Subject
Fw: Nabokov, between ''Lolita'' and ''Pale Fire,'' sold out ...
From
Date
Body
EDNOTE. Since Dale Peck has been mentioned several times on NABOKV-L, I pass on the item below.
----- Original Message -----
From: Sandy P. Klein
To: spklein52@hotmail.com
Sent: Saturday, July 17, 2004 6:59 AM
Subject: Nabokov, between ''Lolita'' and ''Pale Fire,'' sold out ...
'Hatchet Jobs': Smash-Mouth Criticism
By JOHN LEONARD
The book critic Dale Peck has no use for "pomo shenanigans" ≈ or anything else, for that matter.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/18/books/review/18LEONARD.html
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
July 18, 2004
'Hatchet Jobs': Smash-Mouth Criticism
By JOHN LEONARD
HATCHET JOBS
Writings on Contemporary Fiction.
By Dale Peck.
228 pp. The New Press. $23.95.
Charles Eshelman
Dale Peck: the critic as no more Mr. Nice Guy.
LTHOUGH Robert Southey was the poet laureate of England from 1813 until his death in 1843, and a Lake District buddy of Coleridge and Wordsworth, he is hardly read at all today. A wisecrack by Richard Porson may have done some serious damage. About Southey's epic poems, Porson said, ''They will be read when Homer and Virgil are forgotten, but -- not till then.''
You will notice that I mosey. Some of us, when we are about to be unpleasant, are bothered by the feeling that it's almost as hard to write a bad book as a good one and lots easier to write a slash-and-burn review. So we walk around the block to suck up Randall Jarrell and perspective. Others, like Dale Peck, fall down out of the sky on the head of the pedestrian author like a piano or a safe. Peck is his own blunt instrument.
Which is why, in ''Hatchet Jobs,'' his Newgate Calendar of maledictions, he leans on words with primary colors, like terrible, bloated, boring and gratuitous; hate, resent, stale and slather; maudlin, dreck, drivel and insipid; muddled, pretentious, derivative and bathetic -- not to mention scatologies that can't be reprinted here but brought no blush to the bum of The New Republic, where most of Peck's fatwas first appeared and where most of American literature is generally considered a waste of the editors' warped space and deep time.
Peck is so hard on his elders that you suspect him of symbolic patricide, except that he is just as hard on his peers. Famously, of course, Rick Moody: ''the worst writer of his generation.'' But Colson Whitehead gets it for his ''stiff, schematic'' first novel, ''The Intuitionist,'' and a second, ''John Henry Days,'' with ''the doughy center of a half-baked cake.'' David Foster Wallace's ''Infinite Jest'' so much fails to amuse him that he wishes on Wallace an anal assault. Richard Powers, Dave Eggers and the Jonathans, Franzen and Lethem, are rudely dismissed for lack of ''a true empathetic undercurrent'' and what he elsewhere disdains as ''pomo shenanigans.'' Nor is he impressed by the Dirty Realists (trailer homes), the Brat Packers (nightclubs) or the New Narrativists (sexual transgression).
But the wise old heads are also on his chopping block. So Nabokov, between ''Lolita'' and ''Pale Fire,'' sold out to ''sterile inventions.'' At the bottom of its bowl of ''watery oatmeal,'' the subtext of ''American Pastoral'' is Philip Roth's misogyny. Thomas Pynchon in ''a 30-year writing career hasn't produced a single memorable or even recognizably human character.'' Julian Barnes ''crawls under your skin and itches like scabies.'' Stanley Crouch's ''Don't the Moon Look Lonesome'' is such ''a terrible novel, badly conceived, badly executed and put forward in bad faith,'' that it's amazing the guy shows up on Charlie Rose. The ''ridiculous dithering'' of John Barth, John Hawkes and William Gaddis isn't even worth discussing, but they belong to ''a bankrupt tradition'' going back to James Joyce and ''the diarrheic flow of words that is 'Ulysses,' '' which tradition has now broken down ''like a cracked sidewalk beneath the weight of the stupid -- just plain stupid -- tomes of Don DeLillo.''
This isn't criticism. It isn't even performance art. It's thuggee. However entertaining in small doses -- we are none of us immune to malice, envy, schadenfreude, a prurient snuffle and a sucker punch -- as a steady diet it's worse for readers, writers and reviewers than self-abuse; it causes the kind of tone-deaf, colorblind, nerve-damaged and gum-sore literary journalism that screams ''Look at me!'' The rain comes down -- and the worms come out -- and just what the culture doesn't need is one more hall monitor, bounty hunter or East German border guard.
