Subject
Fw: Fw: the sterile inventions of Nabokov ...
From
Date
Body
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kenny, Glenn" <gkenny@hfmus.com>
To: "'D. Barton Johnson '" <chtodel@cox.net>
Sent: Sunday, November 23, 2003 9:40 PM
Subject: RE: Fw: the sterile inventions of Nabokov ...
>
> I beg Dane Gill-do not be taken in by this Peck character. He is a bad
> writer whose aesthetic is about as rich and complex as an average
> Teletubbies episode. I first encountered the guy at a Harper's
> magazine-sponsored panel about "Fiction and Film", alongside Susan Minot
and
> David Foster Wallace on the fiction side and David O. Russell and Todd
> Solondz on the film side. Peck's most memorable utterance was a whine
about
> how there was nothing wrong with art being didactic, in fact art should be
> didactic....blah blah blah. Everyone enjoys quoting his putative zinger on
> Rick Moody, but has anyone bothered reading that particular review to the
> end? I defy you to reach the bit where he talks about how-I'm paraphrasing
> here-a deep despair at the state of the world is the best and only reason
to
> write books, not to mention book reviews. I mean, not to put too fine a
> point on it, but what a bathos-wringing ass clown. His artistic
perspectives
> and goals are completely antithetical to Nabokov's, and he's so limited
that
> the phrase "sterile inventions" is about all the ammunition he's got
against
> VN. VN had plenty of ammunition against the writers he loathed, and was,
> superficial appearances to the contrary, not ungenerous with his praise
for
> those he admired-"Strong Opinions" is dotted with salutations to Queneau,
> Robbe-Grillet, and so on. As for Peck, one would be too kind to call him,
in
> Martin Amis' phrase, a "high IQ-moron." He's more like the ULA's Karl
> Wenclas after a "Queer Eye For the Straight Guy" makeover, maybe. The fact
> that he's taken seriously at all speaks of a pretty dire crisis in the
> humanities.
>
> GK
> -----Original Message-----
> From: D. Barton Johnson
> To: NABOKV-L@LISTSERV.UCSB.EDU
> Sent: 11/23/03 4:32 PM
> Subject: Fw: Fw: the sterile inventions of Nabokov ...
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Dane Gill" <pennyparkerpark@hotmail.com>
> To: <NABOKV-L@LISTSERV.UCSB.EDU>
> >
> > ---------------- Message requiring your approval (396
> lines) ------------------
> > Although this Peck fellow comes across as pretty harsh (sterile
> inventions?
> > A little vague, not sure what he means exactly. I'm mostly refering to
> the
> > rest of his reviews), VN was just a destructive when giving his
> literary
> > opinions. One really needs to dig in order to find out what he liked
> > compared to what he hated. And although VN did not give all his
> opiions in
> > structured reviews it still gives the effect (what Nabokovian can ever
> look
> > at Mann, O'Neil, Orwell, etc seriously).
> > Dane Gill
> >
> >
> > >From: "D. Barton Johnson" <chtodel@cox.net>
> > >Reply-To: Vladimir Nabokov Forum <NABOKV-L@LISTSERV.UCSB.EDU>
> > >To: NABOKV-L@LISTSERV.UCSB.EDU
> > >Subject: Fw: the sterile inventions of Nabokov ...
> > >Date: Sun, 23 Nov 2003 09:57:22 -0800
> > >
> > >EDNOTE: ON THE GENTLE ART OF BOOK REVIEWING
> > >
> > >----- Original Message -----
> > >From: Sandy P. Klein
> > >http://books.guardian.co.uk/news/articles/0,6109,1091150,00.html
> > >
> > >
> > >Hatchet man
> > >
> > >Dale Peck is the scourge of literary America, laying into everyone
> from
> > >Julian Barnes to Don DeLillo. Is aggression a critical virtue, and
> should
> > >British reviewers follow his lead?
> > >
> > >Kate Kellaway
> > >Sunday November 23, 2003
> > >The Observer
> > >
> > >There is a new verb in the US: to Peck. Or an old verb with a new
> meaning.
> > >Dale Peck is a literary one man bandit - he trashes everything he
> reads.
> Is
> > >this a dagger I see before me? Or a review by Dale Peck? He
> specialises
> in
> > >opening lines such as: 'Rick Moody is the worst writer of his
> generation.'
> > >No one is let off lightly: Philip Roth, Julian Barnes, Jim Crace -
> name
> an
> > >author and they have all been Pecked. He has published three novels
> himself
> > >and is ! hyperactively well read, with an eye for detail and a
> transparent
> > >personal agenda about what the contemporary novel ought to be (as
> close
> to
> > >his own as possible). In the US, his reviews have caused a sensation.
> And
> > >in May, his collected criticism is to be published, on both sides of
> the
> > >Atlantic, under the title Hatchet Jobs.
> > >Reading his reviews, there is a sense that Peck's writing is motored
> by a
> > >rage that has little to do with literature. There are clues in his
> > >biography. He grew up on Long Island, the son of an alcoholic
> plumber.
> His
> > >mother died in mysterious circumstances when he was three and he has
> put
> it
> > >on record that 'violence' may have had something to do with it. When
> his
> > >father discovered his son was gay, he beat him up. Peck's father is
> > >important here, if only because his latest book is a 'memoir' about
> his
> > >father's childhood (What We Lost, published in February by Granta).
> > >
> > >Dale Peck emerges as a fighter with the evangelical zeal of a
> Jehovah's
> > >Witness for whom the End of the Novel is Nigh. He was educated at
> Drew
> > >University in New Jersey and took a creative writing course at
> Columbia.
> He
> > >was talent-spotted as a critic by James Wood, who commissioned him to
> write
> > >in the back pages of the New Republic, back pages that were to make
> > >front-page news.
> > >
> > >Peck's admirers value him because of the scale of his ambitions as a
> > >critic. There is an almost suicidal valour about seeing off so many
> writers
> > >with such assurance. And Peck is as scathing about the fiction of the
> past
> > >as he is of the present. The modernist tradition, he writes, 'began
> with
> > >the diarrhoeic flow of words that is Ulysses, continued on through
> the
> > >incomprehensible ramblings of late Faulkner and the sterile
> inventions of
> > >Nabokov, and then burst into full, foul life in the ridiculous
> dithering
> of
> > >Barth, Hawkes and Gaddis, and the reductive cardboard constructions
> of
> > >Barthelme, and the word-by-word wasting of a talent as formidable as
> > >Pynchon's; and finally broke apart like a cracked sidewalk beneath
> the
> > >weight of the stupid - just plain stupid - tomes of DeLillo'. In a
> single
> > >sentence: class dismissed.
