| Author | Message | ||
     Chris Hayden Rating: N/A |
Greg Tate did a review of both these books in the village voice-- http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0348/tate.php | ||
| yukio Rating: N/A |
How interesting this is: We have two external reviews, one terrible and the other solid. I felt Pickney's was pretty solid, though i only skimped it. Tate's on the other hand, was poorly written. Secondly, to call Morrison judgemental rather than "L" is irresponsible. I would suspect that he would read her interviews, besides her fiction, for this is his job as a book reviewer, especially the work of a nobel laureate. If he did so, he would know that she is fascinated with "JUnior" like characters, not to judge but to humanize them. | ||
| InPrint Rating: N/A |
I agree, Tate's review was really poorly written. His sentences were just leaden. Like book reports. Happy Festivus! | ||
| Chris Hayden Rating: N/A |
I posted it for contrast--I am aware that anything other than fawning adulation will probably be attacked from some quarters--it is important to get all views out there--Mr. Tate is an important voice of the Hip hop generation--he has columns and books out, even. This is a view of how some of them look at the book, and Toni Morrison. | ||
| ABM Rating: |
I respectfully disagree with Yukio/InPrint's opinions of Greg Tate's review of Toni Morrison's "Love". I found Tate's review to be insightful. And Tate's review is much more succinct and accessible than Darryl Pinckney's. Actually, Pinckney's review seemed to be less intended to review "Love" and more designed to be a prologue to a broader graduate-level dissertation on Morrison. And Yukio, why must a book critique read interviews of an author to adequately assess a writer's work? Shouldn't the books themselves convey to a reviewer all that is needed? | ||
| yukio Rating: N/A |
Chris Hayden: You write: "I posted it for contrast--I am aware that anything other than fawning adulation will probably be attacked from some quarters." Is this your way of addressing me? You've said something similarly before, on another thread. I guess this is what ABM meant about political tension. I've never attacked you, nor you i care if you're not fawning of the book. I only recall addressing the text, rather than the question of whether one should or should not like the book. ABM: Hmmmmm.....I didn't find Tate's comments insightful. As I said, or at least tried to, he seems to equate "L"’s views with Toni Morrison’s. He marginalizes the story to impropriety of black women through juxtaposing L with the others. In addition, if one is to solely read his review, it would seem like the book mostly about Junior. Consider this statement: “Mostly these judgments concern the violence our racialized culture has done to our collective humanity, and particularly the damage done to Black women's sense of propriety, if not their good old-fashioned common sense.” What does this mean? These women weren’t concerned about their propriety; L only mentioned it at the beginning. Matter of fact, Morrison illustrates the triviality and complicity of propriety through placing Christine as the cook and Heed as the virtual heiress, switching their assumed societal roles. Similarly, in the same section that Tate quotes, L also compares prostitutes to women in general, suggesting that propriety is another mask, where women prostitute themselves for men, whether is it their pimp or their husband. And finally, his review says nothing about “love.” How can you discuss a book without addressing the meaning or symbolism of the title? His writing needs to be unpacked. Though he uses an elementary vocabulary, and though his sentences are primarily simple and compound sentences, the words he use are imprecise. What is he trying to say here? “Morrison's new novel, Love, is devoted to the declamations of four women raised better prepared for life in the open rather than behind closed doors. Love is a judgment about how wild women are made, about the impropriety violation may produce.” What does he mean life in the open? The characters’ public lives aren’t successful! If they were, they wouldn’t have invested so much of their time in the house, NO? ABM, you ask “And Yukio, why must a book critique read interviews of an author to adequately assess a writer's work? Shouldn't the books themselves convey to a reviewer all that is needed?” I believe that the amount of work the reviewer does depends on the caliber of the author. If the author has written several qualities pieces, then I think it behooves the reviewer to have an idea about the author’s style, themes, etc…. This one can get from the literature, but to really get a feeling for the work, the craft of the writer, you must read interviews ( BTW, I’m not in the professional, so I could be way off point), so that you can get an idea about how the author goes about producing or doing their work. This is especially the case when you try to read the author’s mind, as Tate attempts to do. Firstly, reading