We're not trying to be obtuse or anything but, seriously, which is it? Is there a crisis in book reviewing or is there more book information out there than we can keep up with? Hmm. We ruminate on the matter.
« IT MUST HAVE BEEN "SATURDAY" | Main | POETS & WRTERS MAKEOVER »
The comments to this entry are closed.
In his recent TEV guest review of Home Land, Jim Ruland called Sam Lipsyte the "funniest writer of his generation," and we're quite inclined to agree. We tore through Home Land in two joyful sittings and can't remember the last time we've laughed so hard. Lipsyte's constellation of oddly sympathetic losers is rendered with a sparkling, inspired prose style that's sent us off in search of all his prior work. In Lewis Miner's (a.k.a Teabag) woeful epistolary dispatches to his high school alumni newsletter ("I did not pan out."), we find an anti-hero for the age. Highly, highly recommended.
Sauron eats Remainder brain? Impala rams Brit?
Pinche oy vei!
Posted by: Cesar Bruto (Que Bruto!) | March 27, 2008 at 12:40 PM
Why can't both be true? And one might be because of the other. That's how it seems to me.
Posted by: Rory O'Connor | March 27, 2008 at 04:48 PM
Sorry, Rory, you need to be more specific than that because neither I nor every other site that's linked to this item sees anything other than a completely contradictory volte face. Which is entirely allowed, by the way, it just bears notice.
Posted by: TEV | March 27, 2008 at 05:03 PM
Rory: Perhaps it bears noting that the crisis in book reviewing was pinned to the reduction of newspaper book reviews. The assumption was that print reviews by professionals were, prima facie, superior to any other kind of book discussion, and that their demise signaled the impending doom of book culture. A very different argument is being made here.
TEV: Apropos of nothing in particular -- my dad once told me, when I was updating his tax treatise and castigating him for failing to use active verbs, that I would come to see the value of the passive voice. I laughed then, and told him he was wrong. But whaddaya know, the old man knew a few things.
Posted by: Maud | March 27, 2008 at 08:46 PM
Maud, I don't think the point I was making in that Guardian piece -- that there are far more reviews and book discussion available online than any one person can digest, book junkie or not -- and some of the arguments I made as NBCC president -- specifically, that we needed to preserve as many independent book sections as possible, in print as well as online -- are contradictory. Lots of people get their literary news only in print, and may keep reading that way for the time being, so long as there are print newspapers and magazines for them to pick up. For that reason, I've always felt that it's important for sections, from the Rocky Mountain News to the Richmond Times, to keep publishing book reviews and covering literary matters as news. I don't say this as a slight at 'non-professional' critics (if non-professionals were the only people allowed to talk about books, there would be very little book conversation at all!). Nor do I think "book reviews" are the only important part of book culture. Lots of exciting things are happening on blogs and in literary journals and places where the word professional is (and rightly so) anathema. But many of these publications are read by very small numbers of people, whereas even small newspaper sections still reach large numbers of people. And the goal is to reach as many people as possible, no? Or at least the populist in me feels like it should be. It's not an either/or. But occasionally, personally, I need a time-out from reading *about books* to recharge my readerly batteries, and in those moments I find myself wondering how much reading about books we truly need to do (as individuals) to be readier for the reading, as Edmund Wilson put it.
Posted by: John Freeman | April 01, 2008 at 03:17 PM