.
| Hearsay: |
National Post drops another great article: Jeet Heer defending John Metcalf against Andre Alexis’s condemnation from the Walrus, but then goes on to tackle the same subjects. Metcalf is just doing his job, says Heer.
“If I had to blame one Canadian writer for this state of affairs, I’d blame novelist and critic John Metcalf,” Alexis writes.
“John Who?” is probably the question that popped into the heads of most readers of Alexis’s polemic. While the fiction and essays of John Metcalf have a small and devoted readership, a tiny fellowship that I myself belong to, he is hardly a household name.
Among his fans, Metcalf is known for his bracing, tough-minded and strongly worded criticism, as in his complaint about Morley Callaghan’s “stumblebum writing.” Alexis believes that too many critics have started to imitate Metcalf’s slash-and-burn approach while lacking Metcalf’s literary credentials. Alexis even acknowledges that Metcalf has a trustworthy sensibility that Alexis himself says he agrees with 80% of the time. The problem is that “those who have been influenced by [Metcalf] … are not on the same level and don’t possess the same credibility, though they allow themselves to make the same kinds of pronouncements.”
How plausible is this claim that Metcalf is the driving force behind Canadian literary criticism?
January 2006
December
2005
November
2005
October
2005
September
2005
August
2005
July
2005
June
2005
May
2005
April
2005
March
2005
February
2005
January
2005
December
2004
November
2004
October
2004
September
2004
August
2004
July
2004
June
2004
May
2004
April
2004
March
2004
February
2004
January
2004
December
2003
November
2003
October
2003
September
2003
August
2003
Bookninja © Copyright
The opinions expressed on this site are those of individual participants
and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the site owners,
organizers, or other participants.
[powered by WordPress.]
July 5th, 2010 at 12:10 pm
I don’t think literary reviews turning into “a species of autobiography, with the book under review being a pretext for personal revelation” is John Metcalf’s fault. Might it have something to do with the fact that reviewers are almost exclusively authors themselves, and perhaps more concerned with promoting their own thematic preferences and flaunting their prose stylistics than actually writing an accurate, even-handed review? (That’s a rhetorical question. The answer is yes.)
July 5th, 2010 at 12:30 pm
Ego should be left out of it. Randall Jarrell, whom I wish would come back from the dead to review my work, had such a clear primary love of literature that even writers whose work he severely criticized could bear him no ill will.
July 5th, 2010 at 12:34 pm
This brings back memories–John Metcalf was my teacher when I was in Cegep a million years ago. Oops–autobiography. Sorry. Back to the subject at hand. I only review books I like. I think of my role as recommending books rather than criticizing them, and giving my reasons for the recommendations. Some people will share my preferences and some won’t, but I lay them out for those who are interested. Reading is so personal: the preferences, the tastes, the reasons for reading. And I figure nobody (at least nobody I’d care to read) sets out to write anything other than a good book, and everyone behind the author believes the same. I suppose though that tearing it down does a good turn for the book, better than ignoring it. Once a book reaches a certain level of renown or notoriety, everyone wants to read it.
July 5th, 2010 at 12:50 pm
I went out with Column McCann when he was in Toronto a couple of months ago, and he said one of his biggest regrets was writing negative reviews when he was a young writer. He basically said what Lilian did: you should only write about books you like.
July 5th, 2010 at 12:57 pm
Sadly, recommending books you like and literary criticism aren’t the same thing.
July 6th, 2010 at 9:21 am
“I think of my role as recommending books rather than criticizing them, and giving my reasons for the recommendations.”
This isn’t criticism. It isn’t even reviewing. It’s advertising.
July 7th, 2010 at 6:00 pm
There are many reasons that reviewing in Canada is sub par, and writers reviewing their peers is the main one. Especially when one considers that the reviewer is also reviewing the press from which the book is published, and the precarious nature of getting published, it is easy to see that there might be a vested interest one way or another. Where there is no vested interest the review may be more fair, which only means that where some of the reviewing is thoughtful and, well, truly critical, if all of it isn’t, then the playing field is skewed for all writers, making it all the more difficult to build a decent literature, as well as, a decent critical approach.
Not sure if that made sense. I am so freaking hot. Yes, George, shut up.
Going out to buy the Walrus and see what all the fuss is.
July 7th, 2010 at 6:04 pm
I don’t know what you’re talking about, turncoat. It was 18 and sunny here today with a positively jaunty sea breeze. Ah.
August 17th, 2010 at 8:20 pm
My problem with John Metcalf’s criticism is that he never applies it to the writers he has chosen to “nurture.” Why has there been no critical response to the terrible Russell Smith novel, Girl Crazy?
August 18th, 2010 at 5:33 pm
I loved Girl Crazy
August 19th, 2010 at 7:13 pm
Girl Crazy is misogynistic and lazily written. I thought Russell Smith was supposed to be one of our more talented writers? When there is no proper critical response, just a lot of polite collegial nodding, writers of his calibre will continue to devolve and our already tiny literary pond will further evaporate. Another puzzling book there has been no critical response to is Yann Martel’s latest. Why all the silence?
August 20th, 2010 at 8:46 am
I’m a teenaged boy, that’s why I loved it.
August 20th, 2010 at 1:06 pm
Well, I see from the above comment, that someone has appropriated “cityofmushrooms” to make a point. THIS cityofmushrooms is a 49 writer and mother of a teenaged boy. I still think “Girl Crazy” was a great book and not at all misogynistic, but rather a really critical portrait of an aimless young man and his misconceptions about women.
August 20th, 2010 at 1:44 pm
Phew! Thank goodness for Bookninja!
If it weren’t for the astute comments here, I’d be under the impression that Yann Martel’s latest had received harsh reviews almost everywhere, and spawned all kinds of chatter about whether those harsh reviews were simply hacking the tall poppy, or whether the book does, indeed, suck wind.
I’m glad people here are keeping up, so I don’t have to.
August 20th, 2010 at 7:30 pm
Bad reviews everywhere except Canada, as if you didn’t know that’s what I meant. This is my first and last experience blogging. It’s just as annoying as talking to people in person.
August 20th, 2010 at 7:55 pm
I also found Girl Crazy to not be very good. Down on women, immigrants, Toronto, etc…
August 20th, 2010 at 8:33 pm
Will the real cityofmushrooms please stand up?
August 20th, 2010 at 8:40 pm
Oooops, busted. But I’m never blogging again so never mind.