In the current issue of Bookforum, David L. Ulin of the Los Angeles Times picks up and runs with a topic we’ve written about here – the current boom in fiction about the counterculture of the ’60s. Ulin’s long essay, called “Go Start Anew,” revisits recent books by Christopher Sorrentino, Dana Spiotta, Hari Kunzru, and Zachary Lazar (whose “Year in Reading” picks bespeak a certain fascination with the ’60s). Moreover, Ulin asks why the curdling of Aquarian idealism speaks so strongly to the current moment. I’m not sure I agree with his answer, but the argument is, as usual, provocative and deeply felt. It’s a Bookforum highlight, as is the entire “Fiction and Politics” supplement, and we urge you to check it out.
Ed Champion has a nemesis, Time magazine book reviewer Lev Grossman, as we discover in Grossman's latest column. Though somewhat tongue in cheek, Grossman is basically asking bloggers to use their power for good. All in all, it's far more civilized than Steve Almond's pathetic attempted takedown of Mark Sarvas in Salon from a year ago, which read like a laundry list of Almond's insecurities. Grossman's essay and Ed's response make it clear that Grossman is an altogether more pleasant person than Almond and that the relationship between book bloggers and the literati has matured. As Ed notes in his brief response to Grossman, he (and other book bloggers) are regularly paid to pen book reviews in major newspapers. The lines are blurring. Oh, and I've met Ed. He's not that scary.
How does an independent bookshop not only survive, but remain vital amid the encroaching chains? How does a tightly-knit community bolster its authors in a cut-throat industry? Independent bookshop owner Heidi Hallett has tackled both these issues by doing what the best independent shopkeepers do - opting for the intimate, the local.As this recent Globe and Mail article explains, Hallett's Halifax bookshop, Frog's Hollow, has its fortunes interwoven with that of her community. By hosting book launches and in-store author appearances of regional scribes, Hallett keeps her dream alive: "Local literature is a vital part of our culture here, and I am concerned that if more independent bookstores like mine start going under, we risk losing that history and heritage forever."
This week's New Yorker is already on newsstands, but before last week's issue is a distant memory, I wanted to praise it for being one of the best issues I've read in a while. Calvin Trillin's piece on an episode of vigilante justice in Canada was engaging and well reported and David Owen's profile of the Arup structural engineering firm was an interesting departure from the magazine's usual coverage of cultural luminaries in the architecture field (neither article is available online.)The issue was anchored by Seymour Hersh's most important article since he helped break the Abu Ghraib story in 2004. In this follow up, Hersh delivers compelling evidence that responsibility for Abu Ghraib goes well beyond the handful of soldiers who were said to have acted on their own.But what really capped off the issue for me was Helen Simpson's refreshing story "Homework," which had a startlingly different tone from the typical New Yorker short story. Instead of brooding and cereberal, the story is almost joyful from start to finish, augmented by a wry undercurrent of second meaning. Whereas many contemporary stories are played in a minor key, thriving on disfunction, "Homework" is built on a healthy relationship between mother and son as she helps him complete an assignment to describe a "life-changing event." Rolling her eyes at the silly assignment, the first person narrator mother dictates a made up life to her son, one that includes divorced parents and in particular a globe trotting, carefree mother. There are a few subtexts below the surface as she crafts the story for her son: her own difficult childhood, her desire for a more exciting, less domestic life. But the story is also about imagination and being a kid. I thoroughly enjoyed it.I hadn't read Simpson's work before, but I'll keep an eye out for it now. She's penned several short story collections over the years, including In the Driver's Seat, which came out last month.
The modern world swooned last month when the bones found under a parking lot in Leicester, England were confirmed to be those of Richard III. Richard’s apologists hope that his newfound celebrity will encourage us all to submit our old Shakespearean prejudices to a round of honest fact-checking.
● ● ●
1. It is sometimes hard to remember -- in our enlightened Internet era -- that the line between writer and critic was once very sharp, and that there was no love lost between the camps. "There are hardly five critics in America," Herman Melville once wrote, "and several of them are asleep." Not that you can blame the man, considering the drubbing he took at the hands of the critical establishment, but the quote gives a good sense of the bad blood brewing between writer and commentator all the way back in the 1850s. We don't lack for contemporary examples, either; in 1991 Norman Mailer called critic John Simon "a man whose brain is being demented by the bile rising from his bowels," after Simon panned Mailer's novel Harlot's Ghost. But surely it's not all bile and bellowing; there have to be other, more civilized examples of the writer playing nice in the critical sphere. Henry James, for example, had a prolific side gig as a writer of judicious criticism, and his essay "The Art of Fiction" is one of the most well-considered and fair-minded examinations of novelistic purpose you could ever hope to read. But even James, in the middle of his reasonable defense of novelistic art, couldn't help giving a swift kick to an unnamed "writer in the Pall Mall" who opposes “certain tales in which ‘Bostonian nymphs’ appear to have ‘rejected English dukes for psychological reasons’" - Portrait of a Lady, I presume? It seems that, no matter their composure, writers look to draw a little blood when they enter the critical ring. Maybe it has something to do with accepting blows in silence all those years. Which brings us to the latest example of a writer stepping into the ring to defend his work against a rapacious critic: award-winning author Jonathan Lethem v. award-winning critic James Wood, literary heavyweight bout par excellence. The first round of this fight happened recently, when the Los Angeles Review of Books published an essay by Lethem entitled "My Disappointment Critic," in which Lethem discussed his anger at Wood for panning his novel The Fortress of Solitude eight years ago. Lethem is not some cranky author we can write off lightly and go about our business. He is himself a thoughtful critic, and, as if to remind us of this fact, the title of "My Disappointment Critic" (and some of its content) alludes to his book The Disappointment Artist, a series of excellent essays about growing up in Brooklyn, the pleasures and perils of being an autodidact, and Westerns - among other things. His essay on the way to escape a subway train when you fear being pursued by other passengers is one of the best evocations of frightened childhood and how it shapes (urban) consciousness I have ever read. All this is to say that Lethem is more than familiar with a critic's responsibilities. Even when you're an author/critic with fame hanging heavy on your shoulders -- especially when you're stepping into the ring to defend your own work -- you're held to the sort of standard all criticism is held to: you have to marshal evidence and portray your viewpoint convincingly. One might even argue that writer/critic dealing with his own work has a higher bar to vault, because if he fails at any of these aims he looks worse than a reviewer writing a poorly-argued review. He looks like a whiner. So what are we to make of Lethem's new essay, in which he steps into the ring to defend his eight-year-old novel The Fortress of Solitude from James Wood, critical heavyweight of the age? Is he merely grousing? Or is he making serious critical claims? Lethem understands our concerns. He wants us to know right away that he knows what he's doing. "Why," Lethem writes, "violate every contract of dignity and decency, why embarrass us and yourself, sulking over an eight-year-old mixed review? Conversely, why not, if I’d wished to flog Wood’s shortcomings, pick a review of someone else, make respectable defense of a fallen comrade? The answer is simple: In no other instance could I grasp so completely what Wood was doing." And later: "Was this how Rushdie or DeLillo felt -- not savaged, in fact, but harassed, by a knight only they could tell was armorless?" This is Lethem's stated purpose: instead of taking the opportunity to complain about his own disappointment, Lethem is going to give his own disappointment greater cultural relevance. He is going to use his own experience to show us what James Wood looks like without the armor. He is going to accomplish something far more serious than simple griping: a true critical takedown. 2. The critical takedown is well-known cultural corrective with a long and glorious history. Renata Adler attempted something similar in her New York Review of Books article on Pauline Kael 31 years ago. James Wood himself performed similar treatment on Harold Bloom; it's no surprise that Lethem quotes both of these projects above his essay. The fellow critic providing cultural corrective to someone who has gotten too big for his or her britches -- it's practically a public service, if you do it right. In our current literary discourse critics can easily become unimpeachable. Wood gets the lofty heights of The New Yorker's book section whenever he feels like it, and if he's fudging his responsibilities, chances are a lot of people won't notice. It's more or less exactly the argument Adler makes in her takedown of Kael: most critics get sloppy on their soapbox. Their ingrained prejudices take over. So there's a precedent for the fellow critic accomplishing such a