July 30, 2009
Posted at 1:29 PM in Housekeeping
Well, kids, the Chronicle launched its new website last week, and the old links to my Chron stories don't work any more. I have asked our tech folks whether the problem is likely to go away (ha!)--whether, in other words, those old URLs will eventually redirect readers to archived stories on the new site. I may have to go through and change the links by hand, though. If you're looking for a story of mine in the meantime, please drop me a line and I will send you a working URL. [Insert platitude about technology making life harder.]
UPDATE 7/31/09: I am told that this problem will go away soon. Exactly how soon I don't know.
July 9, 2009
Posted at 12:48 PM in Lit Crit
An abridged version for those who don't want to wade through the chatty one below:
1. Read the book. All of it.
2. Be honest. Say what you think and why.
3. Do not hide behind vagueness and cliche.
4. Resist the temptation to be mean just because you can.
5. Remember that the author is a human being who (we hope) put a lot into this book.
6. Be entertaining. Dullness is unforgivable.
7. Don't spoil the surprise.
8. Think twice before you accept an assignment.
9. Do not kid yourself that a review is the equal of a book. It's not.
10. Read the book. All of it.
July 8, 2009
Posted at 9:31 AM in Lit Crit
I don't write many reviews these days. Ten years at Book World gave me my fill, and it was time to focus on on other kinds of writing. That's been a happy decision, but I still read a lot of reviews (and write them once in a while), and I still find the push-and-pull between writers and critics a fascinating thing to watch. The recent bad behavior from Alice Hoffman and Alain de Botton made me think again about how that game's played, or should be. So I came up with a code. (Authors need some guidelines too, as Hoffman and de Botton demonstrated.) I've said a lot of this before. Much of it is advice I gave my students at Eugene Lang College a few years ago, when I taught a seminar on "The Art of the Review." Much of it is obvious, at least to me. This is a personal list, and there are probably lots of good reasons to bend or break at least some of these rules. Please don't break Rules 1, 6, or 10, though, or you'll break my heart.
1. Read the book. All of it.
2. Be honest. Say what you think and why, even if the author's not going to love you for it. You won't do readers or literature any good if you ladle out helpings of false praise. If you like the book, don't be afraid to say that, either. Just be damn sure you explain why. (See Rule No. 3.)
3. Do not hide behind vagueness and cliche. Exactly what makes this book intriguing, upsetting, offputing, worth my time or worth flinging across the room? Did it make you angry, happy, or leave you cold? Tell me only that an author has "luminous prose" and I will read no further.
4. Resist the temptation to be mean just because you can. Nobody loves to read a good savaging more than I do, but it has to be justified. Some books manage to be such a waste of time and paper that righteous indignation or witty evisceration is called for. Before you whip out the scalpel, though, ask yourself: Are you an avenging Fury, setting right the wrongs done to literature, or are you a narcissist on a power trip?
5. Remember that the author is a human being who (we hope) put a lot into this book. You don't have to give an A for effort. You should be aware that, to the author, a negative review can feel like a knife in the thigh, maybe even the heart. As de Botton put it so memorably to Caleb Crain, "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."
Note: This rule does not trump Rule No. 2. Don't let the author's humanity cripple you as a critic. To publish a book is to invite people to read and react. Authors, if you can't take some honest heat, don't read the reviews.
6. Be entertaining. You can define "entertaining" in many ways. Dullness is unforgivable. A 900-word review demands less of a writer than a 50,000-word novel does (see Rule No. 9), but you still have to make those 900 words worth the reader's time. People blame the fading away of book-review sections on cultural and economic changes. I say that the lazy review--heavy on plot summary, light on style, substance, and genuine criticism--has played its role in the decline.
7. Don't spoil the surprise. There are times when it's necessary or useful to give away elements of a story. If you must, though, give readers a heads-up.
8. Think twice before you accept an assignment. It's okay to say no. True, we all need to make a living, not that there's much of one to be had from book reviewing. But if an editor asks you to review the latest teen-vampire novel and you would rather be bitten by a vamp than read about one, take a pass. In most cases you will not do yourself, your editor, the reader, or the author any favors by tackling a book you're guaranteed to loathe.
9. Do not kid yourself that a review is the equal of a book. It's not. Sure, reviewing can be important and useful work. Writing a book is harder and takes a lot longer. End of story.
10. Read the book. All of it.
July 1, 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?
