-
Goodreads
Jun
29
Judging a book by its title
Filed Under Books and Culture | 1 Comment
What is it about controversial book titles? Why can’t people stop themselves from jumping all over a title before a book even comes out? What is it about the marketing aspect of titles that drive people to say such stupid things?
Ramesh Ponnuru’s excellent The Party of Death was roundly criticized and dismissed simply because the of the title (or some of the admittedly over-zealous marketing material). Bloggers, Amazon reviewers, and even journalists - all mostly of the liberal variety - arrogantly and ignorantly sniffed that the title was insulting and wrong and that they weren’t going to read the book because the title revealed that it was hopelessly warped.
Ramesh’s fellow National Review colleague Jonah Goldberg has been experiencing the very same thing as he prepares for his book’s release. Today he noted yet another example of this phenomenon.
Here is what Tom Palmer has to say:
A friend just sent me a rather shocked link to Amazon.com’s page for Jonah Goldberg’s new book with the utterly crazy title: “Liberal Fascism: The Totalitarian Temptation from Hegel to Whole Foods.” The original subtitle was “The Totalitarian Temptation from Mussolini to Hillary Clinton.” That one was unhinged enough, but the new title is simply deranged.
[. . .]
I’ve met John Mackey a number of times and I know for a fact that he’s not a “fascist,” nor does he distribute “fascist food.”
I know that authors don’t always come up with the titles or covers of their books, but they do get to veto them. This one is so utterly stupid that I hope that Goldberg is ashamed to show his face in public.
As Jonah noted in his Corner post, this isn’t really an argument so much as a emotional reaction. Palmer seems offended that Whole Foods and fascist appear together in any way. He doesn’t explain why this isn’t a perfectly legitimate teaser to the book. Does the title or subtitle argue that Whole Foods is a totalitarian organization or that the owner, John Mackey, is a fascist? No. It simply suggests that in the process of discussing “Liberal Fascism” and the “Totalitarian Temptation ” Jonah will cover topics as diverse as Hegel and Whole Foods.
I am glad Palmer can vouch for John Mackey and is confident the Whole Foods doesn’t distribute “fascist food” but what does that have to do with anything? Is it really too much to ask that critics read the book and make an attempt to understand the argument before they start assuming that the title and subtitle are “unhinged.”
Tom Palmer asserts that this “is so utterly stupid that I hope that Goldberg is ashamed to show his face in public.” What? Before he goes around calling something “utterly stupid”maybe Mr. Palmer might want to go ahead and flush out an argument about the supposed offense, preferably one that includes logic and reasoning rather than just personal assurances and bluster.
Let me repeat, the subtitle “The Totalitarian Temptation from Hegel to Whole Foods” does not automatically mean, or imply, that Whole Foods or John Mackey are fascist or totalitarian. Rather, in the age old tradition or book marketing it is designed to intrigue potential buyers and readers: Liberal Fascism? Hegel and Whole Foods? Just what is this Goldberg talking about? I had better buy this book and find out!
It is called marketing and it is rather prevalent these days. And on occasion it might even use controversy or shock value to catch-readers attention. I would think libertarians might be familiar with it.
Can we all just agree that we will not post sloppy attacks on books simply because of their titles? I am not even arguing that you have to read the book cover to cover. Don’t like the title or subtitle but don’t want to spend good money on it? When the book comes out go the public library and take a look. Read the introduction, the conclusion, key parts of key chapters, etc. Then you can say: I haven’t read the whole book, but it seems to me that book “X” is making a ridiculous argument by saying “Y.” Easy enough, no?
And I think Mr. Palmer should feel free to show his face in public even though he posted an emotional rant utterly lacking in logic or reason and without the common courtesy of reading a book before attacking the argument.
***I should note that I consider both Jonah and Ramesh friends so make of that what you will.***
UPDATE: Please see this post for additional disclosure.
Jun
29
In discussing A Nail Through the Heart by Timothy Hallinan I want to use a sort of Complete Review format as I have in the past. With quotes from other reviews followed by my own take on the book.
