Ummmm . . .

I know, I know, it’s pointless to expect a review of The Pale King on Fresh Air to have any redeeming value, but still, there is bad and then there is bad.

John Powers’ piece would be the latter:

Writers love to grumble about the popularity of self-help books, yet they, like everyone else, are always looking for someone who will teach them how to live. Just think of all those guys who learned their masculinity from Hemingway or those classy-sounding books with titles like How Proust Can Change Your Life or How To Live: A Life of Montaigne.

Pro tip: Don’t make it completely obvious that you don’t have even the most basic familiarity with the books you cite in your lede!

I just find it disappointing that a venue like NPR, which obviously has the resources to do much better, regularly pumps out book coverage of such low quality. And this is important stuff. Publishers completely love NPR because its coverage by far leads to the most sales of any venue. Lots of impressionable readers take NPR very seriously! If it actually had even mediocre book reviews a lot of good could be done.

But instead NPR listeners get nonsense like this:

Now, Wallace’s fiction isn’t always enjoyable. It reminds me of the films of Jean-Luc Godard, which can bore you comatose one minute and then, moments later, wow you with an epiphany that forever changes your way of thinking. Although his novels aren’t as emotionally satisfying as those of his friend Jonathan Franzen — the conventional Truffaut to his radical Godard — he was his generation’s genius, the voice other writers heard in their heads.

I’m getting a little tired of people peddling this idea of Wallace as a writer who was pretty painful to deal with but “worth it” for those rare flashes of insight. Whether or not you have this experience of his books, it’s just a dumb way to look at them. First of all, no one should read literary fiction for “an epiphany that forever changes your way of thinking.”

Why on earth would you read a book that mostly sucked except for some flashes of insight? But this is the idea of literature that is routinely being trotted out with The Pale King: Wallace as some kind of literary strip mine by which hardy readers managed to extract some useful life lessons. Is this really the view of literature that our nation has?

This view also completely contradicts the idea of Wallace as a writer of immense skill, which, of course, every hack dutifully calls him. If Wallace’s books were 50% dull crap and 50% epiphany, he’d be a mediocre writer in need of an editor. He wouldn’t be the greatest voice of his generation.

And then there’s this nonsense about his novels not being emotionally satisfying, another crime that lazy book reviewers like to tag Wallace with. I’m not going to bother to argue the merits of that one, but, again, why this bogus dichotomy between the “brainy” books and the “emotional” ones?

Why impoverish the idea of emotionality in literature by pigeonholing it into something like “a round character whose pain you can identify with”? To take just one example, I find Sebald to be an amazingly emotional read for the fact that he so expertly evokes the sensation of nostalgia (among others), despite having nothing resembling conventional “emotionality” in any of his books. Even if you were to admit that Wallace was cerebral to the point of ignoring character–and anyone who has read him at all knows that’s not the case–there are other ways his books could have been emotional.



Recent Posts




Criticism Isn't Free


CR is dedicated to thoughtful, in-depth criticism without regard to what's commercially appealing. It takes tens of hours each month to provide this. Please help make this sort of writing sustainable, either with a subscription or a one-time donation. Thank you!

You could also purchase one of my acclaimed ebooks.





3 Comments

Got Something To Say:

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

“Why on earth would you read a book that mostly sucked except for some flashes of insight?”

People have been doing that with the same book for nearly 2,000 years already – why change now?

ouch! Good one!

But seriously, NPR is merely reflecting the general dumbing down of people. It really IS happening. As competition increases for peoples’ time and attention there is no grace period for anything reflective or honest on NPR anymore. It costs too much, both in time and money. Middle brow shows like FA allow people who really DON’T want to read books but feel they should (because it’s good for you,makes you hip, your coworkers are reading it etc…)can assuage their guilt at the crap they Do spend their time on (Lost, Project Runway, American Idol etc…). TG has the most annoyingly earnest yet completely fake sense of sympathy and interest with her subjects.

As far as I can tell, NPR only publishes positive book reviews, mostly under the “Books We Like” tag on NPR’s website. Occasionally some critiques sneak in, but I can’t remember seeing a pan, much less an intelligent one, in NPR’s books section.

THE SURRENDER

The Surrender is Scott Esposito’s “collection of facts” concerning his lifelong desire to be a woman.


LADY CHATTERLEY'S BROTHER

Two long essays of 10,000 words each on sex in—and out of—literature . . .

The first essay dives in to Nicholson Baker’s “sex trilogy,” explaining just what Baker is up to here and why these books ultimately fail to be as sexy as Baker might wish.

From there the book moves on to the second essay, which explains just why Spaniard Javier Marías does right what Baker does wrong . . .


THE LATIN AMERICAN MIXTAPE

5 essays. 2 interviews.

All in all, over 25,000 words of Latin American literary goodness.

3 never-before-published essays, including “The Digression”—a 4,000-word piece on the most important digression in César Aira’s career.

Shop though these links = Support this site

Copyright © 2017. Powered by WordPress & Romangie Theme.