September 25th, 2010 / 1:17 pm
Roundup
Justin Taylor
Roundup
Charles Bock reviews Richard Yates in the New York Times Sunday Book Review. Here’s my top pick for a pull-quote: “[Lin] provides accurate, often filthy dispatches on what it is to be young and pushing against the world.”
… Also, in case you didn’t catch it when we bugged out about it the other day, TL’s self-profile in The Stranger is the best piece of satire of 2010 so far, and a strong favorite for best of the year.
I wonder what it is about Tao’s nuts that’s so adhesive.
I wonder what it is about Tao’s nuts that’s so adhesive.
An alternate review in The Boston Globe: http://www.boston.com/ae/books/articles/2010/09/25/tao_lin_spins_a_tale_of_two_oddballs_in_love/
I didn’t know places other than south-central MO even had Price Choppers.
Not exactly a ringing endorsement for Lin. Glad to see I’m not the only one who doesn’t dig his gimmick, I mean style.
Glad to see you’ve mastered the art of finding the nugget of praise in an otherwise shitty review. My personal favorite example of this is from the US edition of David Mitchell’s Cloud Atlas:
The quote Random House uses (also from the New York Times) is: “Mitchell is, clearly, a genius. He writes as though at the helm of some perpetual dream machine, can evidently do anything, and his ambition is written in magma across this novel’s every page. ”
In fuller context, though:
“[Cloud Atlas] is an impressive achievement. Unfortunately, impressive is usually all that it is.
It is a devious writer indeed who writes in such a way that the critic who finds himself unresponsive to the writer’s vision feels like a philistine. So let it be said that Mitchell is, clearly, a genius. He writes as though at the helm of some perpetual dream machine, can evidently do anything, and his ambition is written in magma across this novel’s every page. But ”Cloud Atlas” is the sort of book that makes ambition seem slightly suspect.
The novel is frustrating not because it is too smart but because it is not nearly as smart as its author. “
Yes – from Bock’s review:
“In attempting to explore boredom, Lin recreates boredom. In attempting to write about obsession, he embraces narcissism. If this was his goal, mission accomplished. But the achievement is a low-hanging fruit, and its rewards are limited. By the time I reached the last 50 pages, each time the characters said they wanted to kill themselves, I knew exactly how they felt.”
I think Tao tried to make a book based on reality, even though he put famous actor names in it and wrote hamsters a lot or whatever.
The thing about making a book very concerned with staying true to reality, it doesn’t have these things:
“No friends warn the young writer he might be further harming a disturbed teenager. The girl gets nabbed for shoplifting, but a clerk takes her picture and lets her go. Pregnancy? False alarm. When Dakota’s overmatched mother confronts Haley Joel, of course she gives in, even letting him sleep over and use her car. Having Haley Joel contemplate the ages for statutory rape charges carries none of the dramatic power we might have seen had the girl’s older brother (or father) appeared at his door with a baseball bat.”
In life your bros don’t warn you against dating an underage girl. And I don’t think dads show up to doors with baseball bats in real life.
I understand that happens on television but this is a book.
I think maybe, I am purest of some sort, or maybe a lit snob because I still believe that works of literature shouldn’t have cheese in them.
Talk about cherry-picking!
That’s not a representative quote, J, but I know we’re all Tao over here, and I’m sometimes Tao too. And sometimes not.
I think this review built up to a rising action and then hammered home its point: cleverness is a thin drug.
there was also an admission/faint praise at one point in cohen’s review that lin is “ambitious, intelligent, without regret [and] does have an acute sense for the ambiguous mood and the deadpannings of emotional truth” before proceeding to undercut that faint praise and further criticize. i think “this sort of thing” says more about the critic’s limitations and biases than it does about the work being reviewed. what bock, cohen, and mr. tyler (based on his big other review) have in common are biases and assumptions about what literature is “supposed to be like” and what constitutes a “worthwhile” or “original” or “good” approach to writing a novel (or one’s second novel, if one is considering an author’s “evolution,” as tyler did). these biases and assumptions seem to be not even acknowledged, but simply embedded into critiques with very little evidence of self-awareness. furthermore, these biases and assumptions are based on and expressed via “fairly egregious” rhetoric, the very thing lin has strived to remove from his writing, especially this novel and SFAA. a reviewer who fails to engage a “intelligent,” “ambitious,” novelist on his own terms, or even to be clear what his/her arbitrarily conceived, assumed and unexplained rubric for “good serious literature” is before applying it to the work at hand (whether that makes any sense or not) is a pretty shitty reviewer by any arbitrary standard i can imagine.
cleverness is the most salient feature of the novel only if one overlooks its main focus throughout: the relationship between the two main characters, the story, the plot, the emotions (and if you’re paying attention/thinking, there are a number of strange, interesting moments/references, there’s the whole project of the novel to think about, as something a person did for certain reasons/because of a certain philosophy, etc.). if one doesn’t care about characters/plot/story (and usually people who don’t are into more elaborately clever (show-offy, abstract) novels), than all there is is a “quirky” title, character names, and realistic contemporary setting.