> > >
> > >When I spoke to Peck in New York, he struck me as at once bellicose
> and
> > >vulnerable. He talks fast and breathlessly, as if still winded by the
> blow
> > >dealt him by modern writers. You might reasonably object that to
> stick
> his
> > >head above the parapet is not brave, merely a way of achieving
> visibility.
> > >But I warmed to him. He has no sense of self-preservation. 'I write
> for
> > >writers and I just want to say to them: wake up! It is a dream of
> mine
> that
> > >they will.' When I ask whether he wouldn't rather use something more
> > >delicate than a hatchet, he says he doesn't see it as a clumsy
> instrument -
> > >no weapon is too sharp to carve up the modern novel, which he sees as
> 'a
> > >reactionary force in aesthetic terms, irrelevant in cultural terms'.
> > >
> > >He goes on: 'Novels and memoirs are on a wrong course. They are
> either
> > >inward-gazing, solipsistic and impotent or unconscious and rarefied,
> > >written by recidivist realists who pretend the twentieth century
> didn't
> > >happen.' A critic, he says 'must tell the truth. If something makes
> you
> > >hopping mad, you must be allowed to express it'. But if he dislikes
> > >everything he reads, why read at all? Who does he like? Early Philip
> Roth
> > >and Virginia Woolf (strange bedfellows) miss the chop. So do Joan
> Didion
> > >and Toni Morrison. Though, he hastens to add, 'they all have their
> > >problems'.
> > >
> > >When I ask him to characterise the US reviewing scene, he cheers up:
> 'I
> am
> > >not sure if you can print this. But they are a bunch of pussies. They
> are
> > >back-scratchers, afraid for their own careers - novelists reviewing
> their
> > >friends' works. It is very dishonest.' Does he ever worry about the
> effect
> > >his reviews may have on writers? 'The truth is that if you can't hack
> a
> > >negative review, you shouldn't be writing at that particular level. I
> > >really do believe a novel is nothing more than a strongly expressed
> opinion
> > >and that you need to respond strongly and with vitality.'
> > >
> > >Peck is the eye - or I - of the storm and has placed himself at the
> top
> of
> > >his own Pecking order. He has even gone so far as to say that critics
> who
> > >maintain an 'ironic, impotent distance' are 'teaching people not to
> read
> > >books like mine'. But in his own career, the hatchet has proved
> mightier
> > >than the pen. His own novels have been quietly approved but have not
> made
> > >his name. Should we care about him at all?
> > >
> > >If Peck were British, according to the American commentary, his
> punishing
> > >excesses would be greeted with a shrug. The received wisdom on the
> other
> > >side of the Atlantic is that we live tolerantly in a critical
> snakepit.
> But
> > >is this true? Who are the English Dale Pecks? Is there anyone with
> his
> > >chutzpah? And if we can identify our hatchet men, do we admire them?
> How
> > >much are hatchet men victims of their own temperaments (think of Dale
> > >Peck's rage)? And the ultimate question - what are the ethics of
> criticism
> > >in this country?
> > >
> > >'Critic' has always been a dirty word. Samuel Beckett, in Waiting for
> > >Godot, used it as the climax to a list of insults: vermin - abortion
> -
> > >sewer-rat - curate - cretin... Of these, CRRITIC (the double R spells
> > >trouble) was the worst. Christopher Hampton refines the point by
> saying
> > >that to ask a working writer what he thinks of a critic is like
> asking a
> > >dog what it thinks of a lamppost. But a good critic must expect to be
> > >unpopular. And be ready to annoy by keeping his horizons wide.
> Kenneth
> > >Tynan put it like this: 'A good drama critic is one who perceives
> what is
> > >happening in the theatre of his time. A great drama critic also
> perceives
> > >what is not happening.' Peck would approve the definition.
> > >
> > >Everyone agrees that bad reviews are more memorable than good. If
> happiness
> > >writes white, enthusiasm often registers in shades of pastel. Tibor
> Fischer
> > >specialises in shocking pink. His review of Martin Amis's last novel
> > >likened it to seeing 'your favourite uncle being caught in a school
> > >playground, masturbating'. And Julie Burchill, reviewing Helen
> Fielding's
> > >career as well as her novel, wrote: 'When she made it big, it was a
> bit
> > >like realising that your hamster had escaped from its cage - and then
> you
> > >turn on the TV and it's making a speech to the world from the Oval
> Office,
> > >because it's become President of the United States.'
> > >
> > >Burchill's review appeared in the London Evening Standard, where
> David
> > >Sexton, its literary editor, has always had hatchet-man potential. I
> first
> > >met him when I was working for the Literary Review, edited by Auberon
> > >Waugh. Waugh's critical 'ethics' included admitting that if he had
> not
> read
> > >a book, he always gave it a positive notice. Perhaps this accounts
> for
> his
> > >much-used phrase: 'She writes like an angel.'
> > >
> > >At that time, Sexton was more interested in felling angels. He wrote
> a
> > >review of a Margaret Drabble novel so cruelly entertaining and
> personal
> > >that I couldn't read it without worrying about her having to suffer
> it
> over
> > >a long, poisonous breakfast.
> > >
> > >Sexton believes there is no ethical problem about such reviews.
> Reviews
> are
> > >for readers, he says. He thinks it is bordering on immoral to have
> the
> > >author's feelings in mind at all. 'It is a wrong thing to do.' James
> Wood
> > >used to say he saw his reviews as letters to authors, but Sexton
> believes
> > >this is 'completely wrong'. Nor does he buy into the notion that the
> > >English critical scene is a snakepit. He sees it as 'massively
> > >over-favourable and collusive. There is a pretence now that every
> book is
> a
> > >new sensation.'
> > >
> > >He believes there should be far more negative reviews than there are.
> He
> > >can't think of anything that is 'below the belt. Once a creative work
> is
> > >out in the world, it is in play.' Criticism is not doorstepping, he
> adds.
>
> > >And yet he makes reviewing sound a drably self- interested affair in
> which
> > >reviewers are keen only to hear the sound of their own voices. 'There
> is
> no
> > >such thing as a disinterested reviewer,' he maintains.
