This page hosts some
of my thoughts on the literary news of the day. The items
don't have as much to do with books as they do with celebrity and
marketing, but that seems to be the way things are going in
the book world. Ignoring it won't make it go away.
July -
December 2007
October
17/07: Point Taken
The chairman of this
year's Man Booker jury took the
occasion of the announcement of the
winner (Anne Enright's The
Gathering) to make some pointed
comments about today's literary
culture.
As reported in the Times,
Howard Davies registered concern
that novelists who reviewed books by
established authors often went
overboard in their praise. He called
for "more diversity in the sort
of people who review novels"
and less deference to established
names. "There appear to be some
novels where people leave their
critical faculties at home. They
decide 'so and so is a great
novelist' or 'an up-and-coming
novelist', and give them the
reverential treatment. . . . I think
a little more distance, and critical
scepticism, is required by our
reviewers, together with greater
readiness to notice new names.”
In the midst of our
own silly awards season, one that
has seen Vassanji's The
Assassin's Ghost and Ondaatje's Divisadero
shortlisted for both the Giller and
the G-G's, I hope somebody in this
country is listening. To take just
one of Davies's points: Why is it
that so many jury panels for these
awards are made up of fellow
novelists (or poets)? It's hard to
think of a segment of the population
less interested in the virtues of
"critical scepticism."
September
24/07: Fears for the Future?
As reported in
Britain's Telegraph: "Fears
for the future of the literary novel
have been heightened by the
revelation that a book by Katie
Price, the surgically enhanced
model, has outsold the entire Booker
Prize shortlist."
Fears for the future?
The Telegraph
story is a follow-up to an earlier
report on the low UK sales figures
for the six books on this year's
shortlist. At the time of the
shortlist's announcement the only
bestseller in the bunch was Ian
McEwan's (dreadful) On
Chesil Beach. The others had
combined sales of less than 5,000.
The new numbers show that, while
sales are up, there has been little
in the way of a "Booker
bounce." Leaving aside On
Chesil Beach, the other five
books, despite generally excellent
reviews and much publicity, have
still only sold just over 10,000
copies combined. If nothing else,
the shortlist (and its watered-down
cousin the long-list) don't seem to
have much power as promotional tools
any more. As Martin Levin comments
in the Globe and Mail: "pardon
me if I'm skeptical about long-lists
as sales tools, especially in an age
where even short-listed candidates
don't get much of a bump. Maybe
Vince Lombardi was right; winning
isn't everything, it's the only
thing."
The story here is
not that a topless model sells
better than a handful of literary
names. That, and McEwan's success,
is more a testimony to the power of
celebrity and the brand. What is
remarkable is that, for all intents
and purposes, the number of people
interested in new literary fiction
has now sunk below the level of
statistical significance. Not to put
too fine a point on it: No one is
reading these books. And I don't
suppose anything is different in
this country with regard to the
Giller effect or our reading habits
in general. Which has a trickle-down
effect when it comes to the quality
of critical debate.
For example, I think
M. G. Vassanji is a terrible writer.
No, scratch that. I don't think M.
G. Vassanji can write at all.
And yet this two-time Giller winner
is in the running again this year
for The Assassin's Song.
Which is unreadable. And yes, I
tried. But why bother debating the
point? Nobody reads Vassanji. I
remember when his last book, The
In-Between World of Vikram Lall
came out. Nobody in the office would
touch it. Our editor at the time,
considering it to be one of those
books that really should be
reviewed, tried desperately to find
someone who would take it on. All in
vain. Then it won the Giller Prize.
And still nobody wanted to
read it! I've no idea what happened
to the copy we had, but it was never
reviewed. Or, I am sure, read.
Now I'm not saying
more people should be reading M. G.
Vassanji. But I am saying that
there's a certain level of general
awareness necessary for a meaningful
public discussion of his writing to
take place. And in his case, as in
the case of most literary novelists,
we are a long, long way from
achieving such a critical mass.
Which leaves us talking about, and
buying books by, celebrities.
Commenting on the
initial story on the Booker numbers,
Mark Sanderson remarked that
"Such totals beg the question
why anyone should bother to write
literary fiction." Well Mr.
Sanderson, go ask the poets. Here is
Gore Vidal writing on the future of
the literary novel in 1956:
"To strike an
optimistic note, if faintly, it may
well be that, with unpopularity, the
meretricious and the ordinary will
desert entirely, leaving only the
devoted lashed to the mast. But now
the tide is in. The course is set.
The charts are explicit, for we are
not the first to make the voyage
out: the poets long ago preceded us
into exile, and one can observe them
up ahead, arms outstretched to greet
the old enemy, their new companions
at the edge of the known
world."
That future is now.
The novel has arrived.
August
2/07: Reviewing Online
In an op-ed column
appearing in the Boston Globe,
"Lost in the blogosphere,"
critic Sven Birkerts suggests that
the chaotic nature of book coverage
on the Internet represents "a
fundamental reversal of the norms of
print culture." Which is not a
good thing. Our critical culture, he
concludes, is losing its
professional status, its authority
and accountability, to
hyper-opinionated amateurs.
