July 01, 2009
Posted at 9:38 AM in Lit Crit
It's been a bad week for author-critic relations. First Alice Hoffman used Twitter to get back at a reviewer who made the mistake of not entirely loving her latest novel. Then Alain de Botton went after Caleb Crain--in the comments section of Crain's blog--for not entirely loving his latest opus in a review for the NYT. (At least give de Botton points for drama: "You have now killed my book in the United States, nothing short of that. So that's two years of work down the drain in one miserable 900 word review.")
I love a good literary smackdown as much as the next guy, and there should be some contentiousness--not personal abuse, as Hoffman and de Botton apparently forgot--built into the game. Writers are not obliged to like negative reviews of their work, although it's an occupational hazard. (Don't publish if you can't take the heat.) Critics must be honest in their reactions to a book, although they sometimes forget there's a human being, one who might even have feelings, behind that opus they've just pasted.
None of that means writers and critics can't be friends--or at least mutually respectful and interested parties. Mark McGurl, an associate professor at UCLA, makes an intriguing case for coexistence in his new book, The Program Era. One of the book's chief arguments is that the rise of the creative-writing program is "the most important event in postwar American literary history." McGurl points out, rightly, that such programs "have bequeathed to us more interesting reading than one person could do in a lifetime." He wants literary scholars to take the whole enterprise seriously--which is all a writer really should expect from a critic, inside or outside academe.
You can read my profile of McGurl and The Program Era here. More takes: Louis Menand wrote about the book in an intriguingly personal essay for the New Yorker last month. Charles McGrath kicked out a skewed and unfair review of the book for the NYTBR back in April; he likened writing programs to Ponzi schemes and took McGurl to task for overusing academic jargon. (A scholar dares to use theory-speak in an academic book? The nerve!) Bookforum's reviewer took the project more seriously, and Conversational Reading waxed positive too.
If you come across further commentary, please pass it along. I have a feeling that this book does mark a turning point in writer-critic relations. I hope so. Alice Hoffman, are you listening?
June 25, 2009
Posted at 11:28 AM in Housekeeping
It has been busy around here: a podcast about Google Book Search to record, two AAUP conferences to cover (profs and presses--the American Association of University Professors and the Association of American University Presses), two feature stories and a Hot Type column to wrap up, and a guest-blogging stint for Bookslut (this week--come visit). I've also got a couple of extra-curricular writing projects in different stages of development, plus the family, cats, house, and garden to tend to. The usual delightful madness. If somebody would go ahead and invent self-folding laundry, it would really help me out.
If you follow such matters, you can find my AAUP coverage here (profs) and here (presses) and my latest Hot Type here. (Subscription required--sorry.) More on features and extracurriculars when the time is ripe.
June 09, 2009
Posted at 2:47 PM in Word Choice/Choice Words
It occurred to me the other day that it's become refreshing to hear someone drop a good old-fashioned cliche. Put the cart before the horse. Make a mountain out of a molehill, please. Let the wheels come off the wagon. (Just don't throw me under the bus.) Why? I think it has to do with the virtualization--ugly word, sorry--of everything. Spend too much time pondering abstractions like "knowledge production" and "the dissemination of research" and you begin to long for something concrete to hang onto. Phrases that used to feel worn smooth, like rubbed-out pennies, have texture again, if you bother to stop and think about them. Most of us in big-city America don't see carts or horses very often, and when we do they're a surprise. I like being reminded, even tangentially, that such things exist, and that somewhere, if the sun's shining, I could make hay. In a field. A real field. Where things grow.
What are the digital era's most obnoxious--or lovely--cliches? Got any favorites, old or new? I'd love to hear them.
June 03, 2009
Posted at 10:56 AM in Net Life
1. You're hungry.
2. You're sleepy.
3. You have figured out what you're having for dinner.
4. You haven't figured out what you're having for dinner.
5. You've read an article that every third person online has already read/blogged about/tweeted.
6. Your email/ISP/Web site/smartphone is giving you trouble.
7. It is raining where you are.
8. It has stopped raining where you are.
9. You're getting a lot done!
10. You really could be getting more done.
If you can point me toward a conversation, an article, a book or an idea I'm not likely to see otherwise, though, I will follow you to the ends of the Internet. A good old-fashioned laugh is always welcome, too.
June 01, 2009
Posted at 9:30 AM in Publish or Perish
When word got out in early May that Louisiana State University might slash its press's subsidy as a result of the state's budget contraction, Michael V. Martin, chancellor of the Baton Rouge campus, issued a brief written statement. For those who admire the press, it was not very reassuring:
"We hope the governor and our legislature will provide sufficient funding to maintain support of LSU Press, as it is a very valuable asset to this university, the people of the state, and many beyond," Mr. Martin said. "We face, however, extraordinary economic conditions, and we must protect the academic core of LSU first and foremost."
Anyone who cares about university presses should pay close attention to Mr. Martin's choice of words. His statement makes it plain that being a "valuable asset" no longer guarantees a press a secure place in the "academic core" of its parent institution. These days, that can be a fatal degree of separation.