> > >
> > >Sexton does not admire Peck and his 'scatter-gun' approach, but he
> can
> > >readily nominate a trio who are masters of the hatchet job. First
> > >contender: Eric Griffiths, fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge, who
> > >recently damned books by Roger Scruton and Terry Eagleton in the
> Times
> > >Literary Supplement. In these pieces, wit and erudition work to
> devastating
> > >effect. Even his lightest points have a darker purpose: 'Eagleton
> > >specialises in quick-fire summary of issues and thinkers; he is a
> > >pith-artist.'
> > >
> > >Griffiths was particularly contrite about the Scruton piece, telling
> me
> > >that Scruton had been his teacher in his third year at Cambridge and
> that
> > >he has 'vivid and delightful memories' of those occasions. He said
> the
> > >review was a 'duty'. He went on: 'It is a real pity that argued
> dissent
> is
> > >regularly caricatured as "hatchet job", "savage attack" and other
> such
> > >bulking agents. We pass legislation to encourage whistle-blowing and
> at
> the
> > >same time a culture is promoted which portrays whistle-blowing about
> any
> > >intellectual matters as usually an act of pathological spite. In a
> world
> > >perilously muddled by expertise in its many forms, it seems a pity
> that
> > >there isn't a calmer climate of more precisely informed comment on
> > >evidence.
> > >
> > >'What I feel about the authors of pretentious and misleading books is
> well
> > >expressed by the fact that Dante put the fraudulent below adulterers,
> > >gluttons, bad-tempered gits, suicides, sodomites, hypocrites,
> heretics
> and
> > >other riff-raff in his sketch of hell. But really I am of a sunny
> > >disposition and much prefer to write and talk about books I admire. I
> spend
> > >my working life doing so. Reviewing is what happens when criticism
> goes
> on
> > >holiday.' And with that, Griffiths returned to enjoy the summer
> weather
> of
> > >academe.
> > >
> > >Adam Mars-Jones, novelist, critic (and second contender) feels that
> > >negative reviewing must not sound too dutiful. He thinks 'destructive
> > >criticism is legitimate as long as it isn't unmodulated'. Of Peck's
> review
> > >of Rick Moody he observes: 'There is something comic about someone
> taking
> > >4,000 seething words to attack the bloated emptiness of contemporary
> > >culture.' Unlike Griffiths, who aims at objectivity in his criticism
> and
> > >prefers not to use what he describes as the 'pitiable resource' of
> his
> own
> > >feelings, Mars-Jones relaxedly admits to the subjectivity of literary
> > >taste. Criticism, he says, is 'not about authority. I am not paid to
> be
> > >right. I am paid to make a case.'
> > >
> > >It is essential that critics should retain an energy about their
> work,
> some
> > >excitement and expectation. Mars-Jones remembers how, at film
> screenings,
> > >critic Alexander Walker used to give 'a little acidulated sigh as he
> sat
> > >down as if to ask: how will my intelligence be insulted this week?'
> > >
> > >Philip Hensher (third nominee), novelist, columnist and critic, may
> be
> > >found in Believer magazine (published in the US and edited by Dave
> Eggers's
> > >wife, Vendela Vida) in a column entitled 'Snarkwatch', which names
> and
> > >shames reviewers. Hensher has been described in the column as 'the
> nastiest
> > >snark this side of the water' and ticked off for describing Tracey
> Emin
> as
> > >'too stupid' to produce meaningful art.
> > >
> > >But Hensher is a 'snark' with standards. 'I try not to review a book
> by
> > >anyone if they've ever given me a bad review,' he says, 'and would be
> less
> > >likely to review one if its author had given me any kind of review.
> It
> > >isn't fair to let people think that there may be more complicated
> motives
> > >behind your review than would ever, in my case, exist.' He finds it
> 'as
> > >infuriating to get a rave review as a return-of-favour as to get a
> hatchet
> > >job from someone with a reason to dislike you personally'.
> > >
> > >He believes: 'It is deeply improper to speculate on an author's
> personality
> > >or private life.' He was outraged by a review of his short stories in
> which
> > >the reviewer explained that he needed to have experienced 'more
> misery'.
> > >And the reviews of Martin Amis's novel have shocked him, too: 'They
> have
> > >really been about him. I think that is disgraceful and on the
> increase.'
> > >
> > >In his autobiography, Experience, Amis berates himself for wielding
> the
> > >hatchet as a young man. But critical hatchets are seldom lethal.
> Keats
> was
> > >devastated when critics of Endymion described him as a 'piss-a-bed'
> but
> he
> > >went on writing. Byron said he did not think 'the mind, that fiery
> > >particle/ could be snuffed out by an article'. But Sarah Kane was
> depressed
> > >by the panning of her first play, Blasted, and although critics were
> not
> > >responsible for her suicide, there was much critical remorse in the
> wake
> of
> > >it.
> > >
> > >Writers can become obsessed by bad reviews. I saw Jonathan Raban
> > >remonstrate with Sebastian Faulks about a negative review the latter
> had
> > >written. Raban's opening remark was: 'I have nightmares about you.'
> > >
> > >Perhaps it would be best if critics and their subjects never met.
> > >Mars-Jones recalls travelling on a number 19 bus and seeing Anita
> Brookner
> > >travelling alongside him. He had just reviewed one of her novels. She
> was
> > >sitting there 'in kid gloves, her fists tight'. To her, he was
> invisible.
> > >He wondered how it might be were he to tap her on the shoulder,
> introducing
> > >himself as the critic whose review in no way resembled her gloves. He
> had
> > >described her novel as like 'taking an ice-cold bubble bath'.
> > >
> > >Readers divide into those who enjoy criticism that heaves its subject
> into
> > >theatre and operates without anaesthetic and those who don't. Critics
> split
> > >between those who find writing negatively easiest and those who
> don't. I
> > >told the axeman that I find negative criticism a chore to write - I'm
> bored
> > >by work I have not enjoyed and find it hard to persevere with it. And
> I
> > >seldom find negative reviews a pleasure to read, either. Worse even
> than
> > >what I call 'professional enthusiasm' (the gush of PR) are pieces
> written
> > >with contempt. The pleasure evident in demolition work is alien and
> > >unsavoury, too.
> > >
> > >Novelist and critic Ali Smith agrees (she is certainly not eligible
> for
> the
> > >Order of the Axe). She deplores the way that criticism has become
> > >'personality-driven' and would like a return to the days when critics
> wrote
> > >about ideas and put work in context.
