We were disappointed to extract an even flimsier insert than usual this week - a mere 12 pages down from the usual 16. But imagine our surprise as we started turning pages and ended up tossing around A's with almost giddy abandon. A few misfires this week (wouldn't be LATBR without them) but in the main - unless we're experiencing an odd burst of sentimentality over the departure of Steve Wasserman - not bad at all. Not even a single AI ALERT (that's for Authorial Intrusion) to mar the landscape. Though we would have liked to have seen a bit more fiction covered, or at least a bit less Elmore Leonard. OK, on to the grades:
STATS
Full length fiction reviews: 3
Full length non-fiction reviews: 5
Columns: Discoveries and Poets' Corner
TITLES, AUTHORS & REVIEWERS
Blodd Father by Peter Craig. Reviewed by Paula L. Woods Grade: C
The Hot Kid by Elmore Leonard. Reviewed by Denise Hamilton Grade: B-
Guitar by Tim Brookes. Reviewed by Louis Sahagun Grade: A
The Treehouse by Naomi Wolf. Reviewed by Deborah Friedell. Grade: B
When Trumpets Call by Patricia O'Toole. Reviewed by Zachary Karabell. Grade: A
The Power of Delight by John Bayley. Reviewed by Matthew Price. Grade: B+
A Perfect Red by Amy Butler Greenfield. Reviewed by John Eidinow. Grade: C-
Empire of the Stars by Arthur I. Miller. Reviewed by Simon Singh. Grade: A
The Complete Peanuts by Charles Schulz; and Thrashed by Jerry Scott and Jim Borgman. Reviewed by Charles Solomon. Grade: C-
Poets' Corner Column: Overlord by Jorie Graham. Reviewed by Carol Muske-Dukes. Grade: A
Discoveries Column: I Got Somebody in Staunton by William Henry Lewis; Twilight of the Long-Ball Gods by John Schulian; and The Bitch Posse by Martha O'Connor. Reviewed by Susan Salter Reynolds. Grade: B
The Italian Secretary by Caleb Carr. Reviewed by Leslie Klinger. Grade: C
WHAT WE LIKE ...
Mark this day in your TEV memorial calendar as the first time that more energy goes into the "What We Like" section than the "What We Don't" ... Many goodies this week ... Ever since he shared his rules on writing with the world, we've not been much interested in Elmore Leonard (especially when he's also on the cover of NYTBR) but Hamilton's review actually made us mildly curious to have a look ... We also don't have much use for memoirs but Guitar sounds right up our alley, and we experienced an sympathetic involuntary bodily contraction when we learned that "airport baggage handlers snapped the neck of [Brookes'] beloved 22-year-old handcrafted guitar" ... Friedell's review of the Naomi Wolf book earns high marks for calling it out as an insipid bit of self-help ... And although it's true that we're probably reaching Teddy Roosevelt overload, Karabell's review is a crisp, smart and deep look at the latest TR title to hit a flooded marketplace ... The Bayley book sounds just terrific and almost makes up for the lack of serious fiction coverage this issue ... and Singh's review of the Miller book looks at one of those controversies of British science of the 1930s - who first came up with the idea of black holes - that are rife with compelling characters and big stakes.
WHAT WE DON'T ...
A few groaners but nothing that sent us for our smelling salts ... Woods can't seem to help trafficking in cliche from the first paragraph -
"Writers who attempt to capture Southern California in fiction must contend with the ghosts of those who preceded them ... " (TEV note: Which makes it different from writers writing about NY? Or London? But it's a silly statement because all writers contend with all writers who precede them period - geography is but one part of that.)
