Writers and Reviewers Duke it Out.
2-11-1993
^Writers and Critics Battle in Prominent Book Reviews
^By ANDREW SELSKY
^Associated Press Writer
NEW YORK (AP) _ A half-century after Ernest Hemingway clobbered a critic for a review called "Bull in the Afternoon," the author-critic wars still rage in the publishing capital of the United States.
The latest salvos are fired in the letters sections of two of the nation's most prominent book reviews - The New York Times Book Review and the The New York Review of Books - providing ringside seats for more than a million readers and enraging those whose reputations are maligned and talents belittled.
Some writers become so apoplectic they find themselves at a loss for words when trying to defend their work.
"The reviewer's confusion over themes and intentions and his elephantine misstatements of fact now leave me hard put deciding where to begin," Burton Hersh wrote in the Times' after his book, "The Old Boys: The American Elite and the Origins of the CIA," was trashed.
Caught in the crossfire is Rebecca Sinkler, editor of the Times' book review, which is a supplement to the paper's Sunday edition and sold as a separate to subscribers and at bookstores nationwide.
Reviews can affect sales, causing some authors to get touchy about how something they may have spent years creating is received.
"We have letters all the time that attack us personally and me personally and the reviewer personally," Sinkler said.
"Many writers are quite generous in the way they feel about their reviews. Others can go ballistic if one sentence in any way qualifies what otherwise is a rave review. The foaming at the mouth passages we reserve the right to remove."
Shots still occasionally are fired in the most famous author-critic battle in the Times in recent years, between Norman Mailer and John Simon.
Simon called the two-time Pulitzer Prize-winner's latest offering, "Harlot's Ghost," a "lopsided, lumpy novel" that "only someone sure of his greatness would dare inflict on a reader."
Mailer replied that Simon had "needle-pointed teeth" and spent his career "carving up a number of actresses' egos and smiting the majority of America's authors, directors and actors more renowned than himself."
Mailer claimed the two had a history of hostility, precluding an objective review.
Simon responded that Mailer had not pointed out any errors in the review, leading him to assume it was "unassailable."
Mailer, for one, feels better after the exchange.
"John's reply to my letter in the Times was feeble," he told The Associated Press. "That provides all the satisfaction one needs."
But sometimes complaining about a review just gives a critic another chance to slam-dunk the writer.
Suzanne Gordon complained to The New York Review of Books about its critique of her book, "Prisoners of Men's Dreams."
She got no sympathy.
"I found Ms. Gordon's letter somewhat naive, like her book," reviewer Diane Johnson responded tartly.
Although authors can get worked up about bad reviews, their impact may not be all that great, said Sybil Steinberg, book review editor for Publishers Weekly, a trade journal.
Bad reviews can sometimes actually boost sales, she said.
"Any mention of a book so its title sticks in a reader's mind is valuable," she said. "Publishers tell me that just mentioning the name of book is positive.
"A less discriminating audience may see a lukewarm review of a commercial novel, and may say to themselves, 'Gee, I didn't know Jean Auel had a new book out. Even though the reviewer didn't like it, she's one of my favorite authors. I'll go out and buy it.'"
Sinkler said the Times tries to avoid potential bias in a review, but accusations of conflict of interest still occur.
In a typically cutthroat exchange, Eric Alterman said the reviewer of his book, "Sound and Fury: The Washington Punditocracy and the Collapse of American Politics," was biased and made "several errors, some of them egregious and some rather comical."
"I am sorry Mr. Alterman took my review so personally," reviewer Adam Platt retorted. "I thought my comments were judicious, considering the overall quality of his work."
Authors maddened by critics might take vicarious pleasure in remembering Hemingway's direct action against critic Max Eastman in 1937.
Eastman had questioned Hemingway's manhood in his sarcastically titled review of "Death in the Afternoon."
When Hemingway saw Eastman, he bashed him on the head with a book containing the review and they wrestled to the ground.
For those who would rather jab with a snappy rejoinder, Sinkler, whose paper prints only about half the letters it gets from aggrieved authors, has a guideline to keep in mind.
"We do want to be able to run serious letters and interesting ones," she said. "We don't want the dull and whiny arguments of somebody who just didn't like the review they got."
Even the authors' letters are judged, and must measure up.