> > >
> > >Hermione Lee, an English don at New College, Oxford, is a generous,
> > >well-informed critic who thinks we have 'a culture of attack in which
> > >people make their name by ferocious reviewing'. She doesn't
> altogether
> > >disapprove. Like Smith, she does not care for personality pieces and
> does
> > >not want her own reviews to be 'about me'. But she thinks it is good
> to
> > >have 'a young Turk like Dale Peck toppling LLLs [living literary
> legends]'.
> > >She admits that writing negatively can be like having a good 'meat
> meal' -
> > >a steak, she volunteers. But she noted that it tends to be a young
> man's
> > >thing. Or, at least, a young thing. She wrote her harshest reviews in
> her
> > >twenties. Now she is more reluctant to 'throw five years of work away
> in
> > >500 words'. She prefers to 'tune in' to an author rather than have a
> > >'stand-off'. She wonders whether there is a gender divide. Certainly,
> her
> > >image of what a good review should be is inadvertently feminine - the
> > >opposite of a hatchet. Reviewing, she says, sho! uld be 'transparent,
> like
> > >a veil you can see through'.
> > >
> > >Hatchet men in the States, Peck included, have more influence than
> they
> do
> > >here. American theatre critics have the power to shut down shows.
> This is
> > >in marked contrast to our situation, where some work is critic-proof.
> Take
> > >the Rod Stewart musical Tonight's the Night. The critics detest it
> but it
> > >will still be a hit. Simon Edge, on the Express, had his piece pulled
> > >because it was insufficiently positive. It was rewritten by a
> secretary
> on
> > >the desk. How is that for respecting a critic?
> > >
> > >It is often said that critics should not dare to criticise unless
> they
> are
> > >creative themselves. But Peck's criticism is, it seems, warped by his
> > >ambition as a novelist. And Hensher maintains that being a novelist
> can
> > >distort your take on other novelists. Meanwhile, Michael Billington
> argues
> > >that there is nothing second-rate about being a critic - and that it
> is
> > >better to be a first-rate critic (not that he is flattering himself,
> he
> > >adds) than being a 'rotten playwright'.
> > >
> > >Billington was not among the four critics who got the chance to try
> their
> > >hand at writing plays last week at the Soho Theatre. Dominic
> Cavendish,
> > >Rachel Halliburton, Jeremy Kingston and Patrick Marmion each wrote a
> > >10-minute play (during a one-day workshop) and the results were
> directed
> by
> > >Abigail Morris and performed in front of an audience. The plays
> turned
> out
> > >to be disturbingly (depending upon your point of view) competent. The
> > >critics revealed - with the exception of Jeremy Kingston (whose play
> was
> > >gently horticultural) - violent imaginations.
> > >
> > >Rachel Halliburton was relieved that it was not a 'shaming session'.
> > >Critics, she suggests, tend to be perceived as 'artistic eunuchs'.
> But
> not
> > >one of them felt the experience would feed their criticism, or that
> they
> > >would become kinder as a result of it. At the end of the evening, one
> of
> > >the actors offered them his review. It was the last word in
> deflation:
> > >'Darlings, you were wonderful,' he said.
> > >
> > >They were all, as Marmion put it, 'up for pillorying' for a reason:
> they
> > >believe critics are neither visible or answerable enough in this
> country
> > >and, to prove it, Cavendish has launched a combative new website
> > >(www.theatrevoice.com) where critics can, at last, be criticised.
> > >
> > >Dale Peck's problem is that he is not being criticised enough. What
> We
> Lost
> > >is just out in the States and, he confided, 'nobody is writing about
> it.
> My
> > >three novels were extensively reviewed. People may be afraid. Or
> maybe
> they
> > >are not interested, think I have fallen off the map. Or perhaps it is
> > >payback time.'
> > >
> > >In fact, the book has had one review, by Andrew O'Hagan in the New
> York
> > >Times, which Peck describes as 'the most condescending, homophobic
> thing
> I
> > >have ever read. It suggests that the book is all about masculinity
> and
> > >points out that because I am gay I will never have children. Dislike
> the
> > >actual book, but don't make comments about my own life!'
> > >
> > >He sounds, suddenly, like a little boy. And he tells me a story. When
> he
> > >was a student, he wrote a book review of Saul Bellow's Herzog. 'I had
> just
> > >come out and was acutely sensitive. I identified 17 references to
> > >homosexuals, all of them negative and stereotypical.' It was his
> first
> > >hatchet job. And what did his tutor say? 'She said, "Dale, you are an
> > >amazing critic. Write about the things you love."' He adds: 'And I
> want
> to
> > >tell her, 15 years later, that I have finally learnt this lesson.'
> > >
> > >Who are the critics' critics?
> > >
> > >Mark Lawson, broadcaster and critic
> > >Adam Mars-Jones is the best critic around. I think critics need
> values
> and
> > >standards but shouldn't be unshakeable. They should recognise a good
> work
> > >by someone they don't respect and a bad work by someone they do.
> > >
> > >Norman Lebrecht, arts columnist
> > >We lost two of the best this year, Alexander Walker and Harold
> Schoenberg,
> > >the music critic of the New York Times. They were paragons of
> critical
> > >independence, stubborn-mindedness and above all curiosity.
> > >
> > >Michael Billington, theatre critic
> > >Kenneth Tynan was the role model for my generation of critics. He set
> the
> > >standard with impeccable writing. Film critic Pauline Kael always
> struck
> me
> > >as the most knowledgeable voice of her generation.
> > >
> > >Philip French, film critic
> > >The critic who worked during my lifetime that I most admire is Edmund
> > >Wilson, arguably the greatest man of letters of the twentieth
> century. I
> > >read every word Pauline Kael wrote for the New Yorker, enjoying
> disagreeing
> > >with her and often being driven mad by her.
> > >
> > >Charles Shaar Murray, music critic
> > >The three people in my field I admire are Greil Marcus, Jon Savage
> and
> the
> > >late Ian Macdonald. Each one had the capacity to make me reassess
> something
> > >about which I already had an opinion.
> > >
> > >Jim Shelley, television critic
> > >Apart from Nancy Banks-Smith, I don't really read any TV critics. The
> only
> > >TV critic who ever makes me think 'I wish I'd thought of that' is
> A.A.
> Gill
> > >- so for that reason alone I deliberately never read him.
> > >
> > >- Interviews by Akin Omuju
> > >
> > >- Hatchet Jobs will be published in May by the New Press, ?14.95
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >-----------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----
> -----
> > >Share holiday photos without swamping your Inbox. Get MSN Extra
> Storage
> > >now!