Not that Peck hates everyone. There's Homer, E. M. Forster, Thomas Bernhard, Joan Didion and Kurt Vonnegut. But except for Vonnegut, all they get in his fleet passing are adjectives that glow like gumdrops in the dark. He would much rather seethe and twitch: ''If you aren't a novelist,'' he hair-shirts, ''I'm not sure you can imagine what it feels like to write such heresy. Though I normally write in the morning, I am writing this in the middle of the night like a fugitive; my hands are literally shaking as I type.''
Is he really that afraid of Heidi Julavits? The hit man is projecting. So Western literary culture went off the tracks with J. Joyce, smashed up entirely with D. DeLillo and deserves wholesale junk-heaping, from the modernists who merely twinkle-toed in the theater of war, one blood war after another, to the post-toasties who can't even tell anymore if they're being ironic. In place of the word games, Peck would bring back ''something ineffable, alchemical, mystical: the potent cocktail of writer and reader and language, of intention and interpretation, conscious and unconscious, text, subtext and context, narrative, character, metaphor'' -- novels ''illustrating the tension between society and the self,'' written by the old-fashioned sort of Author-God who ''feels guilty about causing his characters to suffer so much and offers them apologies in the form of epiphanies or the satisfaction of inhabiting a meaningful narrative.''
Scratch a commissar and you get a philistine. But I haven't mentioned Sven Birkerts, have I? Never mind DeLillo, who is smarter than all of us (except maybe Powers). Or Pynchon, whose Mason and Dixon are certainly more memorable than Peck's Martin and John. Or Whitehead, whose ''Intuitionist'' is a levitating marvel. Or Barnes, whose ''Flaubert's Parrot'' has been cunningly ignored. Never even mind Stanley Crouch, who dumped on Toni Morrison and so deserves finding out exactly what it feels like. But Peck devotes more than 30 contemptuous pages to Sven Birkerts, for the street crime and mortal sin of generosity in literary criticism.
Think of it: with a whole world of worthy targets -- Rupert Murdoch, Michael Eisner, Donald Trump, Conrad Black, Eli Manning, Shell Oil, Clear Channel, Conde Nast -- he mugs a man who has spent the last quarter of a century staying poor by reviewing other people's books, who has read more widely, warmly and deeply than the vampire bat fastened to his carotid, who should be commended rather than ridiculed for a willingness to take on a review of a new translation of Mandelstam's journals, and who, even though he wrote a regrettably mixed review of a book of mine in these pages, deserves far better from the community of letters, if there is one, than Peck's bumptious heehaw: ''With friends like this, literature needs an enema.''
It's the relish on this hotdog that turns the stomach. He promises never to do it again, but the very title ''Hatchet Jobs'' reeks of market niche, an underground service like fumigation or garbage recycling. His alibi for being unfair is that he's a novelist, and they lie a lot. But his reputation would have long since earned him the right at his various pillboxes and lemonade stands to review any book he chose, out of hundreds of good ones needing discovery among tens of thousands cynically published, and yet he almost always seems to pick a punching bag, or draw his own bull's-eye on the passing chump. This is lazy, churlish and even demagogic.
I was going to suggest some hard-won guidelines for responsible reviewing. For instance: First, as in Hippocrates, do no harm. Second, never stoop to score a point or bite an ankle. Third, always understand that in this symbiosis, you are the parasite. Fourth, look with an open heart and mind at every different kind of book with every change of emotional weather because we are reading for our lives and that could be love gone out the window or a horseman on the roof. Fifth, use theory only as a periscope or a trampoline, never a panopticon, a crib sheet or a license to kill. Sixth, let a hundred Harolds Bloom. But instead I'll tell a story.
Many years ago the editor of this publication asked me to review John Cheever's last, brief novel, ''Oh What a Paradise It Seems,'' after he had already been turned down by half a dozen critics who knew that Cheever was dying but thought his new book a weak one and didn't want to compromise their supreme importance with a random act of kindness. It never occurred to me that a thank-you note to a wonderful writer, a valediction as it were, would get me kicked out of any club I wanted to belong to, so I immediately said yes. At the time, besides that review, I wanted to write a message to those preening scribblers who thought they were too good for lesser Cheever. On a card, in small caps, I would have said what I say to Peck:
GET OVER YOURSELF.
