I'm intrigued by this argument—because I really think that most problems people identify with literary criticism today are not really because of bad vibes (as in: people are too milquetoast, too lazy, too cowardly) but rather because of bad economics. There's hardly any money in literary criticism: very few staff jobs, very low fees (even for thoughtful, rigorous criticism…the publications just don't have the funding!)
One dynamic I've been thinking about, though, is how often the negative review functions as a careerist move for the writer…and how the frenzied attention paid to negative reviews basically feels like the literary world's equivalent of Keeping Up with the Kardashians, lol. Season 1 was Jia Tolentino versus Lauren Oyler, season 2 is Lauren Oyler versus Becca Rothfeld/Ann Manov, season 3 is Ann Manov versus…? It's voyeuristically absorbing, interesting, funny, &c but ALSO—Bookforum published some other very good reviews today! But we all love to read a takedown.
I've received some scathing reviews over the years. Time Magazine once called me "septic with unappeasable fury." I printed that on a T-shirt and played basketball in it.
Jessa Crispin is real good at using the scalpel! Manov used to have a podcast with another woman who has since moved to the Right. it was a pretty good pod. Oyler should do translations for a while (she's in Berlin where lots of Eastern European lit is translated and promoted) and then come back to criticism to own her critics hehehe.
A shift in perspective might be in order. Reconsider the idea that novelists are liberal, coastal, Ivy League educated with the same tastes and ambivalences. People from all classes write novels, and plenty of them aren't any good, but that's how it goes. Some of them are pretty damn good. I've written a novel and a short story collection, and have an essay collection coming out in august. I don't fall into these categories, liberal, conservative, I'm not afraid of backlash or censure, and I'm not the least bit afraid of social death, I just don't give a shit about most officially controversial topics. I have a feeling many others feel the same way.
Lots of small presses put out excellent material from writers who don't fit this mold of dull establishment elite versus political/cultural dissident. Terrorhouse Press puts out books that are a bit more right leaning, but not always. Expat Press is an excellent small operation that really ranges all over the place in subject matter and sensibility. Apocalypse Confidential, Pig Roast, Amphetamine Sulphate. Weird people, many of them also working full time jobs, and still releasing novels, short story collections, poetry, genre bending stuff.
I don't know that feuding connotes a healthy literary culture. Those examples you listed, Norman Mailer and Gore Vidal and Keruoac and Capote and McCarthy and so on; does anyone really think those clashes are high water marks of anything, or are they rather dubious outbursts of overblown egos? To be known for scathing commentary in a work is one thing, to be known primarily for withering insults of other people, even in the context of evaluating their work, isn't all that laudable.
Relevant perhaps that Manov is a lawyer. She’s not writing to pay the bills. I don’t think she’s super immersed in a literary social scene either, though could be wrong about that.
So many books are published and not enough people are excited about reading. Why not write about books you love, instead of cheap takedowns about books you dislike?
Manov is not good enough to do what she was attempting to do; it's a horribly sloppy effort that was praised only because people are put off by its target's shameless ambition. And she's pulled the whole "oh haha this little takedown? haha lol lol thing" on Twitter, which I find excrutiating
All of culture (political, media, literary) is significantly more diverse than it was in the 60s and 70s. Why isn’t it healthier and more robust? Wasn’t that the promise?
This fits in with a recent podcast interview I heard with Becca Rothfeld, which prompted me to buy her new book, All Things Are Too Small, which I am enjoying. She argues for economic equality, so that we may have artistic and social inequality and diversity without fear of poverty.
Haven't read the criticism, or the essays, but I will say, if you're writing a takedown of someone, being obviously wrong on arithmetic is...a choice.
"Typically, “historicizing” a concept entails finding a “source” more than ten years old;"
Unless I'm very confused, 2010 was more than 10 years ago. I know this is nitpicky, but it jumped out to me. I guess I'm pretty convinced by Freddie Deboer's piece that if you want to engage in criticism you need to be a bit fairer than that.
I would have though Ann Manov coded as antiwoke also just based on the fact that she's written for Unherd so much. Don't really know her though. Would be refreshing if things could be judged on the merits and not on who is on which team.
Perhaps you are right. I hope so. But on recent travels in European countries once known for being peoples of readers, where every other passenger’s hand held a book, guess what their hands held now.
Seeing Sam Kriss and Curtis Yarvin lock horns gives me hope that Substack can revive literary feuds.
