September 8th, 2009 / 12:41 pm
Author Spotlight
Chris Tonelli on Ellen Kennedy, at Open Letters Monthly
After the epic fail that was Matt Soucy’s lazy, mean-spirited review in Coldfront–a rare blunder for one of the best poetry sites out there–it brings me enormous pleasure to direct your attention to Chris Tonelli’s excellent microreview of sometimes my heart pushes my ribs, newly online at Open Letters Monthly.
Tags: Chris Tonelli, Ellen Kennedy
“epic fail”
how come?
reply
September 8th, 2009 / 1:21 pmMatt Cozart—
did you read that review?
reply
yeah.
reply
I like Chris’s review and I really liked Kennedy’s book, too, and I say so here: http://www.octopusmagazine.com/issue12/main.html
reply
September 9th, 2009 / 3:32 pmshampoo head—
I loved Ellen’s book. One reviewer said her vulgarity was too plain, not “exuberant” like Ginsberg’s vulgarity. So? I enjoyed every word in this wonderful book. Finally someone writing what goes on inside the head, instead of wearing the poet’s “hat.” Brava Ellen. You are wonderful. Trust your instincts, ok. The world will follow.
reply
September 9th, 2009 / 7:41 pmJustin Taylor—
Kathleen- Yes, I liked your review a lot. I thought I linked it back when the octopus issue first came out, but maybe I should have directed people there again. Anyway, thanks for throwing the link up–first time, again, or whatever.
reply
i reviewed Ellen’s book at matador earlier this March.
the review is here: http://matadorgoods.com/poems-for-travelers-sometimes-my-heart-pushes-my-ribs/
i just checked in the backend and it currently has 4974 views
i wonder if anyone from matador bought her book. i hope so.
reply
September 9th, 2009 / 7:39 pmJustin Taylor—
David, I meant to thank you yesterday for posting this link. I spent some time on your site and it’s interesting. And yeah, it’s a solid piece on Ellen. Thanks for popping up.
reply
September 10th, 2009 / 11:02 pmdavid miller—
word. thanks justin. i was stoked to hear about your creative writing students today. linked to that in my blog. we’ve just started teaching travel writing so it’s good to get all different perspectives. bigup.
reply
kennedy blows. Great review at coldfrontmag.
reply
For the record, I liked Kennedy’s book for the same reason’s Soucy hated it.
reply
September 8th, 2009 / 3:20 pmCatherine Lacey—
That’s good. I think that review was honest.
reply
September 8th, 2009 / 7:08 pmNathan (Nate) Tyree—
I felt like it needed more editing. It was 1/2 genius, 1/2 weak. That’s my honest opinion. This reviewer was being honest, but too harsh. It isn’t okay to ‘like everything’ nor is it okay to go soft on a book that you hated, but… there’s no need to be mean. You can pull punches a little. When reviewing non-famous writers, I do tend to look for the thing that is laudable in the book I disliked. If there is nothing good to say, I tend to remain mum. Even my negative reviews (of non stars) tend to have something constructive to say.
That’s just me, though.
reply
~40 copies of the first printing of Ellen’s book are left.
Available here: http://muumuuhouse.com/ellenkennedy.poetrybook.html
reply
The Coldfront review was pretty mean but I think it was honest. The other day when Blake posted something like “it’s not ok to like everything.” I think it’s completely ok to write a very unfavorable review. You probably think that too, right Justin?
reply
September 8th, 2009 / 3:36 pmMatt Cozart—
An opinion can be honest and still be wrong, or based on dumb ideas. Glenn Beck is undoubtedly being honest when he expresses his idiotic opinions, but, you know.
reply
September 8th, 2009 / 5:37 pmNathan Tyree—
I’m not so sure that beck is being honest. He’s a panderer and asshat
reply
September 11th, 2009 / 3:08 pmMatt Cozart—
Yeah, but I believe he believes what he’s saying. Honesty isn’t necessarily a virtue. Anybody can be honest. It’s easy. But being honest isn’t the same as being right.
i’m with catherine…
what was an epic failure? how? it’s an unfavorable review sure, but i’m not getting why justin thinks it’s a failure…
reply
Did Kennedy publish many of these poems in journals before Muumuu house put it out? The Coldfront review mad me wonder that…
reply
September 8th, 2009 / 4:22 pmMuumuu House—
Poems from Ellen Kennedy’s book were previously published in, among other venues, the following venues: Mipoesias, Juked, 3:AM Magazine, 2nd Ave Poetry, Melancholia’s Tremulous dreadlocks.
