I've read negative reviews before, but this one by the Washington Post's Michael Dirda (bow when you say that) is one of the single most thorough - shall we say - I've read in a long time. Even the thought of a review like this could make a writer wake up screaming - soaked in sweat - in the middle of the night. Very, very ouch, baby.
This one hurt even to read, and I'm not Adam Thirlwell.
The work in question is Thirlwell's The Delighted States (irony):
" Strangely enough, given his subject matter, Thirlwell's own prose is distinctly bland, despite its overbright talkiness. For instance, Thirlwell likes to build an argument or assert a point, then suddenly contradict himself (though oddly enough he deprecates Dostoevsky, whose Underground Man is the master of this technique). Worst of all, though, Thirlwell often comes across as twerpily arrogant. You can almost hear the "nyah, nyah" raspberry in remarks like these: "Unfortunately for Bellow, he had not read André Gide. Or if he had, he hadn't understood." "And this technique was noted a century later by Vladimir Nabokov, who did not notice the same thing in War and Peace." Sigh. Good thing there's a really sharp mind around who can set us straight. "
Chartroose, if they aren't mentioning Nabokov it's Dickens, Woolf, Faulkner and occasionally Dostoevsky. The why of it is it gives the book more weight, and in 99.9% of cases, way more weight than it deserves.
A friend of mine once joked with me, "I dare you to write a review saying something is "A Dickensian work of epic proportion." I do a lot for friends, but sorry not that!
Posted by: Lisa Guidarini | June 18, 2008 at 10:14 AM
Oh. My. God! That has to be one of the more caustic reviews I've ever read, but is it ever hilarious! Not so much for the author, methinks, but for the rest of the world.
I can't help thinking if that were my book being skewered I wouldn't even be able to sign my name again without weeping, feeling tremendously unworthy.
Thanks for sending that!! Everyone, go have a look. It's priceless.
Posted by: Lisa Guidarini | June 18, 2008 at 10:11 AM
Wow. That's a hell of a review.
My favourite bad review has to be this one from a few years ago. I look at it from time to time to make me laugh:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/theguardian/2000/oct/05/guardianweekly.guardianweekly11
Posted by: Kirsty | June 18, 2008 at 05:15 AM
How come every so-called "professional" reviewer has to mention Nabokov in practically every review? Is there some unwritten rule that forces reviewers to mention that pedantic pedophile every time they lambaste a novel?
Puhleeze!
Poor Adam Thirlwell. I should read his book just because I despise Michael Dirda!
Posted by: chartroose | June 17, 2008 at 05:49 PM