As most bloggers who
picked up on this story, which is to
say pretty much all of them, quickly
pointed out, this is now an old
debate. Old and stale. Which is why
I thought I'd take a pass on it. But
one aspect of Birkert's piece seems
to me to require further comment. In
a nutshell, are newspaper print
review sections even remotely
comparable to litblogs? I don't
think so, but here is Birkerts
trying to define what's at stake:
"The
controversy has to do with the fact
that people in various quarters,
literary bloggers prominently among
them, are proposing that old-style
print reviewing - the
word-count-driven evaluation of
select titles by credentialed
reviewers - is outmoded, and that
the deficit will be more than made
up by the now-flourishing blog
commentary. The blogosphere's
boosters pitch its virtues of
variety, grass-roots initiative,
linkage, and freedom from perceived
marketing influence (books by major
trade publishers, which advertise
more, sometimes appear to get
premium treatment in the print book
review sections)."
So, the two things
being compared are "old-style
print reviewing" and "blog
commentary." With regard to the
former we have all of the
hand-wringing over disappearing
review space in newspapers. After
all, book reviewing is what book
review sections, the books page, and
stand-alone book reviews do.
Occasionally they have op-ed
columns, author interviews, and
other items and sidebars (bestseller
lists, community events calendars, etc.),
but their primary function is to
review books. And so as this review
space shrinks, people are beginning
to look online.
But the primary
function of most litblogs is not
to review books. I recently heard
from a pair of acquaintances who run
blogs where they talk about literary
matters in Canada. They have both
started receiving piles of review
copies of new books and catalogues
from publishing houses alerting them
to new releases. But neither blogger
has ever posted a book review on
their site. Nor do they have any
intention of doing so in the future.
Of course this doesn't matter to
publishers, who are just looking to
get their books mentioned (along
with an Amazon link). But it should
matter to people writing op-ed
pieces on the future of book
reviewing. "Blog
commentary" is not reviewing.
Did this not register with Mr.
Birkerts when he dutifully went to
check out, as research for his
column, book blogs such as The
Elegant Variation and Return of the
Reluctant? I confess to not knowing
either of these sites very well, but
followed Birkert's lead. The first
blog, by a Los Angeles-based writer,
seems incredibly active. But most of
the posts were the usual
news-oriented link-with-a-comment. I
didn't see where there was any book
reviewing going on, unless you
include the brief thumbnail blurbs
on the margin. Nor was there much of
anything that you could call
criticism, though perhaps I dropped
in during a slow week. Return of the
Reluctant is run by Edward Champion.
The blog entries here are colourful
blasts of opinion (or
"rants") on matters of the
day. And there were plenty of
reviews. Or at least there were
plenty of links to reviews
that Mr. Champion has written for
papers like the Los Angeles Times,
the Chicago Sun-Times and the
Philadelphia Inquirer.
Yes, that's right.
"Old-style print
reviewing." Or at least
reviewing for the online versions of
old-style print sources (it isn't
always clear).
Say what you want
about the litblogs, but reviewing is
still very much grounded in print.
There are nearly five hundred
reviews, and links to reviews,
collected on this site. The vast
majority, at least 80%, first
appeared in print. Probably the most
popular Canadian book blog today is
George Murray's Bookninja. I think
Bookninja has maybe posted two
reviews in the last couple of years.
I read Mr. Murray's reviews fairly
regularly though . . . when they
appear in the Globe and Mail.
Zachariah Wells is one of this
country's most prolific poetry
reviewers, but I don't think I've
ever seen a review on his blog. He
does, however, provide links to
reviews he's written for print
sources like Quill & Quire.
Steven Beattie (who does post
original reviews on his blog)
concludes his commentary on
Birkert's piece as follows: "I
would write more on this subject,
but I’ve got a deadline. As it
happens, I’ve been contracted to
write a print review for a Canadian
newspaper. Funny that."
Yes there are
exceptions (prominent Canadian
review blogs include The Danforth
Review and Poetry Reviews), but they
only prove the general rule. Which
should come as a surprise to no one.
Book reviewing takes time and
talent. This is why, if you're good
at it, you can sometimes get
paid.
Hardly anyone gets
paid for writing a blog. You don't
think this makes a difference?
Now don't get me
wrong. I have nothing against blog
commentary. But it isn't book
reviewing. Which is why
comparing a newspaper's print review
section with a litblog, or arguing
that blogs are somehow going to make
up the deficit left from shrinking
print review space, doesn't
make any sense. We're not talking
about a difference in accountability
or authority - some litblogs have
plenty of both - we're talking about
two entirely different forms of
critical discourse. The sort of book
coverage you get in a blog has no
print analogue. And, though I'm
still optimistic this will change,
there is no source for reviews
exclusive to the Internet that even
remotely approaches the best book
reviewing appearing in print.
July
19/07: Michiko Klausner
The much-anticipated
(by some) final volume of the Harry
Potter series is reviewed today in
the New York Times by Michiko
Kakutani and the Baltimore Sun
by Mary Carole McCauley, breaking a
"review embargo."
I am as
"staggered" as author J.
