Ethan Canin, A Doubter’s Almanac

A Doubter’s Almanac by Ethan Canin (who’s very good, and, as Elaine May, doing her nagging mother routine, would say, that man is a DOCTOR), which I reviewed for the Minneapolis Star Tribune prompted a few further thoughts about what privileged knowledge means in a novel in these days of instantly & universally available information–and what we want from novels anyway–which I said a little about in a piece for The Millions.Canin, Millions

And here’s a good review from the Washington Post’s indefatigible and ever-charming Ron Charles (“even victims of Algebra II will follow his calculations of the heart with rapt comprehension”).


Posted in All, Blog, Reviews | Tagged , , , , , | Comments Off on Ethan Canin, A Doubter’s Almanac

Jane Smiley’s The Hundred Year Trilogy, concluded

Smiley, Golden AgeGolden Age completes Jane Smiley’s Last Hundred Years trilogy (though it won’t really be the last 100 years until 2020, when things promise to be pretty bleak). I reviewed this last volume for the Minneapolis Star Tribune–as I did the 1st 2 volumes : (Some Luck & Early Warning. I don’t know if Balzac or Trollope would be a good comparison, but it’s a big, fat, all-American epic with all the minutiae & monumentalism that marked the nation’s 20th century. Someday, perhaps, when the world looks like the Wasteland and a different sort of human is scuttling toward a new civilization, someone will stumble upon these volumes and say, “So that was what was happening in what was once called the American Century.”Smiley, Some LuckSmiley, Early Warning

There’s a nice interview with Smiley in the Paris Review.

Step inside Smiley’s writing room here.

Or, also by way of the NYT, “Jane Smiley’s Horse Country.”

Posted in All, Blog, Reviews | Tagged , , , , | Comments Off on Jane Smiley’s The Hundred Year Trilogy, concluded

“We are risen apes, not fallen angels”: On being human, humane, & at home in the world.

Here’s a review of another odd & lovely, allegory-inflected novel from (whose Beatrice & Virgil I also reviewed for the Minneapolis Star Tribune. “The High Mountains of Portugal” is Ron Charles’s pick of the month at the Washington Post.Martel, High Mtns

Posted in All, Blog, Reviews | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on “We are risen apes, not fallen angels”: On being human, humane, & at home in the world.

Hope told a flattering tale

Alexander, Military MemoirsIn Military Memoirs of a Confederate: A Critical Narrative, the memoir Edward Porter Alexander wrote before editing and softening it into Fighting for the Confederacy, whose (unnumbered) pages look like this:  Alexander, Military Memoirs of a Confederate





an observation:

A military lesson is to be learned from the result, to wit, that dangers lurk in excess of enterprise as well as in its deficiency.

Then, in looking for the source of a line Alexander cites, “Hope told a flattering tale,” I found it attributed variously to John Wolcott (9 May 1738 – 14 January 1819), also Wolcot, writing as Peter Pindar, who in this amusing anecdote from Anecdotes for the Steamboat & Railroad: Selected from the Best Authors (1853), becomes Walcot:Hope Told a Flattering Tale, fr Anecdotes for the Steamboat & Railroad



Posted in All | Tagged , , , , , , | Comments Off on Hope told a flattering tale

Middlebrow furrowed

The picture the Guardian ran, with the caption: Statistically, 85% of books are bought by women. Photograph: Alamy

The picture the Guardian ran, with the caption: Statistically, 85% of books are bought by women. Photograph: Alamy

Meredith Jaffe, writing in the Guardian (11/4/15), asks: “Middlebrow? What’s so shameful about writing a book and hoping it sells well?” Reading a recent essay in the Sydney Review of Books, she says, “it’s difficult to work out who its author, Beth Driscoll,

intended to insult the most: readers for liking middlebrow books, writers for having the temerity to write them, or publishers for bowing to the demons of commerce by printing them.

Throughout history, writers, musicians and artists have created works of art to keep the wolf from the door and satisfy their paymasters. Without that commercial imperative, there would be no Michelangelo, Mozart, Shakespeare or Dickens. What is so shameful about writing a book and hoping it sells well?

The answer is simple: nothing.”

The only probem being, Jaffe seems to have misread Driscoll, who’s writing more about marketing, about publishers trying to capture broader audiences for their respectable books. (Maybe the readers who respond to the market and get ensnared by books that are actually pretty good are the ones who should be insulted?)

Smith, The Accidental(An aside: Ali Smith, at an appearance where she read from The Accidental, a novel at once wildly innovative and wildly readable, talked about the marketing department at her American publisher clarifying what sort of cover sells books–a girl, the color pink, and an item of clothing–though I’m sure given the time, I’d be able to turn these elements into a completely repulsive design.)

