Filed under: Quillblog, John Metcalf, Reviews
Related posts
Metcalf attacks Canadian authors and defends negative reviews
Last month on litblog Nota Bene Books, blogger Nigel Beale interviewed Canadian critic, editor, and writer John Metcalf about book reviewing and, specifically, the necessity for negative reviews. In the lengthy audio interview, Metcalf explained that he sees bad writing as a personal attack and bashed many well-regarded Canadian authors, including M.G. Vassanji, Robertson Davies, and Ann-Marie MacDonald. After remarking that he needed two bottles of scotch to get through MacDonald’s best-selling novel Fall On Your Knees, his criticism of Vassanji became the main focus of the interview:
You read one paragraph of Vassanji and you know that you are not dealing with a person that can handle the English language. I mean, there’s no debate, there’s no question, it’s not my opinion. It’s the opinion of anybody that is literate.
Now, Beale has interviewed Vassanji about his recent Penguin biography of Mordecai Richler, but not without asking for a response to Metcalf’s remarks. Although the author stated that the opinion of one critic was inconsequential, he was quick to fire back insults at his attacker:
He’s an old guy, he doesn’t know how to age gracefully. I mean, he’s the nationalist. He’s the one … measuring who’s Canadian, who’s not…. Nobody knows John Metcalf except a few people.
twitter
facebook
rss
I had to look Vassanji up on Wikipedia. I didn’t have a clue who he was and what he wrote about, and I read plenty of Canadian literature including Metcalf’s oeuvre.
Yeah, because John’s so much crankier as an “old guy” than when he was young. What I find amusing is Vassanji seems to want to say that he doesn’t pay any attention to Metcalf at the same time that he says that he’s a hypocrite. Which would be consistent with John’s observation that MGV can’t write…
It’s interesting that in his reply, Vassanji doesn’t actually defend his own writing. Metcalf is cranky and always has been, but that doesn’t mean he’s necessarily wrong. He has been spot on in the past in his criticisms of some Canadian writers who have somehow made it into the canon without actually having any discernible writing skills. I think of Metcalf as the Christopher Hitchens of Canadian letters.
Wayne says: “It’s interesting that in his reply, Vassanji doesn’t actually defend his own writing”
It’s not that surprising. How could any writer possibly defend himself from a pompous and sweepingly dismissive statement like
“You read one paragraph of Vassanji and you know that you are not dealing with a person that can handle the English language. I mean, there’s no debate, there’s no question, it’s not my opinion. It’s the opinion of anybody that is literate.”
which, in itself, contains no argument and no evidence. It simply says “anyone who is important agrees with me, and it is pointless to argue about the question because we are obviously right”. This isn’t any sort of reasoned criticism, so it’s impossible to respond with a defence.
This is more in regard to Allen Levine’s take on a negative review. He may have had more of a case if he hadn’t been telling all around town that he had outgrown his Winnipeg publisher and was going to a New York publisher for his next Sam Klein mystery. I must say I read the review in the Winnipeg Free Press and agreed. If the author is boasting that he’s going to a ‘big shot’ publisher then one might expect that he would show some growth. I read and enjoyed his earlier novels but didn’t think the new one showed any growth on the part of the author. His new novel was published by a different local publisher which makes one wonder if he burnt a few bridges along the way. I looked for the glowing reviews that he mentioned but couldn’t find anything much on the internet.
Also, besides remembering the review, I believe I remember who the reviewer was. Not a published author but someone who won an ACTRA award for pieces on the radio, and has taught several courses but not one on Creative Writing or at least not one I was able to find.
Perhaps Mr. Levine’s ego will take a break now that he’s had his say.
Sincerely,
Barb Moon
Kudos to the Vas for at least firing back. The typical response to any criticism directed at our sacred cows is for them to simply ignore it and pretend it’s all beneath them. MSV certainly does a bit of this with his snobby line about Metcalf being a nobody, and his response doesn’t really respond to Metcalf’s criticism but is more of an ad hominem attack (is Vassanji a young man?), but like I say at least it shows he has a pulse.
