Lovely post. I have to say I was quite relieved to find you occasionally give up on books, I always feel guilty when I do that (and I do) so it's reassuring to find such an accomplished critic playing the same game.
Thank you! There’s a wonderful conversation in Boswell about not finishing books
Mr. Elphinston talked of a new book that was much admired, and asked Dr. Johnson if he had read it. JOHNSON: “I have looked into it.” “What,” said Elphinston, “have you not read it through?” Johnson, offended at being thus pressed, and so obliged to own his cursory mode of reading, answered tartly, “No, Sir, do you read books through?”
It’s good to see a review which doesn’t hedge and also call out some of this ideological vapidity intruding into the texts and lives of authors. I absolutely love Emily Brontë, I read several biographies and came away knowing her life will remain a mystery. Perhaps that’s how it should be. We have the stories and poems and there’s enough grandeur and beauty there to last a lifetime.
I liked this one. The idea of posting about a bunch of books that just weren't that good is a nice bit of refreshing honesty. I don't know that any of those other than the Cottrell novel would've piqued my interest much regardless. Anyway, do this more! "This book sucked because..."
Many decades ago, my favourite course at university was a deep dive into American literature and writers of the 1920s. Malcolm Cowley’s book was compulsory reading.
One can't help but feel that half the interest in biography (both from those who write them and those who read them) derives, in the case of biographies great poets, novelists, etcetera, from those who have relatively little imagination trying to comprehend those who had almost unbelievably wide imaginations. In other words, there is always a tendency to draw some very simple, obvious line between some element of the work the biographed person created and the incidents of their lives... But is that how any imagination works, much less very, very strong ones?
Or, as apparently happened in the Bronte biography in question here, the tendency goes sort of the other way and the author or reader attempts to fit a wide and varying imagination/soul into the narrow, boring, set little ideologies of the present time.
Thanks, Henry, for saving me the time and disappointment of reading Lutz's biography of the hardly known Bronte :-) and for recommending Loved and missed. I shall seek it out. I wonder whether it would be similar to Susannan Tamaro's 'Va dove ti porta il cuore'?
I like this survey of your current reading, don't remember seeing these in the past. I always look forward to the similar postings by Cowen.
I do them sometimes yeah, it’s a fun format I think
Lovely post. I have to say I was quite relieved to find you occasionally give up on books, I always feel guilty when I do that (and I do) so it's reassuring to find such an accomplished critic playing the same game.
Thank you! There’s a wonderful conversation in Boswell about not finishing books
Mr. Elphinston talked of a new book that was much admired, and asked Dr. Johnson if he had read it. JOHNSON: “I have looked into it.” “What,” said Elphinston, “have you not read it through?” Johnson, offended at being thus pressed, and so obliged to own his cursory mode of reading, answered tartly, “No, Sir, do you read books through?”
Marvellous!
It’s good to see a review which doesn’t hedge and also call out some of this ideological vapidity intruding into the texts and lives of authors. I absolutely love Emily Brontë, I read several biographies and came away knowing her life will remain a mystery. Perhaps that’s how it should be. We have the stories and poems and there’s enough grandeur and beauty there to last a lifetime.
I liked this one. The idea of posting about a bunch of books that just weren't that good is a nice bit of refreshing honesty. I don't know that any of those other than the Cottrell novel would've piqued my interest much regardless. Anyway, do this more! "This book sucked because..."
I don’t like to do it too much because then it’s all a bit meh… but yeah I agree I like this format
Henry, Curious if you've read Claire Harman's Charlotte Bronte: A Life and, if so, what you thought about it. I have a copy, but haven't read it yet.
I have not
PS I've just bought Wuthering Heights, I read it when I was far too young and didn't really understand it.
lmk what you think, and do read some of her poetry, she’s a wonderful wonderful poet
Many decades ago, my favourite course at university was a deep dive into American literature and writers of the 1920s. Malcolm Cowley’s book was compulsory reading.
Thomas Kidd’s Jefferson is the best bio available.
One can't help but feel that half the interest in biography (both from those who write them and those who read them) derives, in the case of biographies great poets, novelists, etcetera, from those who have relatively little imagination trying to comprehend those who had almost unbelievably wide imaginations. In other words, there is always a tendency to draw some very simple, obvious line between some element of the work the biographed person created and the incidents of their lives... But is that how any imagination works, much less very, very strong ones?
Or, as apparently happened in the Bronte biography in question here, the tendency goes sort of the other way and the author or reader attempts to fit a wide and varying imagination/soul into the narrow, boring, set little ideologies of the present time.
Thanks, Henry, for saving me the time and disappointment of reading Lutz's biography of the hardly known Bronte :-) and for recommending Loved and missed. I shall seek it out. I wonder whether it would be similar to Susannan Tamaro's 'Va dove ti porta il cuore'?