Archive Page 2

Review of Sam Munson’s The November Criminals

[Wall Street Journal]

In tomorrow’s Wall Street Journalonline tonight!—I’ve got a review of Sam Munson’s first novel, The November Criminals. About the only bad thing I can say is that its page numbers are basically unreadable. (See for yourself on Google Books.)

One point I try to raise in the review is how and why we might think of The November Criminals as a “conservative novel.” The best broad take on this topic remains Benjamin Nugent’s, which appeared a couple of years back in n+1. Munson fans might also listen to this interview with him on The Forward‘s website. He sounds like another Jewish stoner funny man, Seth Rogen, to an uncanny degree.

Review of Tom Bissell’s Extra Lives

[Christian Science Monitor]

In the Christian Science Monitor, I’ve got a review of Tom Bissell’s Extra Lives: Why Videogames Matter. This book has attracted a lot of reviews—most of them, like mine, very positive—but I haven’t seen anyone point out that, in the book itself, Bissell actually writes about “why video games matter—and why they don’t matter more.” That subtlety might not make for a marketing-friendly subtitle, but it does make for an intelligent analysis of videogames. If the subject interests you, I’d also recommend Jason Fagone’s Esquire profile of an indie gamer. It’s one of my favorite pieces of magazine writing.

Another thing most reviews have overlooked is Extra Lives‘ appendix, which includes a long aside on Metal Gear Solid 4 and a longer interview with Peter Molyneux. Bissell asks Molyneux, who’s something of an eminence grise in the game design world, if he agrees that videogames have gone from “petroglyphic rock art to the Sistine Chapel in twenty years.” Molyneux responds, beautifully and affirmatively:

Pretty much everything we’ve done, we’ve invented. There wasn’t this technology pool that we pulled it out of. Ten, fifteen years ago, you couldn’t walk into a bookshop and learn how to do it. There weren’t any books on this stuff. They did not exist. Painting the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel? No. We had to invent architecture first. We had to quarry the stones. We had to invent the paint.

Welcome to the Wide World of . . . Urban Squash?

[New Haven Advocate]

In this week’s New Haven Advocate, I’ve got a long story on Squash Haven, a local nonprofit that follows the after-school orthodoxy except for one thing: its kids play squash. This focus raises some obvious questions (namely: Why turn to such an expensive and elitist sport?), and I try to touch on them in the story. Still, the people at Squash Haven are doing great work and getting great results. It’s tough to question that.

I should add that the story might seem a little fractured or jumpy since, for a lot of reasons (most of them my fault), the reporting dates back to 2008. I did go back this month to check on my group of middle schoolers, and several of them are heading to a national squash tournament. I’m sure they—and Squash Haven as a whole—will do New Haven proud.

What Is a Ghostwriter?

[Los Angeles Times]

In today’s Los Angeles Times, I’ve got an op-ed that is, among other things, a quasi-defense of political ghostwriting. I start with an anecdote about Eleanor Roosevelt and her first lady memoir This I Remember (1949), and one point I want to make is that these issues have been with us for a while. After all, Bess Truman, Eleanor’s successor, told a reporter in 1952 that “everyone else connected with Washington has written a book. I am certainly not going to compound the felony!”

A few weeks back, I wrote a separate essay for The American Prospect arguing that most readers, historically, haven’t cared about ghostwriting. Even today, when a political book’s behind-the-scenes details get served up as news, ghostwriters matter only as an extension of their clients. (Sarah Palin’s ghostwriter was widely criticized, but who can name Joe Biden’s?) Still, there are a few people—usually professional writers—who get worked up about ghostwriting. The Times op-ed is aimed at them; I think it also works nicely as a counterpoint to my Prospect essay.

One other thing: in addition to her 20-plus books, Eleanor Roosevelt also wrote for magazines and newspapers. I highly recommend her “My Day” column, and, thanks to The Eleanor Roosevelt Papers Project, you can read them all online. Just on the subject of This I Remember, you’ll find columns on Humphrey Bogart asking for an autographed copy and on Eleanor’s writing process (and note there her casual, authorial repetition of “I”). But one column in particular resonates with both the op-ed and my recent New York Times essay on the history of the first lady memoir. On November 11, 1949, Eleanor writes:

I have just been told that though the manuscript of my book as it appeared in McCall’s did not make a mistake, there is one in the book which I hope can be corrected in future editions. In some way a slip was made in referring to Mrs. Mary McLeod Bethune as “the late” Mrs. Bethune. Since she is now trying to raise large sums for her college and is most active, I am sure I could not have overlooked such a mistake. But one never can tell what one’s eyes will do when one had read a manuscript many, many times. I only wish here to apologize to her and assure her that it will be changed in the future editions.

