Mark Sarvas, who is a litblog friend, has published his first novel (Harry, Revised); it was reviewed in Sunday’s New York Times. Gawker characterized the review as “extraordinarily mean-spirited,” and if anyone knows mean-spirited, it’s Gawker.
I maintain that reviewers should call ’em as they see ’em — lord knows, someone is bound to take issue with one of my reviews some day — but I think this review was kinda cheaty.
The reviewer never quotes any passage at length, instead using itty-bitty snippets (the longest is 8 words). This can hardly represent a novel fairly. At one point, the reviewer lists seven words that he claims Sarvas uses “despite his not knowing their precise meanings.” Now since I know Mark to be an erudite man, I find this unlikely; but why not let the work speak for itself? If “enormity” is misused, please, show us how.
What’s omitted from the review is that the novel has a farcical side, and that the style — as much as it might annoy the reviewer — serves that component of the story.
A more thoughtful review is here; more comments here. And Mark answers questions from the LA Times here.
