Things to not say in blurbs or reviews so as to not sound like a tool: tour de force, startling, bad adverb + adjectives like furiously alive or wildly inventive or utterly involving, triumphant, [last name] swings for the fences, like [blank] on crack, like [blank] on LSD, romp, rollicking, breathless, a unique voice, poignant, sexy (horny is OK), well-wrought, death rattle, tongue fart doublespeak like dizzyingly-high-concept debut of genuine originality, any reference to Dada or surrealism, any employment of the phrase experimental, neo-anything, any vague or direct use of the phrase meditation such as resonant meditations, “[last name] really sings,” cautionary tale, anything about Kafka or Carver or Bukowski, any reconjuring of the phrase reminds us what it is to be human…
Blake Butler—
-
Archives
- January 2023
- February 2022
- September 2021
- February 2021
- January 2021
- December 2020
- November 2020
- October 2020
- September 2020
- August 2020
- August 2017
- July 2017
- May 2017
- April 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
- January 2017
- December 2016
- November 2016
- October 2016
- October 2014
- September 2014
- August 2014
- July 2014
- June 2014
- May 2014
- April 2014
- March 2014
- February 2014
- January 2014
- December 2013
- November 2013
- October 2013
- September 2013
- August 2013
- July 2013
- June 2013
- May 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- December 2012
- November 2012
- October 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010
- September 2010
- August 2010
- July 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
-
Meta
what about tour de farce – that one always gets me in the jugular
what about tour de farce – that one always gets me in the jugular
Yesterday I entered the dark woods. I knelt down by the creek and selected a pebble and ate the pebble. A friend of mine who sells toilet seats for a living in Mississippi told me a Native American friend of his who is a bookie in Memphis, Tennessee told him this was good luck. I thought, “This will give me good luck.” I owe the Native American $1400 BTW. Long story.
Yesterday I entered the dark woods. I knelt down by the creek and selected a pebble and ate the pebble. A friend of mine who sells toilet seats for a living in Mississippi told me a Native American friend of his who is a bookie in Memphis, Tennessee told him this was good luck. I thought, “This will give me good luck.” I owe the Native American $1400 BTW. Long story.
Here is unique voice for Scorch Atlas:
http://www.pankmagazine.com/pankblog/?p=1622
Here is unique voice for Scorch Atlas:
http://www.pankmagazine.com/pankblog/?p=1622
“Shane Jones’s startlingly imaginative voice is like some winged thing—brave, victorious, and solitary. LIGHT BOXES is a beautiful, heartfelt work.”)
Deb
“Shane Jones’s startlingly imaginative voice is like some winged thing—brave, victorious, and solitary. LIGHT BOXES is a beautiful, heartfelt work.”)
Deb
I hate: the most unique or best this-or-that of his time/era/generation, etc, or best to come along in ages, best since ______, all of that hyperbole bugs me.
I hate: the most unique or best this-or-that of his time/era/generation, etc, or best to come along in ages, best since ______, all of that hyperbole bugs me.
Comparing the work to three other much more established writers?
Comparing the work to three other much more established writers?
Blake,
Can you give an example of a blurb you like?
Blake,
Can you give an example of a blurb you like?
“Luminous” gets me every time . . .
“Luminous” gets me every time . . .
“bad noun + adverbs like furiously alive or wildly inventive or utterly involving”
*scratches head*
“bad noun + adverbs like furiously alive or wildly inventive or utterly involving”
*scratches head*
Does anybody read blurbs? Sometimes I look at at the back of a book and see some names but I usually assume that the blurbs contains hyperbolic praise of the book from well-known writers and can safely be skipped. It would be refreshing to see a blurb-less book, or blurbs from the author’s mother and father. I might read those.