> >
> > _________________________________________________________________
> > Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online
> > http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963
> >
From: "Kenny, Glenn" <gkenny@hfmus.com>
To: "'D. Barton Johnson '" <chtodel@cox.net>
Sent: Sunday, November 23, 2003 9:40 PM
Subject: RE: Fw: the sterile inventions of Nabokov ...
>
> I beg Dane Gill-do not be taken in by this Peck character. He is a bad
> writer whose aesthetic is about as rich and complex as an average
> Teletubbies episode. I first encountered the guy at a Harper's
> magazine-sponsored panel about "Fiction and Film", alongside Susan Minot
and
> David Foster Wallace on the fiction side and David O. Russell and Todd
> Solondz on the film side. Peck's most memorable utterance was a whine
about
> how there was nothing wrong with art being didactic, in fact art should be
> didactic....blah blah blah. Everyone enjoys quoting his putative zinger on
> Rick Moody, but has anyone bothered reading that particular review to the
> end? I defy you to reach the bit where he talks about how-I'm paraphrasing
> here-a deep despair at the state of the world is the best and only reason
to
> write books, not to mention book reviews. I mean, not to put too fine a
> point on it, but what a bathos-wringing ass clown. His artistic
perspectives
> and goals are completely antithetical to Nabokov's, and he's so limited
that
> the phrase "sterile inventions" is about all the ammunition he's got
against
> VN. VN had plenty of ammunition against the writers he loathed, and was,
> superficial appearances to the contrary, not ungenerous with his praise
for
> those he admired-"Strong Opinions" is dotted with salutations to Queneau,
> Robbe-Grillet, and so on. As for Peck, one would be too kind to call him,
in
> Martin Amis' phrase, a "high IQ-moron." He's more like the ULA's Karl
> Wenclas after a "Queer Eye For the Straight Guy" makeover, maybe. The fact
> that he's taken seriously at all speaks of a pretty dire crisis in the
> humanities.
>
> GK
> -----Original Message-----
> From: D. Barton Johnson
> To: NABOKV-L@LISTSERV.UCSB.EDU
> Sent: 11/23/03 4:32 PM
> Subject: Fw: Fw: the sterile inventions of Nabokov ...
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Dane Gill" <pennyparkerpark@hotmail.com>
> To: <NABOKV-L@LISTSERV.UCSB.EDU>
> >
> > ---------------- Message requiring your approval (396
> lines) ------------------
> > Although this Peck fellow comes across as pretty harsh (sterile
> inventions?
> > A little vague, not sure what he means exactly. I'm mostly refering to
> the
> > rest of his reviews), VN was just a destructive when giving his
> literary
> > opinions. One really needs to dig in order to find out what he liked
> > compared to what he hated. And although VN did not give all his
> opiions in
> > structured reviews it still gives the effect (what Nabokovian can ever
> look
> > at Mann, O'Neil, Orwell, etc seriously).
> > Dane Gill
> >
> >
> > >From: "D. Barton Johnson" <chtodel@cox.net>
> > >Reply-To: Vladimir Nabokov Forum <NABOKV-L@LISTSERV.UCSB.EDU>
> > >To: NABOKV-L@LISTSERV.UCSB.EDU
> > >Subject: Fw: the sterile inventions of Nabokov ...
> > >Date: Sun, 23 Nov 2003 09:57:22 -0800
> > >
> > >EDNOTE: ON THE GENTLE ART OF BOOK REVIEWING
> > >
> > >----- Original Message -----
> > >From: Sandy P. Klein
> > >http://books.guardian.co.uk/news/articles/0,6109,1091150,00.html
> > >
> > >
> > >Hatchet man
> > >
> > >Dale Peck is the scourge of literary America, laying into everyone
> from
> > >Julian Barnes to Don DeLillo. Is aggression a critical virtue, and
> should
> > >British reviewers follow his lead?
> > >
> > >Kate Kellaway
> > >Sunday November 23, 2003
> > >The Observer
> > >
> > >There is a new verb in the US: to Peck. Or an old verb with a new
> meaning.
> > >Dale Peck is a literary one man bandit - he trashes everything he
> reads.
> Is
> > >this a dagger I see before me? Or a review by Dale Peck? He
> specialises
> in
> > >opening lines such as: 'Rick Moody is the worst writer of his
> generation.'
> > >No one is let off lightly: Philip Roth, Julian Barnes, Jim Crace -
> name
> an
> > >author and they have all been Pecked. He has published three novels
> himself
> > >and is ! hyperactively well read, with an eye for detail and a
> transparent
> > >personal agenda about what the contemporary novel ought to be (as
> close
> to
> > >his own as possible). In the US, his reviews have caused a sensation.
> And
> > >in May, his collected criticism is to be published, on both sides of
> the
> > >Atlantic, under the title Hatchet Jobs.
> > >Reading his reviews, there is a sense that Peck's writing is motored
> by a
> > >rage that has little to do with literature. There are clues in his
> > >biography. He grew up on Long Island, the son of an alcoholic
> plumber.
> His
> > >mother died in mysterious circumstances when he was three and he has
> put
> it
> > >on record that 'violence' may have had something to do with it. When
> his
> > >father discovered his son was gay, he beat him up. Peck's father is
> > >important here, if only because his latest book is a 'memoir' about
> his
> > >father's childhood (What We Lost, published in February by Granta).
> > >
> > >Dale Peck emerges as a fighter with the evangelical zeal of a
> Jehovah's
> > >Witness for whom the End of the Novel is Nigh. He was educated at
> Drew
> > >University in New Jersey and took a creative writing course at
> Columbia.
> He
> > >was talent-spotted as a critic by James Wood, who commissioned him to
> write
> > >in the back pages of the New Republic, back pages that were to make
> > >front-page news.
> > >
> > >Peck's admirers value him because of the scale of his ambitions as a
> > >critic. There is an almost suicidal valour about seeing off so many
> writers
> > >with such assurance. And Peck is as scathing about the fiction of the
> past
> > >as he is of the present. The modernist tradition, he writes, 'began
> with
> > >the diarrhoeic flow of words that is Ulysses, continued on through
> the
> > >incomprehensible ramblings of late Faulkner and the sterile
> inventions of
> > >Nabokov, and then burst into full, foul life in the ridiculous
> dithering
> of
> > >Barth, Hawkes and Gaddis, and the reductive cardboard constructions
> of
> > >Barthelme, and the word-by-word wasting of a talent as formidable as
> > >Pynchon's; and finally broke apart like a cracked sidewalk beneath
> the
> > >weight of the stupid - just plain stupid - tomes of DeLillo'. In a
> single
> > >sentence: class dismissed.
