But think fast -- what exactly is the New Yorker style for book criticism? The movies section has its own style that probably wouldn't pay off for books. Besides Jane Tompkins, or to a lesser extent Louis Menand, I can't think of a dedicated book reviewer. Even John Updike writes as often about art or culture as he does literature. And really, when I think of the New Yorker's books section, I think of great write-ups of biographies, the less-than-compelling briefly noted section, and longer, more journalistic profiles of authors. The best essays are hardly ever straight reviews of new(ish) books.
It's worth thinking about how publications create their own compartmentalized styles -- maybe driven first by strong personalities (with Pauline Kael being the best example) which then become institutionalized identities. How does that translate to a different author, a different audience -- even a different appearance, on text or screen? And how does that identity take off in the broader culture?
At least one person has a hilarious take on the whole thing:
Leon Wieseltier, literary editor at The New Republic, said that “The New Republic plays many significant roles in American culture, and one of them is to find and to develop writers with whom The New Yorker can eventually staff itself.”
Me, I'm just happy that I'll get to read Mr. Wood more often, since I get the New Yorker, but not The New Republic.
ReplyDeleteAnd is it just me, or is anyone else getting a bit tired of Anthony Lane? I used to look forward to his reviews, but now I find myself walking away with much more from a David Denby piece. I get the feeling that Lane himself doesn't feel himself to be taking much from the movies these days. This is understandable, since I feel the same way about music. However, it is, perhaps, a sign that one should be writing about something else.