Comments on: BEA: Do Not Question the NYTBR!

By: Golden Rule Jones » Blog Archive » I don’t have to acknowledge the brownies

Mon, 25 Feb 2008 00:56:46 +0000

[...] Champion v. Tanenhaus, at Book Expo America: I stood up and pointed out to Tanenhaus that the list of judges was mostly male and that this reflected a continuing trend by the NYTBR as a whole to give the majority of its reviews to men over women. I also asked how a weekly book review section that continued to prioritize nonfiction over fiction could legitimately put out a “Best Contemporary Fiction” list. I then revealed myself to be the Tanenhaus Brownie Watch guy and playfully asked why I hadn’t received a single thank you note for the brownies. “Is this a New York thing?” I asked. [...]

By: Dan Wickett

Dan Wickett — Sun, 21 May 2006 10:51:26 +0000

Mapletree – I believe that comment refers to the fact that Chip felt contemporary authors demand the right to read the galley, and determine they love the book first, before they will agree to write a review. No love equals no review equals no chance for contemporary literary feuds.

By: Levi

Levi — Sat, 20 May 2006 00:27:24 +0000

Ed … this is another classic write-up (despite the fact that you spelled my URL wrong, dammit). Your descriptions of ST are quite hilarious. And, about this:

“The brownies could be experimental fiction. They could be poetry. They could be novels in translation. But Tanenhaus simply will not “cater to anyone” or “acknowledge” them. In the Tanenhaus world, it is Jonathan Franzen or a particularly sycophantic deputy named Cowles who matters more than anything else.:”

… yep, that’s the key. I think this is the BEA equivalent of Carl Solomon throwing potato salad at a City College of New York lecturer about sixty years ago (which supposedly actually happened). Tanenhaus got off easy!

By: Megan

Megan — Fri, 19 May 2006 21:06:18 +0000

I think Ozick praised Beloved but as a historical and political work rather than as a literary work. I think she likes the book, but felt id didn’t deserved the title ‘Best Fiction since 1980′. At least that was my take.

By: DrMabuse

DrMabuse — Fri, 19 May 2006 20:55:49 +0000

DW: You’re right about the error. Thanks. And you may have a point about Ozick’s take on “Beloved.” But I still think Ozick rose to the occasion to at least present the book’s “importance.”

By: Rodney Welch

Rodney Welch — Fri, 19 May 2006 20:01:24 +0000

Revealing his middlebrow tastes, Tanenhaus openly confessed that he was surprised that Jonathan Franzen’s The Corrections, which he viewed as a high watermark novel of the last six years…

What’s the highbrow — or any brow — novel of the past six years that superceded it?

By: mapletree7

mapletree7 — Fri, 19 May 2006 19:13:16 +0000

He noted that Chip McGrath had told him that it was almost impossible to persuade younger novelists to review their contemporaries without first reviewing the galleys.

I’m not sure I understand what this means.

By: DW.

DW. — Fri, 19 May 2006 17:10:23 +0000

> Thomas Mallon, who, along with Ozick, was the most interesting of the panelists, voted for Underworld. He suggested that Morrison had written better books than Beloved. But had he been nailed down to single out a writer, a la Ozick, he likely would have selected Toni Morrison.

Um, I’m pretty sure he said Roth, not Morrison.

> Fortunately, the divine Cynthia Ozick, who looked bored out of her mind while Tanenhaus spoke, mercifully interjected, noting that it might have been better to nominate writers rather than absolute titles. But she did give Beloved high praise, calling it a deeply enshrined book, “elliptical, elusive, poeticized.”

Is this a joke? She did NOT give Beloved high praise, unless you think that calling it a work of history or politics but not literature is high praise. “Enshrined” referred to the book’s status with others, not to its quality. And it seemed pretty clear that her comments on the novel’s language — though yes, she did use those words — were more ambivalent than admiring.

I also found that your take on Tanenhaus seemed more informed by your own personal animus than anything that actually went on in the panel, but hey, to each their own. (And in the interests of disclosure, I left about an hour into the panel, so I missed your confrontation.)

By: Scott

Scott — Fri, 19 May 2006 16:27:58 +0000

Nice reportage Ed. A couple thoughts:

* “More Benito than Birkets” sounds like it sums things up rather well.

* As for 1941 being “too easy”–can you imagine if he actually went all the way back to 1941? Chose the best novel since 1941, and you only get one choice? Uhhh . . . I can imagine scenarios where all 200 judges would have picked different novels. Maybe the winner would have been “The Naked and the Dead” with a stunning 3 votes!