Golden Rule Jones links to Edward Champion's tete-a-tete with Sam Tanenhaus: I don’t have to acknowledge the brownies. The refusal to acknowledge the brownies is unforgivable. Sam sure does sound a tad defensive.
I don't understand why everyone is accepting Edward Champion's obviously biased version of events as gospel. Frankly, to me he sounds like a complete crank, who is unhealthily obsessed with the Times and Tanenhaus. The blogging community at large seems to have no perspective on what it takes to edit a books section at a major newspaper, but I would expect more of you, Frank. By acknowleging a clown like Champion, you only encourage him. I side with Tanenhaus on this one. And even from Champion's rather overwrought version of his alleged throwdown with the editor, Tanenhaus did answer his legitimate questions -- ones that deserved to be asked by a more reasonable person -- about the representation of women on the panel.
What parts of Champion's "biased" version do you doubt, Anonymous? That Tanenhaus was defensive? That Champion asked those questions? That Tanenhaus gave those answers?
And why isn't the allocation of NYTBR pages to fiction compared with non-fiction also a legitimate question?
"A moment ago you were calling me Sir, in fear and trembling. Now you’re asking me questions. No good will come of this!" - Samuel Beckett, Waiting for Godot
I merely noted that the brownies deserved recognition (I was kidding) and that Tanenhaus - judging by his quotes - sounded defensive.Beyond that, I prefer not to get involved. Tanenhaus does his job according to his lights, and I do mine according to mine. I do not criticize other book review editors. I linked to it because this is a lit blog and and Edward Chapmion is a fellow lit blogger.
Sam (would that be Beckett? if so, you're one of my favorites), I would say that a comment like this from Champion: "Tanenhaus took considerable ire at this, booming into the microphone with all the joie de vivre of a stale jelly bean, “Where do we begin?” " does betray a bias. So I do doubt that Tanenhaus was as defensive as Champion portrays him, but I'd be willing to reserve an opinion until I could view a tape myself. Champion's tone made me doubt the truth of his reporting. And I think you misunderstood me about Champion's legitimate questions (like fiction v. nonfiction; women v. men among the "best fiction" judges); they are certainly legitimate, just that Champion often clouds his reasonable points (and not just in the session he described but frequently in his blog entries as well) with bombastic posturing that undercuts his credibility. And Frank, I very much enjoy your section in the newspaper. But I think linking to litbloggers indiscriminately simply because they're litbloggers is something editors should be wary of; a link might well be construed as an endorsement....
You make some good points, Anon - I wonder of BookTV will carry that session in CSPAN? If I were Sam T I would be delighted that his special issue has generated so much interest, particularly online.
Re Ed's bombast, yes, he can be a bit over-the-top. Or a lot over- the-top. But sometimes over-the-top people are right.
Re linking equals endorsement, I reject that idea, since it suggests that readers are incapable of exercising judgment. One exception I make: I think if you are linking to something that is incorrect on a matter of fact, and you know or should know it is incorrect, and you fail to point out that it is incorrect, then I think you can be rightly said to be propagating that error yourself.
I am late getting back to this, but re the posting-endorsement connection, my view is the same as Sam's. I post what strikes me as interesting because I think others may find it interesting, too. If I found I had posted something that turned out to be incorrect or false, I would bring that to readers' attention as soon as I knew. Also, I like to post stuff from time to time just to see what the reaction will be. Like Cyndi Lauper's girls, I just want to have fun.
Thanks for the civil discourse, folks, and the good points. Makes me rethink my earlier harsh language, e.g. "crank" and "clown." I've often thought that blogging and its commentary too often provokes polarizing comments (including my own, in this case), so I've not participated in it much, but this was a positive experience. Still, I'd say that Tanenhaus's Book Review is vastly superior to the McGrath. Overall, I think he's trying to turn a battleship and has made some progress...
I don't understand why everyone is accepting Edward Champion's obviously biased version of events as gospel. Frankly, to me he sounds like a complete crank, who is unhealthily obsessed with the Times and Tanenhaus. The blogging community at large seems to have no perspective on what it takes to edit a books section at a major newspaper, but I would expect more of you, Frank. By acknowleging a clown like Champion, you only encourage him. I side with Tanenhaus on this one. And even from Champion's rather overwrought version of his alleged throwdown with the editor, Tanenhaus did answer his legitimate questions -- ones that deserved to be asked by a more reasonable person -- about the representation of women on the panel.
ReplyDeleteWhat parts of Champion's "biased" version do you doubt, Anonymous? That Tanenhaus was defensive? That Champion asked those questions? That Tanenhaus gave those answers?
ReplyDeleteAnd why isn't the allocation of NYTBR pages to fiction compared with non-fiction also a legitimate question?
"A moment ago you were calling me Sir, in fear and trembling. Now you’re asking me questions. No good will come of this!"
- Samuel Beckett, Waiting for Godot
I merely noted that the brownies deserved recognition (I was kidding) and that Tanenhaus - judging by his quotes - sounded defensive.Beyond that, I prefer not to get involved. Tanenhaus does his job according to his lights, and I do mine according to mine. I do not criticize other book review editors.
ReplyDeleteI linked to it because this is a lit blog and and Edward Chapmion is a fellow lit blogger.
Sam (would that be Beckett? if so, you're one of my favorites), I would say that a comment like this from Champion:
ReplyDelete"Tanenhaus took considerable ire at this, booming into the microphone with all the joie de vivre of a stale jelly bean, “Where do we begin?” "
does betray a bias. So I do doubt that Tanenhaus was as defensive as Champion portrays him, but I'd be willing to reserve an opinion until I could view a tape myself. Champion's tone made me doubt the truth of his reporting. And I think you misunderstood me about Champion's legitimate questions (like fiction v. nonfiction; women v. men among the "best fiction" judges); they are certainly legitimate, just that Champion often clouds his reasonable points (and not just in the session he described but frequently in his blog entries as well) with bombastic posturing that undercuts his credibility. And Frank, I very much enjoy your section in the newspaper. But I think linking to litbloggers indiscriminately simply because they're litbloggers is something editors should be wary of; a link might well be construed as an endorsement....
You make some good points, Anon - I wonder of BookTV will carry that session in CSPAN? If I were Sam T I would be delighted that his special issue has generated so much interest, particularly online.
ReplyDeleteRe Ed's bombast, yes, he can be a bit over-the-top. Or a lot over- the-top. But sometimes over-the-top people are right.
Re linking equals endorsement, I reject that idea, since it suggests that readers are incapable of exercising judgment. One exception I make: I think if you are linking to something that is incorrect on a matter of fact, and you know or should know it is incorrect, and you fail to point out that it is incorrect, then I think you can be rightly said to be propagating that error yourself.
I am late getting back to this, but re the posting-endorsement connection, my view is the same as Sam's. I post what strikes me as interesting because I think others may find it interesting, too. If I found I had posted something that turned out to be incorrect or false, I would bring that to readers' attention as soon as I knew. Also, I like to post stuff from time to time just to see what the reaction will be. Like Cyndi Lauper's girls, I just want to have fun.
ReplyDeleteAnd, look, if you don't want to take Champion's word for it, I was there, too. Champion was bombastic, but Tanenhaus was defensive.
ReplyDeleteThanks for the civil discourse, folks, and the good points. Makes me rethink my earlier harsh language, e.g. "crank" and "clown." I've often thought that blogging and its commentary too often provokes polarizing comments (including my own, in this case), so I've not participated in it much, but this was a positive experience. Still, I'd say that Tanenhaus's Book Review is vastly superior to the McGrath. Overall, I think he's trying to turn a battleship and has made some progress...
ReplyDelete