I was hoping to get your take on Elizabeth Gilbert. Not a good day for art and a sad state of affairs when this is how we (or rather, very powerful and rich authors) decide what’s published and when.
I enjoyed the take below by colormeloverly, although I believe the whole article is behind a subscriber paywall (her being the one Substack I pay for other than yours). Still, in case someone is a paid subscriber and missed it, it’s very much worth a read.
A very meaty column. I’m not an Elizabeth Gilbert fan, but I was shocked by her decision. To pull the book at all is sad, but to pull it based on Good Reads reactions seems utterly nonsensical because that site is like the Next Door of literary criticism. The reasons she gave are inexplicable. I love McCarthy’s statement that he is the reader he’s writing for. But Gilbert has become a pop celebrity, always dangerous for artists.
While its true that Cormac & Annie lived in an old dairy barn and were poor, the barn itself was incredibly beautiful. Cormac was extremely talented and skilled. He remodeled that barn and made it into a home. The mosaic sidewalks he and Bill Kidwell made in downtown Knoxville are still there.
I worked for fifteen years in public libraries, where one thing we do is try to help people find books they want to read, for whatever reason. Prior to becoming a librarian I was in an MFA program, where all we did was talk about whether writing was "good" or "bad." Leaving that for librarianship was liberating--I wasn't assessing overall worth (whatever that is) but what the worth of a particular book for a particular reader.
I sometimes feel as though I come to the comment section of this newsletter solely to quote from CS Lewis's collection On Stories, but once again he proves instructive:
"If you find that the reader of popular romance--however uneducated a reader, however bad the romances--goes back to his old favourites again and again, then you have pretty good evidence that they are to him a sort of poetry."
Of course not everyone is a rereader or needs to be, but what's always struck me about that bit is Lewis's utter lack of judgment about what one wants to read and his embrace of the idea that people should read the things that bring them joy, that stick with them.
I've tried to read Cormac McCarthy on a few occasions and decided he was not for me, though perhaps I'll try again. I listened to Eat Pray Love out of curiosity and then decided Elizabeth Gilbert was perhaps also not for me. Happily there are many more writers out there, and we all get to choose.
I've never been a Gilbert fan but couldn't understand any author not printing a book because of reviews. I kept thinking it must be a publicity stunt of some sort. I have been reading Cormac McCarthy since the early 90's and like the intensity of his books although they are hard to read because of the subject matter. While I read a lot, I often forget what I've read. But not so with his books. They stick with me.
Cormac McCarthy should have sold out. We've been robbed of a Warhammer 40k tie in novel by the man born to write one. In the grim darkness of the future there should only be periods. No commas, no colons, no parenthesis.
Ok, if nobody else is going to ask, I will. Favorite Peloton instructor? I’m a Cody Rigsby, Ally Love, and Adrian Williams fan, although there are a few others who are also my “friends,” they just don’t know it yet. Big para social relationships for sure, especially when I actually talk to them during workouts (whatever, it gets me through it).
As I was reading your article on McCarthy and Gilbert, I realized that in your line of work, you spend
a lot of time not just thinking about books and authors, but also readers. I wanted to offer a topic that you would have some interesting takes on: book clubs. I don't know how you'd do your research, if you needed it, but I thought I'd offer up a few thoughts that have occurred to me. I have been in only one book club (the one I'm in now and have been for 7 years), and I have to say that in the beginning the experience was different than I thought. When we began, I only knew a couple of the members of the club, and I came to realize how very personal talking about my reactions to a book can be. It was a bit scary in that way. I hadn't realized that going in. Of course, after 7 years, I know all the members well, having discussed so many books with them. I really enjoy the club, as it "makes me" read books that are a bit out of my comfort zone and which I end up enjoying. I also like having folks help me figure out stuff in the book that I was unsure about. Anyway, I know every book club is different, but I think it would be an interesting topic to get your perspective on.
The claim is that Gilbert is romanticizing Russia is bc her story is based on the real-life story of the Lykovs, who were members of a fundamentalist religious sect, the Old Believers. OBs opposed the Russian govt for 350+ years (so not precisely “anti-Soviet”)& it’s really quite a disturbing story that she obviously mystified. (I make that claim based on her own promotional material.) And OBs no longer oppose govt or society but are reconciled & play prominent roles in it; eg, Aleksandr Dugin is an Old Believer.
I covered some of these details in a Substack post last week.
I was hoping to get your take on Elizabeth Gilbert. Not a good day for art and a sad state of affairs when this is how we (or rather, very powerful and rich authors) decide what’s published and when.
I enjoyed the take below by colormeloverly, although I believe the whole article is behind a subscriber paywall (her being the one Substack I pay for other than yours). Still, in case someone is a paid subscriber and missed it, it’s very much worth a read.
https://open.substack.com/pub/colormeloverly/p/goodreads-strikes-again?r=1r39b3&utm_medium=ios&utm_campaign=post
A very meaty column. I’m not an Elizabeth Gilbert fan, but I was shocked by her decision. To pull the book at all is sad, but to pull it based on Good Reads reactions seems utterly nonsensical because that site is like the Next Door of literary criticism. The reasons she gave are inexplicable. I love McCarthy’s statement that he is the reader he’s writing for. But Gilbert has become a pop celebrity, always dangerous for artists.
I wish it had been published and profits donated to Ukraine.
While its true that Cormac & Annie lived in an old dairy barn and were poor, the barn itself was incredibly beautiful. Cormac was extremely talented and skilled. He remodeled that barn and made it into a home. The mosaic sidewalks he and Bill Kidwell made in downtown Knoxville are still there.
I worked for fifteen years in public libraries, where one thing we do is try to help people find books they want to read, for whatever reason. Prior to becoming a librarian I was in an MFA program, where all we did was talk about whether writing was "good" or "bad." Leaving that for librarianship was liberating--I wasn't assessing overall worth (whatever that is) but what the worth of a particular book for a particular reader.
I sometimes feel as though I come to the comment section of this newsletter solely to quote from CS Lewis's collection On Stories, but once again he proves instructive:
"If you find that the reader of popular romance--however uneducated a reader, however bad the romances--goes back to his old favourites again and again, then you have pretty good evidence that they are to him a sort of poetry."
Of course not everyone is a rereader or needs to be, but what's always struck me about that bit is Lewis's utter lack of judgment about what one wants to read and his embrace of the idea that people should read the things that bring them joy, that stick with them.
I've tried to read Cormac McCarthy on a few occasions and decided he was not for me, though perhaps I'll try again. I listened to Eat Pray Love out of curiosity and then decided Elizabeth Gilbert was perhaps also not for me. Happily there are many more writers out there, and we all get to choose.
I've never been a Gilbert fan but couldn't understand any author not printing a book because of reviews. I kept thinking it must be a publicity stunt of some sort. I have been reading Cormac McCarthy since the early 90's and like the intensity of his books although they are hard to read because of the subject matter. While I read a lot, I often forget what I've read. But not so with his books. They stick with me.
Cormac McCarthy should have sold out. We've been robbed of a Warhammer 40k tie in novel by the man born to write one. In the grim darkness of the future there should only be periods. No commas, no colons, no parenthesis.
Ok, if nobody else is going to ask, I will. Favorite Peloton instructor? I’m a Cody Rigsby, Ally Love, and Adrian Williams fan, although there are a few others who are also my “friends,” they just don’t know it yet. Big para social relationships for sure, especially when I actually talk to them during workouts (whatever, it gets me through it).
You recommended Piranesi to me; I read it. SO CREEPY. A slow start that makes sense after the plot unfolds. Thank you! Reading Hamnet next.
As I was reading your article on McCarthy and Gilbert, I realized that in your line of work, you spend
a lot of time not just thinking about books and authors, but also readers. I wanted to offer a topic that you would have some interesting takes on: book clubs. I don't know how you'd do your research, if you needed it, but I thought I'd offer up a few thoughts that have occurred to me. I have been in only one book club (the one I'm in now and have been for 7 years), and I have to say that in the beginning the experience was different than I thought. When we began, I only knew a couple of the members of the club, and I came to realize how very personal talking about my reactions to a book can be. It was a bit scary in that way. I hadn't realized that going in. Of course, after 7 years, I know all the members well, having discussed so many books with them. I really enjoy the club, as it "makes me" read books that are a bit out of my comfort zone and which I end up enjoying. I also like having folks help me figure out stuff in the book that I was unsure about. Anyway, I know every book club is different, but I think it would be an interesting topic to get your perspective on.
The claim is that Gilbert is romanticizing Russia is bc her story is based on the real-life story of the Lykovs, who were members of a fundamentalist religious sect, the Old Believers. OBs opposed the Russian govt for 350+ years (so not precisely “anti-Soviet”)& it’s really quite a disturbing story that she obviously mystified. (I make that claim based on her own promotional material.) And OBs no longer oppose govt or society but are reconciled & play prominent roles in it; eg, Aleksandr Dugin is an Old Believer.
I covered some of these details in a Substack post last week.
https://youreruiningme.substack.com/p/on-elizabeth-gilbert-and-the-snow?utm_source=profile&utm_medium=reader2