Lee Goldberg scooped me with my own news yesterday, noting that Publishers Weekly has reviewed Harry, Revised. You can read the whole thing here, but here's the money quote:
... though there may be legions of writers spurned by his blog just willing for Sarvas to fail, this is a self-assured, comic and satisfying story
There was much celebrating and happy emailing going around yesterday, when Kirkus's considerably less kind review (not available online) came across the transom. Still, it's not a train wreck, and there's a usable quote there, too:
The book is fast-paced; there are nice comic touches; and Harry is, finally, rather compelling, selfish and damaged but recognizably human.
So I'm batting .500, which any ball player will tell you is an impressive stat. And what I said the other day holds absolutely true - good review or bad, I know enough to know it's one reader's opinion. I'm grateful for the good and don't take the bad personally. And I've been thinking about readers and opinions all day, since I linked to James Wood's review of His Illegal Self yesterday. (And what follows is a rare bit of thinking out loud, so please read on accordingly.)
When I got the green-light to review this book, I was excited because I love Peter Carey's work and couldn't wait to write about him, but once I got into the book, I was miserable at the prospect that my first bylined review of his work should be a negative one. I was further hobbled by only having about 450 words to make my case - so I do sympathize with PW and Kirkus reviewers - and I lament not having had more space to discuss specific failings of the book, the two key ones being the improbable flight to Australia, and Dial's implausible behavior.
So, of course, when James Wood's glowing review ran yesterday, it made me regret once again not having had more space to make my case. And it became another first - the first time I've reviewed the same novel as Wood, and disagreed no less. Given Wood's stature (and my all too well known fixation), it's enough to make one question one's critical chops.
But here's the thing. Wood touches on at least one of the aspects (though not the other) that troubled me:
Carey needs this never-apologize-never-explain form, not least because he decides to send his errant couple to Australia, not quite credibly. (Why not Mexico?)
The key difference between us is that Wood is quickly able to forgive this in light of the stunning prose of the novel and Carey's use of Wood's beloved free indirect style (about which he writes beautifully in How Fiction Works); whereas in my case, because the foundation of the book was so sloppily laid (and I think Wood is generous in his assessment), I simply could never give myself over to it the way he did. Similarly, I think, Carey fails to make Dial's willingness to throw away her promising future over this adventure remotely credible. These combined failings kept me from falling into the book the way I have with Carey's other novels.
And yet, it's still one person's opinion, isn't it? I remember when I got my first New York Times Book Review assignment. Folks, I don't mind telling you it scared me. Because, although I knew that a good review wouldn't necessarily help the book, a bad one would surely hurt it. And I remember thinking, "Who am I to have such power over someone else's work?" We tend to talk about how "The New York Times hated so-and-so," but it's not the institution, it's an individual who has been given the Times's imprimatur for the day. And so I read all eight or nine of James Wilcox's previous books for an 800-word review because I realized it was something to take very seriously, indeed. (And I was relieved when my second assignment was a first novel.) And now, whenever I read a review - any review - I am acutely aware of the individual sitting with highlighter and post-its at the other end, not the 48-point type name on the masthead.
At any rate, I end the day - and this ramble - reasonably happy with the state of things thus far. Besides, in the end, we all know that what really matters is what Harriet Klausner thinks ...
Ironic that Wood would admire the book for its style, and that you dislike it because a character lacks credibility...the very quality that Wood, in How Fiction Works, suggests,is essential to the good novel.
Posted by: Nigel Beale | February 26, 2008 at 05:30 AM
Not to worry about Kirkus. They're famous for being snotty to everyone. Even their positive reviews always have a nasty barb at the end.
Posted by: John Shannon | February 26, 2008 at 08:38 AM
Ah - so, so true and such honest words about reviewing. I've not had the good fortune (or terror) to review for the big boys, but that excitement at the outset and the horror that comes when you're halfway into the book and realize you don't like it is just plain crummy. The responsibility weighs heavy on my shoulders and I, like you, feel I must read everything they've ever read to do it justice.
Posted by: callie | February 26, 2008 at 08:41 AM
Congratulations on the PW review. I'm looking forward to the book. And as a wise old (and frequently drunk) publishing hand told me 29 years ago, "Kirkus is always bad. Even when the others are good, it's bad." Since then I've repeated that about half a dozen times to first-time authors.
Posted by: Richard | February 26, 2008 at 09:31 AM
I've actually seen Kirkus praise some very inferior books, so I don't take what they say seriously. I don't think many people do. I think people like to make up their own mind about what to read.
Harriet Klausner? If it isn't a romance, in the "Harlequin" sense of the word, Harriet probably won't read it. LOL
Posted by: Kate | February 27, 2008 at 07:41 AM
Congratulations on the PW review. The absence of a starred or boxed review should not be taken as a slight. I have seen many starred or boxed reviews of books I believe are undeserving. It's a crapshoot, this reviewing business. The important thing, from a marketing aspect, is to grasp onto whatever kernel of positivity you can find in the text of the critique. In this respect, you have a highlighted a solid passage that, while not passionately supportive, is still pretty good. I've seen a lot worse, believe me. I wouldn't be depressed about this PW review at all. Good job!
Posted by: Norris Wilson | February 29, 2008 at 02:45 AM