an author’s mine is a no-no…this is impossible and not professional. Secondly, reading the author’s mind without having an idea about their work and then how they understand their work is foolish and irresponsible. In this particular review, it seems that Tate is doing a bit too much psychologizing, though it is difficult not to do this to some extent. Yet, Tates’ entire review is based on the assumption that L’s voice is representative of Morrison’s convictions. She has stated, about her work in general and in “LOVE” in particular, other work, that she lets them speak. Tate, as I mentioned above, misrepresents the plot and the larger story. He doesn’t even understand Sula….Indeed, Morrison has said that she holds the malign characters to her heart; this information flushes Tate’s “insights” in to the toilet. In Essence Morrison states, “I was interested in the way in which sexual love and other kinds of love lend themselves to betrayal. How do ordinary people end up ruining the thing they most want to protect? And obviously the heart of that is the effort of love.” This makes much more sense than Tates’ characterization. Morrison briefly and effortlessly tells us that about the relationships among loved ones who hurt each other. An accessibile and terse review does not mean that it is well written, and it certainly doesn't mean that the review was thorough. The review is poorly written, because he misrepresented the book and word choice was vague, sentence structure redunant, style sloppy. You are correct, however; the reviews were meant for different readers. | ||
| Chris Hayden Rating: N/A |
Yukio: As you know from my somewhat checkered career as your Arch Emeny (Superman has Lex Luthor, you have me--'til someone more worthy comes along) I generally address you personally when I got beef. This was a generic swipe, intended to yank folks chains, rattle their cages, push theirenvelope getting them to rouse out of Turkey stupor and comment. Of course I did it with some genuine, at least insofar as I understand fandom, anyone's fandom, will mean that there are some people who admire an artist, writer, singer or whatever you got, so much that any move on them will be taken personally. I never meant to include YU in that number. Re your comments to ABM, are you familiar with Greg Tate's work? | ||
| Cynique Rating: N/A |
Good lookin' out, Yukio. I, too, think that the fact that Tate didn't fawn over Toni was not the reason his critique fell short. Tate seemed to the approach the book with pre-conceived notions, anxious to dismiss it. Your rebuttal was on the mark. | ||
| yukio Rating: N/A |
Chris Hayden: Thank you for the clarification. BTW, I have no arch-enemies that i recognize. I even agree, to some degree, with your characterization of Morrison's protrayal of Romen. You ask: "Re your comments to ABM, are you familiar with Greg Tate's work?" I do recognize his name, though i haven't read any of his work. His tone and voice does evince a hip hop edge; still, his review seemed elementary...underdeveloped. | ||
| yukio Rating: N/A |
Cynique and Others: WHat did you think of his review of The KNown WOrld? I didn't read the book, so i didn't read the review. COnsider that Colson WHitehead also worked for the Village VOice....and the writer Toure is also a "hip hop" journalist....i wondered what type of reviews they produce....i recentl saw Toure interviewing Jay-Z and the interview went ok; i've seen so many interviews, since he is allegedly retiring, so Toure's questions didn't seem so enligtening.....so i'm guess i'm a lil biased and rambling... | ||
| Chris Hayden Rating: N/A |
Yukio: I am not your arch enemy. I am your arch EMENY--something quite different. Tate does a lot of reviews for Village Voice. He did a collection of essays, Flyboy in the Buttermilk. He comes on a little strong with the hiphop--sometimes like Ralph Ellison as Snoop Doggy Dogg, or a more literate Chuck D--but that's his shtick and he gets it honest. So his analysis would tend to be "down" "real" "from da heart"--but that's the audience he is writing for. It will actually benefit Morrison because it will probably influence a lot of hip hoppers to check her out. | ||
| Troy Rating: N/A |
Coincidently, these were the last two books I read. Tates review of Love is more a critique of Morrison rather than her book. In fact, it is not clear a review was actually the intent of Tate's article. The piece on the The Known World could not be acurately described as a review either, it is more a very loose description of the book. Now, in my opinion, of the two books Tate "Reviewed" I highly recommend The Known World. So far it is my favorite book of the year. If you are going to buy the book on line us this link http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0060557540/aalbccom-20 or be sure to click through AALBC.com first. Has anyone, anywhere, written anything negative about The Known World? I'd reccommend Morrison's Love to Morrison fans's (of course this would be an unnecesaary recomendation). |
