We're doing that cool being-in-two-places-at-the-same-time thing this morning, as we take the reins for the day at Ron Hogan's ArtsJournal blog Beatrix and get a little medieval on Rick Moody.
Ron's site doesn't allow comments, so feel free to pillory us here.
I'm still trying to get my brain around this whole "comics can be literature" thing. I mean, that's just crazy talk.
Posted by: Jimmy Beck | January 31, 2005 at 06:56 AM
Mark, I think your takedown would have had more teeth if you'd actually managed to shoehorn in an example of what Moody does right, rather than just trail off at the end there.
I had hoped that Beatrix's reviews of the reviewers would be constructive. But picking out awkward sentences that an editor should have caught is essentially taking pot-shots, not rendering a critique. You're a better reader than that.
One of the great things about the blogosphere is there are no restrictive word counts or column inches--I wish you'd taken the time and space to stretch out more.
Posted by: cinetrix | January 31, 2005 at 06:24 PM
Howdy Cinetrix. Thanks for stopping in and for weighing in, too.
I always appreciate commentary and encourage dispute, so I'm glad you've stepped in and gone for it. But it shouldn't surprise you that, in this case, I disagree with you, in a few places.
First off, I don't see how an example of what Moody does right would give anything more teeth. The post wasn't about what he did right, it's about what he did not just wrong, but ridiculously wrong. Sorry but I don't see your logic here.
Which brings me to the bigger point - blaming the editor? Come on, where's the responsibility? Of all the examples I noted only one can possibly be attributed to editing (and we don't really know for sure). The others are all pretty clear cases - to me, at least - of shallow thinking. And I don't think we should expect editors to catch that sort of thing.
I was scarcely cherry-picking a handful of awkward constructions (which, I maintain, Moody should have know better than to commit to paper anyway); the examples represent almost the first half of the review in its entirety. Hardly an out-of-context representation.
You've clearly read the whole review. Do you genuinely feel it's a strong piece of criticism? And that Moody's generalizations are correct and appropriate? Obviously, reasonable people can disagree, but I am curious.
Posted by: TEV | January 31, 2005 at 06:45 PM
I just wish this wasn't the penultimate paragraph of your review:
Similarly, seeing the construction "Rick Moody is the worst anything of his generation" at this point is enough to make this discerning reader turn the page.
Posted by: cinetrix | January 31, 2005 at 08:10 PM
Personally, I'm sick of those "comics can be literature" reviews. Just review the damn thing like it IS literature. Instead, every damn time someone reviews a comic in a mainstream publication we get these damn wasted introductions.
Regardless, I'm looking forward to Epilectic.
Posted by: derikb | February 01, 2005 at 02:05 PM