John Leonard reviews books for Harper's Magazine and The Nation, television for New York magazine and movies for ''CBS News Sunday Morning.''
The New York Times
----- Original Message -----
From: Sandy P. Klein
To: spklein52@hotmail.com
Sent: Saturday, July 17, 2004 6:59 AM
Subject: Nabokov, between ''Lolita'' and ''Pale Fire,'' sold out ...
'Hatchet Jobs': Smash-Mouth Criticism
By JOHN LEONARD
The book critic Dale Peck has no use for "pomo shenanigans" ≈ or anything else, for that matter.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/18/books/review/18LEONARD.html
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
July 18, 2004
'Hatchet Jobs': Smash-Mouth Criticism
By JOHN LEONARD
HATCHET JOBS
Writings on Contemporary Fiction.
By Dale Peck.
228 pp. The New Press. $23.95.
Charles Eshelman
Dale Peck: the critic as no more Mr. Nice Guy.
LTHOUGH Robert Southey was the poet laureate of England from 1813 until his death in 1843, and a Lake District buddy of Coleridge and Wordsworth, he is hardly read at all today. A wisecrack by Richard Porson may have done some serious damage. About Southey's epic poems, Porson said, ''They will be read when Homer and Virgil are forgotten, but -- not till then.''
You will notice that I mosey. Some of us, when we are about to be unpleasant, are bothered by the feeling that it's almost as hard to write a bad book as a good one and lots easier to write a slash-and-burn review. So we walk around the block to suck up Randall Jarrell and perspective. Others, like Dale Peck, fall down out of the sky on the head of the pedestrian author like a piano or a safe. Peck is his own blunt instrument.
Which is why, in ''Hatchet Jobs,'' his Newgate Calendar of maledictions, he leans on words with primary colors, like terrible, bloated, boring and gratuitous; hate, resent, stale and slather; maudlin, dreck, drivel and insipid; muddled, pretentious, derivative and bathetic -- not to mention scatologies that can't be reprinted here but brought no blush to the bum of The New Republic, where most of Peck's fatwas first appeared and where most of American literature is generally considered a waste of the editors' warped space and deep time.
Peck is so hard on his elders that you suspect him of symbolic patricide, except that he is just as hard on his peers. Famously, of course, Rick Moody: ''the worst writer of his generation.'' But Colson Whitehead gets it for his ''stiff, schematic'' first novel, ''The Intuitionist,'' and a second, ''John Henry Days,'' with ''the doughy center of a half-baked cake.'' David Foster Wallace's ''Infinite Jest'' so much fails to amuse him that he wishes on Wallace an anal assault. Richard Powers, Dave Eggers and the Jonathans, Franzen and Lethem, are rudely dismissed for lack of ''a true empathetic undercurrent'' and what he elsewhere disdains as ''pomo shenanigans.'' Nor is he impressed by the Dirty Realists (trailer homes), the Brat Packers (nightclubs) or the New Narrativists (sexual transgression).
But the wise old heads are also on his chopping block. So Nabokov, between ''Lolita'' and ''Pale Fire,'' sold out to ''sterile inventions.'' At the bottom of its bowl of ''watery oatmeal,'' the subtext of ''American Pastoral'' is Philip Roth's misogyny. Thomas Pynchon in ''a 30-year writing career hasn't produced a single memorable or even recognizably human character.'' Julian Barnes ''crawls under your skin and itches like scabies.'' Stanley Crouch's ''Don't the Moon Look Lonesome'' is such ''a terrible novel, badly conceived, badly executed and put forward in bad faith,'' that it's amazing the guy shows up on Charlie Rose. The ''ridiculous dithering'' of John Barth, John Hawkes and William Gaddis isn't even worth discussing, but they belong to ''a bankrupt tradition'' going back to James Joyce and ''the diarrheic flow of words that is 'Ulysses,' '' which tradition has now broken down ''like a cracked sidewalk beneath the weight of the stupid -- just plain stupid -- tomes of Don DeLillo.''
This isn't criticism. It isn't even performance art. It's thuggee. However entertaining in small doses -- we are none of us immune to malice, envy, schadenfreude, a prurient snuffle and a sucker punch -- as a steady diet it's worse for readers, writers and reviewers than self-abuse; it causes the kind of tone-deaf, colorblind, nerve-damaged and gum-sore literary journalism that screams ''Look at me!'' The rain comes down -- and the worms come out -- and just what the culture doesn't need is one more hall monitor, bounty hunter or East German border guard.