I'm intrigued by this argument—because I really think that most problems people identify with literary criticism today are not really because of bad vibes (as in: people are too milquetoast, too lazy, too cowardly) but rather because of bad economics. There's hardly any money in literary criticism: very few staff jobs, very low fees (even for thoughtful, rigorous criticism…the publications just don't have the funding!)
One dynamic I've been thinking about, though, is how often the negative review functions as a careerist move for the writer…and how the frenzied attention paid to negative reviews basically feels like the literary world's equivalent of Keeping Up with the Kardashians, lol. Season 1 was Jia Tolentino versus Lauren Oyler, season 2 is Lauren Oyler versus Becca Rothfeld/Ann Manov, season 3 is Ann Manov versus…? It's voyeuristically absorbing, interesting, funny, &c but ALSO—Bookforum published some other very good reviews today! But we all love to read a takedown.
I've received some scathing reviews over the years. Time Magazine once called me "septic with unappeasable fury." I printed that on a T-shirt and played basketball in it.
Jessa Crispin is real good at using the scalpel! Manov used to have a podcast with another woman who has since moved to the Right. it was a pretty good pod. Oyler should do translations for a while (she's in Berlin where lots of Eastern European lit is translated and promoted) and then come back to criticism to own her critics hehehe.
A shift in perspective might be in order. Reconsider the idea that novelists are liberal, coastal, Ivy League educated with the same tastes and ambivalences. People from all classes write novels, and plenty of them aren't any good, but that's how it goes. Some of them are pretty damn good. I've written a novel and a short story collection, and have an essay collection coming out in august. I don't fall into these categories, liberal, conservative, I'm not afraid of backlash or censure, and I'm not the least bit afraid of social death, I just don't give a shit about most officially controversial topics. I have a feeling many others feel the same way.
Lots of small presses put out excellent material from writers who don't fit this mold of dull establishment elite versus political/cultural dissident. Terrorhouse Press puts out books that are a bit more right leaning, but not always. Expat Press is an excellent small operation that really ranges all over the place in subject matter and sensibility. Apocalypse Confidential, Pig Roast, Amphetamine Sulphate. Weird people, many of them also working full time jobs, and still releasing novels, short story collections, poetry, genre bending stuff.
I don't know that feuding connotes a healthy literary culture. Those examples you listed, Norman Mailer and Gore Vidal and Keruoac and Capote and McCarthy and so on; does anyone really think those clashes are high water marks of anything, or are they rather dubious outbursts of overblown egos? To be known for scathing commentary in a work is one thing, to be known primarily for withering insults of other people, even in the context of evaluating their work, isn't all that laudable.
Relevant perhaps that Manov is a lawyer. She’s not writing to pay the bills. I don’t think she’s super immersed in a literary social scene either, though could be wrong about that.
So many books are published and not enough people are excited about reading. Why not write about books you love, instead of cheap takedowns about books you dislike?
Somebody’s been reading his Freddie….
I kid, I kid. Great article. Glad to see people demanding more from the literary world. Bravery is needed.
Manov is not good enough to do what she was attempting to do; it's a horribly sloppy effort that was praised only because people are put off by its target's shameless ambition. And she's pulled the whole "oh haha this little takedown? haha lol lol thing" on Twitter, which I find excrutiating
All of culture (political, media, literary) is significantly more diverse than it was in the 60s and 70s. Why isn’t it healthier and more robust? Wasn’t that the promise?
ross if you think manov is taking shots from oyler's left on behalf of an 'anti-woke' peanut gallery...boy do i have some news for you
This fits in with a recent podcast interview I heard with Becca Rothfeld, which prompted me to buy her new book, All Things Are Too Small, which I am enjoying. She argues for economic equality, so that we may have artistic and social inequality and diversity without fear of poverty.
Haven't read the criticism, or the essays, but I will say, if you're writing a takedown of someone, being obviously wrong on arithmetic is...a choice.
"Typically, “historicizing” a concept entails finding a “source” more than ten years old;"
Unless I'm very confused, 2010 was more than 10 years ago. I know this is nitpicky, but it jumped out to me. I guess I'm pretty convinced by Freddie Deboer's piece that if you want to engage in criticism you need to be a bit fairer than that.
I would have though Ann Manov coded as antiwoke also just based on the fact that she's written for Unherd so much. Don't really know her though. Would be refreshing if things could be judged on the merits and not on who is on which team.
Good piece, Ross. And James is unlike any book I’ve read. Well worth your time.
Perhaps you are right. I hope so. But on recent travels in European countries once known for being peoples of readers, where every other passenger’s hand held a book, guess what their hands held now.