- to the last, in which she annoints Peter Craig "a writer to watch." Time to add that overworked phrase to the banished-from-reviews pile ... Whose genius idea was it to run a full page review about the history of cochineal, a red eye ... Eyes glazed over after about a third of the review - we can't imagine slogging through a whole book on the subject ... And what's with the full page for Peanuts/Zits? Are we going to lose a full page of the book review for every volume of the Peanuts series to be released? (It's intended to cover the whole 50-year run of the series, and they're just at 1955-56.) ... and finally the review of The Italian Secretary by noted L.A. Sherlockian Leslie Klinger is a muddled bit of business that suffers, perhaps, from too much expertise in his subject matter ... Klinger talks too much about pastiche (which he makes sure to define for us) but doesn't tell us nearly enough about the book (which we remain quite interested in and which floats very the near the top of our TBR pile).
GRADE: B- We should probably hack off another half-grade for the lack of serious fiction coverage but that seems like it would be churlish, especially when the non-fiction reviews are as well-written as interesting as they were this week. Keep it up, Mr. Wasserman (we assume some issues bearing his thumbprint are still in the pipeline and will only emerge post-departure), and you can leave the building with your head held high.
I've got to disagree with you a bit on the LATimes running reviews for each volume of 'Complete Peanuts'. When the LIbrary of America's Complete Philip Roth starts (this year?), should the LATimes review only the initial volume? What about the writer's evolution, missteps, etc.?
Posted by: Scott | May 09, 2005 at 02:35 PM
I've got to disagree with you a bit on the LATimes running reviews for each volume of 'Complete Peanuts'. When the LIbrary of America's Complete Philip Roth starts (this year?), should the LATimes review only the initial volume? What about the writer's evolution, missteps, etc.?
Posted by: Scott | May 09, 2005 at 02:35 PM
I agree with Scott on this one. There will be one volume every six months for 13 years. If in each of those cases, the reviewer devotes 3/4 of a page to the two years covered, and a 1/4 page to one of the countless strips that were heavily influenced by Schultz, it still might not be enough ink.
Enjoy,
Posted by: Dan Wickett | May 09, 2005 at 03:10 PM
The editor of the LATimes Book Review is leaving and the LATimes itself is under a lot of fiscal stress. Are these two events related? And what will the future hold for this section of the paper? And could it be that the review of the review is softening a little thinking about these questions?
That's what I wonder. Every publication has its ups and downs, and I've always wished the review would simply cover more books, but still, all in all, I think our Sundays would be considerably poorer without this section of the paper, or with the half-hearted attempt subscribers had to live with for years and years before Wasserman.
Posted by: Kit Stolz | May 09, 2005 at 04:41 PM
i noticed that, yet again, the graphics/photos, though nicely done, take up a huge amount of space. even where the total number of pages drops to twelve as it did yesterday, you could easily add another four reviews by shrinking the graphics/photos (doing away with them altogether would almost double the space for reviews, but that's kind of radical).
Posted by: daniel olivas | May 09, 2005 at 05:07 PM
While living on the other side of the continent, i am aware of the existence of the LA Times because about 10 years ago a reporter once wrote a decent=long article on men in dresses and skirts (non-bifurcated clothing)-- it was reprinted in the Japan Times -- and because a year and a half ago, my first book in English was almost reviewed by it. Because the reviewer had a blurb on my book's back cover or because i mentioned her book after her name after the blurb, the editor poohpoohed the review as a conflict of interest. Imagine that! All because i put some words from a letter (i had not asked for a blurb much less paid for it!)on my back-cover, the people of los angeles (who, judging from your list of recommended nonfiction, could use the stimulation my books offer) still do not know i exist (and i am still too poor to send review copies out to prime the pump). But note: my books are up for you to view at Google Print and Amazon's Look Within. And, that brings me to the idea that surfaced as i wrote the above:
Why not try reviews based on reading what can be read (20% a month or whatever) at Amazon and Google? Do you recall Wilde's words about not reading a book before reviewing it lest he be prejudiced as to the content? This would not be quite that interesting, but would it not be more fair -- and kind to readers -- than the situation today, when the selection of books for review reflects the $$$$$$$$$$$ put into the pr?
"Rise, Ye Sea Slugs!"
Posted by: robin d. gill | May 10, 2005 at 06:08 AM