Chekhov’s Mistess

A Snark is Given a Mirror

Peck, Mendelsohn in New York Review of Books

In his book Hatchet Job, Dale Peck says that he is done with negative criticism, so it seems fitting that Daniel Mendelsohn’s review “Nailed” in NYRB shows him how to do criticism right. No need to go into too many details because the article is on-line, but Mendelsohn begins, after setting up Peck as a modern day Aristophane, by saying that…

“Whatever its rhetorical excesses (and there are many) and its cramped aesthetic vision, it is an extremely intelligent book, and clearly the work of a potentially noteworthy critic…”

Perhaps that is why Mendelsohn proceeds to comment critically on Peck’s body of work; as if to say, “I think you have potential, so just follow my lead.” Despite not liking Peck’s fiction very much, there is no snarking here, just detailed, thoughtful criticism with admonishment for Peck’s intellectual lapses and eagerness to punish writers instead of judge.

Outside of the Aristophane conceit, the one thing that bothered me about this otherwise excellent article was Mendolsohn’s comment that…

“it occurred to me that perhaps it might be wasteful to expend many thousands of words on the complete annihilation of writers who are, when all is said and done, not of the first tier.”

Unless he was just leading up to Peck’s motivations for writing the book, which he does discuss, the line just seems out of place, like a parent telling her kid to play nice in the sandbox while sneering at the other children.

In the end, despite the intelligence and humor that Mendelsohn extolls in Peck’s writing, I am still left wondering would this book of reviews by a relatively young author even be reviewed in such a journal as NYRB if it weren’t for its shock value?

p.s. This too will be my last comment on the issue.

comments

Ahoy Bud. Thanks for your post on my coverage of this item. I can see why one might get this impression, but I’ll tell you why I don’t quite agree - the very cornerstone of Peck’s TOE (Theory of Everything), if you will, is that the novel is broken and must be fixed. And given his low opinion of those out there attempting to do the fixing, I think looking over Peck’s own body of work is a legitimate approach for a reviewer to take. To be honest, I just bought some used copies of his novels to do pretty much the same thing myself. But DM’s review makes that mostly unnecessary.

Anyroad, if in fact he is showing Peck how it should be done, who better to do so, eh? And, as you point out, the review is so well-crafted that it even works on that level.

Just my two cents, of course.

    – TEV (07/15  at  01:17 PM)

I came here via Elegant Variation.

I personally find the Peck backlash tiresome. The man has his faults, most notably rhetorical overkill and a kind of giddy overkilling of his point (Peck would have you believe the whole Modernist project was doomed from the start). But in general he’s a persuasive, entertaining writer, with a clear point of view.

The piece in NYBR is generally favorable; I’m not sure where you got any notion otherwise. Certainly his reputation helped with him getting the review, but that reputation was fairly earned, essay by essay.

The notion that “negativity” is bad for critics seems silly to me. Especially when we’re talking about the high-end stuff Peck mostly reviewed. That subset of the writing world could use more enthusiasm, not less. Whatever else you want to say about Peck, he obviously cared about the books he reviewed,

doug

    – Doug (07/15  at  01:19 PM)

Hi Doug - Thanks for your comment, but it makes me think that I didn’t write my post very well. I do indeed think that Peck is an entertaining writer and no one will say that he doesn’t have a clear point of view. I had an earlier post (A Literary Agnostic Goes Snark Hunting) that talked about that a bit more. But I do think the NYBR review is favorable and even quoted a passage to show that point.

My point of view is that Mendelsohn appears to think that Peck writes non-fiction well, and by reviewing Peck’s entire body of work he is subtly saying that you don’t have to damn the writer to be critical; this is demonstrated by the fact that DM does not seem to think Peck’s fiction is very good, but avoids sending Peck to some sort of writer’s purgatory.

Where I think you and I differ is that you believe Peck earned his place, essay by essay, and I think that he earned it through sensationalism by being so provocative, thus distorting the message he is trying to send, but making him far more famous than he would have otherwise been.

    – Bud Parr (07/15  at  01:20 PM)

“Thanks for your comment, but it makes me think that I didn’t write my post very well. I do indeed think that Peck is an entertaining writer and no one will say that he doesn’t have a clear point of view. I had an earlier post (A Literary Agnostic Goes Snark Hunting) that talked about that a bit more. But I do think the NYBR review is favorable and even quoted a passage to show that point.”

There is an implication in your post (and the comment on EV) that Mendelsohn is sort of taking Peck by the hand and patronizingly showing him how to do it “right”. There’s a little of it, but mostly Mendelsohn praises Peck for being effective at doing what he did—which isn’t what Mendelsohn does.

“My point of view is that Mendelsohn appears to think that Peck writes non-fiction well, and by reviewing Peck’s entire body of work he is subtly saying that you don’t have to damn the writer to be critical; this is demonstrated by the fact that DM does not seem to think Peck’s fiction is very good, but avoids sending Peck to some sort of writer’s purgatory.”

Of course, you don’t seem to like what Peck does—which is fine, but not really to the point here. In fact, Mendelsohn transforms a common cheap shot against Peck (his opinions are influenced by the fact that he’s not successful as a novelist) saying instead something like “non-fiction and memoir are his forte”. If anything, he’s quite laudatory.

We’ll save the “do you have to damn the author to be critical” bit for another day. I’d just say that the problems in the high-end literary world don’t revolve around an abundance of snark, no matter what the Believer thought. Peck seemed like a breath of fresh air. I don’t agree with all of his points but I admire his guts in standing up and saying them forthrightly.

“Where I think you and I differ is that you believe Peck earned his place, essay by essay, and I think that he earned it through sensationalism by being so provocative, thus distorting the message he is trying to send, but making him far more famous than he would have otherwise been. “

Well, certainly he’s provactive, but I don’t see anything wrong with that. First and foremost any writer, including any critic, needs to be read, and I would never trade Peck for a host of earnest, droning non-entities. If you don’t like that kind of style, of course, that’s your prerogative, but I do think’s there’s a place for it.

As for the notion that he thereby “distorted” his message, well, he does get excessive at points, but no, I don’t buy it. Whether you agreed with him or not, Peck is not a sloppy evaluator.

doug

    – Doug (07/15  at  01:21 PM)

These comments were originally made within a day or two of the post. I moved to a new host and copied them over on the day shown.

Thanks,

The Editor

    – Bud Parr (07/15  at  01:22 PM)

Page 1 of 1 pages of comments

Next entry: Does Earning a Few Cents on Google Adsense Make Sense?
Previous entry: Walk a Mile in Her Shoes

« Back to main

About this Post

• Posted by: Bud Parr
• Date: June 24, 2004
• Filed Under:
  Wise Men Fish Here: Literature

• Comments:5
• Links to this Post: Technorati

Recommended Links

- top -