Inkless Wells

Paul Wells on all the latest out of Ottawa—along with the occasional post about jazz. Follow Paul on Twitter: @InklessPW

Categories: Capital Read, Inkless Wells

The smoking pile of rubble where André Alexis used to be

by Paul Wells on Monday, July 12, 2010 4:50pm - 0 Comments

Over at The Walrus, they’ve published an article-length whinge by André Alexis about how everything in book reviewing just sucks. Here is the seventh sentence in that whinge:

“The Toronto Star’s book section is small, ineptly edited, and not worth reading.”

I sometimes get accused of cynicism, and I suppose it has something to do with the fact that when I read that sentence, before I even made my way to “not worth reading” a little voice inside me said, “Boy, somebody at the Star must have ripped the fish guts out of André Alexis’ last book.” And indeed it is so: here’s the 2008 Star review by Alex Good calling a book by Alexis “terminally bureaucratic in design and effect.” By now I had dusted off my Mr. Investigator hat and was wondering whether my discovery might help me decode, say, Alexis’ eighth sentence. Let’s give it a shot. Here goes:

“And when I say ineptly edited, I mean that the current book editor, in allowing personal attacks and collegiate vitriol to stand as ‘book reviews, ‘has directly contributed to the irrelevance of the two measly pages the Star now puts out, dutifully, Sunday after Sunday.”

Bingo!

Onward. “If I had to blame one Canadian writer for this state of affairs,” Alexis writes, “I’d blame novelist and critic John Metcalf.” If you’re like me, the question that comes to mind is, “I wonder whether Alex Good and John Metcalf are associates.” Bingo again! Good, the fustigator of terminally bureaucratic novels, is a frequent guest in the pages of Canadian Notes and Queries, a tiny but notoriously fierce literary journal which Metcalf “edits.” (He’s more of a guiding spirit. A guy named Daniel Wells is “publisher,” and runs the enterprise day-to-day. I’m not related to Dan Wells and have never met Metcalf, but I like their fighting attitude. They published a wonderfully snide Andy Lamey review a decade ago and dropped an immense stink bomb two years ago over a Jane Urquhart anthology of short stories, which I covered here.)

So, still with Mr. Investigator hats on, we conclude that the next issue of CNQ is likely to be a good sight more interesting than, say, the current issue of The Walrus. Bingo again! Not only has the illustrator Seth art-directed the magazine’s redesign, but there, as predicted, is a magisterial rebuttal to Alexis, in the form of an imaginary rejection letter, penned by yet another no-relation, Zach Wells. If you just like to watch smart people fight, the articles by Alexis and (the third) Wells are worth reading.

UPATE: Yikes. I put some extra reading in the comments but IntenseDebate blocked it because I put links in. So it doesn’t only happen to you guys. Here’s what I wrote.

Extra reading, if anyone out there actually wants to stick with the subject of the original post:

The Walrus Blog offers an admirable survey of reaction to the original André Alexis article: http://www.walrusmagazine.com/blogs/2010/07/06/th…

At the National Post, the formidable Jeet Heer ponders the mystery of John Metcalf: http://arts.nationalpost.com/2010/07/03/john-metc…

Annnnd…. over at CNQ, a Steven W. Beattie essay (warning: salty language) that sums up the articles of that group’s indictment against Canadian Literature as currently practiced and celebrated:
http://bit.ly/H3Ze7

And a grand bit of curmudgeonly grumbling from John Metcalf himself:
http://www.notesandqueries.ca/thinking-about-penguins/

Tags: Alex Good, André Alexis, CNQ, ouch, The Walrus, Zach Wells

More by Paul Wells

James Connors

Where is Mordecai Richler when you really, really need him?

http://intensedebate.com/people/MostlyCivil MostlyCivil

Likely pretty much where we all thought he was going, having a pint and laughing his ass off…

Dee

Re: "… likely to be a good sight more interesting than, say, the current issue of The Walrus."

