BEATRICERSS button
introducing readers to writers since 1995

November 24, 2004

Our Last National Book Awards Post Until October '05

by Ron Hogan

It's a little late, but I didn't want to completely pass over Boston Globe bookman David Mehegan's post-NBA analysis, which recycles some of the old complaints and offers a new variation on an old theme by Time Warner Book Group chair Laurence J. Kirshbaum (full disclosure: my publisher, in the big-picture scheme of things), who says "books which resonate in our society and--yes, to use that awful word--that sell should be recognized in awarding these honors." Personally, I tend towards the view that selling (at least at the level Kirshbaum's implying) is its own honor and shouldn't be taken into consideration when judging literary excellence, but I suppose there's a fine conversation to be had about what "[resonating] in our society" means other than selling and impressing book reviewers in the mainstream media. Which is to say, for example, that I believe The News From Paraguay will "resonate in our society" with plenty of its readers. Meanwhile, Bob Hoover of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette adopts another perspective on what he calls a "healthy controversy, healthy for readers and maybe even for the publishing industry."

Finally, Boris Kachka of New York responds belatedly to my take on his take on the nominees. I'd already closed off the comments to that post because the spammers had started moving in, but it's worth hearing what he has to say, so follow the jump if you will...

I guess I was in the wrong place at the wrong time; sticking my head out just in time for the backlash--obviously an overreaction to my article, per se. What I wrote was a reported piece, and you might notice I kept the arch commentary to a minimum (not so your presumptuous and contemptuous little note here, but hey, that's blogs for you). I'm pretty sure saying the nominees were "a little obscure this year" is a safe assertion, relatively speaking. I know one of your posters had Christine Schutt in the sixth grade, but that does not make her famous. Secondly, the question I was posing in your quote was largely rhetorical, and aimed at Kate Walbert, who declined to answer it. Talk about taking somethng out of context! Also, the presumption that the critical response (from editors themselves, not just "hacks" like me) comes out of sheer laziness is itself very lazy. As if the only interest journalists had in this was in seeing nominees they'd already read, so they didn't have to open a book and learn about a new writer! How silly. You also deliberately misunderstood my meaning. The question was whether it might be more interesting to have a mix of authors--famous and obscure, veteran and rookie, sweeping and intimate.

Awards are always arbitrary and subjective; this year's NBA nominations clearly were exceptionally so. It's as simple as that.

Naturally, I don't think I was overreacting, but I'll allow for a certain amount of defensiveness on his part. As for the "presumptuous and contemptuous" tone of my "arch commentary," yes, I suppose that is "blogs for you," but then I've never pretended to be a reporter. I'm more like, say, a columnist, so I don't see "arch commentary" as a print v. blog distinction.

The rhetorical question Kachka posed, which Kate Walbert probably declined to answer because it was lame, was "Wouldn’t it be more interesting if, say, these novelists were up against name writers with acclaimed new works, such as Philip Roth or Cynthia Ozick?" (I don't want to be putting words in your mouth, though, Kate, so feel free to put in your own two cents!) To which I replied, "By 'interesting,' of course, he seems to mean 'less work for our lazy brains.'"

Now maybe the "of course" was a little excessive, but I'll stand by the rest of the statement. "Interesting" is this context clearly seems to mean "capable/worthy of holding our interest," and when Kachka suggested the shortlist would be more so if it had "name writers with acclaimed new works," there's no reason to assume he meant, as he now claims he did, the ones who'd published "sweeping" fiction. And since the nominees already offered a range of veterans and rookies, as anybody who bothered to learn anything about them knows, that just leaves us with the dichotomy "famous and obscure." Because, after all, something we already know a little about is more "capable of holding our interest" than that which we know precious little about.

But maybe he means "interesting" in the sense of "exciting." In which case, yes, it probably might be "more interesting" if they did it Kachka's way. Of course, it might be "more interesting" if they forced the fiction shortlist to take the judges on in a basketball game, too. All of which distracts from, as I've said before and won't be saying again for eleven months, the main point: this was an award for literary excellence as exhibited in five books published in the last twelve months or so, and I for one fail to see why this shortlist was "exceptionally" more subjective than, say, the one two years ago. The NBA fiction prize was not a lifetime achievement or people's choice award, nor was it bonus compensation for making the bestseller list. Anybody who wants to see those things rewarded can start their own prize.