I’m not commenting on the novel itself, since I have not read the novel. I’m commenting on what this reviewer was trying to get across.
And then they ate whale.
I wonder what it is about Tao’s nuts that’s so adhesive.
An alternate review in The Boston Globe: http://www.boston.com/ae/books/articles/2010/09/25/tao_lin_spins_a_tale_of_two_oddballs_in_love/
intelligent, talented, generous, uncowardly, non-homophobic, non-dickweed artists can be pretty inspiring, daniel romo.
KC, KS has Price Choppers…
this is good news. I like them.
Here’s my top pick for a pull-quote-
By the time I reached the last 50 pages, each time the characters said they wanted to kill themselves, I knew exactly how they felt.
But isn’t that just as unfair? Like that makes it seem totally negative, but he gave a little praise too.
I don’t know, maybe you’re being intentionally unfair to make a point. I can’t read your tone. I’m not good at the internet. I guess I should just quit.
“Here’s my top pick for a pull-quote: “[Lin] provides accurate, often filthy dispatches on what it is to be young and pushing against the world.””
I assume that’s a satirical comment on the non-representative nature of pull-quotes…
This is about as negative as NYTBR reviews get these days. They’re struggling to justify their own existence, and they’re not in the business of publishing slams, especially when it comes to young/emerging authors. Even when a reviewer loathes a book, he or she still has to write a review that feels a little “balanced” and acknowledges the cultural context (which Bock fails to do, for what it’s worth… he’s obviously unfamiliar with Tao’s style or Tao’s comments about his own work… where’d he get that screen name thing?).
oh, thanks nick. I didn’t know that. hm. that’s interesting. kind of unfortunate, I guess. wish people would just say what they meant. would be nice, and also then I wouldn’t embarrass myself on the internet.
I can’t see that you embarrassed yourself at all… the above is just my understanding based on knowing several authors who write freelance reviews for them. You won’t see an outright slam unless it’s a) by Kakutani or another name-brand, salaried reviewer or b) it’s of a novel that’s so big they have to review it. (See: Kakutani’s slam of Lethem’s Chronic City.)
I don’t know, Trey. I did write this review
http://theopenend.com/2010/09/04/tao-lins-richard-yates-book-review/
if you feel like trying to figure out my point. Just wanted to step out on the limb.
You’re right Nick. My main gripe with this review is how can it be considered anything but dismissible (okay, points awarded for laughable too) if Block so lamely omits any cultural context for Tao’s work. I mean, name 3 writers reviewed in the NYTBR in the last two years that can compete with Tao’s self-promotion and impact in the world of lit? Name 1 other, ya know?
It seems pathetic and aged that the NYT doesn’t credit any of that for young/emerging authors.
And what does charles block presume to know about the accuracy of what it is to be young and pushing against the world?
Example: Young and Pushing Against the (internet) World 100 tao comments–
http://htmlgiant.com/haut-or-not/haut-or-not-zachary-german/
I don’t think it’s a bad thing that a reviewer who doesn’t like a book acknowledges things that the book does well. I think that strengthens the reviewer’s authority as an intelligent reader.
didn’t read this article… but i do find it kind of frustrating when reviewers try to universalize lin’s disaffectedness as an accurate representation of our generation. i don’t feel it all. maybe i am fake young
It doesn’t seem like Tao is pushing against anything.
satire? now im confused. did tao write the tao article or was someone apeing his style?
Tao writes every post on this site, fools!
sweat
To play Devil’s Advocate though, Rich, every time a reviewer mentions Tao’s self-promotion work in a review, everybody jumps up and down about how the reviewer let that come into their mind when they reviewed the current work.
If you’re writing an article about Tao, then hell yes, mention his self-promotion, his publishing house, and anything else that you believe is going to make your article more informed and interesting.
If you’re reviewing a book, read the book, think about the book, and write what you think about the book. If you have knowledge of the author’s past written work and believe that comparisons and contrasts can be of value to readers of your review in putting the current work in context, consider using that knowledge. But discussing the author’s personal life, their promotional efforts, etc, doesn’t truly belong.