Poems and work not included in her Muumuu House book had been published in the following venues: Elimae, Bear Parade, Luna Negra, Alice Blue Review, The 2nd Hand.
This is not a complete list.
reply
I think the review on Coldfront is honest too, however, I think the reviewer should back up his criticism by actually using direct quotes from the text. I get that he hated the book and found it torturous, but its a reviewer responsibility to reread the text and show by examples. I thought he did a lot of talking and little showing.
D-
The book doesn’t have an acknowledgment page so I’m assuming not a single poem appeared in a journal- but does it matter? According to the reviewer it does, but what do y’all think?
reply
September 8th, 2009 / 4:31 pmD—
A book of stories or poems not previously published anywhere would give me a lot of hesitation for a lot of reasons, but this appears to not be the case here anyway (see Muumuu’s post above)
reply
steven,
for what it’s worth i don’t think it matters much if the work has appeared elsewhere before becoming a book…i have a book coming out on post-apollo in a few months…didn’t appear anywhere else before being accepted…i think what people might be concerned (?) about re: kenney’s book is nepotism. but the book sold well so whatever…but did the book sell well because of lin, or because of the work? seems like that’s what the cold front review might be getting at…which i think is valid.
reply
September 9th, 2009 / 11:21 amMatt Cozart—
Why should a review concern itself with book sales at all? That’s extraliterary, gossipy stuff.
reply
” I think it’s completely ok to write a very unfavorable review.”
It is a sign of your generation that someone, presumably literary, considers this something to voice her opinion on.
Now that writers like Kennedy, and more so, her Svengali, are getting some disinterested reviewers not part of your little tribe, they are getting “unfavorable” reviews like normal writers always have. (See the devastating ones of the Shoplifting book on Bookslut and Anthem that Lin, to his credit, posted links to on his blog today.)
What was not normal was getting reviews from your friends. This is healthier. In the old days it was considered unethical to review your friends. Of course that was for real publications, not your little self-produced blogs. I understand you need some reviews, but it’s good to see reviews of these writers by people they don’t Gmail chat or eat vegan chow with every other day.
reply
September 9th, 2009 / 11:11 amMatt Cozart—
The old days? Which old days are those? In the old days Walt Whitman wrote reviews of Walt Whitman under false names. In the old days Ezra Pound reviewed T.S. Eliot. In the old days Shelley reviewed Keats (not that they were friends exactly, but they knew each other).
reply
Justin, you little vontz, what exactly is your relationship with Kennedy?
It’s nice to defend your friends, but in real publications — you’ve published in some, like The Believer and are generally a good writer — presumably you’d be asked to provide “full disclosure” on a writer/subject you were selected to write about/review.
Of course you can post here any time you damn feel like it. (We can comment here the same way, so I guess fair’s fair). But your relationship with Kennedy (my own assumption is that you’re a protective friend to a vulnerable young woman, which is entirely admirable outside this context) makes you the wrong person to characterize a bad review of her book.
You’re at RUTGERS, after all!
reply
September 8th, 2009 / 11:41 pmZip—
VOICE OF REASON
reply
September 9th, 2009 / 8:26 amJustin Taylor—
Hey, CCC, go fuck yourself. I’ve had it up to hear with your weird way of addressing me. little vontz? Seriously dude, go creep somebody else out.
reply
September 9th, 2009 / 11:18 amMatt Cozart—
L’il Vontz sounds like the name of a comic strip character circa 1910.
reply
September 9th, 2009 / 11:27 amdavid erlewine—
CCC, please enlighten us. Where does “little vontz” come from? It does sound like a comic strip character before WWI or perhaps a Yiddish term. I’m confused and curious.
I do agree with Justin that it’s creepy.
September 9th, 2009 / 11:31 amMatt Cozart—
Perhaps he’s suggesting Justin studies molecules? http://vontz.uc.edu/
September 9th, 2009 / 11:49 amdavid erlewine—
ha! i saw that link too. i’m intrigued.
