“Demented” is right. Seems like somebody or other needs to start a book review publication featuring smart, honest reviews and leaving room for writers to vigorously disagree with one another!
This is the the kind of cultural criticism I came to Substack hoping to read, and much of it is right on target from my perspective as a former gatekeeper (the book editor of the Plain Dealer and more). Thank you!
But most of what you say applies more to literary criticism in the U.S. than to other countries. You find more honest criticism in the British media: for example, Philip Hensher's book reviews in the Spectator, Brandon Taylor's when he writes for the LRB, and some in the Guardian, though the paper has more American-ized lately.
I think the Faulkner analogy is apt. "A Fable" even won the National Book Award as well as the Pulitzer, as far as I know. Probably more lifetime achievement than anything, akin to John Wayne winning the Oscar for "True Grit" (or more recently DiCaprio for "The Revenant"). Side note: I always felt "Purity" was woefully underrated. It was the rare Franzen that actually moved me to tears.
Thank you, Ross for explaining why I find so little that’s persuasive or interesting in the New York Times book review. I have seen at least eight reviews of Rachel Kushner‘s latest book which I have no interest in reading. It does seem to be a circle jerk of young writers applauding each other. If you ever read Jane gardam? Now there is an outstanding writer who hardly ever gets discussed!
"New novels from prestige presses have been hyped since time immemorial. What is changing, I believe, is that fewer and fewer of these books warrant the hype."
This is not a new trend. Orwell was complaining about this back in the 1930s. From his essay "In Defence of the Novel":
"Here is just one specimen [of a blurb], from last week's Sunday Times: ‘If you can read this book and not shriek with delight, your soul is dead.’ That or something like it is now being written about every novel published, as you can see by studying the quotes on the blurbs. For anyone who takes the Sunday Times seriously, life must be one long struggle to catch up. Novels are being shot at you at the rate of fifteen a day, and every one of them is an unforgettable masterpiece which you imperil your soul by missing. It must make it so difficult to choose a book at the library, and you must feel so guilty when you fail to shriek with delight. Actually, however, no one who matters is deceived by this kind of thing, and the contempt into which novel reviewing has fallen is extended to novels themselves. When all novels are thrust upon you as works of genius, it is quite natural to assume that all of them are tripe."
The feminization of the literary world could be the cause of this. One simply must SUPPORT other writers, no matter what. The quality and competitiveness of just about everything seems to have fallen by the wayside.
I write acerbic reviews on Amazon, and wrote a particularly acid review on King Nyx, which was written by a peer, whose referral to her agent I've been courting. I had the review up for a few days, then took it down, even though my true name isn't even on it!
Meanwhile the novel is enjoying the usual accolades, because, well, Bakis is a NICE PERSON. Therefore, the novel must be nice.
And as for JAMES, well, anything written by a black man must be great. Especially if it's upending something that was written by a white man first.
And don't you know, it's the identity of the writer that matters most? Have you read what so many agents are looking for? "Marginalized voices," that in the old world, were very likely marginalized because they weren't good writers.
The flip side of what you see as the golden age of book reviewing was deliberate nastiness. A negative review is always more fun than hosannas. John Simon built a nice career out of funny takedowns. I also think you’re setting up a straw man— the careerist writer who reviews dishonestly. It’s possible that a novelist goes easy on other novels because they know the difficulty of the task. Guessing motives puts a thesis in a neat package but it ain’t necessarily so.
I agree wholeheartedly with your criticisms of criticism. But I question whether substack will have the effect you envision. It seems to me Notes have already made it into mini-twitter; I think as with most things on the internet quantity will drive out quality. But I could be wrong!
“Demented” is right. Seems like somebody or other needs to start a book review publication featuring smart, honest reviews and leaving room for writers to vigorously disagree with one another!
TK!!
Sounds like a case for peer review 😊
Honest criticism of fiction is a) quite hard and b) attempts at it are often simply not written well enough to carry the criticism itself.
It would be great if you and your colleagues are able to do this well.