I don’t expect every review of a TC Boyle book to tell me that he’s a great performer at his readings. If I’m reading an article about an upcoming Boyle reading, or a review of one, then that stuff applies.
I think Bock read the book. He admits to some of it being well done. He doesn’t seem to believe that the elements that were well done were done so at a level to compensate for the things that he didn’t like about Lin’s writing in this particular title. I agree with Kyle on this–a reviewer doesn’t need to be all 10 stars or all 0 stars on a title. Liking parts of a book but not giving it an overall thumbs up, or the opposite, saying something is worth reading but noting it has flaws, is probably about as honest as we can expect from a reviewer.
Nick, I couldn’t disagree with you more. The most commendable thing about the Bock review is that it contains no extra-literary discussion of any kind. No mention of the other books, the “stunts,” etc. He treats this book like a book–which is what it is. I don’t think Bock owes Tao a read of the whole back catalog, or even a glance at his Wikipedia page. Personally, I was thrilled not to see any of that stuff appear. Book reviews are not personality profiles, and they’re not publicity roundups. People who want that shit should stick to reading hipster runoff, and/or the author’s own well-upkept blog. And yes, btw, you got that right about the pull-quote joke. They’re designed to showcase the very best thing that was said about you, context-free. That’s the game, and I’m hardly the guy who made up the admittedly inane rules.
Everyone else- I thought Bock’s review was insightful and thoughtful–the notion that HJO and DF could have been screen names is fascinating; even though it is not the case, perhaps it should have been. Reasonable and intelligent people are capable of appreciating one another’s positions without endorsing them. I wish Bock had liked the book better, and though I don’t share his position re “Richard Yates”, the position itself is hardly so insane or off-base that I can’t imagine how a person would feel as he does.
Mykle- Tao is profiling himself; the parody is of Lev Grossman’s cover-story profile of Jonathan Franzen for TIME.
I agree with that you that a review should be about the book, but to ignore an author’s past work–maybe to have not had any familiarity with it at all–seems problematic. Let’s say, for instance, a critic reviewing the 1917 Society of Arts Exhibition saw Marcel Duchamp’s ‘Fountain’ and wrote a piece saying that urinals lack “escalating emotional complexity”, “counterbalance”, and in an attempt to show vessels for micturition, actually recreates a vessel for micturition. And what is this ‘R. Mutt’ business? Is that a screen name? Even if Mr. Duchamp feels clever enough to have achieved his goal, his achievement is a low hanging fruit, and its rewards are limited. Now, wouldn’t you say the critic missed something here by just reviewing the piece as is, without any context and omitting/lacking knowledge of any account of Marcel Duchamp’s personal life/promotional efforts?
Maybe my problem is that ‘Richard Yates’ was reviewed in the wrong section of the New York Times. I feel with Tao’s work there is something else at play outside of literature. Could be wrong, never met him.
I don’t read hipster runoff much and I still support young authors trying to make an impact and writing books about the intimacies of communication. Tao’s books–so far–do that. For Mr. Bock, they are mostly boring (with a few things worthy of moderate praise). That’s fine. I have no problem with negative reviews, I just think the New York Times was lacking here. It’s not like Tao is famous and he’s had 10 books reviewed in NYTBR so far like TC Boyle. The average NYT reader probably doesn’t know the name or anything other than maybe ‘shoplifting from american apparel’ if they are ultra-aware. I have no proof of that, maybe I’m wrong. But here’s a young author who’s original, impacting and trying. Why limit the review to just the book when the book within the context of the museum is what’s really on display here?
You disagree that NYTBR freelance reviewers avoid outright slams and, even when they hate the book, still try to write reviews that feel “balanced” and at least somewhat contextual?
reading ‘eeeee,’ etc. right now. the style is very different and is more sympathetic towards the characters.
didn’t read this article… but i do find it kind of frustrating when reviewers try to universalize lin’s disaffectedness as an accurate representation of our generation. i don’t feel it all. maybe i am fake young
I disagreed with the implication of your comment >>he’s obviously unfamiliar with Tao’s style or Tao’s comments about his own work…<< which seemed to me to imply that he ought to have been familiar with these things. Perhaps this sentiment is more properly attributed to Rich Baiocco, who said as much explicitly, but since he spelled Charles Bock's name wrong several times over I decided he wasn't worth dealing with.
the only thing I’ve really read by him is “Today the Sky is Blue and White…” and I thought it was pretty OK.
http://www.wyff4.com/news/24813707/detail.html
it’s obviously not a representation of ‘a generation.’ temperament that effects a certain demographic of young people gets commodified fairly well, journalists write about it in various hyperbolic manners, news at six bro. bro up, jackie wang, bro up.
