Richard Kluger, March 22, 1965 - Revision history

Jules Carry: Slight update.

2019-04-09T12:59:32Z

Slight update.

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:59, 9 April 2019
Line 9:		Line 9:
	Dear [[w:Richard Kluger\|Dick]],<ref>Kluger was an editor at the literary supplement, ''Book Week''. Mailer was responding, in part, to his request for a list of the books that most influenced him.</ref>		Dear [[w:Richard Kluger\|Dick]],<ref>Kluger was an editor at the literary supplement, ''Book Week''. Mailer was responding, in part, to his request for a list of the books that most influenced him.</ref>

	Thank you for your letter, which was a good one. There are no hard feelings. All you can ever ask of a book review editor is that he offers you a fair to good draw on the reviewer. And in advance I would have said Tom Wolfe was a fair choice.<ref>[[w:Tom Wolfe\|Tom Wolfe]], novelist and new journalist, wrote a negative review of ''[[An American Dream]]'' that appeared in ''Book Week'' on 14 March 1965.</ref> ''The New York Review'' is the one I’m irritated at. Because [Robert B.] Silvers must have known (everyone else in New York did) that my work has been anathema to Philip Rahv for years.<ref>[[w:Philip Rahv\|Philip Rahv]], the literary critic, wrote his negative review for the 25 March 1965 number of the ''New York Review of Books'', ~~then and now~~ edited by [[w:Robert B. Silvers\|Robert B. Silvers]].</ref>		Thank you for your letter, which was a good one. There are no hard feelings. All you can ever ask of a book review editor is that he offers you a fair to good draw on the reviewer. And in advance I would have said Tom Wolfe was a fair choice.<ref>[[w:Tom Wolfe\|Tom Wolfe]], novelist and new journalist, wrote a negative review of ''[[An American Dream]]'' that appeared in ''Book Week'' on 14 March 1965.</ref> ''The New York Review'' is the one I’m irritated at. Because [Robert B.] Silvers must have known (everyone else in New York did) that my work has been anathema to Philip Rahv for years.<ref>[[w:Philip Rahv\|Philip Rahv]], the literary critic, wrote his negative review for the 25 March 1965 number of the ''New York Review of Books'', edited by [[w:Robert B. Silvers\|Robert B. Silvers]].</ref>

	Here’s the list. I’m not very happy with it, and I’m not sure you’re doing the right thing. It’s the sort of poll that tends to reinforce a literary establishment. My opinions go into the hopper with Granville Hicks’—what does that accomplish?<ref>[[w:Granville Hicks\|Granville Hicks]] was the literary editor of ''[[w:Saturday Review (U.S. magazine)\|The Saturday Review]]'', where on 20 March 1965 he gave the novel a negative review, suggesting that it was a literary hoax. Mailer called him “predictable Hicks” in a review of [[w:Norman Podhoretz\|Norman Podhoretz]]’s memoir, ''Making It'', in ''Partisan Review'', spring 1968.</ref> Since there are more Hicks, he thrives on this sort of poll and ultimately I perish. Perhaps not personally, i.e., my “stock” can remain high, but my power to influence opinion has to be diminished by setting up a College of Electors of this sort.		Here’s the list. I’m not very happy with it, and I’m not sure you’re doing the right thing. It’s the sort of poll that tends to reinforce a literary establishment. My opinions go into the hopper with Granville Hicks’—what does that accomplish?<ref>[[w:Granville Hicks\|Granville Hicks]] was the literary editor of ''[[w:Saturday Review (U.S. magazine)\|The Saturday Review]]'', where on 20 March 1965 he gave the novel a negative review, suggesting that it was a literary hoax. Mailer called him “predictable Hicks” in a review of [[w:Norman Podhoretz\|Norman Podhoretz]]’s memoir, ''Making It'', in ''Partisan Review'', spring 1968.</ref> Since there are more Hicks, he thrives on this sort of poll and ultimately I perish. Perhaps not personally, i.e., my “stock” can remain high, but my power to influence opinion has to be diminished by setting up a College of Electors of this sort.

Jules Carry: Put notes where they make sense; added links.

2019-04-08T20:28:39Z

Put notes where they make sense; added links.

