Richard Kluger, March 22, 1965: Difference between revisions
Jules Carry (talk | contribs) (Put notes where they make sense; added links.) |
Jules Carry (talk | contribs) m (Slight update.) |
||
| 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'', | 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. | ||
Latest revision as of 07:59, 9 April 2019
| NORMAN MAILER’s Letters |
- 142 Columbia Heights
- Brooklyn 1, New York
- March 22, 1965
- 142 Columbia Heights
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.[2] 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.[3]
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?[4] 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,
- Norman
- Yours sincerely,
This page is part of
An American Dream Expanded.
An American Dream Expanded.
Notes
- ↑ 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, novelist and new journalist, wrote a negative review of An American Dream that appeared in Book Week on 14 March 1965.
- ↑ Philip Rahv, the literary critic, wrote his negative review for the 25 March 1965 number of the New York Review of Books, edited by Robert B. Silvers.
- ↑ Granville Hicks 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.