Does anybody read blurbs? Sometimes I look at at the back of a book and see some names but I usually assume that the blurbs contains hyperbolic praise of the book from well-known writers and can safely be skipped. It would be refreshing to see a blurb-less book, or blurbs from the author’s mother and father. I might read those.
now that’s a blurb
Add Philip Roth to the list of senseless comps
now that’s a blurb
Add Philip Roth to the list of senseless comps
Or a blurb from a ‘well known author’ who calls the book a shitstorm. I would like that, too.
Or a blurb from a ‘well known author’ who calls the book a shitstorm. I would like that, too.
i read blurbs. even if i have my b/s detector on, it can sell me a book sometimes.
i read blurbs. even if i have my b/s detector on, it can sell me a book sometimes.
I’m curious about this – when I do read them, I think they’re ultimately close to meaningless in that they’re another ‘requirement’ of the book business. Nobody writes a bad blurb or even a critical blurb. Yeah, some blurbs are better than others, but I’ve never been sold by a blurb. Maybe I need to start reading them again.
What do we think of a blurb like this?
“The work in this wondrous first major book by Jennifer Scappettone has a phenomenal – an excitatory – presence, the presence of action, not thing. This book is a matrix of polytemporal energy, a linguistic carnival, ribald and resounding – “a most implicit maze.” The syntactic cadences of the poetry carry enormous semantic content, distributing but also timing meaning, in ways akin to those that one finds in the late works of Henry James, for example, or in Robert Creeley’s writing. But the language of From Dame Quickly – the lexical and linguistic turns of logic and sediments of lore – is Scappettone’s own. It invents absolutely contemporary, 21st-century archaicisms appropriate to erotic play or to ripostes against unjust governance. Subversive puns, seductive sound plays abound; references spin. Lexical pop-ups obtrude – terms or phrases that jump into view from some part of the terrain that is familiarly known as “out of context” but is in truth part of that all-context which is almost the entire human landscape. And that is the scope of this book – every place local and almost but never quite – this is an anti-totalizing project – entire. This is a vast and brilliant book.” —Lyn Hejinian
Or this–not a blurb, but the publisher’s description on the back of a book by Jennifer Moxley:
“Jennifer Moxley’s Clampdown captures a time of political despair and self-doubt. Our “so-called common ground” erodes where liberal thought, implicated in the systems it critiques, finds no traction and becomes the site of new divisions. Against the reality of distant wars, everyday pleasures – even love itself – become frayed by anxiety and shame. Likewise, the past and the future prove unstable, both close to oblivion in a “maddeningly quiescent landscape” of winter. Throughout Clampdown, Moxley responds to the evanescence of both life and art with all her poetic resources, at times declamatory and incisive, at others “freely espousing” and conversational.”
Do either of these make you want to read the book in question?
I’m curious about this – when I do read them, I think they’re ultimately close to meaningless in that they’re another ‘requirement’ of the book business. Nobody writes a bad blurb or even a critical blurb. Yeah, some blurbs are better than others, but I’ve never been sold by a blurb. Maybe I need to start reading them again.
What do we think of a blurb like this?
“The work in this wondrous first major book by Jennifer Scappettone has a phenomenal – an excitatory – presence, the presence of action, not thing. This book is a matrix of polytemporal energy, a linguistic carnival, ribald and resounding – “a most implicit maze.” The syntactic cadences of the poetry carry enormous semantic content, distributing but also timing meaning, in ways akin to those that one finds in the late works of Henry James, for example, or in Robert Creeley’s writing. But the language of From Dame Quickly – the lexical and linguistic turns of logic and sediments of lore – is Scappettone’s own. It invents absolutely contemporary, 21st-century archaicisms appropriate to erotic play or to ripostes against unjust governance. Subversive puns, seductive sound plays abound; references spin. Lexical pop-ups obtrude – terms or phrases that jump into view from some part of the terrain that is familiarly known as “out of context” but is in truth part of that all-context which is almost the entire human landscape. And that is the scope of this book – every place local and almost but never quite – this is an anti-totalizing project – entire. This is a vast and brilliant book.” —Lyn Hejinian
Or this–not a blurb, but the publisher’s description on the back of a book by Jennifer Moxley:
“Jennifer Moxley’s Clampdown captures a time of political despair and self-doubt. Our “so-called common ground” erodes where liberal thought, implicated in the systems it critiques, finds no traction and becomes the site of new divisions. Against the reality of distant wars, everyday pleasures – even love itself – become frayed by anxiety and shame. Likewise, the past and the future prove unstable, both close to oblivion in a “maddeningly quiescent landscape” of winter. Throughout Clampdown, Moxley responds to the evanescence of both life and art with all her poetic resources, at times declamatory and incisive, at others “freely espousing” and conversational.”
