* The Millions justly takes n+1 to task for its unsigned jeremiad "The Blog Reflex," about which more anon. What neither piece notes is how assiduously n+1 courted bloggers at its inception, and how thin-skinned its editors have been concering any criticism of their efforts. Also more of which, anon. Finally, it's worth noting that:
The lit-bloggers become a self-sustaining community, minutemen ready to rise up in defense of their niches. So it is when people have only their precarious self-respect. But responses - fillips of contempt, wet kisses - aren't criticism.
... can be said, almost word for word, for the n+1 gang and "The Blog Relfex."
* The Business Standard asks a few pointed questions about the Man Asian Literary Prize.
* Everyone else seems to like Kundera's latest essays more than we do. We find his gnomic utterances tedious and straining under Mitteleuropa self-indulgence. But clearly, we're in the minority. (Though the Philadelphia Inquirer sees it more as we do.)
* Reviews of Christine Falls come in from all quarters. Reports from Bloomberg, Frank Wilson and, finally, Gideon Lewis-Kraus' excellent Slate essay, all awaiting your attention. Banville's agent, Ed Victor, is profiled at the Guardian.
* We're not, as is probably well known, great thriller fans. Nothing against the form, we just prefer other pleasures. But Jed Mercurio's Ascent - which we've hung onto around here somewhere - does sound interesting.
* Huh. We didn't think any of Nick Hornby's books were written for adults. (OK, we're being a bit glib. We liked High Fidelity well enough but after that, oh my.)
* It's ironic that a piece extolling Clive James' virtues as an essayist should include a sentence like "By common consent, Clive James is one of the few master wordsmiths alive today ..."
* The British have released their list of the Top 10 Books No One Ever Finishes. Ed will no doubt be apoplectic at the inclusion of his beloved Cloud Atlas. The Guardian offers a handy digest of the top five fiction titles:
Cloud Atlas
David MitchellBeyond the Indian hamlet I happened on footprints in 1850, and in the next chapter my diaries were read 80 years later by an English musician who wrote letters to his friend, Rufus Sixsmith, who 35 years later lives next door to Luisa Reyes, who is investigating a murder at a nuclear power station, and her story was sent to Timothy Cavendish, who was being chased by gangsters, and his story was seen through an orison some time in the future by a clone on death row, whose story was told round a camp fire to some bloke in a post-apocalyptic future, and then we work back to the beginning.
Verdict Not as pretentious as it sounds
* Like everyone else, PopMatters notices David Foster Wallace's incongruous offering to The Top Ten collection.
David Foster Wallace, of all people, includes books by C.S. Lewis, Stephen King, Robert Heinlein, Thomas Harris, Ed McBain and Tom Clancy. This eclectic and populist selection, by a writer of ostentatious learning, approaches the condescendingly perverse, and suggests Wallace does not play well with others
* Francine Prose is set to be named the new president of the PEN American Center.
* Finally, it's always a great day when we can offer up some James Wood, most recently, his take on Against the Day in The New Republic. (Merci a Dave Lull)
There are huge pleasures to be had from these amiable, peopled canvases, and there are passages of great beauty, but, as in farce, the cost to final seriousness is considerable: everyone is ultimately protected from real menace because no one really exists. The massive turbines of the incessant story-making produce so much noise that no one can be heard. The Nazi Captain Blicero in Gravity's Rainbow and the ruthless financier Scarsdale Vibe in Against the Day are not truly frightening figures, because they are not true figures. But Gilbert Osmond, Herr Naphta, Peter Verkhovensky, and Conrad's anarchist professor are very frightening indeed.
Which will surprise no one who has read Wood's essay on Pynchon in The Broken Estate.

I'm surprised "Crime and Punishment" made the top ten of unfinished novels in the UK. It was one of those books one is compelled to read by one's own self-sustaining literary ego complex that I was delighted to discover was so damn good.
I think Wallace purposely confused top ten works of literary merit with top ten books he liked -- in an effort to turn his nose up at literary snobbery, he committed the exact crime he tried to avoid.
"Annie Proulx, of Brokeback Mountain fame, finds Zane’s project 'difficult, pointless and wrong-headed.'"
I think Proulx confused a description of Zane's project with a description of herself. Witness the Oscar debacle a few years ago. Okay, I hated "Crash", too, but so much has been made of the venerable -- meaning, you know, "old" -- Proulx's still tack-sharp writing, you'd think she'd recall she hails from a generation that didn't whine when they lost.
Posted by: janitorman | March 13, 2007 at 05:49 AM
Pertaining to James Wood -
I recently picked up The Broken Estate at the library and read the intro as well as his criticism of Pynchon and DeLillo. I admire his writing and insight (Wood's), and he is one of the better literary reviewers (I use that term in the best sense of the word) out there. But, if I had a picture of a dead horse being beaten at my fingertips, I would post that picture here now.
This lowest common denominator Wood returns to again and again - that of character strength above all else - misses the mark when it comes to Pynchon and it simply will not work. I found the major players of the Traverse family all "well-rounded" portrayals, and when you have 100+ characters in the cast, so to speak, they can't ALL be right out of a Henry James novel.
Wood has also leveled this same criticism against Coetzee in a review about Disgrace. Brilliant review, but, again, misses the mark completely because he (Wood) is attempting to put square pegs into round holes. Oddly, in The Broken Estate, he touchs on nothing about Cormac McCarthy. Not one single mention. I wonder why that is?
Thanks for the link to the review and congrats on your recent nuptials! However, if it a choice between Wood or Pynchon and Coetzee, I think I'll take Pynchon and Coetzee.
Posted by: Drew North | March 13, 2007 at 07:44 AM
Wood needs to widen the focus of the loupe through which he views Literary Art. Or, better yet, open both eyes. We don't all turn to the novel for instruction... nor to be 'frightened', uplifted or to have any of our emotional settings otherwise tweaked or redeemed; some of us come for the Art and that's what we stay for (if Art is in evidence).
Time and again, Wood imposes the technological limits of a sub-genre (the 19th century Bildungsroman?) upon the vast, wild, and not-entirely-defined possibilities of The Novel...very much how a man who knows almost everything about tax laws, say, will tend to steer all conversation (in a queue at the bank, or chatting at a cocktail party) in that direction.
Are the figures on the canvas in 'Guernica' convincing as horses and people? Are they 'true'? If 'true', are they more, or less, 'true' than Freud's masticated nudes or Miro's biomorphs? Was Chagall doing his best to get us to suspend disbelief in the reality of flying green-faced orthodox fiddlers? No, Mr. Wood: no. The draw is the power (and inspiration) of formal mastery; the delights are in the quirky codes and puzzles of the artist's personal vision.
Are the visual Arts *so* far ahead of their Literary siblings...or is it merely the reviewers (even the educated ones) who are terribly far behind?
Posted by: Steven Augustine | March 13, 2007 at 09:05 AM