I keep reading TMR reviews and finding myself more interested in the critic than the author of the book in question. I've almost always enjoyed the reviews, thought they were well written, perceptive. But I've not read the book, or heard from the author. So I'm a bit worried about "the dissatisfied critic" becoming the house style. More deeply, part of the point of TMR, as I understand it, is to find the point in literary fiction -- and skillful analysis of yet another ultimately pointless novel hardly makes me order the book, read more deeply, etc. While excoriating the bad is the Lord's work, sometimes I want to learn about something I should read, because it's fantastic. Like Glass Century, maybe. :) Anyway, just saying. And, again, this essay and most all of what I'm reading from TMR are really well done. Progress. Keep up the good work!
I had been meaning to read this book, because I was under the impression that the television of the title was *prestige* television, and was hoping Senna would be lampooning the Off-Broadway-to-HBO pipeline, or the way streaming services parasitize middlebrow novelists for content. Instead she's spoofing... network sitcoms. Cool. Okay, boomer. (Well, Xer, I guess.) Realistically, if Jane wanted to break into TV, she'd be optimizing her novel for a development deal with Hulu, right? It worked for Charles Yu and "Interior Chinatown."
Very weird that novelists and academics constantly complain that "golden-age TV" is encroaching on their space, and yet TV in novels seems stuck in 2003. *Especially* weird for Senna, because I suspect the reason *this* novel was her breakthrough is that Hollywood recently turned its oculus on her husband and converted one of his books into middlebrow Oscar bait (written by a prestige TV guy, incidentally).
More like this, please! Not a wasted word. And Repetti gives us something to disagree (or agree) with. Personally, I could relate to this concept: "All it takes is one rejection letter to turn the book from a work of 'immortal art' to a 'monstrosity' in [the character's] eyes." I could see that being a solid plot point for a story to turn on. Repetti has issues with that. Fair enough. As a reader of this review, I walk away with something to think about.
Thought this was a very finely written review. The book sounds very grim. Even more grim for being confined to the world of literary fiction without a passion for the product.
Interesting review, but a few quotations from the book might have illustrated the reviewer's points and the author's style and merits or defects. Odd not to have any.
I keep reading TMR reviews and finding myself more interested in the critic than the author of the book in question. I've almost always enjoyed the reviews, thought they were well written, perceptive. But I've not read the book, or heard from the author. So I'm a bit worried about "the dissatisfied critic" becoming the house style. More deeply, part of the point of TMR, as I understand it, is to find the point in literary fiction -- and skillful analysis of yet another ultimately pointless novel hardly makes me order the book, read more deeply, etc. While excoriating the bad is the Lord's work, sometimes I want to learn about something I should read, because it's fantastic. Like Glass Century, maybe. :) Anyway, just saying. And, again, this essay and most all of what I'm reading from TMR are really well done. Progress. Keep up the good work!
Excellent review, very nicely done.
I had been meaning to read this book, because I was under the impression that the television of the title was *prestige* television, and was hoping Senna would be lampooning the Off-Broadway-to-HBO pipeline, or the way streaming services parasitize middlebrow novelists for content. Instead she's spoofing... network sitcoms. Cool. Okay, boomer. (Well, Xer, I guess.) Realistically, if Jane wanted to break into TV, she'd be optimizing her novel for a development deal with Hulu, right? It worked for Charles Yu and "Interior Chinatown."
Very weird that novelists and academics constantly complain that "golden-age TV" is encroaching on their space, and yet TV in novels seems stuck in 2003. *Especially* weird for Senna, because I suspect the reason *this* novel was her breakthrough is that Hollywood recently turned its oculus on her husband and converted one of his books into middlebrow Oscar bait (written by a prestige TV guy, incidentally).
Enjoyed this review, and also nice to see this somewhat unexpected crossover between Jon and TMR!
More like this, please! Not a wasted word. And Repetti gives us something to disagree (or agree) with. Personally, I could relate to this concept: "All it takes is one rejection letter to turn the book from a work of 'immortal art' to a 'monstrosity' in [the character's] eyes." I could see that being a solid plot point for a story to turn on. Repetti has issues with that. Fair enough. As a reader of this review, I walk away with something to think about.
Thought this was a very finely written review. The book sounds very grim. Even more grim for being confined to the world of literary fiction without a passion for the product.
Interesting review, but a few quotations from the book might have illustrated the reviewer's points and the author's style and merits or defects. Odd not to have any.