End Adv
^Writers and Critics Battle in Prominent Book Reviews
^By ANDREW SELSKY
^Associated Press Writer
NEW YORK (AP) _ A half-century after Ernest Hemingway clobbered a critic for a review called "Bull in the Afternoon," the author-critic wars still rage in the publishing capital of the United States.
The latest salvos are fired in the letters sections of two of the nation's most prominent book reviews - The New York Times Book Review and the The New York Review of Books - providing ringside seats for more than a million readers and enraging those whose reputations are maligned and talents belittled.
Some writers become so apoplectic they find themselves at a loss for words when trying to defend their work.
"The reviewer's confusion over themes and intentions and his elephantine misstatements of fact now leave me hard put deciding where to begin," Burton Hersh wrote in the Times' after his book, "The Old Boys: The American Elite and the Origins of the CIA," was trashed.
Caught in the crossfire is Rebecca Sinkler, editor of the Times' book review, which is a supplement to the paper's Sunday edition and sold as a separate to subscribers and at bookstores nationwide.
Reviews can affect sales, causing some authors to get touchy about how something they may have spent years creating is received.
"We have letters all the time that attack us personally and me personally and the reviewer personally," Sinkler said.
"Many writers are quite generous in the way they feel about their reviews. Others can go ballistic if one sentence in any way qualifies what otherwise is a rave review. The foaming at the mouth passages we reserve the right to remove."
Shots still occasionally are fired in the most famous author-critic battle in the Times in recent years, between Norman Mailer and John Simon.
Simon called the two-time Pulitzer Prize-winner's latest offering, "Harlot's Ghost," a "lopsided, lumpy novel" that "only someone sure of his greatness would dare inflict on a reader."
Mailer replied that Simon had "needle-pointed teeth" and spent his career "carving up a number of actresses' egos and smiting the majority of America's authors, directors and actors more renowned than himself."
Mailer claimed the two had a history of hostility, precluding an objective review.
Simon responded that Mailer had not pointed out any errors in the review, leading him to assume it was "unassailable."
Mailer, for one, feels better after the exchange.
"John's reply to my letter in the Times was feeble," he told The Associated Press. "That provides all the satisfaction one needs."
But sometimes complaining about a review just gives a critic another chance to slam-dunk the writer.
Suzanne Gordon complained to The New York Review of Books about its critique of her book, "Prisoners of Men's Dreams."
She got no sympathy.
"I found Ms. Gordon's letter somewhat naive, like her book," reviewer Diane Johnson responded tartly.
Although authors can get worked up about bad reviews, their impact may not be all that great, said Sybil Steinberg, book review editor for Publishers Weekly, a trade journal.
Bad reviews can sometimes actually boost sales, she said.
"Any mention of a book so its title sticks in a reader's mind is valuable," she said. "Publishers tell me that just mentioning the name of book is positive.
"A less discriminating audience may see a lukewarm review of a commercial novel, and may say to themselves, 'Gee, I didn't know Jean Auel had a new book out. Even though the reviewer didn't like it, she's one of my favorite authors. I'll go out and buy it.'"
Sinkler said the Times tries to avoid potential bias in a review, but accusations of conflict of interest still occur.
In a typically cutthroat exchange, Eric Alterman said the reviewer of his book, "Sound and Fury: The Washington Punditocracy and the Collapse of American Politics," was biased and made "several errors, some of them egregious and some rather comical."
"I am sorry Mr. Alterman took my review so personally," reviewer Adam Platt retorted. "I thought my comments were judicious, considering the overall quality of his work."
Authors maddened by critics might take vicarious pleasure in remembering Hemingway's direct action against critic Max Eastman in 1937.
Eastman had questioned Hemingway's manhood in his sarcastically titled review of "Death in the Afternoon."
When Hemingway saw Eastman, he bashed him on the head with a book containing the review and they wrestled to the ground.
For those who would rather jab with a snappy rejoinder, Sinkler, whose paper prints only about half the letters it gets from aggrieved authors, has a guideline to keep in mind.
"We do want to be able to run serious letters and interesting ones," she said. "We don't want the dull and whiny arguments of somebody who just didn't like the review they got."
Even the authors' letters are judged, and must measure up.
End Adv
Comments
Post a Comment