Not that Peck hates everyone. There's Homer, E. M. Forster, Thomas Bernhard, Joan Didion and Kurt Vonnegut. But except for Vonnegut, all they get in his fleet passing are adjectives that glow like gumdrops in the dark. He would much rather seethe and twitch: ''If you aren't a novelist,'' he hair-shirts, ''I'm not sure you can imagine what it feels like to write such heresy. Though I normally write in the morning, I am writing this in the middle of the night like a fugitive; my hands are literally shaking as I type.''
Is he really that afraid of Heidi Julavits? The hit man is projecting. So Western literary culture went off the tracks with J. Joyce, smashed up entirely with D. DeLillo and deserves wholesale junk-heaping, from the modernists who merely twinkle-toed in the theater of war, one blood war after another, to the post-toasties who can't even tell anymore if they're being ironic. In place of the word games, Peck would bring back ''something ineffable, alchemical, mystical: the potent cocktail of writer and reader and language, of intention and interpretation, conscious and unconscious, text, subtext and context, narrative, character, metaphor'' -- novels ''illustrating the tension between society and the self,'' written by the old-fashioned sort of Author-God who ''feels guilty about causing his characters to suffer so much and offers them apologies in the form of epiphanies or the satisfaction of inhabiting a meaningful narrative.''
Scratch a commissar and you get a philistine. But I haven't mentioned Sven Birkerts, have I? Never mind DeLillo, who is smarter than all of us (except maybe Powers). Or Pynchon, whose Mason and Dixon are certainly more memorable than Peck's Martin and John. Or Whitehead, whose ''Intuitionist'' is a levitating marvel. Or Barnes, whose ''Flaubert's Parrot'' has been cunningly ignored. Never even mind Stanley Crouch, who dumped on Toni Morrison and so deserves finding out exactly what it feels like. But Peck devotes more than 30 contemptuous pages to Sven Birkerts, for the street crime and mortal sin of generosity in literary criticism.
Think of it: with a whole world of worthy targets -- Rupert Murdoch, Michael Eisner, Donald Trump, Conrad Black, Eli Manning, Shell Oil, Clear Channel, Conde Nast -- he mugs a man who has spent the last quarter of a century staying poor by reviewing other people's books, who has read more widely, warmly and deeply than the vampire bat fastened to his carotid, who should be commended rather than ridiculed for a willingness to take on a review of a new translation of Mandelstam's journals, and who, even though he wrote a regrettably mixed review of a book of mine in these pages, deserves far better from the community of letters, if there is one, than Peck's bumptious heehaw: ''With friends like this, literature needs an enema.''
It's the relish on this hotdog that turns the stomach. He promises never to do it again, but the very title ''Hatchet Jobs'' reeks of market niche, an underground service like fumigation or garbage recycling. His alibi for being unfair is that he's a novelist, and they lie a lot. But his reputation would have long since earned him the right at his various pillboxes and lemonade stands to review any book he chose, out of hundreds of good ones needing discovery among tens of thousands cynically published, and yet he almost always seems to pick a punching bag, or draw his own bull's-eye on the passing chump. This is lazy, churlish and even demagogic.
I was going to suggest some hard-won guidelines for responsible reviewing. For instance: First, as in Hippocrates, do no harm. Second, never stoop to score a point or bite an ankle. Third, always understand that in this symbiosis, you are the parasite. Fourth, look with an open heart and mind at every different kind of book with every change of emotional weather because we are reading for our lives and that could be love gone out the window or a horseman on the roof. Fifth, use theory only as a periscope or a trampoline, never a panopticon, a crib sheet or a license to kill. Sixth, let a hundred Harolds Bloom. But instead I'll tell a story.
Many years ago the editor of this publication asked me to review John Cheever's last, brief novel, ''Oh What a Paradise It Seems,'' after he had already been turned down by half a dozen critics who knew that Cheever was dying but thought his new book a weak one and didn't want to compromise their supreme importance with a random act of kindness. It never occurred to me that a thank-you note to a wonderful writer, a valediction as it were, would get me kicked out of any club I wanted to belong to, so I immediately said yes. At the time, besides that review, I wanted to write a message to those preening scribblers who thought they were too good for lesser Cheever. On a card, in small caps, I would have said what I say to Peck:
GET OVER YOURSELF.
John Leonard reviews books for Harper's Magazine and The Nation, television for New York magazine and movies for ''CBS News Sunday Morning.''
The New York Times