Let’s start with Kirkus Reviews as they offer a quick plot summary as part of their short review:
Mystery writer Hallinan scores big-time with a fast-moving thriller set in Thailand.
Poke Rafferty, the improbable product of a Filipino-Irish union, writes articles and niche travel books that provide him enough to live, if not well, at least better than the average Joe in Bangkok. The American expat wants to marry bar-girl-turned-businesswoman Rose, and he wants to adopt Miaow, the eight-year-old urchin he’s rescued from the streets. Then Poke’s old friend, a police officer named Arthit, sends him a young woman searching for her recently disappeared uncle. As Poke digs deeper into the uncle’s past, he finds evil that strikes a bit too close for comfort. Matters get even more complicated when he crosses paths with Madame Wing, a terrifying old woman who hires Poke to investigate a theft that has left at least one man dead, and with Miaow’s friend Superman, a scary street kid. They’re only two of the vibrant, deftly drawn characters who throng Hallinan’s exotic but believable landscape. His hero has both a gun and a conscience, as well as enough wit to do the math and come up with the right answer. Poke struggles with age-old questions of right and wrong in a very personal way as the well-crafted narrative moves quickly and convincingly toward a satisfying conclusion that almost guarantees a sequel.
Dark, often funny and ultimately enthralling.
Chris McCann’s Pop Matters review is the best among the online reviews I have seen. He doesn’t bury the lead but gives you his interesting perspective on book in the first paragraph:
Timothy Hallinan’s A Nail Through the Heart features rough-and-tumble Bangkok street kids, former Khmer Rouge sadists, pasty pederasts, and a not-so-typical American-Thai romance. What elevates it above other strictly genre thrillers is its stubborn focus on family and how the links between people, burdened with complexity and pain, ultimately give meaning to otherwise chaotic, meaningless, and violent lives. In this regard, A Nail Through the Heart can be read as an anti-noir, eschewing the taciturn, solitary detective for a man whose only desire is to connect.
McCann also focuses on what differentiates the book from other thrillers:
Hallinan differentiates A Nail Through the Heart from other rote thrillers set in exotic locales with the tenderness it has at its heart. Where authors of most genre work would trip over themselves in an attempt to humanize the story, Hallinan seems to sincerely care about his characters; even transient actors receive a moment or two of his full consideration.
The intricate pattern of the web that ties everyone together—not in a Sam Spade whodunit sort of way, but in a Buddhist we’re all part of the same living universe” way—emerges as the true theme of the work. The Buddhist characters of Hallinan’s Bangkok practice daily acts of devotion, which in the hands of a less confident or overly ambitious writer could easily seem too fraught with symbolism. Instead, talk of ghosts, spirits, and offerings grounds the characters in the literary city that’s half reality and half dream.
Jun
28
Warlords: An Extraordinary Re-creation of World War II Through the Eyes and Minds of Hitler, Roosevelt, Churchill, and Stalin by Simon Berthon and Joanna Potts is a fascinating and eye-opening read. Berthon and Potts do an excellent job in bringing these larger-than-life men down to Earth.
Here is a brief description of the book from Publishers Weekly:
Recounting WWII from the point of view of the era’s four political giants is an original idea, and it works: while not exactly revisionist, Berthon and Potts’s book delivers some good jolts. Where popular writers often portray the good guys, Churchill and Roosevelt, as friendly partners, the authors refuse to soft-pedal controversies that erupted after America declared war—especially over Churchill’s reluctance to support a cross-Channel invasion and F.D.R.’s pressure on Churchill to free Britain’s colonies. Readers will wince to be reminded of Roosevelt’s conviction that Britain’s imperial ambitions were a greater threat than Stalin’s and his belief that Stalin was a sensible fellow one could do business with. Those accustomed to the stirring History Channel depiction of WWII as a crusade against evil will cringe to read of Stalin’s persistent, insulting treatment of his allies and of the unspeakable atrocities he committed against his own countrymen. Using diaries, correspondence and personal accounts, the book cuts back and forth among its subjects as they direct the war. This cinematic style succeeds (the authors work in British TV), and the scholarship is solid—so solid that readers convinced WWII was less squalid than other wars may be provoked to reconsider.
