Ginnie's review
A Reader's Manifesto: An Attack on the Growing Pretentiousness in American Literary Prose
by B.R. Myers
I've said it before and I'll say it again.
I love Paul Auster, no matter what this guy says.
I think the book is moronic. I read bits and pieces of it. With respect to Paul Auster - I think his early work is great. The later works are not that interesting to me.
I think it was interesting that he was willing to criticize the literary establishment, who is part of the problem.
And yet I liked Annie Proulx, and a couple of the authors he panned in his book.
The one thing it did get me to do is be a little more critical of what I pick up, as opposed to just thinking that because the NYT says its good I should check it out. Or because it won a prize, I should read it.
Not necessarily... :)
Edited to fix bold tag
Wise points, Xysea, especially about not swallowing the NYT opinions whole. I bookmarked a group of relevant articles several years back from Slate that might reenforce your opinions:
On Michiko Kakutani: http://www.slate.com/toolbar.a...
The NYT Book Review: http://www.slate.com/toolbar.a...
Washington Post: http://www.slate.com/toolbar.a...
I am about to start Balzac's _Lost Illusions_, which this author cites as being Auster's better before Auster got his style. I'm perfectly happy to investigate his claims. He may even be right!
Ginnie,
Thanks for the links. I'll check them out. :)
Xysea
Michael,
My son who is happily plowing his way through Balzac would applaud you. Forward the vanguard!
Fiction and 'Literary' Fiction
I hunted up a review of Myers original article at the NYT The Close Reader; Fiction and 'Literary' Fiction. By Judith Shulevitz
September 9, 2001. http://query.nytimes.com/gst/f...
He cites it himself in the book.
Ms. Shulevitz offers a measured short review ending with the best useful statement about the entire food fight:
"We can roll our eyes at our writers, we can laugh at their moments of baroqueness and vulgarity, but we also get to love them. Myers says American critics lack discernment, but hating indiscriminately is a greater sin than loving too much."
Yes, and the cynic in me wonders how much Myers was trying to advance his own opinion vs. stir the pot.
But, as I rarely read criticism - in fact, the only other in recent memory was by Nick Hornby (and it was entertaining, too) - it's always healthy to get another perspective.
Thanks for posting this! It added another dimension to my thinking about critique of literary establishment.
Just dropping in to point out one other thing the book version adds to the articles: more quotations of prose that Myers likes (for instance, on pp. 36-37, from Balzac).
This helps a great deal. The polemic sounds much less crankish when Myers is allowed to present positive examples.
Ginnie's review
A Reader's Manifesto: An Attack on the Growing Pretentiousness in American Literary Prose by B.R. Myers
Ginnie's review
rating:
bookshelves:
books-about-books,
literature
The only thing the book adds to the article is the chapter that quotes and answers criticisms in the book reviewing sources. Myers faithfully notes each source so an interested reader can pick up the original thread. We reading addicts may not be his intended audience but reading this kerfuffle has been useful in toning up the blood.
Full disclosure: After reading and hating Rick Moody's The Black Veil: A Memoir with Digressions, I have been hoping some smartie might take him on - so I have a small vested interest in his snarky hits on Moody.
The reviews here make it sound important + funny. Couldn't ask for anything more.
With a couple of lawyer sons, pretentiousness is an ever threatening cloud over their prose.
Meika commented and pasted in this link from The Atlantic Online. Afraid of losing it I have copied it here.
All you need to read from this book is in the article:
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc...
The...more
Full disclosure: After reading and hating Rick Moody's The Black Veil: A Memoir with Digressions, I have been hoping some smartie might take him on - so I have a small vested interest in his snarky hits on Moody.
The reviews here make it sound important + funny. Couldn't ask for anything more.
With a couple of lawyer sons, pretentiousness is an ever threatening cloud over their prose.
Meika commented and pasted in this link from The Atlantic Online. Afraid of losing it I have copied it here.
All you need to read from this book is in the article:
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc...
The...more
I've said it before and I'll say it again.I love Paul Auster, no matter what this guy says.
I think the book is moronic. I read bits and pieces of it. With respect to Paul Auster - I think his early work is great. The later works are not that interesting to me.
I think it was interesting that he was willing to criticize the literary establishment, who is part of the problem.
And yet I liked Annie Proulx, and a couple of the authors he panned in his book.
The one thing it did get me to do is be a little more critical of what I pick up, as opposed to just thinking that because the NYT says its good I should check it out. Or because it won a prize, I should read it.
Not necessarily... :)
Edited to fix bold tag
Wise points, Xysea, especially about not swallowing the NYT opinions whole. I bookmarked a group of relevant articles several years back from Slate that might reenforce your opinions:On Michiko Kakutani: http://www.slate.com/toolbar.a...
The NYT Book Review: http://www.slate.com/toolbar.a...
Washington Post: http://www.slate.com/toolbar.a...
I am about to start Balzac's _Lost Illusions_, which this author cites as being Auster's better before Auster got his style. I'm perfectly happy to investigate his claims. He may even be right!
Ginnie,Thanks for the links. I'll check them out. :)
Xysea
Michael,My son who is happily plowing his way through Balzac would applaud you. Forward the vanguard!
Fiction and 'Literary' FictionI hunted up a review of Myers original article at the NYT The Close Reader; Fiction and 'Literary' Fiction. By Judith Shulevitz
September 9, 2001. http://query.nytimes.com/gst/f...
He cites it himself in the book.
Ms. Shulevitz offers a measured short review ending with the best useful statement about the entire food fight:
"We can roll our eyes at our writers, we can laugh at their moments of baroqueness and vulgarity, but we also get to love them. Myers says American critics lack discernment, but hating indiscriminately is a greater sin than loving too much."
Yes, and the cynic in me wonders how much Myers was trying to advance his own opinion vs. stir the pot.
But, as I rarely read criticism - in fact, the only other in recent memory was by Nick Hornby (and it was entertaining, too) - it's always healthy to get another perspective.
Thanks for posting this! It added another dimension to my thinking about critique of literary establishment.
Just dropping in to point out one other thing the book version adds to the articles: more quotations of prose that Myers likes (for instance, on pp. 36-37, from Balzac).
This helps a great deal. The polemic sounds much less crankish when Myers is allowed to present positive examples.