WHAT WAS SHE SMOKING?

Frankly, I'm baffled by Janet Maslin's review of Bright Shiny Morning, James Frey's *cough, cough* fiction debut. It's written in Frey's curiously incoherent style and is either a low-water mark for book reviewing or a harbinger of the ascendancy of sentence fragments in adult discourse.

I think The Vulture, who predicted Maslin would review Frey favorably, gets it exactly right:

At first we were annoyed, but then we realized that's just good customer service on Maslin's part — we found the style so off-putting that it curbed any desire we might otherwise have had to read James Frey's novel and decide for ourselves whether it's any good.

Frey has his fans, namely social misfits who haven't graduated to Chuck Palahniuk. One supposes that they should be marketed to, but do we have to make them dumber in the process?

Even more troubling is the subject of Frey's novel: Los Angeles. For a certain kind of writer, L.A. is like a mirror in a strip club that gives back exactly the image the dancer is looking for. Frey is that writer. He's padded his bank account with duplicitous projections. Why should this book be any different?

If you're going to read a book about misfits this summer, make it this one. 

Comments

[Anne]

God, that is annoying prose! What was she smoking indeed.

Blech.

[Kris]

Oh. Annoying prose, indeed. Got into the third paragraph and had to stop.

[elizabeth ellen]

couldn't agree more about knockemstiff, jim.

[Steven Augustine]

This is a universe in which the New Yorker now presents reviews of such films as Iron Man and Speed Racer. Nothing dumb is unlikely or unforeseen.

[Kit Stolz]

As far as I know, The New Yorker has always reviewed big commercial films, dumb or otherwise -- certainly Kael did.

But what's even more annoying about this review is that Maslin compares this book favorably to "Beautiful Children," which of course needs and deserves the attention this book doesn't.

Gaah.

[david m]

Another great misfit book that could use the attention: Steve Toltz's "A Fraction of the Whole" - fantastic book.

[Steven Augustine]

"As far as I know, The New Yorker has always reviewed big commercial films, dumb or otherwise..."

We're talking post-Bush standards of "dumb" here. The Burt Reynolds opus "Cannonball Run" is Tartovsky compared to "Speed Racer", no?

[the man who couldn't blog]

Tartakovsky never had this much fun on his set!

Wait...what were we talking about?

[the man who couldn't blog]

Oops. Tarkovsky.

[Stephan]

I'm all argued out from a previous engagement, but if anyone wants to take the bit and run, let me ask, Why do we need to review Mr. Frey's work in the first place?

If it's because he's popular, shouldn't we start reviewing romance novels and the latest W is for Whatever?

If it's because he's a cause celebre (when at TEV, speak as The Voice of TEV does) I wonder why we're all worried about saving book review sections -- if they're just about selling papers and supporting celebrity culture, what is it we can't afford to lose again?

I took exception with the LA Times' review more than any other. In the second paragraph of that review, David Ulin, who my friends are right to say champions the work of many solid, under-recognized authors, wrote:

"Clearly, HarperCollins, Frey's publisher, expects a lot from this book; it reportedly paid a million and a half dollars for it. You can interpret that in a few ways: as a shrewd business decision (as of this writing, the novel is No. 52 at Amazon.com) or as yet another symbol of a book industry in crisis, with publishers grasping at whatever straws they can to manufacture buzz."

This is the second paragraph of a book review. The first paragraph was devoted to talking about Oprah and the type of probing analysis I'd expect to hear over a drink en route to the hors d'oeuvres: "This is a terrible book. The worst I've ever read."

To me, that comes off as someone grasping at the same straws as the publishing industry, someone hungry only for a little buzz. But then I suppose it was a foregone conclusion that all the major media outlets would review this novel. The story behind the story is all that matters.

And with that, and a record-breaking two French phrases on my part, I will turn back into the past.

[Brady Westwater]

I'd be more impressed by everyone's comments if anyone had actually read the book.

[Steven Augustine]

"Oops. Tarkovsky."

Ditto "Ooops", but, the blog comment typo is the "flaw of Allah" that protects us from hubris-imputing perfection in the eyes of a jealous deity.