takedown, but rarely does the author being criticized make the attempt. Maybe this is because the burden of proof is uncommonly high when personal interest is involved. And Lethem's criticisms, for all of their higher purpose, do spring from personal concerns: Wood failed to see what Lethem was getting at in The Fortress of Solitude. "James Wood," he writes, "in 4,200 painstaking words, couldn’t bring himself to mention that my characters found a magic ring that allowed them flight and invisibility. This, the sole distinguishing feature that put the book aside from those you’d otherwise compare it to (Henry Roth, say). The brute component of audacity, whether you felt it sank the book or exalted it or only made it odd." This comment is, at its heart, disingenuous. Is the magic ring really the "sole distinguishing feature" that separates the Fortress of Solitude from Henry Roth? Wood would never make such a simplistic statement, nor would any other critic with a professional reputation to uphold. The act of criticism, in large part, is to figure out what distinguishes books from each other, and such distinctions never come down to one detail, whether it be a magic ring or a madeleine. But let's set this aside for now, and continue to Lethem's critical conclusion about Wood's review. "Perhaps Wood’s agenda edged him into bad faith on the particulars of the pages before him. A critic ostensibly concerned with formal matters, Wood failed to register the formal discontinuity I’d presented him, that of a book which wrenches its own “realism”-- mimeticism is the word I prefer-- into crisis by insisting on uncanny events. The result, it seemed to me, was a review that was erudite, descriptively meticulous, jive. I doubt Wood’s ever glanced back at the piece. But I’d like to think that if he did, he’d be embarrassed." I read Fortress of Solitude several years ago. I remember that magic ring. I remember it having the shaky status of a symbol, and that the boys who used it were themselves unsure of whether it represented real invisibility or some sort of wish fulfillment: imagination grounded firmly in realism (or whatever less offensive word Lethem wants to use). I certainly don't remember it ever "wrenching" the book's realism out of whack -- it was one thread in the greater fabric of a mimetic narrative. But let's set that aside too -- maybe Wood was wrong about the magic ring, and its singular symbolism within Fortress of Solitude. What we're really dealing with here is a takedown of Wood, after all, not a defense of Lethem's novel. That's why Lethem proclaims his larger purpose early in the essay. That's why he includes the paragraphs from Adler and from Wood himself, that's why he tells us Wood is "armorless" as a critic. What we're concerned with here is Lethem's critical judgment of Wood as a critic: "The result, it seemed to me, was a review that was erudite, descriptively meticulous, jive." Read that line again, substituting the word "book" for the word "review." Now imagine that this sentence appeared in a book review. I assume your critical alarm bells are ringing. Are we as readers expected to believe Lethem when he says that Wood was "erudite" and "descriptively meticulous," (not to mention "jive") without evidence? Lethem obliges us. He drops a Wood quote at the start of the next paragraph. "Wood complained of the book’s protagonist: “We never see him thinking an abstract thought, or reading a book … or thinking about God and the meaning of life, or growing up in any of the conventional mental ways of the teenage Bildungsroman.” ...My huffy, bruised, two-page letter to Wood detailed the fifteen or twenty most obvious, most unmissable instances of my primary character’s reading: Dr. Seuss, Maurice Sendak, Lewis Carroll, Tolkien, Robert Heinlein, Mad magazine, as well as endless scenes of looking at comic books. Never mind the obsessive parsing of LP liner notes, or first-person narration which included moments like: “I read Peter Guralnick and Charlie Gillett and Greg Shaw…” That my novel took as one of its key subjects the seduction, and risk, of reading the lives around you as if they were an epic cartoon or frieze, not something in which you were yourself implicated, I couldn’t demand Wood observe. But not reading? This enraged me." This is the only quote from Wood that Lethem uses in his essay, and he buries it within a full paragraph of editorialization. This on its own would give the average critical reader pause for thought. But when you look closer, when you read Wood in the original, you notice that there is a more fundamental disconnect at work. Lethem has fundamentally misunderstood what Wood was saying. Here is the Wood quote in the original, concerning the main character from Fortress of Solitude: "We never see [Dylan] thinking an abstract thought, or reading a book (there is a canonical mention of Steppenwolf, which is just more cultural anthropology, and just about it for literature in Dylan's life), or encountering music that is not the street's music, (italics mine) or thinking about God and the meaning of life, or growing up in any of the conventional mental ways of the teenage Bildungsroman. There is no need for Lethem to be conventional, of course; but there is a need for Dylan to have outline, to have mental personality." Wood's point in his review of Fortress is that Lethem is a fabulous cultural chronicler of childhood, but that he fails when it comes to describing adulthood's particular individual consciousness. There