Jun
28
I am not sure why The New Republic chose to publish Alan Wolfe’s shameful “review” - ugly hit piece really - of a collection of essays by Russell Kirk. But they did and it is shameful. The immediate question seemed whether the best response to such an ignorant and distasteful piece of work would be disgusted silence or a full throated rebuttal.
Leaning toward the latter, I began working on a response - and I still plan on flushing out some of the nearly endless examples of ignorance - but today National Review Online stepped into the breach and provided some immediate ammunition for those appalled by Wolfe’s essay.
- They have a symposium of Kirk experts and admirers who provide brief responses to Wolfe.
- Jeffrey O. Nelson also provides a more lengthy response.
Good for NRO and shame on TNR.
Jun
28
Thursday Morning Links
Filed Under Books: News | Leave a Comment
Here are some links for your morning enjoyment:
- I am currently reading The Postmodern Imagination of Russell Kirk by Gerald J. Russello and enjoying it immensely. Over at NRO John Miller talks with Mr. Russello about postmodernism, crunchy cons, and whether Kirk would have watched ESPN’s SportsCenter. A taste:
MILLER: When I hear the word “postmodern,” I think of graduate students who wear black turtlenecks, hang out in coffee bars, and wish they were French. How is Kirk’s imagination “postmodern,” as the title of your book has it?
RUSSELLO: Kirk’s conservatism is “postmodern” in the sense that it was never modern, and therefore is not burdened as liberalism is with the weaknesses of the Enlightenment worldview. Kirk’s emphasis on imagination, his concern for the imagery a society creates of what it admires or condemns, his treatment of tradition and history as not objective but one in which we participate and can change, and his devotion to what Burke called the “little platoons” of society all have parallels in postmodern thought. Moreover, Kirk himself saw this. In 1982, he wrote in National Review, that “the Post-Modern imagination stands ready to be captured. And the seemingly novel ideas and sentiments and modes may turn out, after all, to be received truths and institutions, well known to surviving conservatives.” With liberalism moribund, it “may be the conservative imagination which is to guide the Post-Modern Age.”
- Bruce Grossman is one step ahead of me when it comes to Megan Abbott, well probably on a lot of things actually, as he has read Queenpin and posted a review. He has also posted a review of A Nail Through the Heart which I am working on right now. Read his review and come back later for my take.
- At American.com Robert VerBruggen takes a look at Freedomnomics: Why the Free Market Works and Other Half-Baked Theories Don’t by John R. Lott, Jr. Freedomnomics is part of a sort of academic feud between Steven Levitt, author of Freakonomics, and Lott. And VerBruggen finds that is both good and bad:
What’s more, the book shares Freakonomics’s lack of focus. In part it’s a response to Levitt, but in other ways it’s a defense of the free market, even on topics Levitt didn’t touch. And some essays are neither anti-Levitt nor pro-market; Freedomnomics could more accurately have been called The Brief Book of Everything John R. Lott, Jr., has Ever Written About.
Nonetheless, most of what John R. Lott, Jr., has ever written about has been fascinating. He’s a great writer, especially for the general public, and the book renders lots of charts, graphs and statistical analysis into clear, uncomplicated conversation. In particular, those who haven’t followed Lott’s research and op-eds should read it.
Jun
26
The Big Sleep by Raymond Chandler
Filed Under Books and Culture | 1 Comment
Reading The Song Is You naturally involved thoughts about hardboiled and/or noir fiction. And whenever I have had a discussion about this particular genre someone always recommends Raymond Chandler. At some point in the past I picked up the beautiful Modern Library edition of The Big Sleep and Farewell My Lovely. Having read Abbott I thought it would be interesting to read one of her inspirations. Go back to a classic and see how it relates.
It proved to be interesting but a little disappointing. I am not sure why, perhaps I just wasn’t in the mood for that particular style, but The Big Sleep didn’t wow me as many had assured me it would. Intellectually I could see why people enjoyed it but emotionally I didn’t quite connect.
Orrin Judd notes that The Big Sleep is firmly in the genre camp but still great literature:
By the time Raymond Chandler wrote The Big Sleep, in 1939, the private detective story had already — thanks in large part to the template established in The Maltese Falcon — become genre fiction. The elements were all firmly in place: first person narration; more metaphors and similes than you can shake a stick at; a lone, hard drinking, tough guy detective; an ex-cop of some kind, frustrated by the corrupt system of justice; beset by a convoluted case set among the upper classes; femme fatales; temperamental gunsels; disappearing corpses; hostile police and prosecutors; and so on. But both Chandler and Ross MacDonald demonstrated that working within that genre it was possible to produce great literature–which The Big Sleep definitely is.
Orrin goes on to call Marlowe “our modern Don Quixote” a man who is “trying to hold back the tide of modernity by upholding an antiquated, but still compelling, code of honor.”
William Marling, Professor of English at Case Western Reserve University, describes Marlowe as “the genre’s most influential series detective” and notes his unique role:
His wise-cracking style and capacity to endure punishment from his foes introduced a new kind of “performance” to hard-boiled fiction, in which victory was more often verbal than physical. Chandler’s ironic tone and extraordinary metaphors focused readers on individual scenes, which he excelled at writing. Many of these evoke Southern California in the late 1930s so vividly that the setting seems to become part of the plot. Most critics consider this book among the dozen greatest hard-boiled novels.
Reading reviews and history of the genre and the book, I can’t really argue with the critics. The quintessential character of Marlowe, the tone, the metaphors and similes, the evocation of Southern California, its all there. But in the end it just didn’t grab me. Was it enjoyable and entertaining? Sure, it wasn’t a painful read. I wasn’t tempted to put the book down or anything. But it also didn’t make such an impact on me that I immediately wanted to read more of Chandler (the next novel in the volume I was reading for example). Perhaps, I will read Farewell My Love when my mood and perspective is different I will enjoy it more.
Regardless, if you are interested in hardboiled fiction or the evolution of the detective story, or maybe just Southern California in the 1930’s, you will want to check out The Big Sleep. If only to better understand where the genre comes from and how it developed.
Jun
26
Douthat on Updike on Shales
Filed Under Books: News | Leave a Comment
Ross Douthat does a fine job of pointing out the problems with John Updike’s review of Amity Shale’s new book on the Great Depression:
So far as I can tell from parsing this solipsistic flapdoodle, John Updike thinks the New Deal should be judged a great success because FDR was politically skillful enough to persuade Updike’s Dad to become a Democrat. Which is well and good so far as it goes: Political savvy is no small thing in a President, particularly at a moment of global disarray, and the perception of government activism in the face of the Great Depression was politically necessary even when economically undesirable. But one of the implications of Shlaes’ book, which Updike is supposed to be reviewing, is that FDR could have given us the fireside chats and the rhetoric of government action and yes, even the stronger safety net without the counterproductive attempts at centralized planning and the relentless scapegoating of business, both of which helped keep unemployment well above ten percent until World War II intervened. One can give Roosevelt the credit he deserves for the “inspirational feat” of keeping faith in American democracy alive among the men waiting in Studs Terkel’s soup lines, but it’s still worth addressing The Forgotten Man’s argument - which Updike doesn’t even touch, with all his florid talk of “the moot mathematics of economics,” the “merciless” quality of business, and government as “ultimately a human transaction” - that the men waiting in those soup lines might have benefited from an actual job as well, and that the New Deal’s role in stifling the growth that might have created such jobs (and shortened those soup lines) needs to be considered when assessing Roosevelt’s legacy. A Presidency that makes Americans “feel less alone” in the midst of a crisis is an admirable thing, but so is a five percent unemployment rate, and Updike leaves unrebutted Shlaes’ suggestion that a better, less-utopian New Deal might have given America both.