Here’s Driscoll, in “Could Not Put It Down” in the Sydney Review of Books (10/20/15):

When publishers have a big new novel to promote, one with buzz and the potential for significant sales, they will often market it to women readers. These readers are the mainstream of literary culture: research shows that women are (and always have been) more likely than men to read novels, to attend writers’ festivals and to join book clubs. To attract these readers, a novel might be given a cover featuring images of women or children, it might come with a reading group guide, and it might be emblazoned with a sticker from another female-oriented media organisation: Oprah, Richard & Judy, or the Australian Women’s Weekly.

What effects might such packaging have on a novel’s critical reception? Despite recurrent proclamations of an end to cultural hierarchies, a move towards a broad readership still often means a move away from prestige. A book promoted in this way enters the terrain of the middlebrow, a word that suggests exclusion from serious literature.

In making her point, she describes the marketing and reception–and the quality–of three recent novels:

This is evident in three recent Australian novels, by Susan Johnson, Stephanie Bishop and Antonia Hayes. Each of these three novels has features that lend themselves to middlebrow readings, including their gendered packaging and their themes, particularly their attention to the ethics of intimate relationships. At the same time, other aspects of the novels, such as their formal techniques, work against the middlebrow and keep open the potential for these books to be drawn into literary circuits of reception.

She quotes a GoodReads comment:

Susan Johnson is an established author of literary fiction and non-fiction, with several of her books shortlisted for awards. The Landing is her breakthrough book, a change marked by its naturalistic cover image of a woman in a red dress standing at the edge of lapping water. It is not just critics but also readers who notice this packaging: as one wrote on the reader-review website Goodreads, ‘I am guessing that the marketing department at Allen & Unwin have chosen this cliché cover design to appeal to a wider audience than Susan Johnson’s readership who like her literary fiction.’

Jaffe and Driscoll are mostly in agreement, but they both should be put out by Ivor Indyk, whose piece, also in the Sydney Review of Books (“The Cult of the Middlebrow” (9/4/15)), Driscoll is actually responding to. In it Indyk decries the debasement of the “literary” as seen in the lowering of standards in prizes conferred upon books:

It’s in the giving of literary prizes that the cult of the middlebrow seems now to have established itself, which is quite a triumph, if you think of such prizes, as I still do, more and more desperately, as the last bastion, in this world, for the literary recognition that is withheld by the marketplace. I speak as a publisher, and so have to tread carefully – if I mention names I will be accused of bearing a grudge. I do bear a grudge actually – it’s about the thousands of dollars in entry fees I have to pay each year to support the administration of prizes that more and more frequently, in my view, go to authors who are neither challenging or innovative. What they do have, often in abundance, is ‘appeal’.

Which is rubbish. When books like Marlon James’s A Brief History of Seven Killings or Eimear McBride‘s novel, A Girl Is a Half-Formed Thing, or Eleanor Catton’s The Luminaries are winning top awards, it’s hard to see how one could say judges of literary prizes are overlooking “challenging or innovative” work (definitions that have had their own discussion lately).

Indyk thinks this is the fault of literary prize panels, who are going for the popular (and it may be true that the people behind the National Book Awards began a push a few years ago to make their prize-giving more relevant, as can be seen in the adding of a long-list as well as in the inclusion of much more accessible books on those lists ever since):

To whom, then, should we entrust the judgement of literary quality? I’m inclined to favour those who have a critical training in literature, a good knowledge of literary history, and a wide acquaintance with contemporary writing in all its genres. That would exclude a lot of writers, who might otherwise be chosen because they know the craft from the inside, or because they won the prize last time round. I don’t speak of the affiliations and rivalries to which writers might be subject, when judging the work of their fellows. The definition of critical competence I’ve given would seem to favour literary reviewers and literary academics. But many literary reviewers now are primarily writers; and those who are primarily reviewers will have already announced their likes and dislikes in advance, and in public, in their reviews. This must complicate their role as disinterested judges.

His solution?

So I am forced to the conclusion that no one is really suitable to be a judge of literary prizes.

(So such prizes should really be done away with–leaving the judging of worth to the forces of the market, again?)

Indyk, of course, is responding to an article in, well, the Guardian (8/31/15) by Jonathan Jones, “Get Real. Terry Pratchett is not a literary genius“, which measures the mourning for “mediocre” writers such as Terry Pratchett and Ray Bradbury, against the quieter public expressions of grief  over the passing of writers of genuine brilliance, like Gabriel Garcia Marquez and Gunter Grass.

Jones in turn is taken to task, also in the Guardian (8/31/15) (Wow! Rapid turnaround!), by Sam Jordison, in a piece whose title says it all: “Terry Pratchett’s books are the opposite of ‘ordinary potboilers‘”

Ah, the humanity!


Posted in All, Blog, Reading Notes | Tagged , , , , , , | Comments Off on Middlebrow furrowed