This is the the kind of cultural criticism I came to Substack hoping to read, and much of it is right on target from my perspective as a former gatekeeper (the book editor of the Plain Dealer and more). Thank you!
But most of what you say applies more to literary criticism in the U.S. than to other countries. You find more honest criticism in the British media: for example, Philip Hensher's book reviews in the Spectator, Brandon Taylor's when he writes for the LRB, and some in the Guardian, though the paper has more American-ized lately.
I think the Faulkner analogy is apt. "A Fable" even won the National Book Award as well as the Pulitzer, as far as I know. Probably more lifetime achievement than anything, akin to John Wayne winning the Oscar for "True Grit" (or more recently DiCaprio for "The Revenant"). Side note: I always felt "Purity" was woefully underrated. It was the rare Franzen that actually moved me to tears.
Purity is a novel I need to offer a reread - I didn't love it in 2015, but I also may feel differently now
Putting my hat in for Purity! I adored that novel - I feel like he’s swinging higher in this one and I appreciate that
The chapters with the mother in East Germany shatter me. And I have a theory that the Andreas Wolf character is a DFW surrogate, which also moved me.
Thank you, Ross for explaining why I find so little that’s persuasive or interesting in the New York Times book review. I have seen at least eight reviews of Rachel Kushner‘s latest book which I have no interest in reading. It does seem to be a circle jerk of young writers applauding each other. If you ever read Jane gardam? Now there is an outstanding writer who hardly ever gets discussed!
I have not! What book(s) do you recommend?
Read the old filth trilogy. Here’s an interview with her. https://www.theparisreview.org/interviews/7878/the-art-of-fiction-no-251-jane-gardam
Ditto for Mark Slouka.
"New novels from prestige presses have been hyped since time immemorial. What is changing, I believe, is that fewer and fewer of these books warrant the hype."
This is not a new trend. Orwell was complaining about this back in the 1930s. From his essay "In Defence of the Novel":
"Here is just one specimen [of a blurb], from last week's Sunday Times: ‘If you can read this book and not shriek with delight, your soul is dead.’ That or something like it is now being written about every novel published, as you can see by studying the quotes on the blurbs. For anyone who takes the Sunday Times seriously, life must be one long struggle to catch up. Novels are being shot at you at the rate of fifteen a day, and every one of them is an unforgettable masterpiece which you imperil your soul by missing. It must make it so difficult to choose a book at the library, and you must feel so guilty when you fail to shriek with delight. Actually, however, no one who matters is deceived by this kind of thing, and the contempt into which novel reviewing has fallen is extended to novels themselves. When all novels are thrust upon you as works of genius, it is quite natural to assume that all of them are tripe."
The feminization of the literary world could be the cause of this. One simply must SUPPORT other writers, no matter what. The quality and competitiveness of just about everything seems to have fallen by the wayside.
I write acerbic reviews on Amazon, and wrote a particularly acid review on King Nyx, which was written by a peer, whose referral to her agent I've been courting. I had the review up for a few days, then took it down, even though my true name isn't even on it!
Meanwhile the novel is enjoying the usual accolades, because, well, Bakis is a NICE PERSON. Therefore, the novel must be nice.
And as for JAMES, well, anything written by a black man must be great. Especially if it's upending something that was written by a white man first.
And don't you know, it's the identity of the writer that matters most? Have you read what so many agents are looking for? "Marginalized voices," that in the old world, were very likely marginalized because they weren't good writers.
The flip side of what you see as the golden age of book reviewing was deliberate nastiness. A negative review is always more fun than hosannas. John Simon built a nice career out of funny takedowns. I also think you’re setting up a straw man— the careerist writer who reviews dishonestly. It’s possible that a novelist goes easy on other novels because they know the difficulty of the task. Guessing motives puts a thesis in a neat package but it ain’t necessarily so.
I agree wholeheartedly with your criticisms of criticism. But I question whether substack will have the effect you envision. It seems to me Notes have already made it into mini-twitter; I think as with most things on the internet quantity will drive out quality. But I could be wrong!