From a review in the New York Times of a new book, The Things that Matter:
Novels, Edward Mendelson writes, should be interpreted and understood from a personal point of view, and not just historically, thematically or analytically. “A reader who identifies with the characters in a novel is not reacting in a naïve way that ought to be outgrown or transcended, but is performing one of the central acts of literary understanding.”
Who would argue with this? That Mendelson is a Columbia professor explains why he feels he must make the argument: only in academe would something so obvious be controversial.
Mendelson further argues for literary criticism to adopt a more personal tone:
“Criticism is always more memorable, more convincing, more valid, when the critic’s voice is — and sounds like — the personal voice of someone who has learned from unique personal experiences, rather than a dispassionate impersonal voice that sounds like the product of advanced professional training.”
But then Mendelson spoils it all by lauding Middlemarch as the greatest English novel, although, the Times tells us: “considering the whole of their work, he finds Woolf and Dickens the greater novelists.”
Middlemarch? Is Mendelson on the level? George Eliot’s storytelling is not a strong suit–and isn’t that the stuff of great fiction. If we confine the discussion to the 19th century, why not tout Vanity Fair or The Way We Live Now? And Eliot is so earnest–where is the wit, irony, humor? Mendelson’s academic origins betray him: better something “serious” than something readable?
Technorati listing for frozen sea.
