It's lovely to read something on Substack about literature that is both serious and treats books with a light touch. So much on here that deals with publishing and criticism can be either deliberately iconoclastic or far, far too worthy and mannered, and in both cases the tone is often oh-so serious and unfunny. So cheers, this was refreshing!
An excellent summary. I agree with most of it after having been the book editor of the Plain Dealer (and reviewed, as you have, for the Globe and WaPo. I'd add:
1) The screening of books at the Globe and WaPo tends to be more rigorous than at smaller publications. That fact may explain why I see some of the problems you mention as higher-order flaws. You'd see lower-order issues more often at, say, Kirkus, for which I've reviewed a lot, just because Kirkus has to review more books, no matter how glaring their flaws: e.g. an author of multiple novels has run out of gas or a memoirist gives conflicting details about his or her background in successive volumes of a life story.
2) A smaller but extremely annoying issue in both fiction and nonfiction is what you might call James Patterson-itis: very short paragraphs or chapters, whether or not they serve the story well. John Updike summed up one problem with the attenuated paragraphs in a review of one of Bruce Chatwin's books: He said Chatwin's paragraphs were so short, he seemed always to be interrupting himself.
I see people reading short-chapter books on the train a lot, I think it may be a design for people who aren’t planning on sitting with a book for an extended period.
Meh. I wonder what your goal in writing a negative review of a book—especially one that hasn’t even come out yet—*is* exactly. Is it to steer potential readers away? Is it to highlight your superior knowledge and understanding of how the world intersects with literature over the writer, her agent and publisher? Is it because you are yourself a frustrated writer? 🤷♀️
This is the first time I've read criticism on All the Secrets of the World and yes. I loved Almond's craft book Truth is the Arrow Mercy is the Bow. Good and sharp and poignant. So I read his novel and was frustrated with the genre spread and the heavy-handed lesson-to-be-learned. But more than anything with the dialogue. I still can't believe Anthony Doer gave it such a glowing blurb.
I strongly disagree with your take on Framing Stories. Julie and Julia is one of my favorite movies, and I truly loved both parts to it. Wally Lamb’s books are stories within stories too, and of course there’s Midsummer’s Night Dream. I think it takes a lot of talent to create a narrative surrounding another story, especially because it mirrors the human experience. Aren’t we all just living inside a story framed by another story and finding narrative connections? Please don’t discourage other writers from thinking on this expansive level. Also, I am definitely going to check out The Pinch.
Amen! Without Nick's watchful eyes, the Great Gatsby wouldn't be as great.
Also, I don't think No. 7 was a problem. Everyone has a different palette, and I like expansive novels. The problem I see nowadays is that too few contemporary authors have attempted to write big stories.
I haven't read Norumbega Park, but is it possible the author named his protagonist Angel to establish an allusion to Measure for Measure (in which Angelo pursues a nun)?
I'm completely with you on point #2. When a writer 'screams their influences', especially if they pay homage or reference one of the literary greats, in my eyes they assume the responsability of getting their artistry if not at that level, at least close to it. And most fail in this regard. One of my biggest star-dropping criteria.
Of your 7 objections, I agree most with nos. 1 and 3. That's because they're the ones most likely to cause disappointment for the reader and make them feel cheated.
2 I don't care about very much one way or the other. 4 should be fine if you're writing a thriller, or some kind of satire or wacky comedy. 6 I actually like - Dickens did it all the time; so did all kinds of other famous authors.
5 is OK if used right, i.e. if there's a good storytelling reason - you're trying to distance yourself from the narrative, cover up implausibility, give a different character perspective. BTW I thought "American Pastoral" had an interesting story and characters, but it was hideously overwritten in parts. Most of the book is supposed to be Zuckerman's imagining of the hero's story, so the approach is probably meant to tell us something about Z's personality; but I found it often exasperating to read ("Hey Phil, please stop hitting me over the head with this endless series of numbered 'conversations about New York' that all say basically the same thing").
7 is like 5, you can make it work if you know how. Mostly, this means a huge all-embracing novel ("Ulysses," "Gravity's Rainbow"), or if you don't want to write at that length, do something jokey and fragmented ("At Swim-Two-Birds").
Yep - and I'm incredibly tired of this trend. But framing work as a reframing of a classic seems one of the few ways to get it past the publishing gatekeepers.
It's lovely to read something on Substack about literature that is both serious and treats books with a light touch. So much on here that deals with publishing and criticism can be either deliberately iconoclastic or far, far too worthy and mannered, and in both cases the tone is often oh-so serious and unfunny. So cheers, this was refreshing!
Thanks, Tom! I'm glad you found it interesting!
An excellent summary. I agree with most of it after having been the book editor of the Plain Dealer (and reviewed, as you have, for the Globe and WaPo. I'd add:
1) The screening of books at the Globe and WaPo tends to be more rigorous than at smaller publications. That fact may explain why I see some of the problems you mention as higher-order flaws. You'd see lower-order issues more often at, say, Kirkus, for which I've reviewed a lot, just because Kirkus has to review more books, no matter how glaring their flaws: e.g. an author of multiple novels has run out of gas or a memoirist gives conflicting details about his or her background in successive volumes of a life story.
2) A smaller but extremely annoying issue in both fiction and nonfiction is what you might call James Patterson-itis: very short paragraphs or chapters, whether or not they serve the story well. John Updike summed up one problem with the attenuated paragraphs in a review of one of Bruce Chatwin's books: He said Chatwin's paragraphs were so short, he seemed always to be interrupting himself.
I see people reading short-chapter books on the train a lot, I think it may be a design for people who aren’t planning on sitting with a book for an extended period.
It seems to be in vogue to write extremely short chapters, especially when the author juggles two POVs.
Meh. I wonder what your goal in writing a negative review of a book—especially one that hasn’t even come out yet—*is* exactly. Is it to steer potential readers away? Is it to highlight your superior knowledge and understanding of how the world intersects with literature over the writer, her agent and publisher? Is it because you are yourself a frustrated writer? 🤷♀️
All of the above!
This is the first time I've read criticism on All the Secrets of the World and yes. I loved Almond's craft book Truth is the Arrow Mercy is the Bow. Good and sharp and poignant. So I read his novel and was frustrated with the genre spread and the heavy-handed lesson-to-be-learned. But more than anything with the dialogue. I still can't believe Anthony Doer gave it such a glowing blurb.
Given the recent blurbs discourse, I suppose it’s best to view them as favors more than anything else.
Blurbs only reveal who the author knows and the pedigree of his/her MFA program.
I strongly disagree with your take on Framing Stories. Julie and Julia is one of my favorite movies, and I truly loved both parts to it. Wally Lamb’s books are stories within stories too, and of course there’s Midsummer’s Night Dream. I think it takes a lot of talent to create a narrative surrounding another story, especially because it mirrors the human experience. Aren’t we all just living inside a story framed by another story and finding narrative connections? Please don’t discourage other writers from thinking on this expansive level. Also, I am definitely going to check out The Pinch.
Amen! Without Nick's watchful eyes, the Great Gatsby wouldn't be as great.
Also, I don't think No. 7 was a problem. Everyone has a different palette, and I like expansive novels. The problem I see nowadays is that too few contemporary authors have attempted to write big stories.
I haven't read Norumbega Park, but is it possible the author named his protagonist Angel to establish an allusion to Measure for Measure (in which Angelo pursues a nun)?
Then it violates #2, as well.
I'm completely with you on point #2. When a writer 'screams their influences', especially if they pay homage or reference one of the literary greats, in my eyes they assume the responsability of getting their artistry if not at that level, at least close to it. And most fail in this regard. One of my biggest star-dropping criteria.
Of your 7 objections, I agree most with nos. 1 and 3. That's because they're the ones most likely to cause disappointment for the reader and make them feel cheated.
2 I don't care about very much one way or the other. 4 should be fine if you're writing a thriller, or some kind of satire or wacky comedy. 6 I actually like - Dickens did it all the time; so did all kinds of other famous authors.
5 is OK if used right, i.e. if there's a good storytelling reason - you're trying to distance yourself from the narrative, cover up implausibility, give a different character perspective. BTW I thought "American Pastoral" had an interesting story and characters, but it was hideously overwritten in parts. Most of the book is supposed to be Zuckerman's imagining of the hero's story, so the approach is probably meant to tell us something about Z's personality; but I found it often exasperating to read ("Hey Phil, please stop hitting me over the head with this endless series of numbered 'conversations about New York' that all say basically the same thing").
7 is like 5, you can make it work if you know how. Mostly, this means a huge all-embracing novel ("Ulysses," "Gravity's Rainbow"), or if you don't want to write at that length, do something jokey and fragmented ("At Swim-Two-Birds").
Feminist reframing of classical myth is pretty popular these days, I see a lot of those, often even centered on the same myth.
Yep - and I'm incredibly tired of this trend. But framing work as a reframing of a classic seems one of the few ways to get it past the publishing gatekeepers.
Did you write this comment in the shed?