Yeah, and Maclean's is really providing hard-hitting, factual journalism with your recent "Lock Them Up"/burning police cars G20 issue. Classless bilge and suitable for wrapping fish? You bet. Interesting? Far from it.

http://intensedebate.com/people/craigola craigola

I'll admit to nitpicking and I don't necessarily disagree with you regarding the overall worth of that editorial, but it does seem as though it was interesting enough for you to remember and remark upon as an example of…something.

Dee

Yeah, the Maclean's editorial was "interesting" enough to continue to convince me that a subscription to the Walrus is a much better investment of my money (than buying Maclean's).

http://intensedebate.com/people/MostlyCivil MostlyCivil

André Alexis, why, how good of you to drop in.

Dee

Naaah, if somebody called me a "magic realist" or "postmodern" I would tell them to give their head a shake.
RAP

I find your comment, magically, surreal.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Inkless Inkless

But…but Doug Bell!
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/doug…

Robin

Of course this has nothing to do with the quality of Walrus (which you are entirely free to opine on and it could be an issue completely unrelated to the quality of your magazine except it does seem to drift towards schilling for Macleans at times and that does bring up the comparison) but since this magazine's position on the G20 security has come up I feel the need to comment. I think the most disturbing aspect of that editorial was the fact that it was unsigned. My interpretation of journalistic ethics might be flawed but I see unsigned editorials as representing the magazine's position on an issue. A signed editorial differing in that it is the author's opinion which may or may not match the magazine's. Someone correct me if I am wrong there because right now that editorial taints my view of the magazine and, to a limited degree, some of its writers who, whether I agree with their politics or not, I respect. I am disturbed that none of those writers, as far as I can tell, have come out against that editorial. Writing a piece with a different opinion of the events is not enough; people should specifically come out and say that the editorial was wrong.

Of course I have limited faith in every individual to be principled but expect the state to respect civil rights. The editorial in question dangerously changes that order of priorities. Individuals acting inappropriately can cause a great deal of harm, as seen to a limited degree in Toronto during the G20, but a state that acts inappropriately can be infinitely worse.

http://www.robedger.blogspot.com Robin

Way to be on point, non-me Robin. That was a crap editorial though.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Brammer Brammer

Ouch…

"I have spent so much time on the structure of your piece because I believe that this major flaw of your essay is the chief begetter of its manifest infelicities. Your failure to plan and plot your structure, your negligence when it comes to measuring twice before you cut, has led to a house in which, to borrow from American poet Alan Dugan, “nothing is plumb, level or square.” In such a house, one must force things into place, stretching, bending and cutting in a graceless, Procrustean manner to make everything fit."

http://intensedebate.com/people/CndnRschr CndnRschr

There is something inordinately satisfying about reading words that are used effectively to first disarm and then erase another set of words. The art is in the slow but precise and orderly disrobing of the attacking prose, using his/her own metaphorical devices to first insert and then twist the scalpel. This is not a crude assault, rather a meticulous dissection, albeit with the same intent.

But the articulation of the time-line of Well's admirable "discovery" of this literary joust raises an eyebrow. A reverse chronology beginning with the artful redress in CNQ seems a tad more likely, does it not?

bergkamp

"I sometimes get accused of cynicism … "

Me too. I always respond that there's lots to be cynical about.

Completely off topic, I was just reading your tweets, but you have been spending a lot of time at Perimeter recently. I envy you – it must be pretty freakin' cool to talk to those big brain guys even tho I would have no idea what they were talking about.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Inkless Inkless

If I do my job right, later this summer you'll have a better idea. It is extremely cool, and for me, a huge challenge. I'm grateful to my bosses for indulging this odd idea I had.

bergkamp

I look forward to it.

And that Steven W. Beattie essay (warning: salty language) was entertaining. I had similar thoughts when I was taking CanLit at university years ago but I could not express myself as well as Beattie does. I would have stopped at fcuk books.
http://intensedebate.com/people/Brammer Brammer

Oooh, I can hardly wait!

The only cooler place to go would be CERN (pun not intended). This is a fascinating area of science and Perimeter must be an amazing place.