Meanwhile, Brady: at this point, the onus is on Frey to prove that his latest isn't reeky dreck (word of mouth'll do it), since the first big hit (copiously excerpted; and wasn't there another?) was. I don't need to examine everything that pops out of a dog's sphincter to know it isn't gold.

[Brady Westwater]

I don't disagree, Steven; I was just amused that nobody who has been commenting on the qualty of the book appears to have read it.
And knowing how wrong Frey's researched 'facts' are from the few bits I have read in the review - I'm pretty certain you all are right. But it'd be interesting to also hear from someone who has actually read the book...

[Charles McLeod]

Please, oh Jeebus please, read KNOCKEMSTIFF before reading Frey. If you feel that you must read Frey, read Frey, but read KNOCKEMSTIFF first. This collection is the bastard child of Carver and Harmony Koline's GUMMO. It matters. Frey...well, read Frey second.

[Mike Arno]

An Acrostic Poem for/on James Frey

Just
As
My
Eyes
Suspected:

For now,
Redemption is quick,
Easy, and —
Yuck.

(yraft, yielding, or yeven?)

Why?

http://www.joshuacohen.org/capsulesexquis

[Chris]

The problem with James Frey is that he is a poseur who is convinced by his own pose. And to break the rules you have to know them first, and I don't believe that James Frey ever knew them to begin with. If he would try and write about what it means to be a completely inauthentic person, which he is, which, in some way, we all are, then he would be tapping into the main vein and might be able to sustain himself a little longer. At a base level, James Frey is nothing more than a spoiled brat, yet what complicated things is that he also happens to be a garden variety sociopath, and now he is a garden variety socipathic spolied brat with millions of dollars and a bunch of cool friends. We are never going to stop hearing about James Frey. He is here to stay, and I'm sure in a couple of decades some smart-ass contrarian is going to come along and tell us all why James Frey is the most important writer of his generation. Bet on it. I, for one, don't want to read the new James Frey because James Frey is humourless, without a funny bone in his body, and I don't trust anyone who can't, or won't, try and make me laugh. With James Frey it's nothing but tough-guy blathering and bathos and un-earned sentimentality, sure signs that he is nothing more than a con-man, albeit a pretty savvy one. Norman Mailer, the man who got conned by John Henry Abbot, gave him a pass, and what more needs to be said? Every culture needs it fakirs, and right now, James Frey is ours.

[Steven Augustine]

Someone mentioned "Gummo"! Slow-blooming smile of inglowed joy. Minus the drunken dwarf scene (stagey): perfection.

Chris:

"With James Frey it's nothing but tough-guy blathering and bathos and un-earned sentimentality, sure signs that he is nothing more than a con-man..."

I *like* con-men (DFW, please stand up), but Frey is a con-man who can't write. That's my only "problem" with him as a writer... he can't write. But, quite a few people can't read, either, so...

[Chris]

Steve, I'm interested to know why you would classify DFW as a con-man. Just curious.

[Steven Augustine]

Chris:

I find DFW to be a super-smart writer who sometimes auto-generates kilometers of deeply-allusive-and-or-knowing-seeming prose that resolves to fairly innocuous padding under scrutiny. I also never bought his younger mission statement, implied or stated outright in various interviews, that there was a moral or ethical dimension to his impetus for writing; I suspect, rather, that his motives were/are largely reducible to a pathological compulsion, with an after-tic of lots more smugness and aggression than humanity-embracing generosity of creation.

(Larf)

[callie]

I agree with Kit about Beautiful Children - that was downright offensive, as I thought it was an incredible book worthy of attention and it got far less than it deserved when first out.

While I have many books to read that I can't wait to jump into - I also agree with Brady. I suspect this book is in fact dreck, but I feel compelled to read it for myself (or at least attempt to) before passing judgements. I was furious when people dismissed Beautiful Children without reading it, so how could I dismiss Frey's book without a fair read?

[Steven Augustine]

"I was furious when people dismissed Beautiful Children without reading it, so how could I dismiss Frey's book without a fair read?"

But, Callie, isn't that one of book-reviewing's functions... to enable one to "dismiss" (or avoid) a book one hasn't necessarily read (or read all the way through)? If it's a persuasively-written negative review from a reviewer we trust, hasn't she/he saved us precious time?