(PS: That defensiveness on Kachka's part about "hacks" isn't actually aimed at me, but at Robert Birnbaum's followup comment..."hack" isn't a word that I would use to describe a journalist, since it would disrupt the civil tone.)

Comments

Okay, nearly everything that can be said has been said. But a quick followup nonetheless:

--Rereading my article I noticed that in my (rhetorical) question, I was responding to something Kate said higher up, which was:
"Everyone shares this feeling that this moment is really interesting,” So what I was asking was part of a dialogue, not just some random demand for entertainment. I was asking, in part, wouldn't she be more interested to find herself alongside a couple of greats?

--I read and very much enjoyed Cynthia Ozick's book, which is why I would like to have seen it among the nominees (not because I know her name, and certainly not because she's a bestseller, which she isn't).

Posted by: Boris Kachka at November 24, 2004 02:54 PM

Fair enough--and let that be a lesson to the Stanley Crouches and Paul Mahers of the world on how to respond to criticism with class. I may not agree with all of what Mr. Kachka says, but how much fun would literary criticism be if we all agreed on everything? (And I'll keep his recommendation of Cynthia Ozick, along with all the others, in mind when I'm looking for something to read after this fershlugginer book gets written...)

Posted by: editor at November 24, 2004 04:31 PM

"I enjoyed Ozick's book that's why I would have liked to see it among the nominees"

I also liked Heir to A Glimmering World. What awards it garners is absolutely irrelevant to me. And I really can't understand what it has to do with anything other than a manufactured controversy. I also can't understand why it is now part of the regular news diet what the weekend grosses are for movies.

Mehegan's piece made me wonder if the only contributors to the idiocy surrounding the NBAs were the NYT writers. Was there any controversy elsewhere in the USA? Did Yardley or Dirda or Henry Kisor or Oscar Villalon weigh in?

Of course, we are now facing two more awards and the onslaught of year end lists, more grist for the who-cares mill.

So it goes.

Posted by: birnbaum at November 24, 2004 08:28 PM

Niether Caryn James nor Laura Miller wrote that the 5 nominees shouldn't have been nominated because they were obscure. They both didn't much care for the books. James kind of liked a couple of them, and tried to find some good things to say about the others. Miller didn't like any of them. Both said that it was strange that in a year when some great novelits---not just famous, great, as in writers who will very likely be read a hundred years from now---published excellent novels, it's odd that 5 not excellent books would get nominated. Odd to the point of being suspicious.

The controversary in the blog world has seemed to be a matter of bloggers defending the possibility that the five best books might all be by writers nobody's ever heard of. I can't think of anyone who argued that these five were the best books.

Posted by: Dave Reilly at November 24, 2004 10:20 PM

It takes a generous soul to come up with the benign conclusion that all James et al were saying was that the exclusion of books by Ozick, Roth, and other well known authors was a suspicious happenstance. It also glosses over some really silly and wrong headed speculation about books awards and their purpose(s).

But let's leave that behind if we can.

Does anyone think that the books that win the Pulitzer, National Book Award, The National Book Critics Circle Award, The Booker Prize, The Governor's Prize, The IMPAC award, et cetera, are the year's "best" books?

Posted by: birnbaum at November 25, 2004 06:46 PM

w/r/t the books awards reflecting what I believe to be the year's "best" book, I find that often, you just have to find the award that matches your own personal tastes. For me, I tend to trust the National Book Critics, at least in recent years (Atonement, Austerlitz, Known World, etc). But people must remember that with books moreso than most other artforms, people's tastes vary dramatically. It would be silly to claim that yes, definitivley, these winners are the best books of the year. I tend to think that at best, these awards besides celebrating an author's work are more of a cultural mark: here is what was picked as the best book of the year by such a group, and here is what critics, bloggers have to comment on the picks. We are arguing over whether Ozick and Roth should be nominated. I don't think we can begin to comment on this until someone has read all the nominees; only then does the debate, a fun and valuable debate, begin.

Posted by: berman at November 28, 2004 10:18 AM
If you enjoy this blog,
your PayPal donation
can contribute towards its ongoing publication.