* The LA Weekly arrives a bit late in the game to the whole James Wood/How Fiction Works tussle but the frank Q&A is worth your while.
It seems very humble, helpful, and earnest in its endeavors. Though that didn’t stop Walter Kirn from painting you as the world’s greatest snob in The Times.
I was bemused by the Walter Kirn attack — that’s diplomatese for “I wanted him dead and bound in the trunk of a Lincoln Town Car.” It was the purest American anti-intellectualism: Fiction, he claimed, is about noise on the streets, not words on the page, because words on the page mean ... the library. And that is where I spend all my time, apparently. His review traded in the coarsest binarisms: On one side, according to Kirn, there are [Henry] James and Flaubert, tortured and isolated souls, who spent their lives rubbing nouns and adjectives together in onanistic bliss, and on the other side, there is ... none other than David Foster Wallace! Does Kirn think Wallace did not spend Jamesian amounts of time and energy rubbing together exquisite nouns and adjectives? Of course, he did. Writers who care about language care about such things as nouns and adjectival phrases. They aren’t cowboys — at least, not on the page.
And then there were all the silly things he said about my having a Burberry coat. Alas, he revealed much more about his own social anxieties than he did about my criticism.
* Paris marks Bloomsday.
* Reconsidering Life and Times of Michael K. (Speaking of Coetzee, FOTEV Andie points us to this tantalizing but slight glimpse of his next.)
* A word of advice to academic literary critics.
* Tablet Magazine launches On The Bookshelf, looking at Soloveitchik, Céline, Salinger, and more.
* Ha'aretz hands over the paper to a group of 31 writers for the day, and the Guardian likes the results.
Roni Somek cheered up the weather page with his poem Summer Sonnet ("Summer is the pencil / that is least sharp / in the seasons' pencil case"), while Eshkol Nevo was (perhaps mistakenly) given the TV review, starting his piece "I didn't watch TV yesterday".
* It's good to be a poet in the UK - they actually get knighted.
* Another Kindle objection answered - authors can (and do) sign them. (By the way, speaking of the Kindle, Michael Antman distinguished himself around here last week with some very thoughtful comments on the subject, and we absolutely urge you to check out his full length essay on the subject over at Pop Matters. Thought-provoking and admirably free of cant.)
* Many thanks to Carl Bromley for alerting us to Eduardo Galeano on The Writing Life.
* And, finally, this is old so perhaps you've seen it already but it was new to us (thanks, Paul), and we're speechless at this collection of the most beautiful libraries in the world. How many of them have you visited?
It's interesting how Wood, in his response to Kirn's charges of snobbery, responds with...snobbery.
"Alas he revealed much more about his own social anxieties than he did about my criticism."
I'm sure he did.
Posted by: Niall | June 17, 2009 at 06:46 AM
I see how that's a stab at Kirn, but I don't see how that's snobbery.
Posted by: Nora | June 17, 2009 at 07:07 AM
It's snobbery because Wood is attributing Kirn's criticism of him to feelings of social inferiority. Which is straight up snobbery, of the veddy English variety.
Posted by: Niall | June 17, 2009 at 07:26 AM
Oh, I see your point, but I don't equate "social anxieties" with feelings of inferiority. It seems like one can antipathy for a certain type of individual found in other social classes, particularly a snotty pretentious aesthete, without feeling expressly inferior. But, yes, you are probably right in this context...
Posted by: Nora | June 17, 2009 at 07:42 AM
I read the interview in the LA Weekly, and dug up Kirn's rather hysterical review of "How Fiction Works", and I was struck by a central point of contention that hasn't gotten a lot of attention (at least, based on my narrow reading list). It's important to note how often Wood stresses that his critical perspective is informed by European literature as such, not just English literature. He is constantly pointing out how influenced he is by the French and by the Russian formalists (without ever actually appealing very much to their critical techniques, but that's another matter).
Yet his critics are always hammering away at his Britishness, ignoring his claims to represent any broader tradition of literary criticism. It's also interesting to note the nativism of many of his critics, how they propose against Wood the most American of American critics (i.e., New Yorkers, of course!).
I'm not sure what this means, except to say it shows that American writers have lost touch with European literary criticism that isn't in English, and that this has somehow turned into quite a bitch fight based primarily on anti-colonialist rhetoric that I thought died out in the 1820s.
But that's progress for you.
Posted by: Niall | June 17, 2009 at 10:17 AM
thank you for the libraries, Mark (and Paul, whoever you are). Wow. Wow.
Posted by: Pamela | June 17, 2009 at 05:56 PM
The libraries are amazing. The Peabody in Baltimore is a favorite stop whenever we have visitors. The wrought iron and layered stack make it a jaw-dropping sight.
(The Enoch Pratt ain't too shabby, either.)
Posted by: Dave | June 18, 2009 at 11:49 AM
One of the things I love about travelling is stumbling on these gems of places. My first will always be my fave: Bilblioteca Riccardiani in Florence, Italy. And seeing that website, I see there must be hundreds to discover.
Posted by: Carl | June 18, 2009 at 06:52 PM