The third (and final) volume of Norman Sherry's epic biography of Graham Greene has finally been released, and the preliminary word of mouth on it is less than complimentary. (Sherry in the previous volumes demonstrated a copiousness of detail that suggested completism taken to a ridiculous extreme.) Bookforum's review (by Matthew Price) makes some good remarks about Greene, but in yet another example of what seems to be developing into a trend, there's very little discussion of Sherry's book, maybe three paragraphs total. It makes me wonder why we even bother issuing reviews in journals anymore if the reviewers are simply going to use their publication space to make their own pronouncements on the subject's career rather than focussing on the specific work in question. Don't misunderstand me: I'm always interested in new observations about Greene (and some of Price's are quite good; others, er, not so much), but I'm not comfortable with this general pattern of subjectival misdirection, the result of which is that such criticism is more platitudinous pretense rather than direct consideration of new material. I also have to find it interesting that Price spends a lot of time talking about the material that is beyond the third volume's purview (1955-91). It tends to render the article rather suspect-- and frustrating.
24 September 2004
A Sort Of Review
The third (and final) volume of Norman Sherry's epic biography of Graham Greene has finally been released, and the preliminary word of mouth on it is less than complimentary. (Sherry in the previous volumes demonstrated a copiousness of detail that suggested completism taken to a ridiculous extreme.) Bookforum's review (by Matthew Price) makes some good remarks about Greene, but in yet another example of what seems to be developing into a trend, there's very little discussion of Sherry's book, maybe three paragraphs total. It makes me wonder why we even bother issuing reviews in journals anymore if the reviewers are simply going to use their publication space to make their own pronouncements on the subject's career rather than focussing on the specific work in question. Don't misunderstand me: I'm always interested in new observations about Greene (and some of Price's are quite good; others, er, not so much), but I'm not comfortable with this general pattern of subjectival misdirection, the result of which is that such criticism is more platitudinous pretense rather than direct consideration of new material. I also have to find it interesting that Price spends a lot of time talking about the material that is beyond the third volume's purview (1955-91). It tends to render the article rather suspect-- and frustrating.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment