Sunday, August 3, 2008
The New York Times on Julia Reed's new book
Posted by Kevin Allman on Sun, Aug 3, 2008 at 4:46 PM
My.
God.
I kept thinking "This review cannot possibly be as condescending, snippy, and grossly egotistical as it appears on first read," but after the fourth read, I decided it was worse than that: it not only insulted Julia Reed and her book, but the city itself.
I don't know Ms. Reed, but I just put in a call to her.
Comments (9)
Showing 1-9 of 9
What the hell! Can somebody tell the reviewer to write his own damn book and alleviate his own guilt that way? Don't go using Julia Reed, or anybody else, to do it.
like
dislike
I'm still gobsmacked from the first paragraph alone: "I really wanted to pan this book. First of all, with the exception of Walker Percy’s “Moviegoer,” I tend to dislike literature about New Orleans (oh the decadence! the quaintness!)..." It's like sending Alan Richman to review restaurants that he doesn't like...except Blake Bailey actually lived here. I haven't read Julia Reed's book, and I have no idea whether it's good or not. But this bizarre, petulant little screed told me nothing about Reed or her book. It did tell me a lot about Bailey, none of it good.
I know neither Reed nor Bailey, but I don't think the reputation of New Orleans is going to be made or broken on either of their chronicles. Also, it's obvious that Bailey has a chip on his shoulder, is suffering from Sour Grapes syndrome, etc., but I think he has the right to his (not altogether wrong and understandable) opinions on NOLA. He should have brought them up in another forum, though.
It seems like he's most upset that Julia Reed got better post-K assignments than he, plus a book, out of the whole thing. If you get her on the phone ask her if she really ate Lucky Dogs regularly while she lived in the Quarter, as she says in a Vogue essay from last month. That's brave and also gross.
I'm halfway through the book right now, and it seems to me that the man might have simply skimmed it. Even if he had, though, it's kinda irresponsible to be using book reviews to advance a personal agenda. Case in point: http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/07/21/080721fa_fact_lepore
Well, Walker Percy often said more or less the same thing about New Orleans lit, expounded on its bad qualities far too many times to mention. On the whole, though, seems the reviewer liked the book, despite biases going in, which means it won him over.
I live about 2 blocks away from Reed, and her essay on Katrina from Vogue's September 2006 issue was one of the most elitist pieces of grabage I've ever read in my life. She wrote about how cute it was that her neighbor's kids came dressed as looters for Halloween, carrying Saks bags. How tasteless.
This reminded me of someone going to review a soul food restaurant admitting they didn't know what grits were when they walked in the door. I agree: The first paragraph disqualified the reviewer from the task.
I don't know, this didn't boil my blood in the same way that Richman's drive-by character assassination did. Clearly, Mr. Bailey comes across more jealous of Julia Reed's successes than anything else, which is particularly strange given that he's using the impeccable serifs of The New York Effin' Times to air his grievances. We should all be so slighted.
