Reviewing Steve Almond. And Reviewing Steve Almond Reviewing Steve Almond.

Steve Almond's latest book, ROCK AND ROLL WILL SAVE YOUR LIFE, which details his obsession with pop music, got torched in the NEW YORK TIMES BOOK REVIEW and he's ticked off and he's even written a compelling but flawed essay on the subject for the RUMPUS site.

Whenever a writer's book gets trashed, the writer immediately denounces the reviewer's motivations or the journal's: the reviewer is envious of the author,  or the editors are, or the reviewer secretly hates the genre under review, or is hot for the writer's spouse and wants to show up the writer, etc.

What an author of a trashed book never thinks is: Well, I guess that reviewer just honestly hated my book. Stuff happens.

An artist who pours his or her soul into the artistic creation we call the book is, naturally, going to be deeply hurt when it is not loved properly or, worse, is mocked in public by a showy loudmouth.

So the hurt is not only understandable, it's inevitable. But it is best to focus on the hurt and not start imagining conspiracies, or start imagining that you suddenly have the super-power to know somebody's motivations. Go that route and a writer's hypocrisy will start showing.

Example: Reviewers are inevitably writers. Writers are inevitably reviewers.  That's how it works. When a writer gets a bad review, he instantly smells a conspiracy or foul motivations. But when he writes a review that torches another's book? It was: Honest intellectual debate! Honest reaction to a bad book!, My stuff smells better than your stuff!, etc.

Almond says the reason he got crushed in the TIMES is that the TIMES hired  a self-serious writer named Howard Hampton to review his book.

"Having written a book that vilifies self-serious cultural critics," Almond writes in his RUMPUS piece, "I figured at some point it would be reviewed by a self-serious cultural critic, who would use phrases such as 'an aesthetic of quasi-handmade approachability' and quote the Velvet Underground adoringly and decree that anyone who might enjoy my book is a cretin."

Oddly enough, in one small but noticeable instance, Hampton does to Almond in his review what Almond just did above to Hampton in his review of Hampton's review: quote the worst line in the piece and pretend it's representative of the whole work. The worst line in Almond's book is "there's no arguing with joy," which Hampton quotes, and the worst line in Hampton's review is "an aesthetic of quasi-handmade approachability," which Almond quotes.

All that said, I actually agree that Howard Hampton misdiagnosed Almond's book. (Full disclosure: I have, in the past, invited both Almond and Hampton to write for THE OA's Music Issue.) The difference between my view and Almond's is that I'm fairly confident that the editors of the BOOK REVIEW signed up Hampton because they sincerely thought he would write interestingly about it. Unfortunately, Hampton fails to write interestingly about it.

Almond thinks (I'm quoting from his RUMPUS essay) that the TIMES BOOK REVIEW, "rather than documenting the pleasures and disappointments a reader might encounter in a given book, just do...stupid trend-mongering." The BOOK REVIEW is not interested in "offering a serious consideration of [a book's] aesthetic and moral intent."

This is a tricky argument for a few reasons. For one, it presupposes that the editors at the BOOK REVIEW tell their reviewers what to write. As in: "Okay, folks, if you are going to write reviews for us...no serious considerations of books allowed. Don't document pleasures and disappointments. No acknowledging of a book's aesthetic or moral intent. Just stupid trend-mongering. Or else!  Or else we'll change the secret handshake without telling you!"

(It has been my slim experience that the BOOK REVIEW does not tell its reviewers what to write. And I've never heard any reviewer say this is the case.)

Of course, I realize that the editors nudge fate by deciding whom they hire as reviewers. But, come on, Steve, if you think editors can tell experienced, heralded writers (of the kind the TIMES BOOK REVIEW employs) what to think, you are nuts. Believe me, I've tried! The master/slave model for editors/writers is long gone, alas.

PART TWO

The first paragraph of Hampton's review of Almond's book (and a book by Mark Edmundson; it's a crammed joint review) is devoted entirely to the Velvet Underground, that perennial darling of self-respecting rock critics.

On page 11 of ROCK AND ROLL WILL SAVE YOUR LIFE, Steve Almond presents:

"Gratuitous List #1: Bands Shamelessly Overexposed by the 'Alternative' Press."