If anyone is looking for a good book on this topic, Michio Kaku's "Hyperspace" is a great place to start. It's an older book but very accessible to the layperson..

http://intensedebate.com/people/s_c_f s_c_f

I'd love to go for a ride in the Hadron Collider.

http://intensedebate.com/people/s_c_f s_c_f

Stuff like this is good reason to be cynical.
Curious

Hey Paul, speaking about using a column or a blog post as a tool to take out personal vendettas, any idea who the short, pompous man with think, dark-rimmed glasses (a self-styled "critic")" is that Alexis describes?

http://intensedebate.com/people/Inkless Inkless

Nope. There's no way it would be me, because that's what you're implying: I write a book review every couple of years at most, I haven't reviewed fiction in a decade, I've never interacted with Alexis for good or ill in print or person before tonight, and while I'm not tall I've never seen myself described as short. People who know this field better than I do are equally mystified by the reference to the short man, as you'd see if you read Zach Wells's piece.

Curious

Fair enough. Thanks for the clarification. I was curious.

Bingo

Of course, the fact that Andre Alexis may hate the Star book section for personal reasons has nothing to do with whether the Star book section is hateful or not. But Paul is not in the business of actually, you know, saying (much less arguing) what he thinks. He just snickers at a safe distance, each and every time.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Inkless Inkless

People say that all the time: "Why can't Wells be more opinionated?" "Why can't he tell us what he thinks?"

I don't believe the Star books section is worse today than at any point in the last 20 years. I didn't turn to the Star for serious discussion of books when I was at university, and that's a long time ago. But is it hateful? No. Is it in "decline" — Alexis' thesis? No. Can any of its ills be traced to John Metcalf? That's easy: really no. Should a writer with a screamingly obvious axe to grind acknowledge it when writing a piece like his? Yes. Are there industry-wide challenges facing newspaper book sections that a serious writer should know about and acknowledge? You bet.

I'll post two links in a separate comment, one from NPR ("Literary death spiral?") and one from Columbia Journalism Review ("Goodbye to All That") which document this industry-wide decline. We'll see whether IntenseDebate blocks that comment with its links. But my point is that neither NPR nor CJR depends on the wickedness of John Metcalf to explain a decline in book reviewing.
http://intensedebate.com/people/Inkless Inkless

CJR: http://www.cjr.org/cover_story/goodbye_to_all_tha…
NPR: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?stor…

Now. Speaking of snickering at a safe distance: Tell us a bit about yourself, Bingo.

http://twitter.com/acourtroom @acourtroom

Nice dodge & deflect away from the two Robins' point about the 'anonymous' Maclean's article. ____Come now Mr Wells, it obviously wasn't you who authored the piece. So, without asking you to name names, will simply ask how you feel about articles appearing without a byline. Is this a perfectly reasonable & ethical journalistic practice?

http://twitter.com/acourtroom @acourtroom

Thank you! I read your column & know where you stand on the "lock 'em up" mentality, though certainly appreciate the further detail you've expressed here.

I often enjoy reading Maclean's and appreciate the differing views expressed within. I did, however, find it sketchy & frankly cowardly for the cover story- one that was so hardlined & abrassive- to be anonymous. It suggests that ALL of the upper echelon at Maclean's agree with the article's viewpoint, but here- we'll give lone little dissenter Paul a voice to appease the hippie crowd.
You've explained that it happens all the time & you're fine with it. OK. I'm aware that articles appear often without bylines, but a cover story that is clearly going to anger many readers? Not impressed.

As for on topic- the Investigator hat suits you! This post was a very fun read.

Aaaand off topic once again- Am extremely jealous of you spending time at Perimeter! Any clues as to what you're writing about?
http://intensedebate.com/people/Inkless Inkless

Annnnd…. over at CNQ, a Steven W. Beattie essay (warning: salty language) that sums up the articles of that group's indictment against Canadian Literature as currently practiced and celebrated:
http://bit.ly/H3Ze7

And a grand bit of curmudgeonly grumbling from John Metcalf himself:
http://www.notesandqueries.ca/thinking-about-peng…