Do either of these make you want to read the book in question?
for Ben Marcus’s Notable American Women: “How can one word from Ben Marcus’ rotten, filthy heart be trusted?” – Michael Marcus
for Ben Marcus’s Notable American Women: “How can one word from Ben Marcus’ rotten, filthy heart be trusted?” – Michael Marcus
That’s not to say I’m immune from the name of a writer I like on the back of the book, like if I see a blurb from some writer I like I make the assumption that if they’re on the back of the book they at least liked the book enough to allow the publisher to stick their name on the back of the book. I just don’t think the content of the blurb matters.
That’s not to say I’m immune from the name of a writer I like on the back of the book, like if I see a blurb from some writer I like I make the assumption that if they’re on the back of the book they at least liked the book enough to allow the publisher to stick their name on the back of the book. I just don’t think the content of the blurb matters.
Seeing who blurbs a book can give you a sense of the style of the author, or at least the sense he/she wants to give off.
for Eugene Marten’s Waste: “When a poet pal had put a copy of Waste into my hands, I right away went nuts until I had gotten myself in touch with its author for to add to my household a supply of enough copies to scare all my writer friends with. Here, said I, in wild proclamation, is one for history and a half.”
–Gordon Lish
Seeing who blurbs a book can give you a sense of the style of the author, or at least the sense he/she wants to give off.
for Eugene Marten’s Waste: “When a poet pal had put a copy of Waste into my hands, I right away went nuts until I had gotten myself in touch with its author for to add to my household a supply of enough copies to scare all my writer friends with. Here, said I, in wild proclamation, is one for history and a half.”
–Gordon Lish
for Lily Hoang’s Changing: “”This is an impossible thing, a dream object”
–Joyelle McSweeney
for Lily Hoang’s Changing: “”This is an impossible thing, a dream object”
–Joyelle McSweeney
for Johannes Goransson’s Dear Ra: “Solarity’s always about empire, sort of. Johannes Göransson’s delerious letters to the Egyptian sun God are definitely in America, somewhere between Frank O’Hara’s Mayakovsky and Georges Bataille’s Vincent Van Gogh. ‘I can’t jack off without history peering in,’ he writes. Me neither.” — Ariana Reines
Seems to have worked.
I thought the word was “heartful.”
for Johannes Goransson’s Dear Ra: “Solarity’s always about empire, sort of. Johannes Göransson’s delerious letters to the Egyptian sun God are definitely in America, somewhere between Frank O’Hara’s Mayakovsky and Georges Bataille’s Vincent Van Gogh. ‘I can’t jack off without history peering in,’ he writes. Me neither.” — Ariana Reines
Seems to have worked.
I thought the word was “heartful.”
oh, ‘not for the feint of heart’ is a really good one
oh, ‘not for the feint of heart’ is a really good one
the Hejinian one is interesting. if it was someone else saying that i might just stop reading. in fact i did with that one. but yeah
the Hejinian one is interesting. if it was someone else saying that i might just stop reading. in fact i did with that one. but yeah
So what you’re objecting to isn’t the praise or the hyperbole. It’s the cliches of blurbing and the lazy writing, yes?