“Because there isn’t a woman in the country who isn’t perishing to know what it’s really like to be the wife of an American president today”

[New York Times]

In this Sunday’s New York Times Book Review, I’ve got an essay on the history of the first lady memoir. (It’s already online.) Laura Bush’s Spoken from the Heart gives us 12 such books,[1] and a few are genuinely good. I single out Lady Bird Johnson’s White House Diary for praise, but even the more prosaic examples are worth our time. In 2003, a professor named Robert Watson compiled a list of first lady biographies. Watson’s top five are no surprise: Jacqueline Kennedy (who’s been the subject of 37 biographical books), Eleanor Roosevelt (35), Hillary Rodham Clinton (27), Mary Todd Lincoln (19), Dolley Madison (16), and Abigail Adams (13). But 17 first ladies had received zero or one biographies. And while that ratio is improving—see the recent biographies of Helen Taft and Louisa Adams, both mentioned in my essay—I find it brave, and even inspiring, that these women were writing their own stories when no one else would.

One way to measure the impact of Lady Bird’s Diary—and I wasn’t able to get into this in the essay—is to look at when the first lady memoir became a distinct genre with its own history. Publishers loved to market early first lady memoirs as disposable women’s lit. (While doing the research, I posted an example of this; this post’s title, taken from a White House Diary ad, is another.) Journalists and reviewers didn’t help things. The NYTBR review of Edith Wilson’s memoir that I quote in the essay erroneously called it the first first lady memoir. At least a reader wrote in with a stern correction.

The craziest example of this came in the coverage of Lady Bird’s Diary, which kept describing it as the first such book “since the memoirs of Abigail Adams.” I’m not sure what’s worse: that this ignores several first lady books or that it invents a historical document. I emailed Edith Gelles, author of the excellent Abigail Adams: A Writing Life, and asked for her help: “Abigail’s only ‘journal,’” Gelles confirmed, “was a brief diary that she kept of her journey to England.” So what are “the memoirs of Abigail Adams”? The best theory I’ve got is that a frazzled journalist scanned the title (but not the contents) of the 1840 Letters of Mrs. Adams, The Wife of John Adams. With An Introductory Memoir By Her Grandson, Charles Francis Adams. The “memoir” is a biographical sketch written by Charles—similar in format to what he did for John Adams’s oeuvre a few years later. Nevertheless, someone said something about Abigail Adams and memoirs. A few repetitions and we ended up with Abigail Adams’s phantom autobiography.

Contrast this with today: as First Lady, Laura Bush could quote from Lady Bird’s Diary; now, as a first lady memoirist, she can explain how she “wanted to give people a sense of what life is like in the White House, even in mundane ways. . . . [That wasn't] really a part of the other First Ladies’ memoirs that I read. ” (Of course, this comes from her cover story in the latest Ladies’ Home Journal; some things never change.) You won’t find anything like Laura’s awareness of writing in a tradition until after Lady Bird. Even though Eleanor Roosevelt wrote more than 20 books, for example, the coverage of A White House Diary never mentioned her as an antecedent.

That’s one reason I describe Eleanor as an “outlier” in my essay. But Eleanor was also an outlier in her grasp of the first lady tradition. In her syndicated newspaper column for Januray 25, 1939, she writes:

I went to bed fairly early last night and read the last installment of Mrs. Woodrow Wilson’s memoirs. I find the editor’s notes, which skip over what you feel must be interesting reading, a little disconcerting. I suppose this is done to keep more of the interest for the book, which will appear later.

————–

[1] Books aren’t the only form for memoir, of course, and several first ladies wrote autobiographical essays. I’ll mention Grace Coolidge’s example—to avoid confusion as much as anything else since, in 1993, her series of essays for American Magazine (along with some unpublished material) was issued as Grace Coolidge: An Autobiography.

« Previous PageNext Page »