Comments on: Two letters: To Mr. Leon Wieseltier and Mr. Sam Tanenhaus

By: ChristianBauman

ChristianBauman — Tue, 10 Aug 2004 14:47:59 +0000

Oh, fucking bravo. Thank you.

By: Jimmy Beck

Jimmy Beck — Mon, 09 Aug 2004 16:44:41 +0000

I’m late to the party, but I thought both letters were terrific and eloquent. However, cynic that I am, I can’t help but wonder if those peckerheads will even pay attention to the missives of “deranged bloggers,” no matter how beautifully articulated and persuasive. I am reminded of the scene in Manhattan where the Nazis are going to march in New Jersey and when someone points to a strong OpEd in the Times on the subject, Woody Allen says that’s fine, but bricks and baseball bats “really gets right to the point.” Fight the power, CAAF.

By: Horace

Horace — Mon, 09 Aug 2004 14:08:00 +0000

Thank you for saying eloquently and temperately what I could not myself say without becoming red-faced and sputtering (especially given that I was formerly employed by one of these creeps and am occasionally employed by the second–and the occasion has not yet come for a showdown with either). The age of literary gangsterism, dormant for a while except in the pages of the NR, has returned full-blast with the NYT’s appointment of Tanenhaus, who it should be remembered first made his name with a sympathetic biography of Whittaker Chambers. Assigning Hardt and Negri’s follow-up to Empire to Francis Fukuyama was the starting gun. Expect, as Jenny noted, a continued and increasing drift into propaganda.

By: Jenny

Jenny — Mon, 09 Aug 2004 10:20:23 +0000

Thanks for posting these. That was the most MADDENING review I have ever seen! Surely he can’t really get away with dismissing VOX etc. as meaningless self-promoting trash? I’m most depressed b/c of how clear it seems that the NYTBR will be focusing more and more on these awful political non-books that would be better covered in some other section: aside from everything else, it stacks the deck in favor of male reviewers and male authors. I’m not counting, not really (well, I am, but I realize it’s a bit unreasonable), but I have no confidence that the assignments they’re making will cover many of the books I’m most interested in hearing about. Politics in the most tiresome sense (i.e. American party politics, not political history or history of political theory or any of the million other related things) has already squeezed out so many other books, not just novels but nonfiction as well: where are the books about science (and think of how many different kinds of book that covers)? sex? psychology? education? interesting historical things not having to do with Democrats and Republicans in the 1980s, 1990s and 2000s??? My prediction is that within the next few weeks we will see a truly wretched piece in favor of sociobiology and/or evolutionary psychology. Just a guess. And no more than a handful of novels or serious nonfiction books by women between now and the election…

By: Dan Wickett

Dan Wickett — Sun, 08 Aug 2004 15:27:18 +0000

CAAF,

“Sometimes it’s easy to have a more directed flow of thought if you can imagine speaking directly to someone.” I really like this thought. The letter were both top notch, but I assume you already know that from a) your own naturally good sense of such, and b) the above Say It! comments.

Enjoy,

By: CAAF

CAAF — Sun, 08 Aug 2004 13:27:05 +0000

Thanks, all. As I told TEV’s Mark privately, I actually wrote the letters not to get a personal response, but to corral my thoughts, which were many & furious. Sometimes it’s easy to have a more directed flow of thought if you can imagine speaking directly to someone.

As Tanenhaus responded to TEV just last week, I think he’ll hardly make it a weekly routine to come into his office and answer bloggers’ open letters to him. Though I love to picture this happening: The word from the assistant – “another open letter from a blogger, sir” – and a great sigh as he sits down to respond.

That said, I hope he and Wieseltier do read them, or any of the other responses (TEV’s and Ed’s are both magnificently pointed & funny), and take them to heart — or at least register the protest.

Speaking of you, Mr. TEV, I was thinking of the DFW “anal rape” line as I wrote. Degraded public discourse, indeed. Though, I will say this for Peck (for whom I have an inexplicable and I’m sure indefensible (because mainly emotional) liking): His logic is often tangled, his standards routinely double, but at least his sense of outrage seem genuine (to me) and to be based on a real passion for books & where writing is going.

By: M.J. Rose

M.J. Rose — Sun, 08 Aug 2004 11:40:50 +0000

Great letters. I’m curious to see what responses you get. As I read the review I kept waiting for it to take on the BOOK.

By: bookdwarf

bookdwarf — Sat, 07 Aug 2004 23:03:05 +0000

You are right on target with your letters. Hopefully, you will get some sort of response.

By: gwenda

gwenda — Sat, 07 Aug 2004 20:51:49 +0000

Wonderful letters!

I couldn’t bring myself to read anything in the NYTBR this week, except Laura Miller’s column, and it seems this was a premonition of suckitude.

By: Sarah

Sarah — Sat, 07 Aug 2004 19:48:20 +0000

Ultimately, I think Wieseltier’s review fails because it misses the forest for the trees. He spends so much time on the politics, the easy targets, the allegedly inflammatory content that he misses the point: does CHECKPOINT work as a piece of fiction, or not? I never got the sense that this question was satisfactorily answered because Wieseltier was too busy ranting about the Decline and Fall of the American Republic or whatnot.

And if we’re never to know if Baker’s book succeeds (or why it doesn’t–*as fiction*) then why is this review in the NYTBR instead of the middle pages of the front section? Even I, who by and large is more optimistic about the Book Review than most of my litblog bretheren, had to shake my head this week.