as well as the current state of the publishing industry, and therefore it is appropriately addressed in the review.
Calling out bad prose and the institutions that allow it is just plain necessary.
Thank you Brett I really appreciate that!
I understand that you've got to defend what you're doing, but you give a false answer to John Warner's question about why you are not editing to a unifying voice. You reply by saying the old publications that you revere displayed great diversity in what they wrote about, but Warner is not complaining about the "what." He is asking about the "why," and the why, for any great newspaper, whether it is a "brawling" political daily or a cultural weekly like the Voice (for the most part), creates a "why" for people to come to, a "why" that they can get in no other place. The "why" is what creates the community that every great paper creates for its readers, and I am sorry to say (sorry because it is hard and not easy) that the only way to create this community is to have good editors who lead everyone in the newsroom (whether virtual or physical) toward its creation. Good editors know that a great paper is a living, breathing thing, they hear that siren call that beckons them to create this living thing with every stroke of their pen. You will never make a great newspaper without editors -- a full roster of them. Great news editors taught me to write but more importantly, they taught me to think. You cannot do it without them. I wish you well, and I will follow the new review with interest, but I suggest that you commit now to finding a coterie of good editors and then you stick with them. There is a huge amount of unused talent lying around now that most of the dailies are dead. Hire them, even if can only pay them in stock options, and stick with them. Make it clear which one is in charge and support him (or her) no matter what.
Respectfully, I think that Warner cooked you guys in that comment section and raised a legitimate point about a lot of the reviews so far inveighing against a corrupt literary establishment. If, as you predict, Substack becomes the primary arena for literary criticism and writing in general, you won’t be able to rely on this dissident stance forever. Randall Jarrell wrote “The Age of Criticism” in the middle of the last century—I wonder what he would think now of a world where, in addition to lit mags and newspapers, there’s a thousand people on substack here to tell you that actually, really, Sally Rooney stinks.
Any course correction of the environment many of your reviewers are railing against begins with the championing of previously unknown or under appreciated writers (and I mean the writers of the novels, not the people writing reviews). The publication’s mission statement acknowledges as much, and there have been at least a few pieces dedicated to that. But still. I understand we’re all working in an attention economy now, and nothing juices engagement like a takedown of a popular (this being a relative term in the world of litfic) novel. But maybe now that you’ve thrown some chum in the water to get subscribers interested, we can see more a little more about what we’re missing.
Respectfully, we've now published around 10 pieces since launch and there are 2, at best, that hold any significant critique of the literary establishment. Only 1, Alex's, would qualify as a legitimate takedown. Are you reading what actually appears in TMR? Did you read Chris today? Vanessa on Thursday? Adelle? I have problem critiquing the literary world but the idea that this is all we do is absurd.
I did read (and enjoy) Chris’ review today. But similarly, it was a bit of a trojan horse, using the vehicle of the book review to litigate another popular gender discourse. It was deftly executed and still compelling to read however. And I think that sort of thing can be extremely effective if the review involves multiple works, so that you are examining that particular discourse from multiple viewpoints. And to qualify myself further, I think it would be silly not to situate works within larger contexts. But there is of course a difference between that and going full Substack brain, where every new work is an opportunity to rehash the same grievances.
So I guess it could rephrase my criticism, it would be that I don’t want the book reviews to merely be jumping off points for the same stuff that is being discussed all over Substack. It’s clear you don’t think that’s the case, so I’ll read the other work with care and good faith.