On Books as Sweaters
tags:
book reviewing, books, literary criticism, NBCC, Oprah, writing
When did books become totally irrelevant to the life of the majority of the population in the US? The one purpose they could be counted on to serve, that of entertainment, has been gradually replaced by the movies, the television, the Internet, the MP3 player. The other function of the novel, for instance, to instruct, has been usurped by reality television. The reading masses who in Victorian England made Dickens and Trollope and Collins bestsellers and kept Mudie’s lending library in business today are now learning how not to behave from the derelicts on “The Real Housewives of the OC.”
The next sector up of the reading public is reading whatever Oprah tells them to. And still more sophisticated readers ignore Oprah and listen to the New York Times, which is not much more reliable. Not that there’s anything wrong with Oprah’s picks, or the NYT anointed. They’re usually fine. But very rarely is the writing anything great.
You know what is great? Their marketing team. The amount of negotiating it took for those books to get under the nose of the right person at the right time. Sure, they all have a basic level of excellence. But they are reduced to commodities instead of texts. In this schema, it is irrelevant to establish why Special Topics in Calamity Physics is inferior to On Beauty. People will buy and read both because the New York Times told them to, and who cares about the difference?
I care about the difference.
It’s like that scene in “The Devil Wears Prada” when Meryl Streep coolly explains the trickle-down theory of fashion: that what Andie thinks is an anti-choice (throwing on the first sweater she sees in her closet in the morning) is actually a choice that has been made for her by the people she thinks are irrelevant to her life: those at the very apex of the fashion industry (who are responsible for the sweater’s existence). And you’re right to assume that in this schema, books are sweaters. (It’s just that On Beauty is Chanel whereas Special Topics is J. Crew). The people who buy Oprah’s books are making a non-choice. They’re just bringing in pizza because they’re too lazy to cook. Nothing wrong with pizza. But what’s wrong with cooking? And besides—who are you going to trust to recommend something to eat, Oprah or a food critic? Both, probably, but I would hope more credence would be given to the trained professional.
There are only five freestanding book review sections left in the country and the Atlanta Journal-Constitution fired their book editor two weeks ago. This is bad, and over six thousand writers and book lovers have signed a National Book Critics’ Circle petition asking the AJC to reinstate her. But does anyone actually care if book reviews have their own section in a newspaper or if they’re just thrown in with all the other arts coverage. For that matter, why should books get their own section?
I can’t really give you a convincing enough reason. I can only shake my head and say wistfully that books ought to be much more important than they are. Books do everything the other arts do and they do it more articulately. Books teach us to be functioning, expressive individuals. Movies and television give you empty lines to repeat while you get drunk with your friends. Books make you think for yourself.
« La littérature peut beaucoup, » writes Tzvetan Todorov in his recent essay La littéreature en péril. « Elle peut nous tendre la main quand nous sommes profondément déprimés, nous conduire vers les autres êtres humains autour de nous, nous faire mieux comprendre le monde et nous aider à vivre. Ce n’est pas qu’elle soit, avant tout, une technique de soins de l’âme ; toutefois, révélation du monde, elle peut aussi, chemin faisant, transformer chacun de nous de l’intérieur. » (p. 72)
“Literature can do many things. It can lend a hand when we are profoundly depressed, open us up to the other human beings surrounding us, help us better to live and to understand the world. This is not to say that it is above all a means of healing the soul; nevertheless it can be revelatory, and transforming.” (p. 72)
“Literature has a vital role to play,” Todorov argues, but in order for it to do so it must return to the status it enjoyed up until the end of the 19th century. This is where literary critics come in. So you want to read something other than what Oprah tells you to? Great! But without book reviews in newspapers—at the very least—where are you going to find out what’s worth reading?
Ah yes, that’s right. I forgot. You’re already there. You’re here. The internet.
We’ll talk about that more, next class. I promise I won’t leave you hanging. But this is long enough for now.
» read
leave a comment Litbloggers and the NBCC: “Separate But Equal”
Haggis informs me that the NBCC has initiated a new campaign to save book reviews.
I was prepared to jump on board completely for this project—that is, until I read John Freeman’s words on the subject:
Elsewhere at the Los Angeles Times, the Chicago Tribune, Newsday, the Minneapolis Star Tribune, the Memphis Commercial Appeal, the Cleveland Plain Dealer, the Dallas Morning News, the Sun Sentinel, the New Mexican, the Village Voice, Boston Phoenix, the Atlanta Journal Constitution and dozens upon dozens of other papers book coverage has been cut back or slashed all together, moved, winnowed, filled with more wire copy, or generally been treated as expendable.
And we’re getting tired of it. We’re tired of watching individual voices from local communities passed over for wire copy. We’re tired of book editors with decades of experience shown the exit. We’re tired of shrinking reviews. We’re tired of hearing newspapers fret and worry over the future of print while they dismantle the section of the paper which deals most closely with the two things which have kept them alive since the dawn of printing presses: the public’s hunger for knowledge and the written word.