> > >
> > >When I spoke to Peck in New York, he struck me as at once bellicose
> and
> > >vulnerable. He talks fast and breathlessly, as if still winded by the
> blow
> > >dealt him by modern writers. You might reasonably object that to
> stick
> his
> > >head above the parapet is not brave, merely a way of achieving
> visibility.
> > >But I warmed to him. He has no sense of self-preservation. 'I write
> for
> > >writers and I just want to say to them: wake up! It is a dream of
> mine
> that
> > >they will.' When I ask whether he wouldn't rather use something more
> > >delicate than a hatchet, he says he doesn't see it as a clumsy
> instrument -
> > >no weapon is too sharp to carve up the modern novel, which he sees as
> 'a
> > >reactionary force in aesthetic terms, irrelevant in cultural terms'.
> > >
> > >He goes on: 'Novels and memoirs are on a wrong course. They are
> either
> > >inward-gazing, solipsistic and impotent or unconscious and rarefied,
> > >written by recidivist realists who pretend the twentieth century
> didn't
> > >happen.' A critic, he says 'must tell the truth. If something makes
> you
> > >hopping mad, you must be allowed to express it'. But if he dislikes
> > >everything he reads, why read at all? Who does he like? Early Philip
> Roth
> > >and Virginia Woolf (strange bedfellows) miss the chop. So do Joan
> Didion
> > >and Toni Morrison. Though, he hastens to add, 'they all have their
> > >problems'.
> > >
> > >When I ask him to characterise the US reviewing scene, he cheers up:
> 'I
> am
> > >not sure if you can print this. But they are a bunch of pussies. They
> are
> > >back-scratchers, afraid for their own careers - novelists reviewing
> their
> > >friends' works. It is very dishonest.' Does he ever worry about the
> effect
> > >his reviews may have on writers? 'The truth is that if you can't hack
> a
> > >negative review, you shouldn't be writing at that particular level. I
> > >really do believe a novel is nothing more than a strongly expressed
> opinion
> > >and that you need to respond strongly and with vitality.'
> > >
> > >Peck is the eye - or I - of the storm and has placed himself at the
> top
> of
> > >his own Pecking order. He has even gone so far as to say that critics
> who
> > >maintain an 'ironic, impotent distance' are 'teaching people not to
> read
> > >books like mine'. But in his own career, the hatchet has proved
> mightier
> > >than the pen. His own novels have been quietly approved but have not
> made
> > >his name. Should we care about him at all?
> > >
> > >If Peck were British, according to the American commentary, his
> punishing
> > >excesses would be greeted with a shrug. The received wisdom on the
> other
> > >side of the Atlantic is that we live tolerantly in a critical
> snakepit.
> But
> > >is this true? Who are the English Dale Pecks? Is there anyone with
> his
> > >chutzpah? And if we can identify our hatchet men, do we admire them?
> How
> > >much are hatchet men victims of their own temperaments (think of Dale
> > >Peck's rage)? And the ultimate question - what are the ethics of
> criticism
> > >in this country?
> > >
> > >'Critic' has always been a dirty word. Samuel Beckett, in Waiting for
> > >Godot, used it as the climax to a list of insults: vermin - abortion
> -
> > >sewer-rat - curate - cretin... Of these, CRRITIC (the double R spells
> > >trouble) was the worst. Christopher Hampton refines the point by
> saying
> > >that to ask a working writer what he thinks of a critic is like
> asking a
> > >dog what it thinks of a lamppost. But a good critic must expect to be
> > >unpopular. And be ready to annoy by keeping his horizons wide.
> Kenneth
> > >Tynan put it like this: 'A good drama critic is one who perceives
> what is
> > >happening in the theatre of his time. A great drama critic also
> perceives
> > >what is not happening.' Peck would approve the definition.
> > >
> > >Everyone agrees that bad reviews are more memorable than good. If
> happiness
> > >writes white, enthusiasm often registers in shades of pastel. Tibor
> Fischer
> > >specialises in shocking pink. His review of Martin Amis's last novel
> > >likened it to seeing 'your favourite uncle being caught in a school
> > >playground, masturbating'. And Julie Burchill, reviewing Helen
> Fielding's
> > >career as well as her novel, wrote: 'When she made it big, it was a
> bit
> > >like realising that your hamster had escaped from its cage - and then
> you
> > >turn on the TV and it's making a speech to the world from the Oval
> Office,
> > >because it's become President of the United States.'
> > >
> > >Burchill's review appeared in the London Evening Standard, where
> David
> > >Sexton, its literary editor, has always had hatchet-man potential. I
> first
> > >met him when I was working for the Literary Review, edited by Auberon
> > >Waugh. Waugh's critical 'ethics' included admitting that if he had
> not
> read
> > >a book, he always gave it a positive notice. Perhaps this accounts
> for
> his
> > >much-used phrase: 'She writes like an angel.'
> > >
> > >At that time, Sexton was more interested in felling angels. He wrote
> a
> > >review of a Margaret Drabble novel so cruelly entertaining and
> personal
> > >that I couldn't read it without worrying about her having to suffer
> it
> over
> > >a long, poisonous breakfast.
> > >
> > >Sexton believes there is no ethical problem about such reviews.
> Reviews
> are
> > >for readers, he says. He thinks it is bordering on immoral to have
> the
> > >author's feelings in mind at all. 'It is a wrong thing to do.' James
> Wood
> > >used to say he saw his reviews as letters to authors, but Sexton
> believes
> > >this is 'completely wrong'. Nor does he buy into the notion that the
> > >English critical scene is a snakepit. He sees it as 'massively
> > >over-favourable and collusive. There is a pretence now that every
> book is
> a
> > >new sensation.'
> > >
> > >He believes there should be far more negative reviews than there are.
> He
> > >can't think of anything that is 'below the belt. Once a creative work
> is
> > >out in the world, it is in play.' Criticism is not doorstepping, he
> adds.
>
> > >And yet he makes reviewing sound a drably self- interested affair in
> which
> > >reviewers are keen only to hear the sound of their own voices. 'There
> is
> no
> > >such thing as a disinterested reviewer,' he maintains.