Refused to read your post because I could see that you put a bunch of words in quotes for no reason. Sorry.
Sounds like a silver bullet approach to Taoenstein.
nice name
but there is a reason
how would you know there is no reason without reading
i’ve trapped you
why is using quotes a “dealbreaker”
“hate is blind” :)
I like your review.
Don’t you mean you’ve ‘trapped’ him?
Thank you.
I like your review too, and agree with the Beavis and Butthead thing – feel like most of the HJO/DF ‘dialog’ is ‘Beavis and Butthead – The Next Generation’ in tone.
Yes, Kyle – or, equally likely as a calculation: the reviewer’s authority as a disinterested reader.
To make a hit piece seem not to be animated by an agenda, a reviewer can sprinkle such ‘acknowledgments’ into the hatchet work so as not actually to encourage the review consumer to miss the point: ‘I need to tell you that this sucks.’
Not that it’s not possible for a big-shot critic to write well-judged, honestly mixed reviews, but it’s hard – I think: irrational – not to read Kakutani, say, as anything but always a shepherd of her own reputation (or her sense of it).
are we talking about the guy who once said that gaining popularity online is like playing a video game?
It’s just a certain type of personality that our generation has contributed to the culture, not so much that everyone in our generation is this way. I kind of don’t mind not being a robot.
I broke my glasses. I’m surprised I spelled his name right at all. I thought we were talking about Tan Lin anyways…
I appreciate that at least one person has liked nearly every post in this thread. good work, everyone.
hahaha
If someone finds this to be a positive review, that person is insane. In the last sentence, you know the really important one, the reviewer essentially says the book is so boring/bad it makes him think of suicide.
I was replying to what I thought was a general point you were making, Kyle: while it’s not a Bad Thing for one to report seeing good aspects of a lousy book (or, indeed, crummy aspects or slack moments in a fine book), ‘fair and balanced’ is sometimes a strategy to conceal hostile (or favorable) prejudice beneath a veneer of open-mindedness.
Creating the appearance of sensitivity to a book’s variety of effects – the appearance of one’s ‘intelligence’ – in order to hide one’s predisposition for or against: that’s what I’m suspicious of in general, while, of course, being alert to the fact that many people actually do read most books with mixed reactions.
‘Disinterest’ is maybe a sticking point; how about ‘impartial’? You want a reviewer/critic to be either uncaring personally about the author, or transparent about personal feelings towards the author, right?
I, anyway, want reviewers/critics to be “disinterested” because I want them to engage with the book (in the venue of a review or critical investigation), not to whet their grievances – particular or universal – on that writer’s neck.
I don’t think Charles Bock was trying to say he is a disinterested reader. (Why would anyone want to read a review from a disinterested reader?) The end of the piece pretty clearly tells how he felt about the book.
I don’t agree with his ultimate assessment of the book — I liked it — but I think he intelligently described the project, the surfaces, how it worked, and what was good about it before pronouncing judgment. I think that’s probably an obligatory move for any reviewer, and I don’t know why anybody is dissing Bock for plying his craft responsibly.
I was replying to what I thought was a general point you were making, Kyle: while it’s not a Bad Thing for one to report seeing good aspects of a lousy book (or, indeed, crummy aspects or slack moments in a fine book), ‘fair and balanced’ is sometimes a strategy to conceal hostile (or favorable) prejudice beneath a veneer of open-mindedness.
Creating the appearance of sensitivity to a book’s variety of effects – the appearance of one’s ‘intelligence’ – in order to hide one’s predisposition for or against: that’s what I’m suspicious of in general, while, of course, being alert to the fact that many people actually do read most books with mixed reactions.
‘Disinterest’ is maybe a sticking point; how about ‘impartial’? You want a reviewer/critic to be either uncaring personally about the author, or transparent about personal feelings towards the author, right?
I, anyway, want reviewers/critics to be “disinterested” because I want them to engage with the book (in the venue of a review or critical investigation), not to whet their grievances – particular or universal – on that writer’s neck.
okay, i knew that … i think “best satire of 2010” is a bit of a reach if that’s all there is. (on the other hand, if maybe someone else wrote that article, i’d say they nailed his style dead to the wall.)
I keep thinking to myself: these people who don’t like Tao’s books, but who keep talking about them … don’t they see, they’re only making him more famous & causing him to write more books they don’t like?