Comments on: How To Get A Literary Woody http://www.nancyrawlinson.com/2008/07/how-to-get-a-literary-woody/ Thu, 27 May 2010 03:39:13 -0700 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: Man Booker Prize: Not About Literary Value? « Boolah http://www.nancyrawlinson.com/2008/07/how-to-get-a-literary-woody/comment-page-1/#comment-33 Man Booker Prize: Not About Literary Value? « Boolah Wed, 10 Sep 2008 15:35:14 +0000 http://nancyrawlinson.wordpress.com/?p=55#comment-33 [...] the great literary critic James Wood, a judge from 1994, has this to offer: “Some wonderful books win the Booker, of course, just [...] [...] the great literary critic James Wood, a judge from 1994, has this to offer: “Some wonderful books win the Booker, of course, just [...]

]]> By: nancyrawlinson http://www.nancyrawlinson.com/2008/07/how-to-get-a-literary-woody/comment-page-1/#comment-32 nancyrawlinson Fri, 01 Aug 2008 16:49:10 +0000 http://nancyrawlinson.wordpress.com/?p=55#comment-32 Actually, in all seriousness, I have to say that being taken to task for one-word flippancy has made me think more seriously about what it is I'm trying to do here, as a blogger, and that's a good thing. So I'm grateful. Thank you. Actually, in all seriousness, I have to say that being taken to task for one-word flippancy has made me think more seriously about what it is I’m trying to do here, as a blogger, and that’s a good thing. So I’m grateful. Thank you.

]]> By: nancyrawlinson http://www.nancyrawlinson.com/2008/07/how-to-get-a-literary-woody/comment-page-1/#comment-31 nancyrawlinson Fri, 01 Aug 2008 16:38:40 +0000 http://nancyrawlinson.wordpress.com/?p=55#comment-31 Oh wow. Snap. Consider me put in my place. I can see, now that you have pointed it out, that in using just the one word to summarize the entire content and tone of your review, I may have been, I don't know, a little reductive. I should probably have used more words. Hopefully, despite me and my flippant one word critique, your reputation as an esteemed literary critic will remain intact. Loved that piece about your love affair with the TV program CSI by the way. <a href="http://www.apublicspace.org/back_issues/issue_3/everything_is_illuminated_my_l.html" rel="nofollow">Not at all frothy.</a> Oh wow. Snap. Consider me put in my place. I can see, now that you have pointed it out, that in using just the one word to summarize the entire content and tone of your review, I may have been, I don’t know, a little reductive. I should probably have used more words.

Hopefully, despite me and my flippant one word critique, your reputation as an esteemed literary critic will remain intact.

Loved that piece about your love affair with the TV program CSI by the way. Not at all frothy.

]]> By: Delia Falconer http://www.nancyrawlinson.com/2008/07/how-to-get-a-literary-woody/comment-page-1/#comment-30 Delia Falconer Fri, 01 Aug 2008 02:28:09 +0000 http://nancyrawlinson.wordpress.com/?p=55#comment-30 Did you actually read my review, Nancy? I'm surprised you interpret taking JW to task over his fetish for realism and his restrictive critical criteria in How Fiction Works "frothy". I suggest that JW's new manual is ultimately a failure at what it sets out to do, and far less successful than his essays -- it doesn't tell us how fiction works across a broad spectrum, only how post-Flaubertian psychological realism works (although it does do this very well). That said, JW's books _are_ "events" -- ie, texts that generate a huge number of other writing and international attention, far beyond what one would would usually anticipate for literary criticism, as I also pointed out in my review. This is called putting a writer's work into context for an audience that may not have read it. This is what reviewers do. Do have a look at How Fiction Works, for all its flaws. JW's emphasis on close and careful reading might even do you some good. Did you actually read my review, Nancy? I’m surprised you interpret taking JW to task over his fetish for realism and his restrictive critical criteria in How Fiction Works “frothy”. I suggest that JW’s new manual is ultimately a failure at what it sets out to do, and far less successful than his essays — it doesn’t tell us how fiction works across a broad spectrum, only how post-Flaubertian psychological realism works (although it does do this very well).

That said, JW’s books _are_ “events” — ie, texts that generate a huge number of other writing and international attention, far beyond what one would would usually anticipate for literary criticism, as I also pointed out in my review. This is called putting a writer’s work into context for an audience that may not have read it. This is what reviewers do.

Do have a look at How Fiction Works, for all its flaws. JW’s emphasis on close and careful reading might even do you some good.

]]> By: Books and Magazines Blog » Archive » How To Get A Literary Woody http://www.nancyrawlinson.com/2008/07/how-to-get-a-literary-woody/comment-page-1/#comment-29 Books and Magazines Blog » Archive » How To Get A Literary Woody Tue, 29 Jul 2008 14:23:01 +0000 http://nancyrawlinson.wordpress.com/?p=55#comment-29 [...] Original post by Boolah [...] [...] Original post by Boolah [...]

]]>