> > >
> > >Sexton does not admire Peck and his 'scatter-gun' approach, but he
> can
> > >readily nominate a trio who are masters of the hatchet job. First
> > >contender: Eric Griffiths, fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge, who
> > >recently damned books by Roger Scruton and Terry Eagleton in the
> Times
> > >Literary Supplement. In these pieces, wit and erudition work to
> devastating
> > >effect. Even his lightest points have a darker purpose: 'Eagleton
> > >specialises in quick-fire summary of issues and thinkers; he is a
> > >pith-artist.'
> > >
> > >Griffiths was particularly contrite about the Scruton piece, telling
> me
> > >that Scruton had been his teacher in his third year at Cambridge and
> that
> > >he has 'vivid and delightful memories' of those occasions. He said
> the
> > >review was a 'duty'. He went on: 'It is a real pity that argued
> dissent
> is
> > >regularly caricatured as "hatchet job", "savage attack" and other
> such
> > >bulking agents. We pass legislation to encourage whistle-blowing and
> at
> the
> > >same time a culture is promoted which portrays whistle-blowing about
> any
> > >intellectual matters as usually an act of pathological spite. In a
> world
> > >perilously muddled by expertise in its many forms, it seems a pity
> that
> > >there isn't a calmer climate of more precisely informed comment on
> > >evidence.
> > >
> > >'What I feel about the authors of pretentious and misleading books is
> well
> > >expressed by the fact that Dante put the fraudulent below adulterers,
> > >gluttons, bad-tempered gits, suicides, sodomites, hypocrites,
> heretics
> and
> > >other riff-raff in his sketch of hell. But really I am of a sunny
> > >disposition and much prefer to write and talk about books I admire. I
> spend
> > >my working life doing so. Reviewing is what happens when criticism
> goes
> on
> > >holiday.' And with that, Griffiths returned to enjoy the summer
> weather
> of
> > >academe.
> > >
> > >Adam Mars-Jones, novelist, critic (and second contender) feels that
> > >negative reviewing must not sound too dutiful. He thinks 'destructive
> > >criticism is legitimate as long as it isn't unmodulated'. Of Peck's
> review
> > >of Rick Moody he observes: 'There is something comic about someone
> taking
> > >4,000 seething words to attack the bloated emptiness of contemporary
> > >culture.' Unlike Griffiths, who aims at objectivity in his criticism
> and
> > >prefers not to use what he describes as the 'pitiable resource' of
> his
> own
> > >feelings, Mars-Jones relaxedly admits to the subjectivity of literary
> > >taste. Criticism, he says, is 'not about authority. I am not paid to
> be
> > >right. I am paid to make a case.'
> > >
> > >It is essential that critics should retain an energy about their
> work,
> some
> > >excitement and expectation. Mars-Jones remembers how, at film
> screenings,
> > >critic Alexander Walker used to give 'a little acidulated sigh as he
> sat
> > >down as if to ask: how will my intelligence be insulted this week?'
> > >
> > >Philip Hensher (third nominee), novelist, columnist and critic, may
> be
> > >found in Believer magazine (published in the US and edited by Dave
> Eggers's
> > >wife, Vendela Vida) in a column entitled 'Snarkwatch', which names
> and
> > >shames reviewers. Hensher has been described in the column as 'the
> nastiest
> > >snark this side of the water' and ticked off for describing Tracey
> Emin
> as
> > >'too stupid' to produce meaningful art.
> > >
> > >But Hensher is a 'snark' with standards. 'I try not to review a book
> by
> > >anyone if they've ever given me a bad review,' he says, 'and would be
> less
> > >likely to review one if its author had given me any kind of review.
> It
> > >isn't fair to let people think that there may be more complicated
> motives
> > >behind your review than would ever, in my case, exist.' He finds it
> 'as
> > >infuriating to get a rave review as a return-of-favour as to get a
> hatchet
> > >job from someone with a reason to dislike you personally'.
> > >
> > >He believes: 'It is deeply improper to speculate on an author's
> personality
> > >or private life.' He was outraged by a review of his short stories in
> which
> > >the reviewer explained that he needed to have experienced 'more
> misery'.
> > >And the reviews of Martin Amis's novel have shocked him, too: 'They
> have
> > >really been about him. I think that is disgraceful and on the
> increase.'
> > >
> > >In his autobiography, Experience, Amis berates himself for wielding
> the
> > >hatchet as a young man. But critical hatchets are seldom lethal.
> Keats
> was
> > >devastated when critics of Endymion described him as a 'piss-a-bed'
> but
> he
> > >went on writing. Byron said he did not think 'the mind, that fiery
> > >particle/ could be snuffed out by an article'. But Sarah Kane was
> depressed
> > >by the panning of her first play, Blasted, and although critics were
> not
> > >responsible for her suicide, there was much critical remorse in the
> wake
> of
> > >it.
> > >
> > >Writers can become obsessed by bad reviews. I saw Jonathan Raban
> > >remonstrate with Sebastian Faulks about a negative review the latter
> had
> > >written. Raban's opening remark was: 'I have nightmares about you.'
> > >
> > >Perhaps it would be best if critics and their subjects never met.
> > >Mars-Jones recalls travelling on a number 19 bus and seeing Anita
> Brookner
> > >travelling alongside him. He had just reviewed one of her novels. She
> was
> > >sitting there 'in kid gloves, her fists tight'. To her, he was
> invisible.
> > >He wondered how it might be were he to tap her on the shoulder,
> introducing
> > >himself as the critic whose review in no way resembled her gloves. He
> had
> > >described her novel as like 'taking an ice-cold bubble bath'.
> > >
> > >Readers divide into those who enjoy criticism that heaves its subject
> into
> > >theatre and operates without anaesthetic and those who don't. Critics
> split
> > >between those who find writing negatively easiest and those who
> don't. I
> > >told the axeman that I find negative criticism a chore to write - I'm
> bored
> > >by work I have not enjoyed and find it hard to persevere with it. And
> I
> > >seldom find negative reviews a pleasure to read, either. Worse even
> than
> > >what I call 'professional enthusiasm' (the gush of PR) are pieces
> written
> > >with contempt. The pleasure evident in demolition work is alien and
> > >unsavoury, too.
> > >
> > >Novelist and critic Ali Smith agrees (she is certainly not eligible
> for
> the
> > >Order of the Axe). She deplores the way that criticism has become
> > >'personality-driven' and would like a return to the days when critics
> wrote
> > >about ideas and put work in context.
> > >
> > >Hermione Lee, an English don at New College, Oxford, is a generous,
> > >well-informed critic who thinks we have 'a culture of attack in which
> > >people make their name by ferocious reviewing'. She doesn't
> altogether
> > >disapprove. Like Smith, she does not care for personality pieces and
> does
> > >not want her own reviews to be 'about me'. But she thinks it is good
> to
> > >have 'a young Turk like Dale Peck toppling LLLs [living literary
> legends]'.
> > >She admits that writing negatively can be like having a good 'meat
> meal' -
> > >a steak, she volunteers. But she noted that it tends to be a young
> man's
> > >thing. Or, at least, a young thing. She wrote her harshest reviews in
> her
> > >twenties. Now she is more reluctant to 'throw five years of work away
> in
> > >500 words'. She prefers to 'tune in' to an author rather than have a
> > >'stand-off'. She wonders whether there is a gender divide. Certainly,
> her
> > >image of what a good review should be is inadvertently feminine - the
> > >opposite of a hatchet. Reviewing, she says, sho! uld be 'transparent,
> like
> > >a veil you can see through'.
> > >
> > >Hatchet men in the States, Peck included, have more influence than
> they
> do
> > >here. American theatre critics have the power to shut down shows.
> This is
> > >in marked contrast to our situation, where some work is critic-proof.
> Take
> > >the Rod Stewart musical Tonight's the Night. The critics detest it
> but it
> > >will still be a hit. Simon Edge, on the Express, had his piece pulled
> > >because it was insufficiently positive. It was rewritten by a
> secretary
> on
> > >the desk. How is that for respecting a critic?
> > >
> > >It is often said that critics should not dare to criticise unless
> they
> are
> > >creative themselves. But Peck's criticism is, it seems, warped by his
> > >ambition as a novelist. And Hensher maintains that being a novelist
> can
> > >distort your take on other novelists. Meanwhile, Michael Billington
> argues
> > >that there is nothing second-rate about being a critic - and that it
> is
> > >better to be a first-rate critic (not that he is flattering himself,
> he
> > >adds) than being a 'rotten playwright'.
> > >
> > >Billington was not among the four critics who got the chance to try
> their
> > >hand at writing plays last week at the Soho Theatre. Dominic
> Cavendish,
> > >Rachel Halliburton, Jeremy Kingston and Patrick Marmion each wrote a
> > >10-minute play (during a one-day workshop) and the results were
> directed
> by
> > >Abigail Morris and performed in front of an audience. The plays
> turned
> out
> > >to be disturbingly (depending upon your point of view) competent. The
> > >critics revealed - with the exception of Jeremy Kingston (whose play
> was
> > >gently horticultural) - violent imaginations.
> > >
> > >Rachel Halliburton was relieved that it was not a 'shaming session'.
> > >Critics, she suggests, tend to be perceived as 'artistic eunuchs'.
> But
> not
> > >one of them felt the experience would feed their criticism, or that
> they
> > >would become kinder as a result of it. At the end of the evening, one
> of
> > >the actors offered them his review. It was the last word in
> deflation:
> > >'Darlings, you were wonderful,' he said.
> > >
> > >They were all, as Marmion put it, 'up for pillorying' for a reason:
> they
> > >believe critics are neither visible or answerable enough in this
> country
> > >and, to prove it, Cavendish has launched a combative new website
> > >(www.theatrevoice.com) where critics can, at last, be criticised.
> > >
> > >Dale Peck's problem is that he is not being criticised enough. What
> We
> Lost
> > >is just out in the States and, he confided, 'nobody is writing about
> it.
> My
> > >three novels were extensively reviewed. People may be afraid. Or
> maybe
> they
> > >are not interested, think I have fallen off the map. Or perhaps it is
> > >payback time.'
> > >
> > >In fact, the book has had one review, by Andrew O'Hagan in the New
> York
> > >Times, which Peck describes as 'the most condescending, homophobic
> thing
> I
> > >have ever read. It suggests that the book is all about masculinity
> and
> > >points out that because I am gay I will never have children. Dislike
> the
> > >actual book, but don't make comments about my own life!'
> > >
> > >He sounds, suddenly, like a little boy. And he tells me a story. When
> he
> > >was a student, he wrote a book review of Saul Bellow's Herzog. 'I had
> just
> > >come out and was acutely sensitive. I identified 17 references to
> > >homosexuals, all of them negative and stereotypical.' It was his
> first
> > >hatchet job. And what did his tutor say? 'She said, "Dale, you are an
> > >amazing critic. Write about the things you love."' He adds: 'And I
> want
> to
> > >tell her, 15 years later, that I have finally learnt this lesson.'
> > >
> > >Who are the critics' critics?
> > >
> > >Mark Lawson, broadcaster and critic
> > >Adam Mars-Jones is the best critic around. I think critics need
> values
> and
> > >standards but shouldn't be unshakeable. They should recognise a good
> work
> > >by someone they don't respect and a bad work by someone they do.
> > >
> > >Norman Lebrecht, arts columnist
> > >We lost two of the best this year, Alexander Walker and Harold
> Schoenberg,
> > >the music critic of the New York Times. They were paragons of
> critical
> > >independence, stubborn-mindedness and above all curiosity.
> > >
> > >Michael Billington, theatre critic
> > >Kenneth Tynan was the role model for my generation of critics. He set
> the
> > >standard with impeccable writing. Film critic Pauline Kael always
> struck
> me
> > >as the most knowledgeable voice of her generation.
> > >
> > >Philip French, film critic
> > >The critic who worked during my lifetime that I most admire is Edmund
> > >Wilson, arguably the greatest man of letters of the twentieth
> century. I
> > >read every word Pauline Kael wrote for the New Yorker, enjoying
> disagreeing
> > >with her and often being driven mad by her.
> > >
> > >Charles Shaar Murray, music critic
> > >The three people in my field I admire are Greil Marcus, Jon Savage
> and
> the
> > >late Ian Macdonald. Each one had the capacity to make me reassess
> something
> > >about which I already had an opinion.
> > >
> > >Jim Shelley, television critic
> > >Apart from Nancy Banks-Smith, I don't really read any TV critics. The
> only
> > >TV critic who ever makes me think 'I wish I'd thought of that' is
> A.A.
> Gill
> > >- so for that reason alone I deliberately never read him.
> > >
> > >- Interviews by Akin Omuju
> > >
> > >- Hatchet Jobs will be published in May by the New Press, ?14.95
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >-----------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----
> -----
> > >Share holiday photos without swamping your Inbox. Get MSN Extra
> Storage
> > >now!
> >
> > _________________________________________________________________
> > Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online
> > http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963
> >