There are many, many novels written and not much space in The New York Times to review them. A debut novelist would just about die to get in there.
So how, one wonders, does a woman named Emily Fridlund get her first book, "History of Wolves," reviewed twice in the NYT over the course of three days -- and lengthy reviews at that, each with a picture of the author? Do the journalists who write the daily paper talk to those who put out the Sunday edition? It appears not.
Hopefully, Ms Fridlund takes the view that anything said about her and her book is good publicity as long as the names are spelled correctly because the two reviews are not exactly in agreement.
On Thursday, Jan. 5, Jennifer Senior found "History of Wolves" disappointing. Fridlund withholds critical information from readers, leading them to believe they will be rewarded with something dramatic. "Those thunderheads massing on the horizon let loose only a weak drizzle."
She also finds part of the story "disorienting" and "strained."
In conclusion, Senior quotes the book's main protagonist, Linda, as saying: "It's not what you think but what you do that matters." Fridlund, she says, "might have taken this to heart in a slightly different way. All the ideas in the world can't make a great novel. It's what you do with them that matters."
If Ms Fridlund was left a little downhearted by that assessment, the second review, by Megan, Hustad, which appeared in the Jan. 8 Sunday book review section, turned out better.
She called the book "an artful story of sexual awakening and identity formation" that eventually turns more stomach-churning.
The overall result, Hustad said, "is a novel of ideas that reads like smart pulp, a page-turner of craft and calibration."
Well, which is it? One could consult other reviewers, of course, but many (such as other authors) are too conflicted to be particularly objective. Or just take the plunge and maybe write one's own review.
No comments:
Post a Comment