September 9th, 2009 / 3:57 pmMatt—
I used ‘google’ to look up the word vontz. It is an affectionate term for a mischievous child, according to this:
http://books.google.com/books?id=L5Wt5UV-TDoC&pg=PA147&lpg=PA147&dq=little+vontz&source=bl&ots=NM9sdLHDL6&sig=gwr92EoVzlabIDYVfsAuPypjVrU&hl=en&ei=UAioSse-A47YtgP3keHKBQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2#v=onepage&q=little%20vontz&f=false
‘I usually use quotes in my reviews but I won’t be doing so here because it would require opening the book again.’
reply
September 8th, 2009 / 5:57 pmmike—
I think this reviewer is ‘funnier’ than tao lin’s ‘blog’ so i am inclined to ‘not hate it’
reply
September 8th, 2009 / 7:10 pmNathan (Nate) Tyree—
That’s funny
reply
john sakkis-
Yeah, I don’t think it matters whether the poems were published or not, but it looks like the book just doesn’t have an acknowledgment page- sorry for the misinformation. I think you’re right about what the reviewer is getting at. I think it’s just one of those books that you either love or hate.
Oh, and looking forward to reading your book when it comes out.
Ryan,
Your comment cracked me up!
reply
Steven, et al- the review is bad because it’s bad, not because it’s negative. If you want a great and totally relevant counter-example, see Kati Nolfi’s review of Tao’s novella in the current Bookslut. She really, really, really hated a book that I liked a lot, but her review is thorough, engaged and very smart. In fact, I’m going to link it in a post later, probably, because it’s really worth reading.
reply
the review over at coldfront was dismissive in a crotchety way. i mean in tone. as if there is no way something like kennedy’s book could even considered art. i mean, you could prolly quote something smart from the review, but overall, i don’t think the reviewer was open to even considering kennedy’s work. like my mom looking at duchamp and going, “but he just hung a urinal on the wall.”
what “real publications” require disclosure. i mean, you’ve heard of whitman, right? he reviewed himself for chrissakes. poetry has a long history of building communities who start presses and publish one another, not just because their friends, but because they love each others work. i can’t believe i even had to say that.
reply
Yes, and the truth is that as far as disclosures go, the one to be made is not about Ellen–a person I admire very much, but know in “real life” only in a very limited way. I wish I knew her better, frankly, but them’s the breaks. If you want a disclosure, how about the fact that I went to grad school with John Deming, Graeme Bezanson and Melinda Wilson–the three heads of Coldfrontmag.com. I’ve known them for years, and spent oodles more time with them than I ever have (or probably ever will) with Ellen Kennedy. Does this affect anyone’s reading of my calling them out about Soucy’s review? Does it maybe explain why I bothered to fold a compliment into the middle of that critique? Or is it possible, just maybe, that these facts have NOTHING to do with the issue at hand, which is emphatically NOT about who knows who (Ellen Kennedy is friends with Tao Lin! Have you heard?) but is about what makes (or doesn’t make) for useful criticism.
Also, full disclosure- John and Melinda are DATING. Have been for years. They even live together, so I bet they’ve seen each other naked. And yet they run a poetry criticism website! Together! How inside baseball is that shit?
reply
The reviewer at Coldfront certainly expressed some very strong emotions about Ellen’s book. I think there is some good sarcastic writing in the review but yes I found it unnecessarily harsh. The worst thing about the review is the TYPOGRAPHY. If you are going to use Times New Roman you ought to allow for a little more LINE-HEIGHT and larger PARAGRAPH MARGINS.
Also, the title you see when mouse hovering the graphic of her book cover is “kennedy ellen cover” which is only marginally coherent.
reply
I found the Coldfront review miles more entertaining for it’s rabiditiy than the Tonelli, but nothing about it formed any kind of opinion beyond the zero knowledge I had of Kennedy’s work to begin with. It was the Tonelli review that led me to conclude I wouldn’t be interested in reading it, which is what good crit should do, right?
This thread is fighty.
reply
seems that if someone defined ‘review’ it might be easier to decide whether the review ‘in question’ was ‘good’ or ‘bad’
reply
November 6th, 2009 / 4:44 pmsugar—
i think ‘good’ and ‘bad’ mean ‘good to eat’ or ‘bad to eat’
i think broccoli is good to eat but my friend hates broccoli
hates it
feels intense and passionate dislike for it
reply