It’s common knowledge that John Sutherland is an uninformed assclown. But his latest column (which is even more preposterous if you listen to the computer-speech program parsing his drivel) once again begs the question of why an august publication like The New Statesman would hire a no-nothing dullard to cover books. Why my ad hominem fiesta? Well, it’s no different from Sutherland’s strange and uninformed attack on Richard Powers’ The Echo Maker, a novel that Sutherland calls “dense,” and “fearsomely demanding.” Without citing anything specific to support his tenuous argument, Sutherland further suggests that the broadsheets have no interest in calling it. This all comes from a man who hasn’t even read the book. And if Sutherland’s anti-intellectual tone wasn’t enough for you, he then suggests that the publisher-subsidized Quill Awards were set up as a populist alternative. Instead of kvetching about litbloggers, I think Sutherland should be more concerned about the level of stupidity contained within his own ramblings. (via Galleycat)
“Her stories bristle with names and family connections, with the contents of houses, purses, steamer trunks and cars. And, violating another dictum of workshop instructors, the simplest tale will often be told from more than one point of view and in multiple time frames. She shows a lot, but when it’s necessary, she’s also happy to tell.” Thanks, Tony. The prof grants you a B- for your English 101 essay, but I’ll see you at the arcade to play DDR. Will someone please tell Tony Scott that he is a film critic, not a literary one? (And while you’re at it, you might want to let Janet Maslin know too.)
What could possibly explain Sutherland’s off-target evaluation of Richard Powers? Powers is not the least bit dense or demanding — his prose is remarkably clear, linear and straightforward. To say that he is more difficult to read than Pynchon is absolutely nonsensical.
As can be easily observed simply by reading my occasional mocking comments here at Ed’s Place, I personally dislike writers who are intentionally dense and difficult (like Pynchon, Vollmann, Barth). Richard Powers couldn’t be farther from this tradition. Sutherland missed this call by a mile.
There is an issue here, I think. Namely a blindspot in British literary culture. Or possibly a weak spot in American literary culture.
On Powers, I think I’m one of the few reviewers in the UK to have written a retrospective of his work, in the LRB. I found it knotty, and complicated. Which may, I suppose, be attributable to the congenital dullness.
What could possibly explain Sutherland’s off-target evaluation of Richard Powers? Powers is not the least bit dense or demanding — his prose is remarkably clear, linear and straightforward. To say that he is more difficult to read than Pynchon is absolutely nonsensical.
As can be easily observed simply by reading my occasional mocking comments here at Ed’s Place, I personally dislike writers who are intentionally dense and difficult (like Pynchon, Vollmann, Barth). Richard Powers couldn’t be farther from this tradition. Sutherland missed this call by a mile.
There is an issue here, I think. Namely a blindspot in British literary culture. Or possibly a weak spot in American literary culture.
On Powers, I think I’m one of the few reviewers in the UK to have written a retrospective of his work, in the LRB. I found it knotty, and complicated. Which may, I suppose, be attributable to the congenital dullness.
allbest, john sutherland