As for Metcalf’s “pompous and sweepingly dismissive” take on MSV’s writing (Paul), it came in the context of a podcast interview. Metcalf has had more substantive comments to make in print. As have others, I might add. But I assume from his response that Mr. Double Giller feels all such criticism to be mere impertinence.
Before I give my ego a break, permit me a response to Barb Moon’s caustic comments about my Last Word column:
1. As I had not planned to write another Sam Klein Mystery beyond the trilogy, I did not say “all around the town” that I was going to a New York publisher to do that. I may have intimated somewhere that I had found a New York agent who was interested in representing me on Evil of the Age, the first novel in a new series. If a New York publisher picks up the novel I’d be happy about it. No apologies there. No bridges were burned with my other publisher, we just decided to part company.
2. Ms. Moon didn’t think I showed “growth” in the new novel. That’s her view and I wouldn’t argue with that. She can find a different and more positive opinions, for instance, in mystery book reviewers Don Graves’s review in the Hamilton Spectator (July 19, 2008 and Dec. 27, 2008) and Margaret Cannon in the Globe and Mail (October 8). They do actually exist and a simple Google search can find them and others.
3.The creative writing course I spoke at and taught by the reviewer of my book in the Free Press was at the University of Winnipeg. I didn’t concoct that either.
Sincerely,
Allan Levine
Thank you Barb Moon for raising the issues that struck me re Allan Levine’s kvetch on the subject of harsh reviews. I’ve sent a full response to Q&Q, but I’ll just mention although Allan’s strengths are history and research, it wasn’t a Creative Writing Course I was teaching and that he attended, it was a History of the Mystery Course at the University of Winnipeg.
Cheers,
Ron Robinson
Host / Pages
CKUW FM
I have run into Mr. Metcalf on several occasions at the local library, never once felling comfortable approaching him, as it was quite obvious that he was fighting off the previous night’s festivities. My own writing was impaired during my ‘gimlet days’, so I can only imagine.
I have run into Mr. Metcalf on several occasions at the local library, never once feeling comfortable approaching him, as it was quite obvious that he was fighting off the previous night’s festivities. My own writing was impaired during my ‘gimlet days’, so I can only imagine.
Hope this puts to rest the notion that Canadians are too polite …
Thanks for your comments, Paul and Alex Good. I do think Metcalf could say something both substantive and pithy, given his pre-eminence as a Canadian cultural critic. And I also think Vassanji could respond a little more elegantly, given his two Gillers. Literary boxing match, anyone?
Alex, he ain’t a kid, in terms of how old he is. Wikipedia sez he’s born 30 May 1950 (so, in my books, since he’s older than yours truly, he’s ancient :)). Have a peek-see here for the visuals:
http://images.google.ca/images?hl=en&q=Vassanji&gbv=2
The idea of a literary boxing match snags my vote. Can already imagine the ring and spindly dinosour gripers . . . Think Metcalf’s older than MGV. No matter. The tradition exists. Morley Callaghan reffed a match between F. Scott and Ernie; Ernie lost and never forgave Morley for reffing so poorly. EH took his grudge to the grave. Sad.
Canadians ain’t nice; but, they ain’t any nastier than any other nationality, IMO. Thing is, nastiness says more about the source than the target (since, again IMO, all reviews fall under the category of autobiography). If a person pans a work, that person, IMO, ought to show and tell readers why in a way that makes good constructive critical and aesthetic sense. Then again, I am reminded of John M. Gray’s observation: “The thicker the wallet, the thinner the skin.” Gratuitous nastiness, OTOH, urgh . . . ughly . . .
BTW, non-sequiturnally and OT with apologies, meant to tell you I thought your contribution to the MOBYLIVES brouhaharangue surrounding the OPP (Oxford Poetry Professorship) excellent. Actually said something to that effect in a subsequent comment that, for whatever reasons, never saw the light of sway. Censored? Moi :).
FWIW, I still think Arvind Mehrotra oughtra be the OPP and gottra wonder why isn’t he? What with all that clap-clap-clatter chatter vis-à-vis misogyny, the card deserving attention got shuffled off to one below bluffalo :(.
–
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/blogs/in-other-words/