So the board of the National Book Critics Circle has launched a campaign to try and beat back these changes. Over the next six weeks, in a new series on our blog Critical Mass, we will feature posts by concerned writers, interviews with book editors in the trenches, links to op-eds by critics, novelists and other NBCC board members, Q&As with newspaper editors and owners who will explain the business context for these changes, and tips for what you can do to help save book reviewing.
I whole-heartedly recognize the unfortunate and absurd decisions by some newspapers to cut or severely reduce their book coverage. If a newspaper expects to offer dutiful arts coverage, then that coverage should certainly extend to books. The current practice of hacking away these pivotal limbs is absolutely disgraceful for book reviewers and book critics and the literary community at large.
Yet, even as a freelance book reviewer and an NBCC member, I must play a partial doubting Thomas.
Why does Freeman exclude litbloggers, literary podcasters, and other online voices who write about or cover books? What of Robert Birnbaum’s thoughtful interviews at Identity Theory and The Morning News? Or Rick Kleffel’s podcasts at The Agony Column? Or Ron Silliman’s meditations about literature? These people will continue to write about literary matters, irrespective of whether newspapers exist or not. In fact, if the newspapers continue to fold, it’s very possible that some of today’s shining freelancers—perhaps even Freeman—will be forced to continue their work online, assuming there are still paying conduits. One can complain until one is blue in the face about “saving” book reviewing. But let’s be clear in our terminology here. “Saving” implies that book reviewing is some gray whale about to become extinct. But what we are seeing here is an evolution and a convergence point, not an extinction. As the thousands of litblogs now occupying the Internet will attest, there are still people who are crazy enough to care. Whether they will develop into tomorrow’s Daniel Mendelsohns or John Updikes or Edmund Wilsons is anyone’s guess. But how can we know if these voices are not cultivated or approached or encouraged?
Why has the NBCC campaigned predominantly on the behalf of professional critics without enlisting the help of amateur critics or litbloggers? A visit to MetaxuCafe demonstrates that “individual voices” are doing quite well online. Where some newspapers are content to snip thoughtful 2,000 word reviews down to 650 word reviews, a length that simply cannot do some books proper justice, or abandon column inches altogether, the blogosphere presents no obstacles to length or commitment. So why limit the achievements of literary criticism, as Freeman does so regularly in his roundups, to mere NBCC members? Why not, for example, open the door a crack and establish a relationship between the NBCC and the LBC? Is there not strength in numbers? Are there not fertile voices in the litblogosphere to be cultivated and developed? Can’t we all just get along?
I must also ask the troubling question of whether book reviewing, as it currently exists in some circles, actually needs to be saved. When Sam Tanenhaus and Leon Wieseltier continue to devote the majority of their review space to nonfiction, it’s very clear that fiction isn’t a regular requirement. It’s also very clear with some of the NBCC panels that popular and genre titles are beneath serious critical consideration. And while it’s certainly egregious to see serious literary criticism passed over for fluff, perhaps the current roster of book critics don’t provide, dare I say it, an accessible or entertaining entry point, or even an inclusive range, into thoughtful criticism.
To be perfectly clear, I am not calling upon literary enthusiasts to turn an isolationist eye to shrinking review space in newspapers. This too is a serious problem and one that calls for action.
What I am suggesting is something far more ambitious than John Freeman: a united front, whereby literary and “sub-literary” enthusiasts of all stripes, print and online, litblogger and journalist, campaign on behalf of literary coverage in as many conduits as possible. If that means mobilizing to preserve a book section in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, then let anyone who cares about literature sign petitions and send emails. If that means finding some medium where thoughtful and daring voices can continue to practice criticism and earn a modest living from it, then why not have a conference and action in which the inevitable convergence of print and online is seriously considered?
You want to know what I’m tired of? I’m tired of the needless divide between Freeman and some litbloggers. I’m tired of Daniel Mendelsohn being obsessed with Technorati. I’m tired of Sam Tanenhaus asking other people about me instead of asking me directly what my apparent beef is. I’m tired of Keith Gessen’s needless vanguard machismo and his unfortunate reliance upon generalizations instead of supportive examples and thinking that will benefit all parties.
How can we save book reviewing when Freeman writes of “put[ting] our energy into a prize honoring the best books of the year, and singling out critics who have consistently helped us find them,” while single-handedly ignoring that the litblogosphere is also doing this and having a sales impact, through highlighting overlooked titles with the LBC Read This! selections and helping other readers to find titles.
No less a critical institution than John Leonard, recently honored by the NBCC, observed in an interview with Meghan O’Rourke:
Reviewing has all become performance art; it’s all become posturing. It’s going to have to be the lit blogs that save us. At least they have passion.
The time has come for the John Freemans of the world to accept this passion instead of ignoring it, to not “generally treat” litbloggers “as expendable.” The time has come for litbloggers and book reviewers to realize that, while their respective approaches may be different, there is much that each can learn from the other.
» read
4 comments