So what you’re objecting to isn’t the praise or the hyperbole. It’s the cliches of blurbing and the lazy writing, yes?
of course not the praise. praise is the point. it’s definitely the cliches and laziness, and just a general tendency to speak without saying anything at all
of course not the praise. praise is the point. it’s definitely the cliches and laziness, and just a general tendency to speak without saying anything at all
i had this dream once that carole maso’s blurb for me read: “i finished this book.” her real blurb was much, nicer, of course.
& yeah, isn’t joyelle a killer blurber? i’m humbled, as always.
i had this dream once that carole maso’s blurb for me read: “i finished this book.” her real blurb was much, nicer, of course.
& yeah, isn’t joyelle a killer blurber? i’m humbled, as always.
p roth compared to anything is a def
i hate ‘a game-changer’ or ‘_____ pushes the envelope’ or ‘____ evokes ____ with his/her (anything)’
p roth compared to anything is a def
i hate ‘a game-changer’ or ‘_____ pushes the envelope’ or ‘____ evokes ____ with his/her (anything)’
pitch-perfect.
pitch-perfect.
ooh
ooh
i liked that blurb. she recently asked me to pull it from the Penguin edition. too bad.
i liked that blurb. she recently asked me to pull it from the Penguin edition. too bad.
i wanna hear this story. maybe i already have.
i wanna hear this story. maybe i already have.
sal plascencia is her good friend — so I imagine he said something to her. her email was really vague and strange, but it basically said “i know this is horrible and i feel horrible, but lets just not use my blurb for the Penguin edition.” mean week! deb olin unferth is mean!
sal plascencia is her good friend — so I imagine he said something to her. her email was really vague and strange, but it basically said “i know this is horrible and i feel horrible, but lets just not use my blurb for the Penguin edition.” mean week! deb olin unferth is mean!
what a dummy
what a dummy
deb olin unferth is actually a fuck-up. mean week!
deb olin unferth is actually a fuck-up. mean week!
“Sam, my son, I have heard your prayers and no, you can’t ‘like, totally drill Katie Couric.’ Also, I regret creating you. This book made me lose faith in myself.”
– God
from sam pink’s IAGTCMTKTCAEI
“Sam, my son, I have heard your prayers and no, you can’t ‘like, totally drill Katie Couric.’ Also, I regret creating you. This book made me lose faith in myself.”
– God
from sam pink’s IAGTCMTKTCAEI
I don’t like author described as a hybrid of two or more contrasting well-known authors: “if Isaac Asimov and Charles Bukowski had a bastard child….”
I don’t like author described as a hybrid of two or more contrasting well-known authors: “if Isaac Asimov and Charles Bukowski had a bastard child….”
i like any blurb that contains “fierce intelligence”
i like any blurb that contains “fierce intelligence”
really? man blurbs just turn me off in every way possible.
so if a blurb is from a respected author, does that hold more persuasion over you than a non-respected author?
like is any book an insta-purchase if DFW blurbs it?
really? man blurbs just turn me off in every way possible.
so if a blurb is from a respected author, does that hold more persuasion over you than a non-respected author?
like is any book an insta-purchase if DFW blurbs it?
i like any blurb that contains “grabs you by the balls” or “imagine a world where”
also, re philip roth: “Mr. Taylor has perfect touch, to frightening effect, does not presume, has power, and promises us new things. There is a debt paid to Donald Barthelme…and a strange undertow of Philip Roth, which makes for a new literary beast.” (Padgett Powell, author of The Interrogative Mood )
i like any blurb that contains “grabs you by the balls” or “imagine a world where”
also, re philip roth: “Mr. Taylor has perfect touch, to frightening effect, does not presume, has power, and promises us new things. There is a debt paid to Donald Barthelme…and a strange undertow of Philip Roth, which makes for a new literary beast.” (Padgett Powell, author of The Interrogative Mood )
I think Dallas-Fort Worth should blurb a book.
