Last Week's New Yorker Review: š± The Weekend Special (January 13)
The Weekend Special
Pieces are given up to three Boyles (for fiction), Harrimans (for essays), or Parkers (for random picks). As with restaurant stars, even one Boyle, Harriman, or Parker indicates a generally positive review.
I appreciate your patience, readers. The newsletter will keep coming till the day it stops.
š± Fiction
āProphecyā by Kanak Kapur. One Boyle. stone, study, stars. Interesting reading this along with Romeo and Juliet (for, need I remind you, ninth grade English Language Arts), another tale of young lovers crossed by stars (though in this case they do spend a life together.) Kapur dispenses with years in the gaps between sections, but thereās not much disjuncture or disorientation; this is a linear narrative of family and fate. Kapur has hardly been published (this may be the exceedingly rare slush-pile fiction piece to make the magazine, or Deborah Treisman may just have friends at Colgate) and there is a steadiness and self-assuredness here that belies her experience. Her prose is elegant but not especially voicey; everything is perfectly balanced⦠but at the same time, nothing stuck out enough to stick with me. Having read the story while tired, I had to read it over again⦠and still it was hard to keep in focus (with the exception of an ending that I found more jarring than revelatory). Maybe thatās just a function of pairing narrative sweep with thematic restraint. If a few stars are defied here, nobodyās shouting about it.
š± Weekend Essay
āWriting as Transformationā by Louise Glück. Two Harrimans. source, sound, something. A friendly jot, clearly written for an assignment and not labored over. Itās only Glückās recent passing that gives it any extra significance. But this is still a masterās sketch. The charged phrases Gluck speaks of, āsuggestive, haunting, but unintelligibleā, and nearly impossible to control, are my kin, too. (There is considerable overlap with the so-called āintrusiveā thought; the thought here does intrude, but if it doesnāt spark upset, one doesnāt have to feel invaded by it.) Glück mentions analysis, and sheās doing a self-analysis here, searching for the top of her sky. (āBut with whom was I communicating? Unclear.ā) One canāt touch that sky, but one can read it.
š± Random Pick
āBoth Rough and Tenderā by John Updike (January 22, 2001). One Parker. rage, rebel, riot. A refreshing single-section blast of old-fashioned book review ā no contextualization here; there are but a few lines on Carey as a writer (and they come two-thirds of the way through), and the history covered is relevant only insofar as the novel addresses it. That leaves time for plenty of delicious quotes! Unfortunately, they arenāt to my taste. Whatever project Carey is working at, it doesnāt come through in excerpt, where the deliberately excessive voice just seems a belabored conceit. (Just so non-click-through-ers have a sense of what Iām talking about, hereās one block quote: āThen we was playing what they call THE GAME you never knew so many hooks and buttons and sweet smelling things we took them off her one by one until she lay across her bed there were no sin for so did God make her skin so white her hair as black as night her eyes green and her lips smiling.ā That sort of thing.) Updike seems to dig it; thereās enough quoted to draw your own conclusion. Otherwise, things are unadorned; there are a few quips and a handful of minor demerits, and not too much else. Call it Rabbit Down Under!
š± Something Extra
Nickel Boys is superb⦠and also proof that a director can be totally hopeless as a director of actors ā the performances are all willy-nilly, arching in various random directions ā and still achieve triumph through raw mise en scene and elbow grease.
Sunday song:
-
I encountered "A&P" as a young person and I had never read anything like it. I'm not sure I have read anything else by Updike, but that story alone has made me a lifelong fan. For me, its power cannot be undone. I re-read it maybe 10 years ago and it gave me more pause, but whatever it had was still there.
So thank you for the review of Updike's review, and for including the sample text of the book he is reviewing, which I believe I will skip. The description of Updike's approach sounds just like what I would expect from him.
- Can't Get Over Updike
(I feel like I should sign this as a writer to an advice column would, since there are probably multiple reasons I should get over it/him.)
Add a comment: