SearchRecent EntriesOUR JANUARY 2008 PREDICTIONLIBERAL BIGOTRY AND THE 'RED NECK' REBELLION OBAMA'S SOFT CORE RACISM A RETRACTION TELL IT TO OFFICER KRUPKE TALKING BACK TO LIBERAL POWER PURSUIT OF PLEASURE RAINOUT READING: "ASSIGN YOGI BERRA TO CAPE CANAVERAL; HE COULD HANDLE ANY MISSILE" OPENING DAY AT THE HOUSE THAT RUTH BUILT GEERT WILDERS VS THE BARBARIANS ArchivesCategory:Baseball Culture History Media Middle East Miscellaneous Movie/Theater Reviews Politics Sports THE NEW YORK TIMES War Monthly: November 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 Old Horsefeathers Archives |
May 06, 2006THE NEW YORK TIMES ANTI-AMERICAN AGENDA: BOOK REVIEW DEPARTMENT        Sufferers from BDS (Bush Derangement Syndrome) will enjoy their Sunday NYTimes. Nadine Gordimer uses a review of Philip Roth's latest novel to assure us that President Bush is not quite Hitler, and America is not quite the third Reich. Readers, expecting a fairminded appraisal of Roth's newest novel, instead will read a paean to a literary God. It's almost embarrasing to read Ms. Gordimer, performing on Roth the literary equivalent of Monica's services for Bill. Suddenly we understand why. In the middle of the review, Ms. Gordimer turns away from the immediate subject to remind us that Mr. Roth has recently written a timeless masterpiece, or in her own words a "superbly matchless work": << Back to Horsefeathers |
Favorite LinksPajamas MediaMiddle East Strategy at Harvard Politics Central Michael Yon Victor Hanson Mideast Outpost Captain's Quarters ChicagoBoyz Faultline USA SteveForPrez Democracy Project Iowahawk Instapundit News Forum Hotair Real Clear Politics Counterterrorism Blog Ace of Spades Contentions Mark Steyn Bookworm Gateway Pundit PoliPundit Transatlantic Intelligencer Sisu Villainous Company Bill Whittle Eye on the UN Armavirunque Cox & Forkum Michelle Malkin Baseball Crank Terry Teachout No Pasaran Power Line Hugh Hewitt Jihad Watch Kim du Toit Dhimmi Watch Steven Plaut Belmont Club Scott Burgess The Anti-Idiotarian Insomnomaniac Politburo Diktat Iraq the Model Roger Simon Mediacrity Shrinkwrapped Neo-neocon American Thinker New English Review Baseball Musings Eternity Road Heretical Ideas The Iconoclast Intellectual Conservative Vodkapundit The Corner Davids Medienkritik Samizdata Volokh Conspiracy Dinocrat Scott Ott Milt's File Daily Pundit ExtrasSyndicate this site (XML)Powered by Movable Type 3.11 |
Comments
Two points.
One: anyone who can write such a phrase as "superbly matchless" has no call to position herself as a judge of English writing. One would like to hear William Golding or Graham Greene on this sort of language.
Two: the Roth novel is so over-the-top that even London's Guardian, the left-winger's newspaper of reference, thought that it was rather self-indulgent. Only Ms.Gordimer's enormous reputation allows a review as bad as this to appear; if it had been written by someone who makes his/her living as a professional reviewer, it would have meant suicide - and I know, because I spent nine years of my life in a similar line. The editor ought to have binned this piece of unliterary trash, or at least sent it back covered in red pencil; but Nadine Gordimer is a Big Writer, you know, Nobel candidate and everything, and obviously when such a one seems to talk complete nonsense on literature, it must be because our lowly selves are too ignorant to perceive the true inwardness of her thought. Or something.
Posted by: Paolo
at May 7, 2006 02:09 AM
Post a comment
Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)
(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)