One of my favorite writers is Russell Banks. Continental Drift and Affliction both reflect blue-collar male malaise in the late 20th century better than almost any other books I can think of. They are scary, real and sad.
Today his new book The Reserve was reviewed in the New York Times. I am not going to repeat any of the review here. It's possible that this book does not live up to his earlier work. Clearly, Banks is writing about a different sort of person than the blue-collar guys in his earlier work; the book is set in a different stratum of society.
What I want to pursue here is this? Should a reviewer feel he/she owes the public the same sort of critique a newspaper editorialist owes the public when he/she finds out a politician is corrupt. Because I feel this is the sort of review I read today. Should words like cheesy be used? Is this civil language?
How far is going too far for a reviewer?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
16 comments:
Going too far is just showing off, the so-called "Kill the Fuckers" review...unless of course the the work in question actually deserves such hostility...as some stuff I've read is (the last examples being short stories in old pulp magazines, unless we count some of the more obnoxiously loony stuff that is dealt with on THE GROOVY AGE OF HORROR). Or being ignorant. Honest appraisal is more important than protecting anyone's feelings in such contexts...however, on a list I'm a member of, there was some complaint about the NT TIMES particularly, wherein their reviewers often seem to feel the need to not enjoy anything under discussion, and particuarly to attempt to look down on work they choose to see as part of a genre. (All together now...as if any fiction escapes genre....)
I think there's a place for bad reviews, but its the hyperbolic, nasty language that offends me. He's a writer, not the mayor of Detroit, for Pete's sake. Do we need to take a bat to his knees?
Harsh but a fair assessment in my opinion. I think we get too used to the gentle review and we, especially us writers, can get a bit on edge reading scathing reviews. However, part of me enjoys them. One of the books on my list to read is Roger Ebert's collection of bad reviews. I love it when he takes someone to task - and isn't that the job of the critic, to not only praise but to criticize? Yes, some people have agendas when they give bad reviews, like Salman Rushdie's ex-wife that gave John Irving a bad review, or was it the other way around?, or Kathryn Harris getting into the literary review equivalent of a cat fight with Maureen Dowd - however sometimes a bad review is warranted. Does The Reserve deserve such criticism? I don't know, but there is a part of me that wonders how much of a disaster it really is and I might look at the book the next time I'm in Borders. I wasn't as offended by Banks psuedo-Hemingway as the reviewer was, so who knows? Maybe I'd like it.
As for cheesy, definitely appropriate.
John Irving is a prime example of someone who has been riotously overpraised, albeit happily for the world not as much now as back when he was a potent commercial force.
But what to do with a reviewer who hates most of the books he/she reviews?
Does he/she seek them out or does nothing quite meet the mark set.
And now having read Kakutani's review, I can only echo what I posted first (TIMES reviewers too often seem to hate their task), and a vague memory of John Simon's impression of Kakutani as an irritable middlebrow who has become an institution for no compelling reason, other than her continuing position at our most overrated paper.
And now having read Kakutani's review, I can only echo what I posted first (TIMES reviewers too often seem to hate their task), and a vague memory of John Simon's impression of Kakutani as an irritable middlebrow who has become an institution for no compelling reason, other than her continuing position at our most overrated paper.
The LA Times has a totally different view of the book.
http://www.calendarlive.com/books/bookreview/cl-bk-birkerts27jan27,0,2177879.story
Terrence Rafferty condescends to the horror fiction he reviews in the NYT; David Iztkoff doesn't know science fiction from a hole in the ground; Kakutani certainly fits Simon's description (or perhaps my own). They are, at best, so impressed with themselves for being at the most overrated paper in the nation that they need not approach their work "with clean hands and composure" (or, worse, think that they do, and richly deserve the forum they have), and perhaps are not given enough incentive (or time or pay) to do any better than they do.
The LA Times Review made my day. Thanks so much for sharing it. I just knew the book could not be the disaster, the NYT claimed.
Of course, Patti, whether it's a disaster is for you to say as much as Kakutani or Birkerts. You did see the Chapter excrerpt?
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/29/books/chapters/1st-chapter-the-reserve.html (hotlink at my initials)
Thanks. I'll give it a go.
I don't know. I read both reviews and the excerpt. I am not a wrtier of literature. I am a writer of motions and briefs. I thought that in the excerpt, Banks was overly verbose in describing the weather.
I agree, Chuck. I went back and read an excerpt from Continental Drift where he also describes weather but more succinctly. I think he needs to let go of weather.
Having not read the review or the new book or anything else by Russell Banks, I still must say that RULE OF THE BONE is really one of the most satisfying books I've ever read. It will stay with me for the rest of my days.
Hi Juri. Oh, I love that too, but Continental Drift and Affliction just really spoke to me. I read your blog all the time.
Post a Comment