Bert Archer of the Toronto Star has this to say about my funnybook, Asthmatica, and David McGimpsey's funnybook, Certifiable:
"The most charitable approach to these books would, I think, be to ignore [the veteran status of the authors] and pretend that we've stumbled on the manuscripts two undergrads have constructed out of the stories they tell their buddies."
I'll spare you the rest of the review. It's mean-spirited stuff. It's the typical, "it may be funny, but that's not enough. It has to be 'grown-up' too" crap.
I hate it when people who have no authority to speak of the art of comedy decide to review comedy books. Being funny is hard work, but to Bert Archer, it's not serious work and therefore not of value. This is how snobbery works.
I know my book is juvenile -- it's about an immature kid named Jonny who gets into funny situations. It's light reading. And it's for young people. Also, I've read Dave's book and it's funny. That seems to be its mandate. And what pisses me off is that Bert "Canada's most beloved comedy scholar" Archer is judging these books for what they represent socially, not aesthetically. He is too much of a snob to judge these comedy books on how well they deliver jokes.
I'm reviewing a very good novel right now for the Gazette. It's a 'serious' novel with very heavy subject matter. One thing I will be sure not to do is to complain that the book is lacking in punchlines.
Oh! And they spelled the title of my book incorrectly! Thanks, Toronto Star!!!
22 comments:
try not to take it personally jon. that's just what happens to writers when they take leave of their boxes for a moment. & of course because you are Canadian you must be serious. or dry. or you are not really an "author" & in Canada we only like "authors" not "writers."
ps -- what else can you expect from toronto?
JPF – i haven’t seen the review – but i will try look at it – my questions is this. you say “I hate it when people who have no authority to speak of the art of comedy decide to review comedy books.” i wonder what do you mean by that – or i guess who do you mean by that.
my reason in asking is in our last e-mail exchanged you suggested the same sentiment - so it’s serious question
love
dfb
i mean that comedy is an easy target and often those with the arrows have no clue how it works. when the Globe had Mark McKinney (from Kids in the Hall) review the last David Sedaris book, i thought, good! someone who knows how to write a joke is going to review this humour book. that doesn't happen enough.
Bert's a buffoon. I've been panned by him too, and it only increases interest in the book. At the Toronto Small Press Book Fair, I've used the sign "Panned by Bert Archer!" and it's sold copies.
thanks, stu. i needed that.
ok – but are you suggesting that the only people who can be critics need to first be capable of producing the same type of work - before they can talk about yours – cuz that’s kind of a slippy slope. my book was reviewed (well or not well – i’m a little unsure) by a novelist.
sure i’d have liked a writer of 21st century post language writing to review it – but i don’t think they are talking to me right now. anyhow while i’m not a fan of B Archer (so much like B Arthur don’t you think) – i read the review and all he said was he didn’t think it was funny.
and frankly i don’t think there is an easier target than poetry. that’s all i’ve got to say.
see you in funnies
dfb
daniel, i think you're right.
but all i want out of a reviewer is a basic knowledge of comedy and comedic tradition. they don't have to write the stuff. i think most reviewers of post-avant poets suffer from a lack of knowledge of the traditions of innovative poetry. this is a huge problem.
Please pardon the wording, but what would constitute an adequate knowledge of the traditions of innovative poetry?
hi brenda,
something like reading and appreciating experimental work. knowing its tradition, having a critical knowledge of Apollinaire, Stein, Olson, Creeley, Nichol, McCaffery, and many, many more.
I think there are alot of poetry reviewers who either don't know a thing about these traditions or hate them based on some sort of perverse allegiance to traditionalist work. these reviewers are not suitable to speak with any kind of authority on the subject of post-avant or innovative poetry. of course, they will anyway.
i feel the same about a reverse situation. there's no point in reviewing a new collection of sonnets if you've never read Shakespeare or Petrarch....
Don't forget the Delaunays and Blaise Cendrars! Of course, I know your not compsing an anthology here, JPF! I just like saying Blaise Cendrars every chance I get.
Bert Archer has been taken to task a number of times. A quick look at the letters to the editor at Eye will cheer you up.
Thanks for that, Jon.
Thanks, Daniel.
O you alpha male, Jon!
We had a "comedian" pan our literary tour of The Annex last month in NOW -- she didn't think it was very funny. Maybe we should have switched reviewers with you and David?
The book is hilarious, of course. Don't you listen to that Bert Archer.
Love,
Sharon
thanks, sharon!
i'm almost over it. almost. i found out some HILARIOUS things about bert archer that helped ease the pain.
jon
Dude, you've got to back channel me some gossip.
oh no, it's the attack of the blog-spammers!! i hate these things.
that's not a nice thing to say about daniel. just kidding, blogspam removed.
critics are too critical
some posters are too postal
Wonderful and informative web site.I used information from that site its great.
http://www.the-prince-of-tennis-cartoons.info/Pa-lottery-ticket-sales-locations.html Knowledge adventure software Methotrexate and meridia lotto florida
Excellent, love it! » »
Post a Comment