.. on Beatrice and Virgil, with a guest appearance by Ed Champion: Nothing can equal Pi.
In all fairness, Martel comes off in this as a pretty level-headed dude.
And, for a bit a perspective on Ed, here's his review of Donald Westlake's Memory: A pulp mystery story - and so much more.
Frank, I understand that you are eager to champion the work of Mr. Champion; that explains your posting of the Westlake piece, a rather decent bit of journalism (albeit worshipful) that cannot, however, mitigate the hyperbolic indecency of Mr. Champion's review of the Martel book. I say "indecency" because neither Mr. Champion's tone nor his diction were appropriate to the task at hand: an objective assessment of a novel.
ReplyDeleteMr. Champion is fortunate to have you in his corner, especially now as he gains more notoriety because of his indecent review. My past encounters (via blogging) with Mr. Champion leave me puzzled about your support; I am generally a fairly good judge of a person's writing abilities (through which we often glimpse the personality of the author), but I do not yet understand your enthusiasm for Mr. Champion.
Now, I think you are correct about Mr. Martel. His reaction to all of the bad press is decent and intelligent. You will notice that he did not resort to foul language and tortured metaphors to make any of his points.
Finally, I was hesitant about making these comments because I do not want to offend either you or Mr. Champion. Still, I think your enthusiasm for his review of Martel ought to be reconsidered. And to the extent that I may have offended you, I apologize.
Hi R.T.,
ReplyDeleteWhen my wife, a retired teacher, met Ed, she remarked that he was exactly the kind of guy she loved having in her classes. I enjoyed Ed's writing before I actually knew him, which is why I asked him to review for me when I was The Inquirer's book editor -- as I would ask you to if I were still in that position. And Ed's review of Martel's book, as I have said before, is not just a venting of spleen. He provides plenty of textual evidence to back up his complaints. I certainly think Ed's fortissimo review preferable to Michiko Kakutani's acrid approach. Trust me, Ed loves books. That is why he can praise one to high heaven and damn another to the depths of literary hell. He cares, he is honest, and willing to go out on a limb. Do he and I agree on everything. Hell no. What a dull friendship that would be.
For further perspective on Mr. Champion, see here
ReplyDeleteVery little respect for differing opinions and some venting of spleen for added measure.
Regrettably Frank, I'm with R.T. on this one - a total mystery to me as well.
Regards,
Frank, I have taken time to comment positively on Champion's Westlake review. I do not imagine that my meager tribute to his work in the case of Westlake will mend fences previously damaged when I inappropriately suggested improvements he could make in his writing style, and my enjoyment of the Westlake piece does not do much to change my strong objections to his Martel piece (which would have never made it past me if I had been the editor), but--for whatever it might be worth--I remain open minded about other and future work from Champion.
ReplyDeleteR.T.: I'm not offended at all by your comment. Indeed, the fact that you are reticent to offend appears to be part of the problem. As I've said repeatedly, there is nothing hyperbolic in my review. It is a visceral statement of truth, backed up by numerous examples in the text. It is only hyperbolic by present book reviewing standards, in which newspapers are too terrified or gutless to print anything even remotely punchy. I have great respect for differing opinions (indeed, Frank and I disagree on many things), but little patience for those who wish to uphold the banal or those who skewer the interesting and the innovative on flimsy pretext. Please aver, sir, that you possess a sense of humor. In turn, I will remain open-minded about your future commentary. I may even bake you some cookies!
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThough I'm perfectly willing to accept that Ed loves books, it is still possible to present evidence without spleen. (Yes, Ed, I stand by the word.) In fact, I would argue that the tone of Ed's original piece is so compelling that it actually detracts - and distracts - from his evidence. A shame, because people have mostly ended up discussing the nature of the review, rather than the evidence itself - and by extension, the novel.
ReplyDeleteMr. Champion,
ReplyDelete"...the fact that you are reticent to offend appears to be part of the problem."
My dictionary shows "offend" and "disagree" - or even "disapprove" - to have quite different meanings.
He wasn't reticent to disagree - quite the contrary. Rather, he wanted to ensure his disapproval of your review wasn't seen as an attack on yourself. A distinction you seem blind to.
Regards,
Jonathan: The fact that you cannot read R.T.'s comment, which clearly states, "I do not want to offend either you or Mr. Champion," suggests very highly that you should take a correspondence reading course. Or, alternatively, you can just go fuck off, while R.T. and I actually attempt to have a civil dialogue. He's alright by my book. You, on the other hand, have no penis.
ReplyDeleteThank-you Mr. Champion,
ReplyDeleteI clearly saw that R.T. had written, "I do not want to offend...".
I was responding to your desire to see this statement by him as part of "the problem".
You seem to see yourself as engaged in some "truth-to-power" crusade. I was merely pointing out that the particular windmill at which you are tilting is the supposed fear of newspapers to print disapproving or negative reviews.
R.T.'s desire to not offend you is not part of that problem. Rather it was his attempt to remain civil, even while disagreeing vehemently with your review.
A great deal of fun is had on the web at the expense of those authors who are unable to accept criticism with grace, and fly into rages or incoherence. Perhaps the same might be said of those critics who are unable to take what they so gleefully dish out.
The ease with which you lose your cool is remarkable.
Regards,
Sorry, Mr. Champion,
ReplyDeleteOne more brief observation.
It is interesting to note that when I wrote "He wasn't reticent to disagree", you triumphantly pointed to his statement about not wanting to offend.
That is the point. Disagreement is not equivalent to offense. Most reviewers are able to make this distinction. Your inability to even recognize the problem is what has garnered you your fifteen minutes.
Now, about that reading course.
Regards,
Alas! Some of what precedes this posting is one of the reasons I have such concern about the lack of civility in the blog environment. I cannot imagine certain comments being made to anyone face-to-face. I would never say such things, and I would not tolerate being on the receiving end; I would simply walk away. And that has nothing to do with any perceived tendency I might (or might not) have with respect to reticence.
ReplyDeleteI am familiar with the expression, "if you cannot stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen," and if were it slightly modified, I think it would be somewhat apt for me in the case of the current blog environment. My adaptation to the expression would be that my ability to withstand the heat is not the issue; I find some of the "heat" offensive and counter-productive. Thus, not necessarily being reticent, I withdraw from the kitchen where phrases like "fuck off" and words like "penis" are commonplace barriers to civility.
And to think all of this began with a review of a review. Indeed, the blog environment can be a strange, unpleasant world.
Ed is a friend of mine. I am loyal to my friends. I will leave it at that.
ReplyDelete