K. Rowling is reported to be. Not
because the Times and the Sun
broke the embargo - embargoes are
silly anyway - but at the speed of
the reviews.
I have, at various
times over the years, had occasion
to complain about the brutal
deadlines involved in newspaper
reviewing. And I've poked fun at the
farce of "speed reviewing"
as practiced, for example, by the Globe
and Mail's John Allemang (a book
a day for a year), and Amazon.com
superstar Harriet Klausner (who
writes some 20 "reviews" a
week). The system is a joke.
Usually, however, timely reviews can
be honestly written because
reviewers are given galleys or
advance reading copies that allow
them some time to write an opinion.
Not so with Harry
Potter and the Deathly Hallows.
This book was apparently unavailable
in any form to reviewers (as with
most of the previous installments).
However, the Baltimore Sun,
in their own words, "obtained
the book from a reader who is a
relative of a Sun reporter.
The relative pre-ordered the book
from an online retailer and received
it before the publication date."
Ms. Kakutani was able to get her
hands on a copy sold (by mistake?)
in a New York City store
yesterday.
Yesterday.
And the review was
posted last night.
And the book is 759
pages long.
Is this supposed to
be a joke? Is it a fraud? Note that
the other examples of "instant
reviews" mentioned in stories
appearing on Slate.com and the Guardian
web-site refer to reviews done by teams
of reviewers, of non-fiction books.
Now I've said before that I
don't think Kakutani is much of a
reviewer. I don't think she writes
reviews so much as book reports. But
I thought she, and the New York
Times, were a (little) bit above this
kind of stunt. Meanwhile, her review
doesn't give anything away and is
worthless as criticism or consumer
report. The absence of any reference
to the text makes it clear that
Kakutani only skimmed. Why bother
with such a superficial
"review"?
Because it's news.
Which is fine. But
if we're really interested in saving
or defending book review sections it
might be a good idea for them to
demonstrate what it is that sets
them apart from the user
reviews on Amazon instead of trying
to beat the instant-media at their
own game. The only race here is a
race to the bottom, and that's one
nobody wins.
July
4/07: Cultural Authority
A new study compiled
by BookNet Canada reports on the
effect radio and television shows
have on influencing people to buy
books. According to a CBC story the
"study said Canadian
television programs had an impact on
book sales that was almost as
powerful as an interview with
an author on The Oprah
Winfrey Show," while books
mentioned on CBC Radio One's Sounds
Like Canada had an average
sales increase of 83 percent in the
week following the show. Other
Canadian radio and TV shows found to
have "a significant impact on
book sales" included CityTV's Breakfast
Television (sales increases of
up to 121 percent), CTV's Canada
AM (up to 333 percent),
Rogers's Fine Print, and
CBC Radio shows The Current,
Talking Books and The Arts
Tonight,
The effect of print
sources on sales were apparently not
part of the study. I suspect,
however, that the numbers would have
been considerably lower. The
"bump" provided by a print
review is pretty marginal. Just a
few months ago I was glad to see a
small press Canadian title I
thoroughly enjoyed get rave reviews
in the Toronto Star, the Globe
and Mail, and the National
Post. Seeing such a low-profile
book pull off the national critical
trifecta was inspiring. But two
weeks after the reviews ran, the
sales told another story. The book
had sold less than 40 copies. Which
may have been 40 more than it would
have sold without the reviews, but
still.
There is a grim
message here for those who want to
"save our book reviews."
In the first place, print reviews
are a nearly worthless form of
marketing. Indeed I have long
thought that the only reason
publishers even bother with them is
because (a) sending out review
copies costs them next to nothing
(basically they're only out the
postage), and (b) publicists don't
have any better ideas when it comes
to promotion. But far worse is the
loss of cultural authority. Whether
we like it or not, there is only one
way to measure a critic's cultural
authority, or the "power"
of their reviews. That is if it
influences people to buy books.
Cultural authority may have other
meanings than mere consumer
advocacy, but this is the only form
it takes that can be measured. What
does it say then when hundreds if
not thousands of people are
influenced to act on the
recommendations of TV show hosts and
radio personalities who are only
"mentioning" books that in
many (if not most) cases they
haven't read, while ignoring the
supposed experts? No doubt some of
the "influence" recorded
by BookNet is due to the ability of
these programs' producers to market
to their audience. But that's only
part of it. And meanwhile, where is
our great literary debate taking
place in print? When was the last
time you heard anyone arguing over a
book review?
It has been said, I
believe by David Kipen most
recently, that cutting back on book
review sections constitutes an
attack on a newspaper's core
audience. That is, people who
read.
I don't believe it.
A newspaper's core audience is
people who buy newspapers, and that
is not the same demographic as
people who read. Much less people
who read books. Much less people who
read, or pay the slightest attention
to book reviews.
The news is archived every six months.
January - June 2000
July - December 2000
January
- June 2001
July - December 2001
January
- June 2002
July -
December 2002
January - June 2003
July - December 2003
January - June 2004
July - December 2004
January
- June 2005
July - December 2005
January - June 2006
July - December 2006 (off)
January - June 2007 (off)
July - December
2007
