judgment of the intellect is only part of the truth

"Judge a man by his questions rather than by his answers.”
- Voltaire

I haven't bought a copy of the Sunday New York Times in close to 10 years. It was one of those NYC pretentions that I actually allowed myself. I think I stopped because, despite having lived in a mostly Jewish neighborhood during those years, I couldn't find a place that made a good bagel to save my life. That, and the fact that Sunday Styles just annoys. I always liked to see what had made it to the cover of the NYT Book Review, however, at some point their dissection of Clinton and their quaint "pat on the head" views of those of us in outer boroughs came to be too much. And so, once again this rainy Sunday morning, not actually reading the Times, but of it, has me grinding my teeth. I steadied myself before reading Sara Nelson's most recent PW column, but to no avail. They are (or rather the editor is) planning on of my biggest pet peeves--the naming of the definitive. But, first a little primer.

Almost two years ago Sam Tanenhaus took over top editing spot for the Book Review section, probably one of the least-known well-known facts (knowing is simply another example of publishing's myopia. I'd reckon a guess that two people outside of the business would be able to name him, though why they should is lost on me). Tanenhaus who wrote, Whittaker Chambers: A Biography, which was nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, is also a historian, and a former Vanity Fair editorial alum (a favorite mag, despite its celebrity adorations), among many other literary pursuits. He has managed to meet two of the three main concerns folks had at his appointment: 1. Pull the section to the right and 2. Ignore fiction. Number 3 was dumbing down the section, which hasn't really happened to the extreme that was anticipated (unless you are of the opinion that any continued attempt at defending the actions of the "person" in the White House is, by association, dumb. I'll leave readers of this post to take a wild guess as to where I stand on that). But, Tanenhaus is, generally perceived as, an intelligent man. A view still held despite his continued employment of (the much limned ... heh) Michiko Kakutani (and A.O. Scott, frankly). It seems he plays as conservative and safe as an editor as he does as a writer. I say that, because, despite publishing's tendency to believe the whole world cares about books as much as we do, I'd guess there were a limited number of us who would be able to cite his book about us, Literature Unbound: A Guide for the Common Reader. In it there is a quote, which had many of us mailing reader cards for Sunday subscriptions from L.A., that reads, "our greatest triumph is usually not doing, keeping things in balance, refraining from the act we can't redeem." Not doing, yes, I believe that is a good view of his work, and they are his own words. That book received a little more play upon his ascention to the post, and there was much discussion as to what it could tell those of us who cared about what to expect. Arrogant enough to have written the tome in his early twenties, the views are difficult to really take seriously, as is the case, with any certainties so soon in life (or at least they should be). In Unbound, he provides us "literature as game," a lot of reviews of Western authors (no surprise there considering his politics), accuses Joyce of "double-speak," highlights Ayn Rand (again, no surprise), and generally offers up the usual conservative wariness of difficult prose (and please, as I have lamented Pynchon and DeLillo myself, note the difference in the definitions of difficult [his view] vs. oblique [mine]).

So, back to Nelson's article, which was about the Times' most recent pandering publicity stunt, the fact that come May 22, Tanenhaus is going to announce "the finest work of fiction published in the United States since 1980." Why? Why would this question need asking? Why waste more time on a question without any possible answer other than to force debate and provide fodder for the letters column. Modestly, the decision is not to be his alone. He will even have those "difficult" writers helping out. I hope that come a month from now I can avert my eyes, though, I'm sure I am not so strong and despite my attempts to extricate, still all too human, there will be some rubber-necking on my part, for sure. A few posts ago I noted that there were over 4,000 novels published in 2004, another few thousand more, at least, since then. Add to that the 20+ years prior and anyone who has read more than a handful of books during that time will tell you to pick either their favorite or the best, is a nigh impossible and unwelcome challenge. For one who plays his hand close, I guess I should applaud Tannenhaus' attempt at taking a chance, however, I'd venture to say that the result will be more of what we feared of him to begin with.