How to write a take-down
Leo Robson in the ideas letter
So yes, local context matters. When I started writing reviews of novels, there were a number of relics from the postwar decades who were no longer writing their best stuff. So I have written harshly about books by Kundera, Mario Vargas Llosa, McEwan, others. I was runner-up for the no-longer-existent Hatchet Job of the Year prize for a review of a biography of Martin Amis. But I wasn’t trying to be a young gunslinger—I wasn’t especially young when I wrote some of the pieces, and would say the same thing now. I don’t think anyone could claim I was slating masterpieces. I find it silly when people say “I wouldn’t write that now.” It’s often untrue. Martin Amis regretted some of his antics from the early ’70s, when he went for Angus Wilson and Ballard and Philip Roth, but he was harsher on Michael Crichton and Thomas Harris two decades later. Finding a book or film or play or exhibition deficient and saying so when you are being paid for your opinion should not be dismissed as a young person’s game.
I think ridicule is OK, and maybe inevitable. I wrote a takedown of a history of the novel by the poet and publisher Michael Schmidt and he wrote me to say he should probably be jumping out of the window but was too busy laughing. You need to be direct. John Lanchester made this interesting point about what he called John Updike’s “very powerful negative review” of a Kingsley Amis novel, Jake’s Thing. He said it was “much less patronising, and more overtly hostile” than was usual for Updike. Actually that review isn’t negative, but I find that a useful distinction. You want to be actively aggressive, not passively so, closer to rude than snide.
From a long and interesting discussion with Leo Robson about the nature of criticim.
As a layperson who likes to read texts or reviews by critics and search on google - top 10/30 critics of all time/alive- before spending money on the books recommended by them, this was a great source of information. I took some notes.
Had never heard of Leo Robson and his comments reads so well , no fluff , every sentence providing info / wisdom.
For other laypeople, War against Cliche by Martis Amis and The Art of Personal Essay by Lopate , that Leo mentions are accessible reads. It was my first introduction to Amis and yes he is funny. Serious Noticing by James Woods is just one level up in terms of vocabulary and ideas. Nowadays, reading essays by critics is also useful because these are shorter pieces on different topics. One can jump around if they didn't like a take or couldn't identify with a subject . With our brains completely distracted , and unable to read a long novel , essays are less risky options in terms of time and money to be spent . It is my last fight against harmful tech, before AI completely takes over the utility of reading with its summarization of texts and takeaways.
Thanks for this, Henry, and can't wait to delve into the whole Robson piece—he is an excellent critic. I am inspired also to check out that Updike/K. Amis review. I think Updike was a very, very good critic, and my sense is that what Lanchester might have considered JU being patronizing was often rather his effort to be what he would have considered appropriately civil, not an unwelcome quantity here in the post-Twitter era.