John Leonard deserves better than this:
Whenever you hear a child question whether journalistic criticism can sing with deep thought and high art, brandish a copy of John Leonard’s Reading for My Life and resist the urge to spank him with this canonical document. Take the humanistic approach instead. Open the volume at random and read aloud. If the child does not respond favorably to the pure music of this performance, then the child is uneducable, and it’s time for drastic action.
The book picks up 50 pieces of the amazing mind of the late John Leonard, who wrote with a great gift for rich reference; who peered through books with X-ray laser eyes; who read politics with clarity and passion, like the last principled urban liberal, as opposed to the wayward Third Way type; who ranks as the great critic of television—of the signal medium of the American experiment—precisely because he had read all the great books and most of the bad ones and that background helps to place both Twin Peaks and the ash heaps of cable news in high relief.
That lede is just bizarre, but “who peered through books with X-ray laser eyes”? Seriously?
It’s when you read things like Troy Patterson’s review of John Leonard’s Reading for My Life from the new Slate Book Review section that you really have to ask yourself if anyone gives a damn any more. Surely anyone with a high school diploma could come up with something better than X-ray laser eyes, and any editor worth her red pen would never let something like that stand. Alas, I fear that Patterson and his editor knew better but just didn’t care enough to do anything about prose this awful:
Finding ideas in translation, he makes profitable trips to Palestine and Israel, to Egypt and South Africa, to magic realism as practiced behind the Iron Curtain and under a Fatwa. It is telling that the collection devotes little space to British writers—almost as if Julian Barnes and his friends never happened. The implication is that those chaps can look after themselves; this author was an American spirit.
For God’s sake, your critical prose should not resemble publicity copy—and sound worse by the comparison.
You Might Also Like:
More from Conversational Reading:
- Times Change They don't make editors of the NYTBR like they used to. From a memorial recently given for the late critic John Leonard: E.L. Doctorow said...
- Rich Families Over at TNR, Niall Ferguson takes a crack at David S. Landes’s new book on how dynastic families endure. Why do some families become very...
- 10 Great Lit Crit Books Former Booker prize chair John Sutherland on his 10 favorite books of lit crit: . . . continue reading, and add your comments...
- In Which We Pat Our Own Backs Because We Are So Great I don’t really know how to read Liesl Schillinger’s article in the NYTBR as anything but facile self-congratulations. Apparently, Schillinger’s argument amounts to: “we don’t...
- Frank Rich NYTimes columnist Frank Rich is writing a book about life in America post-9/11. If it’s half as good as his columns, it should be a...
Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.





















Marketing the Bolano
Graphs, Maps, Trees










The Names by Don DeLillo (1982)
The Box Man by Kobo Abe (1973, English 1974)
Head in Flames by Lance Olsen (2009)
Agaat by Marlene van Niekerk (2006, English 2010)
The Weather Fifteen Years Ago by Wolf Haas (2006, English 2009)
“The implication is that those chaps can look after themselves; this author was an American spirit.”
I just want to know how you write that with a straight face.
I get the feeling from the review that he’s trying to be entertaining through a tone of gee-whiz and gimcracks.
His review of ABC’s “GCB” sounds the same but works better (which makes sense, considering what he’s reviewing).