Skip to main content

Most accurately, you've written yourself a most handsome turde de force!

If there's a hell for book reviewers (and I'm sure many authors hope there is), no doubt we will spend eternity there being jabbed by trident-wielding imps bearing certain adjectives emblazoned across their brick-red chests: "compelling," "lyrical," "nuanced" and so on. Even in this world, the conscientious critic is bedeviled by clichés; how many ways are there to say that a book is "beautifully written" or that the characters in it are "fully realized" instead of "two-dimensional"? These are the words that rise up in a reviewer's mind, like those clouds of gnats that ruin so many walks in the woods. No matter how hard you try to bat them away, they just keep coming back.

[. . .]

Within a couple of hours it seemed like every book reviewer in the country had been forwarded multiple links to Kerns' column. "It's getting worse," tweeted Ron Charles, fiction editor and critic for the Washington Post Book World. "People in the office are now emailing me Book Reviewer Cliché Bingo without comment." In silent shame, dozens (if not hundreds) of delete keys wiped out instances of "poignant" and "gritty" and "tour de force." (Laura Miller, “Book critic cliché bingo,” Salon, 16 March 2010)

Most accurately, you've written yourself a most handsome turde de force

If the reviews are seeming stale, mightn't in truth the books be so much stasis as well -- or are you different breeds, with one in need of more precise wording to delineate/describe the exact nature of their surging, and the other in need of well-intentioned friendly-fire to keep them from more downhill sagging? How do authors keep writing things that keep drawing you to declare "tour de force," while you guys twitch at any suggestion of being old hat, as if the concern was already sufficiently pronounced that you'd prepared yourself to be ever so quick to ensure it need not continue to be the case, when presented with its apparent existence?

Some of us are suspecting you're all into fine-tuning the largely indiscriminate, which has us wondering if precision is what you aim for when the interesting and novel is not in fact something you're anymore interested in -- the thing that eventually did the scholastics in, that is.

Patrick McEvoy-Halston???

Patrick, I think you take yourself a bit too seriously. Are you for real??? I have two degrees; I excelled in my English graduate program; and your verbosity and pomposity was a marvel to behold, in equal measure. Congratulations. You, sir, are a tour de force...

But all that was surpassed when I looked at your website at My favorite of yours is "Hey gang! You're at Me, Central--THE place to all good things...."

Oh yeah, nice hat. (Keith Stroud, response to post)

Thanks, Keith

It's feels good to write something that can provoke a response that -- for me at least -- is one to remember. Hmmm. Maybe if I became a successful writer, that would help solve the critics' current problem (or at least help prove a point)!? It would be nice to help out, so.

I'm back in the west, but no longer cowboy -- I've got glasses that keep me feeling just as singular but now urban and strange: where I like to be.


Sometimes cliches are necessary to get the work done, but "luminous" really gets my goat (pardon the cliche). It may or may not be a reviewer cliche yet, but it has been a blurb cliche for the last 30 years. It sounds so earnestly meaningful, but its presence on the backs of half of all books is good indication of what it really is: lazy and meaningless. What is it supposed to mean with regard to prose? It is so completely without application that you can call any book luminous without having read it and not be any less accurate than anyone else who has ever called a book luminous.

Reed Richards

P.S. Patrick: What fun! Keith: So true! (richarre, response to post)

Link: The sins of the book critic (Salon)


Popular posts from this blog

Full conversation about "Bringing Up Baby" at the NewYorker Movie Facebook Club

Richard Brody shared a link.Moderator · November 20 at 3:38pm I'm obsessed with Bringing Up Baby, which is on TCM at 6 PM (ET). It's the first film by Howard Hawks that I ever saw, and it opened up several universes to me, cinematic and otherwise. Here's the story. I was seventeen or eighteen; I had never heard of Hawks until I read Godard's enthusiastic mention of him in one of the early critical pieces in "Godard on Godard"—he called Hawks "the greatest American artist," and this piqued my curiosity. So, the next time I was in town (I… I was out of town at college for the most part), I went to see the first Hawks film playing in a revival house, which turned out to be "Bringing Up Baby." I certainly laughed a lot (and, at a few bits, uncontrollably), but that's not all there was to it. I had never read Freud, but I had heard of Freud, and when I saw "Bringing Up Baby," its realm of symbolism made instant sense; it was obviou…

"The Zookeeper's Wife" as historical romance

A Polish zoologist and his wife maintain a zoo which is utopia, realized. The people who work there are blissfully satisfied and happy. The caged animals aren't distraught but rather, very satisfied. These animals have been very well attended to, and have developed so healthily for it that they almost seem proud to display what is distinctively excellent about them for viewers to enjoy. But there is a shadow coming--Nazis! The Nazis literally blow apart much of this happy configuration. Many of the animals die. But the zookeeper's wife is a prize any Nazi officer would covet, and the Nazi's chief zoologist is interested in claiming her for his own. So if there can be some pretence that would allow for her and her husband to keep their zoo in piece rather than be destroyed for war supplies, he's willing to concede it.

The zookeeper and his wife want to try and use their zoo to house as many Jews as they can. They approach the stately quarters of Hitler's zoologist …