I think Dallas-Fort Worth should blurb a book.
‘philip roth’ and ‘(his) strange undertow’ sounds disgusting and hilarious.
‘philip roth’ and ‘(his) strange undertow’ sounds disgusting and hilarious.
Yes.
Yes.
“Presents the everyday in a startling new light.” -James Tate
“Takes household objects, little victories, the components of every day life and makes them new.” -Billy Collins
“An exciting new voice…that reexamines every day life and finds new material ripe for mining.” -John Ashbery
“A brave new voice full of wit and verve that both examines our deepest fears and gives us something to hope for, that traverses history and imagination, and that reexamines every day life and finds new material ripe for mining.” -Jorie Graham
“This startling new poet takes the everyday–a kitchen, a cat, a child–and gives us poems both heartfelt and intelligent, both fresh and steeped in tradition. I believe this is the start of a great career.” -Donald Revell
“Presents the everyday in a startling new light.” -James Tate
“Takes household objects, little victories, the components of every day life and makes them new.” -Billy Collins
“An exciting new voice…that reexamines every day life and finds new material ripe for mining.” -John Ashbery
“A brave new voice full of wit and verve that both examines our deepest fears and gives us something to hope for, that traverses history and imagination, and that reexamines every day life and finds new material ripe for mining.” -Jorie Graham
“This startling new poet takes the everyday–a kitchen, a cat, a child–and gives us poems both heartfelt and intelligent, both fresh and steeped in tradition. I believe this is the start of a great career.” -Donald Revell
You can’t say mean week after saying something mean.
You can’t say mean week after saying something mean.
seconded
seconded
i agree with most of these, but i’ve never seen utterly involving. i think that one is kind of hilarious and amazing. like, it would be great if a book had like five blurbs by heavyweights that all just said, “Utterly involving.”
i agree with most of these, but i’ve never seen utterly involving. i think that one is kind of hilarious and amazing. like, it would be great if a book had like five blurbs by heavyweights that all just said, “Utterly involving.”
i bought a book once partly because it was described as a “Dickensian pudding of a novel.” but then it wasn’t that at all. though it was good for other reasons. “Dickensian” is used a lot in really wrong ways
i bought a book once partly because it was described as a “Dickensian pudding of a novel.” but then it wasn’t that at all. though it was good for other reasons. “Dickensian” is used a lot in really wrong ways
as is “kafka-esque”
as is “kafka-esque”
i think all author names should be adjectivized with “ish.” Faulknerish, Mevillish
i think all author names should be adjectivized with “ish.” Faulknerish, Mevillish
Nah, I was saying if I see a blurb by a writer I like on a book by an author I’m not familiar with I might give the book a closer look, but honestly I can’t remember the last time this has actually happened. I’m not sure how to define respected over non-respected. I’m talking about personal familiarity with the work of the blurber.
Nah, I was saying if I see a blurb by a writer I like on a book by an author I’m not familiar with I might give the book a closer look, but honestly I can’t remember the last time this has actually happened. I’m not sure how to define respected over non-respected. I’m talking about personal familiarity with the work of the blurber.
Anything that gets compared to Catcher in the Rye can get fucked.
Anything that gets compared to Catcher in the Rye can get fucked.
Fucking “pitch-perfect.”
Fucking “pitch-perfect.”
I think my staff favorite for SCORCH ATLAS calls it “frighteningly good stuff.” I think I’ll add more adverbs to it tonight.
Mean Week.
I think my staff favorite for SCORCH ATLAS calls it “frighteningly good stuff.” I think I’ll add more adverbs to it tonight.
Mean Week.
i had the adverb + adjective gripe about movie posters. “searingly evocative.” “visually stunning.” are you reviewers just ad people with some down time?
i had the adverb + adjective gripe about movie posters. “searingly evocative.” “visually stunning.” are you reviewers just ad people with some down time?