tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2046663689477874544.post3676679417993742628..comments2023-11-05T05:01:58.563-05:00Comments on Ward Six: Ben Marcus on Lydia DavisUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2046663689477874544.post-36111611130093527582007-03-28T17:57:00.000-05:002007-03-28T17:57:00.000-05:00Yeah, I don't disagree...you know, I did a little ...Yeah, I don't disagree...you know, I did a little soul-seaching about this post and realized that the only thing I disagree with Marcus about is the word <I>bullheaded.</I> I think that's an inaccurate description of what Davis does, and perhaps an accurate description of what Marcus does. (That's not a value judgement, either, as I can admire "bullheaded" writing...I just don't think Davis does it.)<BR/><BR/>One thing Marcus is NOT guilty of is approaching literature with some bitter and obvious external agenda, then applying that to the work in question. This is a common tactic, especially in the Times Book Review, which often hires people to review books for dumb reasons, ie., taking a novel about, say, the Holocaust, and getting a Holocaust historian to review it, instead of a literary reviewer. Thus we get a review of how well the fictional work corresponds to the historian's idea of what the Holocaust was really like, rather than an assessment of the novelist's artistry.<BR/><BR/>Ultimately, see, the people who understand writers best are writers. There are exceptions, of course. But the best reviewer IMHO is a fellow practitioner of the art who happens not to have a chip on his/her shoulder. And that's a tough thing to find.<BR/><BR/>Marcus is indeed that, I think, as a reviewer. I just didn't like "bullheaded" ;-)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2046663689477874544.post-56350395367348988162007-03-28T11:03:00.000-05:002007-03-28T11:03:00.000-05:00The post addresses solipsism in reviewers. Stands...The post addresses solipsism in reviewers. Stands to reason that critics, who have taken a vow of not publishing fiction, would be less prone to that sort of thing. (As opposed to authors, or professional reviewers, who are required by their jobs to read quickly and make snap judgments). <BR/><BR/>Regarding the cited bit, while Marcus asserts that Davis doesn't "acknowledge" emotion, I wouldn't automatically take that to mean he's denying that the passage contains intense emotion (again, I probably should read the article).<BR/><BR/>I mean, if we believe in the life of the unconscious mind, we know that restraining our emotions is emotional, although that emotion usually goes unacknowledged (unless you're in therapy!). Woo. That sounds loopy. Maybe I am projecting myself.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2046663689477874544.post-23248646169764049252007-03-26T18:20:00.000-05:002007-03-26T18:20:00.000-05:00Yeah, maybe there is no distinction. Maybe I'm ul...Yeah, maybe there is no distinction. Maybe I'm ultra-sensitive. It's like...when some random guy tells you your wife is good-looking. You don't want to thank him, you want to punch him. <I>How dare you compliment my favorite writer!!!!</I><BR/><BR/>Authors reviewing authors is of course hugely complicated...you wish it could be otherwise, but then of course hardly anybody who really gave a crap would ever review books.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2046663689477874544.post-57960037523937940372007-03-26T15:35:00.000-05:002007-03-26T15:35:00.000-05:00Haven't read the article by Marcus, but could a di...Haven't read the article by Marcus, but could a distinction be drawn between acknowledging emotion and being packed with emotion? Can a narrative be packed with unacknowledged emotion?<BR/><BR/>The post does bring up an interesting topic: authors reviewing authors. Did anyone here catch Cynthia Ozick's piece in Harpers calling for the reestablishment of a critical establishment?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2046663689477874544.post-81437919311376186432007-03-25T19:08:00.000-05:002007-03-25T19:08:00.000-05:00Ha haa!!, yes that is "The Sock," and you're not m...Ha haa!!, yes that is "The Sock," and you're not mentioning the most hilarious bit, which is that the ex is obviously Paul Auster but instead of making his new wife <I>unusually tall</I>, as Auster's wife actually is, she makes her <I>unusually short.</I> In my opinion, that alone justifies Davis's MacArthur.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2046663689477874544.post-74087845588051864282007-03-25T19:05:00.000-05:002007-03-25T19:05:00.000-05:00Yes, Davis writes as if the emotions are so huge a...Yes, Davis writes as if the emotions are so huge and overwhelming you can only approach them sidelong, one eye darting away. One of my favorites of hers, I think it's called The Sock, is about how a character's ex comes to stay and leaves behind a sock. She returns the sock when they meet later, and he stuffs it in his pocket, its toe dangling out. Somehow this is a totally devastating metaphor for an expired relationship. It's about an old discarded sock, but it's heartbreaking.rmellishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03133206908895131438noreply@blogger.com