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:28, 8 April 2019
Line 7:		Line 7:
	::::::::::::::::::::March 22, 1965		::::::::::::::::::::March 22, 1965

	Dear Dick,<ref>Kluger was an editor at the literary supplement, Book Week. Mailer was responding, in part, to his request for a list of the books that most influenced him. Tom Wolfe (1931-), novelist and new journalist, wrote a negative review of An American Dream that appeared in Book Week on 14 March 1965. Philip Rahv (1908-1973), the literary critic, wrote his negative review for the 25 March 1965 number of the New York Review of Books, then and now edited by Robert B. Silvers (1929-). Granville Hicks (1901-1982) was the literary editor of The Saturday Review, where on 20 March 1965 he gave the novel a negative review, suggesting that it was a literary hoax. Mailer called him “predictable Hicks” in a review of Norman Podhoretz’s memoir, Making It, in Partisan Review, spring 1968.</ref>		Dear [[w:Richard Kluger\|Dick]],<ref>Kluger was an editor at the literary supplement, ''Book Week''. Mailer was responding, in part, to his request for a list of the books that most influenced him.</ref>

			Thank you for your letter, which was a good one. There are no hard feelings. All you can ever ask of a book review editor is that he offers you a fair to good draw on the reviewer. And in advance I would have said Tom Wolfe was a fair choice.<ref>[[w:Tom Wolfe\|Tom Wolfe]], novelist and new journalist, wrote a negative review of ''[[An American Dream]]'' that appeared in ''Book Week'' on 14 March 1965.</ref> ''The New York Review'' is the one I’m irritated at. Because [Robert B.] Silvers must have known (everyone else in New York did) that my work has been anathema to Philip Rahv for years.<ref>[[w:Philip Rahv\|Philip Rahv]], the literary critic, wrote his negative review for the 25 March 1965 number of the ''New York Review of Books'', then and now edited by [[w:Robert B. Silvers\|Robert B. Silvers]].</ref>

	Thank you for your letter, which was a good one. There are no hard feelings. All you can ever ask of a book review editor is that he offers you a fair to good draw on the reviewer. And in advance I would have said Tom Wolfe was a fair choice. The New York Review [of Books] is the one I’m irritated at. Because [Robert B.] Silvers must have known (everyone else in New York did) that my work has been anathema to Philip Rahv for years.		Here’s the list. I’m not very happy with it, and I’m not sure you’re doing the right thing. It’s the sort of poll that tends to reinforce a literary establishment. My opinions go into the hopper with Granville Hicks’—what does that accomplish?<ref>[[w:Granville Hicks\|Granville Hicks]] was the literary editor of ''[[w:Saturday Review (U.S. magazine)\|The Saturday Review]]'', where on 20 March 1965 he gave the novel a negative review, suggesting that it was a literary hoax. Mailer called him “predictable Hicks” in a review of [[w:Norman Podhoretz\|Norman Podhoretz]]’s memoir, ''Making It'', in ''Partisan Review'', spring 1968.</ref> Since there are more Hicks, he thrives on this sort of poll and ultimately I perish. Perhaps not personally, i.e., my “stock” can remain high, but my power to influence opinion has to be diminished by setting up a College of Electors of this sort.
	Here’s the list. I’m not very happy with it, and I’m not sure you’re doing the right thing. It’s the sort of poll that tends to reinforce a literary establishment. My opinions go into the hopper with Granville Hicks’—what does that accomplish? Since there are more Hicks, he thrives on this sort of poll and ultimately I perish. Perhaps not personally, i.e., my “stock” can remain high, but my power to influence opinion has to be diminished by setting up a College of Electors of this sort.



	::::::::::::::::::::Yours sincerely,<br />		::::::::::::::::::::Yours sincerely,<br />
	::::::::::::::::::::Norman		::::::::::::::::::::Norman

Grlucas: Grlucas moved page RICHARD KLUGER, March 22, 1965 to Richard Kluger, March 22, 1965 without leaving a redirect

2019-04-07T19:31:49Z

Grlucas moved page RICHARD KLUGER, March 22, 1965 to Richard Kluger, March 22, 1965 without leaving a redirect

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:31, 7 April 2019
(No difference)

Waebo: Richard Kluger

2019-04-07T18:36:32Z

Richard Kluger

New page

{{NMletter}}

{{Letterhead start|styles = margin: 2em 2em 2em 2em}}

::::::::::::::::::::142 Columbia Heights<br />
::::::::::::::::::::Brooklyn 1, New York<br />
::::::::::::::::::::March 22, 1965

Dear Dick,<ref>Kluger was an editor at the literary supplement, Book Week. Mailer was responding, in part, to his request for a list of the books that most influenced him. Tom Wolfe (1931-), novelist and new journalist, wrote a negative review of An American Dream that appeared in Book Week on 14 March 1965. Philip Rahv (1908-1973), the literary critic, wrote his negative review for the 25 March 1965 number of the New York Review of Books, then and now edited by Robert B. Silvers (1929-). Granville Hicks (1901-1982) was the literary editor of The Saturday Review, where on 20 March 1965 he gave the novel a negative review, suggesting that it was a literary hoax. Mailer called him “predictable Hicks” in a review of Norman Podhoretz’s memoir, Making It, in Partisan Review, spring 1968.</ref>

Thank you for your letter, which was a good one. There are no hard feelings. All you can ever ask of a book review editor is that he offers you a fair to good draw on the reviewer. And in advance I would have said Tom Wolfe was a fair choice. The New York Review [of Books] is the one I’m irritated at. Because [Robert B.] Silvers must have known (everyone else in New York did) that my work has been anathema to Philip Rahv for years.
Here’s the list. I’m not very happy with it, and I’m not sure you’re doing the right thing. It’s the sort of poll that tends to reinforce a literary establishment. My opinions go into the hopper with Granville Hicks’—what does that accomplish? Since there are more Hicks, he thrives on this sort of poll and ultimately I perish. Perhaps not personally, i.e., my “stock” can remain high, but my power to influence opinion has to be diminished by setting up a College of Electors of this sort.

::::::::::::::::::::Yours sincerely,<br />
::::::::::::::::::::Norman
{{Letterhead end}}

{{Aade-sm}}
===Notes===
{{reflist}}

{{Aad-letters}}

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:59, 9 April 2019
Line 9:		Line 9:
	Dear [[w:Richard Kluger\|Dick]],<ref>Kluger was an editor at the literary supplement, ''Book Week''. Mailer was responding, in part, to his request for a list of the books that most influenced him.</ref>		Dear [[w:Richard Kluger\|Dick]],<ref>Kluger was an editor at the literary supplement, ''Book Week''. Mailer was responding, in part, to his request for a list of the books that most influenced him.</ref>

	Thank you for your letter, which was a good one. There are no hard feelings. All you can ever ask of a book review editor is that he offers you a fair to good draw on the reviewer. And in advance I would have said Tom Wolfe was a fair choice.<ref>[[w:Tom Wolfe\|Tom Wolfe]], novelist and new journalist, wrote a negative review of ''[[An American Dream]]'' that appeared in ''Book Week'' on 14 March 1965.</ref> ''The New York Review'' is the one I’m irritated at. Because [Robert B.] Silvers must have known (everyone else in New York did) that my work has been anathema to Philip Rahv for years.<ref>[[w:Philip Rahv\|Philip Rahv]], the literary critic, wrote his negative review for the 25 March 1965 number of the ''New York Review of Books'', ~~then and now~~ edited by [[w:Robert B. Silvers\|Robert B. Silvers]].</ref>		Thank you for your letter, which was a good one. There are no hard feelings. All you can ever ask of a book review editor is that he offers you a fair to good draw on the reviewer. And in advance I would have said Tom Wolfe was a fair choice.<ref>[[w:Tom Wolfe\|Tom Wolfe]], novelist and new journalist, wrote a negative review of ''[[An American Dream]]'' that appeared in ''Book Week'' on 14 March 1965.</ref> ''The New York Review'' is the one I’m irritated at. Because [Robert B.] Silvers must have known (everyone else in New York did) that my work has been anathema to Philip Rahv for years.<ref>[[w:Philip Rahv\|Philip Rahv]], the literary critic, wrote his negative review for the 25 March 1965 number of the ''New York Review of Books'', edited by [[w:Robert B. Silvers\|Robert B. Silvers]].</ref>

	Here’s the list. I’m not very happy with it, and I’m not sure you’re doing the right thing. It’s the sort of poll that tends to reinforce a literary establishment. My opinions go into the hopper with Granville Hicks’—what does that accomplish?<ref>[[w:Granville Hicks\|Granville Hicks]] was the literary editor of ''[[w:Saturday Review (U.S. magazine)\|The Saturday Review]]'', where on 20 March 1965 he gave the novel a negative review, suggesting that it was a literary hoax. Mailer called him “predictable Hicks” in a review of [[w:Norman Podhoretz\|Norman Podhoretz]]’s memoir, ''Making It'', in ''Partisan Review'', spring 1968.</ref> Since there are more Hicks, he thrives on this sort of poll and ultimately I perish. Perhaps not personally, i.e., my “stock” can remain high, but my power to influence opinion has to be diminished by setting up a College of Electors of this sort.		Here’s the list. I’m not very happy with it, and I’m not sure you’re doing the right thing. It’s the sort of poll that tends to reinforce a literary establishment. My opinions go into the hopper with Granville Hicks’—what does that accomplish?<ref>[[w:Granville Hicks\|Granville Hicks]] was the literary editor of ''[[w:Saturday Review (U.S. magazine)\|The Saturday Review]]'', where on 20 March 1965 he gave the novel a negative review, suggesting that it was a literary hoax. Mailer called him “predictable Hicks” in a review of [[w:Norman Podhoretz\|Norman Podhoretz]]’s memoir, ''Making It'', in ''Partisan Review'', spring 1968.</ref> Since there are more Hicks, he thrives on this sort of poll and ultimately I perish. Perhaps not personally, i.e., my “stock” can remain high, but my power to influence opinion has to be diminished by setting up a College of Electors of this sort.