Also, I thought that grabbing us, in some way, from page one, was one of the author's jobs? I'm sure lots of great books have been rejected/ignored by agents/editors, but how many good or great books, once out there, have disappeared without a trace?

I once read a review that claimed that a book "took off" after the first... 300 pages! I fainted with laughter. I think the books have to make their way *despite* our indifference... that's one of Art's rules... sink or swim. Hype won't help a bad book become a classic, and initial neglect won't keep a good book down.

[callie]

Steven - I agree with you in part and if ever a reviewer could sway me, it is David Ulin. Yet because I live in Los Angeles, I feel compelled to see it for myself. I'm not saying I'll read the whole thing if the first few chapters don't do it for me (which I'd do with any book), but it's a slippery slope when a book is bashed by many who've not read it.

I suspect Frey's ugly publishing past is partially to blame for the early vitriol and for the record, I'm not a fan of his either. Yet, there are many great books that get thoughtfully taken down all the time. I feel it's my duty to make my own decisions about a book rather relying solely on the reviews.

[stephan]

Callie,

I didn't read the book, and I don't think I bashed it either (not that you said I did) but just to make my point again: I take offense at what books get chosen to be reviewed and how. Here, with Frey, there is a marketing machine at work, a $1 million-plus advance, a titillating backstory, etc., all of which has nothing to do with literary merit. And yet, instead of this book getting judged or not judged on its merits alone (the fate of every other author) it's getting all this attention simply because it was written by The Boy Who Oprah Done Whupped.

I do need to read the book to decide if it is a good novel or not; I don't need to read the book to say I wish the LAT and everyone else wouldn't get co-opted by the salesmen and publicity mavens of New York City publishing houses. It's not like those publishers are buying a lot of ad space; why not just give them the silent treatment if the work they provide isn't the book most worthy of our attention?

[James]

I read "A Million Little Pieces" and actually enjoyed it. This was way before the revelation of his fabrications.

He did adopt a tough-guy pose in that book, and I assumed he was actually a pretty serious bad-ass.

Then I watched some Youtube excerpts from the Oprah appearances, and I was shocked to find that Frey is actually pretty effeminate and talks like a gay guy. Am I the only one who noticed that? Not saying that there's anything wrong with it, but it is unmistakable. There's nothing manly about that guy. It made the whole thing somehow more pathetic.

[Steven Augustine]

...uh... I can't tell if my copy of Burroughs' "Naked Lunch" is lacking in manliness or if it's *too* manly.... tough call...

[callie]

Steven - We are arguing the same point from different angles. I agree that there are many other books worthy of making it into the oh-so-limited review pages. We share this frustration.

Yet once a book has been reviewed, I feel it is wrong of me to let the reviews encourage me not to read a book. I'm tired of being at parties where few have read any of the books they are discussing (yet they state, firmly, they have) and where they quote the reviews as if that is akin to reading the book.

Again - the Frey situation is slightly different, but I felt Brady brought up a good point that no one addressed. We've all had books we believe in fervently that end up getting panned. Does that mean readers should listen only to the critics and skip that book? I don't think so. Before anyone passes judgement on a book (whether they eventually deem it dreck or give it a glowing review), they have to read it.

[callie]

We are arguing the same point from different angles. I agree that there are many other books worthy of making it into the oh-so-limited review pages. We share this frustration.

Yet once a book has been reviewed, I feel it is wrong of me to let the reviews encourage me not to read a book. I'm tired of being at parties where few have read any of the books they are discussing (yet they state, firmly, they have) and where they quote the reviews as if that is akin to reading the book.

Again - the Frey situation is slightly different, but I felt Brady brought up a good point that no one addressed. We've all had books we believe in fervently that end up getting panned. Does that mean readers should listen only to the critics and skip that book? I don't think so. Before anyone passes judgement on a book (whether they eventually deem it dreck or give it a glowing review), they have to read it.

[SKL]

she was a crap movie reviewer -- if i did say so myself:

http://www.thesimon.com/magazine/articles/old_issues/0032_the_critic_critic.html

and is an even worse reviewer of "literature."