I'm going to reserve full expression of my judgement of James Wood till other people weigh in, but suffice it to say that he writes for a daily newspaper, and it sounds like it. Not to mention he writes for the Guardian, which makes me roll my eyes. As annoyed as I can get with (for instance) the New York Times, the Guardian is like the NYT, only without the responsibility or the tact.
I do acknowledge though, that the literary reviewers for the Economist (my newspaper of choice) aren't much better, even if the writing is better.
The "currents" and "patterns" he writes about I can't help but think are myopic and almost coincidental to the books he chooses to review. More to the point, I don't find that what he describes comes close to accurately depicting the kind of work we typically deal with in workshop - either in a good or bad way.
To me it all just seems like a lot of tsuris about who cares. There's a fantastically broader view that this doesn't even begin to understand. I can find myself critiquing a generalised movement or failed theme in writing as often as the next person, but I'd like to think that I've progressed towards this realization: it's not what's being done, it's who's doing it.
Just as only Nixon can go to China, only Dickens can write Great Expectations, or Borges be Borges.
I also have no problem with people wanting to start a discussion, but I get pissed off easily. It's not difficult to get pissed off at this guy.
Oh, and he writes for the Guardian.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment