Racial politics in Pittsburgh, from the MFA perspective. It’s like it’s the 70s. Or the 50s. Or maybe even the 30s.
Jane Smiley on Jennifer Weiner’ Certain Girls. She condescends about genre, then workshops the book in place of reviewing it: “If she had asked me, I would have said, ‘Tell the whole story from the kid’s perspective.’ That would have been the more daring and intriguing way to use the material.” The time for conversations about how Weiner should tell the story is over; a review ought to meet the completed, edited, published book on its own terms. Plus, Smiley obsesses about the cover over the contents, and the cover is pink (she’s — ahem — not a fan). How about we don’t judge a book by its pink cover? Or, while we’re at it, chicks by the brownness or whiteness of their skin? (see above).
Ed strikes back at Smiley. Look out.
And it turns out that this review would have run pretty much as is, no matter who was editing the book review at the Philadelphia Inquirer.
Yeah, I would have run it if I had assigned it, principally because the last thing you want is to have all reviews in a section reflect the outlook of the editor. In the end , it just comes down to one reviewer’s opinion, whether that reviewer is a Pulitzer winner or just plain Joe Schmoe. The great thing about the blogosphere is that reviews can be challenged openly and widely. At least this is a great thing if you favor free and open discussion about books. If you prefer the former gated community of opinion, then I guess it’s not so great.