Jun
25
Faith and Hollywood Movies
Filed Under Books and Culture | Leave a Comment
Food for thought from David Plotz discussing Evan Almighty:
Universal has hired a religious marketing firm to sell Evan Almighty to churches and religious leaders, hoping to capture the same hundreds of millions in Christ dollars raked in by The Passion, The Chronicles of Narnia, and Bruce Almighty. If they succeed, it will be tragic, not because Evan Almighty is unfunny (although it certainly is), but because it will validate Hollywood’s embarrassingly stupid approach to religion and faith. If I were a believing man, movies like Evan would make me long for the days when Hollywood just ignored God.
[. . .]
You might argue that making a comedy about Noah’s ark—one of the Bible’s grimmest stories—is a bit like making a sex farce about the Rwandan genocide. But the problem is not the comic aspiration. VeggieTales is proof that Bible comedy based on unpleasant stories is possible. No, what’s disturbing about Evan Almighty is its flaccid approach to faith. All that is compelling, moving, and profound about the Noah story has been systematically excised. In the Bible, God chooses Noah to survive because Noah is a righteous man. But Evan is faithless and stupid, and comes to believe in God only because God hammers him over the head with about 137 miracles. Any moron will believe when an omnipotent divine being appears in the back seat of his car and starts sending him pairs of lions and giraffes. The lesson of the Bible is that faith is hard, and unrewarding, and painful. Faith is belief when there are no giraffes.
Jun
25
Columbus Dispatch Online Book Club
Filed Under Books: News | Leave a Comment
A while back I mentioned that The Columbus Dispatch was ramping up its online book coverage with a blog by book critic Bill Eichenberger and an online book club.
I have to say the blog is a bit lame so far. The irritating way the Dispatch blogs are embedded into the pages so that you have to scroll both the page and the blog is annoying. Eichenberger doesn’t post very often and when he does the posts rarely contain any particular insight let alone interesting information from a long time book critic. Frank Wilson he is not.
The book club is just getting started so we will have to see how it turns out. Today they had a chat for their first selection, Harlen Coben’s The Woods, which included discussion with Eichenberger and live chat with Coben.
Not sure what this all means in the grand scheme of things, but the Dispatch seems to be reaching out to book readers - may be not literary types, but readers.
Jun
25
Imagine: You’re at the airport and don’t have anything to read on the flight. You see two books at a kiosk. Six Principles of Effective Communication, a non-descript textbook, and Made to Stick: Why Some Ideas Survive and Others Die, a bright orange hardcover with what looks like duct tape on the cover. Which book would you buy?
The point of this imaginary scenario (I made the first book up) isn’t that you need a catchy title and cover to sell books, althought that may be true, but that how ideas are communicated is often as important as the ideas themselves.
Chip and Dan Heath have spent the last ten years studying this phenomenon - why some ideas “stick.” Chip as a professor of organizational behavior at Stanford and Dan as an educational entrepreneur and consultant. In Made to Stick, they share what they have learned.
“Stickiness” is used to describe ideas that stay with us, that become part of our mental furniture. In other words: effective communication. The brothers adopted the idea from Malcolm Gladwell’s 2000 book The Tipping Point. But while Gladwell was studying the nature of social epidemics they wanted to understand the structure of effective communication – what makes ideas that stick tick.
Their answer? If you want to create an idea that sticks develop a Simple, Unexpected, Concrete, Credible, Emotional, Story. This acronym (SUCCES) may be memorable, and a little corny, but what does it mean exactly? At the risk of oversimplifying, it means using what we know about how people think, act, react, and interact with ideas to craft effective communication.
From the introduction to the epilogue, and through chapters dealing with each of the six qualities, the authors model a basic structure for effective communication.
Step one is strip your idea to its core. When we try to communicate too much nothing sticks. But simple is not dumbing down, simple yes, but profound. Think proverbs not sound bites.
The remaining qualities take the next steps. If you want your idea to stick you need to make your audience: pay attention; understand and remember; agree/believe; care; and be able to act.
-
Syndicate
My Flickr Pics
-
Site Meter