is something beautiful in Wood's phrase "music that is not the street's music" -- maybe this is why Lethem chose to elide it in his quote. It reinforces how much Dylan Ebdus's character is informed by group consciousness. But all Lethem can see is Wood's snobbery. "Wood is too committed a reader," Lethem writes, "not to have registered what he (apparently) can’t bear to credit: the growth of a sensibility through literacy in visual culture, in vernacular and commercial culture, in the culture of music writing and children’s lit, in graffiti and street lore." But this is precisely what Wood is talking about. He is pointing out that Dylan, for all his theoretical interest in Sendak and Heinlein, is not very interesting as an individual; far from ignoring street culture, Wood points out that street culture is what makes Dylan who he is. When Dylan grows up and loses sight of the street, Dylan becomes boring. Wood's snobbery is beside the point here; the critic admits that Dylan doesn't need conventional interiority, a world of high-brow books or high-brow music -- he just needs interiority, period. We're reminded once again of Henry James, the snobby fussbudget who occasionally got it right -- "the only obligation to which we may hold a novel is that it be interesting." Dylan, in Lethem's later pages, is no longer interesting, and Wood, as a critic, wants to try and explain why. 3. Maybe a close examination of Lethem's article will shed light on the reasons why so many authors attack their critics, and why literary fights can seem so personal. Because authors, at heart, are much more interested in the verdict a critic renders than the evidence they display. And why wouldn't they be? Authors understand that good reviews sell books and that bad reviews don't -- they are the most consumer-minded of all cultural observers, because they know as well as anyone how hard the literary marketplace can be. This isn't even considering the personal aspect of having one's work attacked in public, the feeling, as Edith Wharton put it, that "one knows one's weak points so well... it's rather bewildering to have the critics overlook them and invent others." Lethem, despite his own critical experience, isn't immune to this view. "The review," he writes, "wasn’t the worst I’d had. Wasn’t horrible. (As my uncle Fred would have said, ‘I know from horrible.’)" Lethem looks at Wood's review in a familiar cultural context -- is it good, or is it bad? Will it sell my book or will it turn people away? Does it make me look foolish or paint me as a genius? What's the judgment here? But what if the purpose of a review is not just to render judgment, but to explicate the way literature works? One can't fault Lethem for disliking having his own work on the operating table, but certainly he's been on the cutting end before. The pain of the writer is that he has to sit still while the critic pokes through the vitals of his work and shows them to the audience. When the critical work is at its finest, the audience is like a crew of medical students standing around a doctor at work -- even when we disagree with the way things are being handled, we can still see the body of evidence and draw our own conclusions. The process itself helps us learn; it adds to our understanding of literature as a whole. That is, if the body on the table would only stop complaining. 4. This is extreme, I know. The body of work on the operating table has its own concerns. Staying alive, for example. An irresponsible critic, like an irresponsible doctor, runs the risk of killing the work -- we don't call it a "hit piece" for nothing. And if Lethem is right, and Wood is not doing high-level criticism anymore -- if, like Adler's vision of Pauline Kael, he has gone "shrill," "stale," has fallen prey to the tendency "to inflate" -- then we have legitimate cause to worry for other books, other authors. Where do we go to find if a critic -- or an author -- is being irresponsible, is failing at their literary mission? We go to the text, naturally -- we render the evidence as best we can. This is the burden of proof, the burden the critic takes on when making judgments. This is the burden Lethem must assume if he is to be a critic of Wood's own critical project. "When Wood praises," says Lethem, "he mentions a writer’s higher education, and their overt high-literary influences, a lot. He likes things with certain provenances; I suppose that liking, which makes some people uneasy, is exactly what made me enraged. When he pans, his tone is often passive-aggressive, couched in weariness, even woundedness. Just beneath lies a ferocity which seems to wish to restore order to a disordered world." Leaving aside the question of whether or not all critics (and readers) like things of certain provenances, we find ourselves again with the verdict but no facts. If Wood is passive-aggressive, why not show it? And what are we to make of Wood's supposed ferocity, his drive to correct the world? Are we supposed to take Lethem's word on Wood's intellectual makeup? Lethem gives Wood some credit: he points out that Wood wrote "4,200 painstaking words" about Fortress of Solitude. I would highlight another salient point: of these words, eight hundred (or nearly a fifth of the article) are direct quotations. Say what you will about the subjectivity inherent in what a critic chooses to quote, Wood uses ample evidence from Lethem's own text to make his points -- and nearly 600 quoted words come in blocks, without any editorializing from Wood at all; the critical equivalent of a primary source. This is not just a feature of Wood's review of Fortress -- it is a feature of his critical style. Wood may be blinkered, he may be a high-culture pedant, but he quotes with vicious abandon: great block quotes of prose that give the reader a decent sense of how the writers he picks use language, so that no matter what verdict Wood renders the reader is capable of viewing the evidence on its own merits. Take Wood's review of Alan Hollinghurst's The Stranger's Child, for example. As readers, we are quite justified in our anger when Wood attempts to parody Hollinghurst's style with his own prose; critics, whether they are also writers or not, are supposed to keep their own prose out of the critical game, lest we realize just how disingenuous they are. Or, as Hollinghurst himself put it, "it exposes your own fear of the charge that you don't know what you're talking about." But we can't fault the rest of the review of Stranger's Child for anything other than having an extremely intense, well-considered, and well-supported opinion, because we have the tools to respectfully disagree with the opinion if we like -- Wood gives us reams of quotation on which to draw our own conclusions. I happen to disagree with Wood's conclusions about Hollinghurst, as I do with many of Wood's conclusions, but I do not make the mistake of thinking that my disagreement with Wood's verdict means his article is a failure. I am interested in his ideas, I am interested in his evidence. Then again, it's not my book under the scalpel -- if I were Hollinghurst, I imagine I would be furious. Not being Hollinghurst, however -- a fact I share with the vast majority of the readership of The New Yorker -- I am free to enjoy the article on the merits. Quibble how you will with the verdict Wood renders on The Stranger's Child, just as Lethem does with the verdict he renders on Fortress of Solitude in 4,200 painstaking words, but it’s difficult to fault his methods -- considerable quotation, much of it in blocks, and statements based on these quotations. This is why Wood remains a sometimes inspiring, sometimes infuriating, consistently debatable literary critic. (A critic, mind you, who saw fit to send Lethem a postcard in return to the angry letter Lethem sent him when this review was published -- and here, perhaps, we can allow ourselves a little incredulity -- eight years ago. A postcard pointing out that he had actually liked a lot about Fortress of Solitude -- maybe it's Lethem, not Wood, who ought to be embarrassed upon re-reading the review, so many years later.) Lethem has now written 1,700 words attacking, not just Wood's article, but his entire approach to book reviewing, his "bad faith" -- and he supports his argument with 47 of Wood's own words. Whether or not you would like to see Wood exiled from his favored perch atop The New Yorker's book section -- and many do -- this is not a ratio to inspire particular confidence. It is very difficult to analyze anyone's bad faith. Lethem himself points this out at the end of his essay; that he goes ahead and attacks Wood's bad faith despite his own assertions is evidence of his critical perspective. Lethem has every right to be angry at Wood, for criticizing a work which he held dearly, for rendering a verdict that might hurt the work in the marketplace. But those of us who care about criticism are more interested in the evidence than the verdict, and in the case of Lethem v. Wood, the evidence is skimpy indeed. Image: Generationbass.com/Flickr
● ● ●
We at The Millions are fans of great sports journalism and of Michael Lewis, so recommending Lewis' New York Times Magazine feature on Houston Rockets forward Shane Battier is a no-brainer. The hook:Here we have a basketball mystery: a player is widely regarded inside the N.B.A. as, at best, a replaceable cog in a machine driven by superstars. And yet every team he has ever played on has acquired some magical ability to win.Lewis goes on to make the (slightly Gladwellian) case for a new statistical approach to basketball. Nonetheless, his piece implicitly underscores what we've suspected all along... nothing captures "the intangibles" like good writing.
It is a ubiquitous feature in bookstores - especially at airports: The New York Times Best Seller List. The words "From The New York Times Best-Selling Author" flash at a reader from the top of a book cover, capturing interst and, well, dollars.The Times' Public Editor Clark Hoyt explains the selection process, why the list is more widely followed and valued than other, competing "best seller" compilations - from USA Today and Rupert Murdoch's (ouch) Wall Street Journal - in an informative column.Apparently an NYT Best Seller sticker can drive up sales by as much as 57 percent for a first-time author. Publishers are, naturally, conscious of this priceless marketing tool and accordingly try to rig the market, Hoyt writes. Not to worry, the editors at the Times safeguard readers against such shams.But Times editors too might not fully understand the procedure, according to Hoyt. And while the Times might make sure that "evergreens" like Catcher in the Rye or an SAT study guide don't stay on the list forever, Malcolm Gladwell's The Tipping Point - which came out in paperback in 2002 - has been on it for a stunning 164 weeks.The column might leave you a tad confused, but at least you won't ask yourself what the heck an "NYT Best Seller" is next time you are idling at an airport bookstore.