Having finished this book, I feel like I've just ended a bad relationship. Things started off well: I was so sure that I would enjoy Avid Reader that I had it, sight unseen, on my wish list, but my library hold came through before I could buy it. I dove in and the first, fortuitous chapter was smooth sailing. Then came the uncertainty. Was this all there was? What I said I'd liked about previous flings with memoir and biography--the gossipy sense of famous people endlessly colliding--was now being used against me in a series of anecdotes that went nowhere and meant nothing. A self-assured, confiding voice turned petty and prideful. Style devolved into tics. We fought, and I contemplated giving up on things for good, but then some little gem of insight or narrative would come along to remind me why I'd picked up the damn thing in the first place. It's over now. I stayed up late to finish reading, not because I couldn't put it down, but because I couldn't bear the thought of having to spend another day reading it.
...I rated this three stars at the beginning of this review, typed that, and then lowered it down to two. I can easily see why someone would like this book, but I am not that someone.
Avid Reader is Robert Gottlieb's memoir of--mostly--his work: how he started at Simon & Schuster, moved to Knopf, briefly took over The New Yorker, and slid sideways into working for ballet companies and writing dance criticism. As a behind-the-scenes tour of publishing, there's a fair bit here to enjoy--one passage near the end, on "giving the reader a break," nearly justifies the entire book in and of itself: "Keep the price of the book as low as possible. Make sure the type is legible--when possible, generous, readability is all. Don't talk about an important photograph or portrait and then not show it. Deploy useful running heads--the name of a particular story or essay rather than the name of the author (the reader knows the name of the author). Shun running feet as opposed to running heads..." This is great, crunchy insider-detail, Gottlieb taking the lid off to let you see the inner workings. And there are occasional stories here that are charming in the flippant way Gottlieb describes as the folly of editorial memoirs ("Leo! Don't just do war, do peace, too!"). Gottlieb and Joseph Heller struggling to think of a replacement number for Catch-22 because the original, 18, was used too recently in another title; Gottlieb eventually has the epiphany that "twenty-two is even funnier than eighteen," which he admits doesn't quite make sense, and yet somehow does. Or there's Gottlieb's story of working with Bill Clinton as he was writing My Life, and how Gottlieb eventually admitted to Clinton that the experience had changed his life in two significant ways, the second of which was that he would no doubt get a more substantial advance for any memoir he'd ever write because of it. All of this is either interesting or charming.
But, unfortunately, those sections are drowned out by the rest of the book, where a culturally elite Who's Who wander through, briefly encounter Gottlieb, and either get praised by him and adopted into his seemingly endless network of friendships, "palships," "full-service friends," "undeclared closeness," and/or "real intimacy," the source of banal "we ate ice cream together at night" stories or "she stayed in my apartment in Paris" or "I stood in at his wedding" stories... or, alternately, get slapped down and put in their place. The former entries are dull and the latter are surprisingly bitter and frequently hypocritical. Gottlieb is always criticizing people for making any public show against him or daring to air their dirty laundry--I assume, at this point, that I know every word that was ever written against him, because he repeatedly notes that contrary to what was printed/rumored, he actually... instead of just telling his version of events. He has to tell his version of events versus--and then doing the exact same thing. He drags Lillian Ross for writing a memoir about her affair with William Shawn, and then goes on to gleefully describe a screenplay she wrote afterwards which features thinly-veiled versions of Ross, Shawn, and Gottlieb himself: "Can Lillian really have believed that anyone would produce such a movie?" After declining to publish a commissioned New Yorker piece by Jamaica Kincaid about her experience growing up under colonialism because it was too angry (which strikes me as a limited view of colonialism, but okay, buddy), they encounter each other at a funeral and Kincaid (apparently fulsomely) apologizes for having misjudged him and says that she now knows he's a good person--and Gottlieb describes with delight how he socially snubbed her by passive-aggressively pretending not to know what she was talking about. This is, perhaps, the kind of story you tell your friends, who share your annoyances and are in automatic sympathy with you, but being kind of a dick to a woman at a funeral after telling her that she was too upset by her country having been colonized does not really make you come off well. Nor does the story of sending Pauline Kael a sarcastic "thanks for your support, Pauline" note after Kael, who criticized everyone, criticized The New Yorker in an interview. Nor does dragging Katherine Hepburn for her sense of privilege and self-absorption and desire to remain famous, when Gottlieb himself is equally self-absorbed despite not being nearly as famous as Hepburn.
At one point, with no visible irony, Gottlieb pats himself on the back for having "kept his mouth shut" and refused to criticize Tina Brown, the woman who took over his editorial position at The New Yorker ... after a pointed parenthetical mentioning that the magazine hemorrhaged money after he left, a story about how Brown had to ask if a cartoon was funny or not, and some snide commentary about how Brown had been hired "to make the magazine 'hot, hot, hot' (to use a favorite phrase of hers."
More charming bits. Gottlieb knows "with absolute certainty that [John le Carre] was not anti-Semitic, far from it," but decides that what his memoir needs is a prolonged section about his struggle to get le Carre to edit out some, in fact, fairly anti-Semitic language. (His inclusion of this despite his backhanded assertion that it means nothing about le Carre's character or beliefs makes more sense once you know le Carre left Knopf, but that's okay, because Gottlieb is here to tell you that his novels deteriorated.) Both Katherine Hepburn and Lauren Bacall get diagnosed by Gottlieb as being, by virtue of being actresses, desirous of, and "responsive to" firm "direction," and he happily tells stories of them being unreasonable until he decisively tells them what's going to happen, whereupon they, delighted by a strong hand, go along. (I feel like this kind of language could be saved for the bedroom.) And after sidelining his family for the entire book--which, given that this is a work memoir, made sense, or would have made sense if Gottlieb weren't so eager to brag about his friends that seemingly everyone he's ever spoken to makes their way into the pages--the closing pages give us Gottlieb's summation of his son Roger--"He's as nice a man at sixty-three as he was a boy of ten, and I'm very fond of him, but our lives rarely converge"--which is a) one of the most tepid accounts of parental love I've ever read and b) basically how Dexter Morgan (of Dexter, unsurprisingly), a sociopath, described his nascent feeling of affection for his sister. And after reasonable praise throughout the book, Gottlieb's wife Maria gets this lovely bit at the end: "Her intelligence is deep if masked, though it's irksome that Janet Malcolm insists Maria is more intelligent than I am. (I can't believe she really means it.)" What a guy, right?
None of this, honestly, would be a problem in a biography, which may be why I favor biographies over memoirs. Gottlieb's humblebrags (did you know that, unlike other editors, he preferred humble sandwiches in his office to elaborate, expensive lunches? If you don't, you'll surely find out, because he mentions it several times) and celebrity obsession would be anatomized or at least neutrally-presented character quirks and not narrative padding to struggle through. The revolving door of famous and semi-famous intellectual elites would get some context and development and not just drift in and out after they and Gottlieb braid their friendship bracelets and declare their undying loyalty to each other. Generous and undoubtedly genuine praise wouldn't be slightly tainted by the fact that it's the person who received that praise making sure that you know he got it. This is, really, a memoir in search of a proper biographer, because right now, it's too constricted by pettiness to have any real perspective.
Also, in the very last section, we find out that Gottlieb's uncle was a famous Soviet spy. I feel like that could have been given more attention, as it's almost objectively more interesting than anything else here.