"as [he] likes to say, novels are a curious moral case, in that we feel guilty about not reading more of them but also guilty about doing something as frivolous as reading them; and wouldn't we all be better off with one less thing in the world to feel guilty about?"stead's novel is lengthy and arcane, and should apparently give the list maker certain pause before he decides to include it in his summer reading. the man who loved children, like its contemporary brideshead revisited, isn't likely to make it onto any 'looking good in pants' list this season or next. but my summer reading continues apace nonetheless, even if my coverage of the literary press has fallen behind. i could waste my time in worser ways.
i should be able to finish the kazushige abe book today, and the canal should be an easy evening's read for tomorrow. i haven't yet gotten my hands on a copy of day for night, but powell's did (who's surprised) have a cheap japanese paperback of the woman in the dunes. that, i think, i'll read last. which means absolutely nothing. aimee bender's book hasn't yet been replaced, but the potential of the museum of innocence has grown since i've had istanbul off the brain for the past several days. or, maybe i'll read brideshead revisited after all.
i did, though, reconsider removing bender's book from my list after reading this new essay by laura miller on the waning power of traditional publishing authority to dictate what and how we read. encouragingly, her analysis focuses on the effects of the emergence of digital self-publishing and social networking on choices for readers and not on the shrinking ranks of the traditional publishing camp. thank god, because otherwise i would digress. and a hot topic digression at a blog that organizes itself around linking tangents and digressions by self reference is dangerous. that, i suppose, is just a blog, though, and nothing new. i'd still prefer to be able to enjoy some of this beautiful afternoon.
miller's essay ultimately makes no conclusion, but rather opines around answering the rhetorical questions it posits: how will readers with limited time decide what to read without the filter of a professional editorial establishment? won't we start to avoid reading if we're constantly wasting time slogging through literary "slush?" aren't the new literary "gatekeepers" of the blogoshphere just as fallible as any professional editor?
important questions, for sure. as a new literary gatekeeper myself, i'd argue that my admitted fallibility makes me no less competent -- unless incompetence can be gauged by the ill sense of my willingness to produce for free (for the time being). simultaneously, there isn't an overwhelming body of evidence to accredit the authority of established taste makers. only a handful of major publications produce consistently thoughtful work on books. and i'd like to think that the books they review (and especially the books they review well) aren't chosen based on hierarchies of conglomerate organization (although i probably know better). but then you have reviews like this one from the oregonian of, incidentally, aimee bender's book.
the oregonian isn't a great paper. i haven't bought one since i stopped needing its reprints of the previous sunday's nyt crossword puzzle. but for some reason, powells.com saw fit to post this "review" at its review-a-day section last week. it's under 500 words, which isn't damning in itself. but in its three and a half paragraphs, it does very little more than reference the publisher's jacket copy and then quote the publisher sanctioned publicity excerpt. i sincerely doubt (and i mean that to the word, not in just the cliched idiomatic sense of that phrase) that the reviewer did not read the book. i understand that the gatekeepers of miller's essay are the people making decisions on what gets published to begin with, which is to be distinguished from what is well received by critics. but in as much as reviewers do write in a capacity to help readers narrow their reading choices, they are to be included under her gatekeeper framework. and if reviews like that one in the oregonian are a measure of the quality of book reviews in most newspapers and magazines, then i say that the old gatekeepers are in fact out of touch, incapacitated and deserve to be supplanted. why stop amateurs from doing better jobs? it's not a question of print versus digital -- the review in question i read online -- but of the ineffectualness (and, by extension, non-necessity) of the current establishment.
manifesto over. bender's book is about a girl who can taste the emotions of the people who cook the food she eats. maybe i should read it and review it myself. i have been baking nearly every third day of the last few weeks. i'm charmed lately by the idea of having cake to give to guests. for me, the particular sadness of lemon cake was deciding not to go to the store to buy more white flour and baking one with whole wheat flour instead. what could have been a light, fragrant early summer delight turned out too dense, too dark and, well, tasting too much like whole wheat. my icing, though (i pretended that i was making the cake just to use the cream cheese i found in the fridge at work that expired on the 14th), was perfect.
strangely, miller introduces her essay on reader choice and editorial authority with a reference to augusto pinochet, but doesn't write at all about the explosion of new chilean literature (or the translations of new south american literature that are finally showing up on american shelves) that's occurred since the fall of that chilean dictatorship. i will definitely be spending an evening with alejandro zambra's the secret lives of trees at some point this summer. maybe for that evening i'll take another stab at that cake.
No comments:
Post a Comment