Henry James Wood and Variations
On Monday I mentioned that James Wood was being called the most influential critic of his generation and wondering why, exactly (not that I disagree). On Tuesday I discovered this new review by him of three old novels by Henry James. Does he say anything of interest? I can’t find anything. He seems to be on autopilot. Plus he uses the old technique of shadowy generalisations � a pet hate of mine. “There was something cultish” he says “about the way modern American critics talked about ‘the Master’ and his exquisite refinements; it was palpably painful for them to admit that James ever blotted a line”. Leon Edel’s Freudian biography was, he add, “the breviary of that cult”. Why not give us some names? Such a technique enables readers to distance themselves from apparently slavish appreciation (”we couldn’t possibly be part of that!”), ready for the present author’s more sober judgement.
Compare and/or contrast then with a review of Gabriel Josipovici’s new novel Goldberg: Variations. The reviewer is not the most influential critic of his generation.
Other Splinters posts of interest:
- Irrelevant intensity
- A Certain Stupidity
- Waste, desolation and other pleasures
- James Wood and Lockerbie Here�s yet another lon…
- James Wood & John Banville on Herzog
