Image by Arno Sennoer on Unsplash
A Review of Reviews by Warren Bull
I doubt that anyone is more critical of books than the authors of
those books. I know when I re-read my work I can see every strained analogy,
every sentence that should be shortened, and every confusing word choice that
falls short of what was intended. I also review books, movies, music, and so forth.
It is both encouraging and downright scary to look at reviews of books that are
considered classics.
For example, The Handmaiden’s Tale by Margaret Atwater was
reviewed in The New York Times
on February 9, 1986.
“But the most conspicuous lack,
in comparison with the classics of the fearsome-future genre, is the inability
to imagine a language to match the changed face of common life. No newspeak.
And nothing like the linguistic tour de force of A Clockwork Orange -
the brutal melting-down of current English and Slavic words that in itself
tells the story of the dread new breed. The writing of The Handmaid’s
Tale is undistinguished in a double sense, ordinary if not glaringly
so, but also indistinguishable from what one supposes would be Margaret
Atwood’s normal way of expressing herself in the circumstances. This is a
serious defect, unpardonable maybe for the genre: a future that has no language
invented for it lacks a personality. That must be why, collectively, it is
powerless to scare.”
This non-scary book won the Governor General’s Award, the first
Arthur C. Clarke Aware and was nominated for several other honors. It has been
adapted into various media including opera, cinema, and television. Just imagine
what could have happened if it had actually been scary.
The Saturday Review on July 23, 1960 advised readers that
in Harper Lee’s To Kill A Mockingbird
“Miss
Lee’s problem has been to tell the story she wants to tell and yet to stay
within the consciousness of a child, and she hasn’t consistently solved it.”
Shucks, if she’d
been able to give readers a child’s point of view this might have been
considered a classic.
Another review from The New York Times on August 18, 1958 warned readers about Lolita by Vladimir Nabokov.
“Lolita then,
is undeniably news in the world of books. Unfortunately, it is bad news. There
are two equally serious reasons why it isn’t worth any adult reader’s
attention. The first is that it is dull, dull, dull in a pretentious, florid
and archly fatuous fashion. The second is that it is repulsive...
Past the artistic danger line of madness is another even more fatal. It is
where the particular mania is a perversion like Humbert’s. To describe such a
perversion with the pervert’s enthusiasm without being disgusting is
impossible. If Mr. Nabokov tried to do so he failed.”
Oh, yes. Stay away from this dull, disgusting book.
Margaret Mitchell was advised in a review on June 30, 1936 by a
different scribe in The New York Times
“I
happen to feel that the book would have been infinitely better had it been
edited down to, say, 500 pages — but there speaks the harassed daily reviewer
an [sic] well as the would-be judicious critic. Very nearly every reader will
agree, no doubt, that a more disciplined and less prodigal piece of work would
have more nearly done justice to the subject-matter.”
A good editor
might have done wonders. Maybe then the book would still be read today.
The Boston Transcript in March, 1885 reported
“The Concord (Mass.) Public Library committee has decided to
exclude Mark Twain’s latest book [Huckleberry Finn] from the library. One
member of the committee says that, while he does not wish to call it immoral,
he thinks it contains but little humor, and that of a very coarse type. He
regards it as the verist of trash. The librarian and the other members of the
committee entertain similar views, characterizing it as rough, coarse,
inelegant, dealing with a series of experiences not elevating, the whole book being
more suited to the slums than to intelligent, respectable people.”
This book sounds irredeemable. And the author showed such promise
as a newspaper reporter. I guess not everyone can write a respectable,
uplifting novel.
How hopeful! No matter the reviews if your book speaks to your audience....
ReplyDeleteBook reviews and technology predictions are two things best read decades after their appearance -- if you want a good laugh.
ReplyDeleteToo bad such reviews don't guarantee success for all authors.
ReplyDeleteFun and reassuring as I wade through yet another domestic thriller with an unreliable narrator. (she wouldn't dare, would she? Could she pull it off and not get caught?)
ReplyDeleteHilarious....thanks for the chuckle
ReplyDeleteA good reminder that predictions are often so wrong.
ReplyDeleteAs Jim said, hindsight gives us a fascinating view.
ReplyDelete