Band #4 on this list is, ahem, Velvet Underground.

Almond goes on to say this in a footnote: "These lists are not serious. They are inserted into the text merely as a way of pissing off the critics."

The second list in Almond's book is, in fact, called "Ten Things You Can Say to Piss Off a Music Critic." My favorite item on that list is:

"2. People who don't like Steve Miller should fucking move to Canada."

Or it could be: "7. Don't you wish these jazz dweebs would learn to play a real song?"

I can barely imagine Almond's disbelief at reading Hampton's first paragraph. (It's also worth noting that Hampton ends his review with a Velvet Underground reference.) So, yes, it's fair to say Almond got the short straw in having Hampton review his book. But can't we leave it at that?

PART THREE

Well, Steve can't. In his RUMPUS essay, he gets lofty: "We should discuss books as seriously as we want ours to be discussed.... To degrade another writer without a respectful consideration of his or her intent and labor is to degrade our own vocation."

That's nice, but with his other pen, he can't help stomping on the writers and editors of the BOOK REVIEW: "I don't think I'm being unreasonable in asking them to stop doing business in such a shallow, small-hearted manner."

Maybe he's not being unreasonable but isn't calling the REVIEW "shallow and small-hearted" the kind of degrading, disrespectful talk he just said he didn't think we should engage in?

Almond cites specific reviews in the TIMES that have irked him, and his criticism for why they failed is persuasive. He's a careful reader. But it's a bit sneaky of him to mention so many failures without mentioning the many thoughtful pieces that the TIMES has also run. If you went by Almond, you'd think that the NEW YORK TIMES BOOK REVIEW sucks 99% of the time.  And it doesn't.

In other words, isn't it degrading and disrespectful to writers (and the BOOK REVIEW is written by writers and edited by writers) to focus solely on the REVIEW's failings while ignoring (abundant and important) successes?

Rhetorical response: Yes, Steve, it is.

PART FOUR

Well, it's easy for me to say Steve Almond should get over a bad review. In fact, I even understand why Almond feels the TIMES BOOK REVIEW is ganging up on him, because after the Velvet Underground reference in Hampton's review, things only get worse for him. 

In comparing the Almond book to the Edmundson book, Hampton writes: "Steve Almond's ROCK AND ROLL WILL SAVE YOUR LIFE is less fun to hang out with...."

My take on Steve Almond, from reading his book (and from meeting him once or twice), is that he's a touchy, intense, even profane dude, with quirks galore. One throwaway line—"I had a literary agent, but she hated my guts"—coyly, cryptically hints at this intensity. But for whatever quirks the dude may have, you could not fairly accuse him of being either a bore or NOT FUN.

Humor is rampant in ROCK AND ROLL WILL SAVE YOUR LIFE, which I'm going to have to call one of the funniest music books I've read—and one of the most insightful.

In revisiting his first gig as a professional music critic, when he volunteered to review a Bob Dylan concert without knowing anything about music (or Dylan), he writes: "I had no technical training as a musician.... Had I been quizzed on the meaning of the word glissando I would have answered (with some confidence, I'm afraid) 'a type of fancy ice cream.' Not to be confused with vibrato, which was a gynecological instrument."

Less fun to hang out with? Either Hampton prefers the company of stern tea-party insiders or his hanging-out buddies are so incessantly hilarious that even a wit like Almond pales in comparison.

In any case, Hammond's comment is utterly baffling. As is some of Hampton's own humor. He doesn't think Almond is fun, but he thinks his own line of "Almond's [book] is perfect for people who...think Jerry Lee Lewis was the star of the original NUTTY PROFESSOR" is.

Please. Jerry Lewis/Jerry Lee Lewis jokes are not fresh. And even if Almond's book fails as serious, intelligent, funny pop criticism (and I don't think it does), the only people even capable of seeing it as a failure are those who know the difference between Jerry Lee Lewis and Jerry Lewis. Obviously. So the failed crack doubles as a cheap-shot, thank you very much.

But, see, Hampton was making a joke....

PART FIVE

Hampton goes so far as to say Almond's entire approach is wrong, because it "keeps getting mired in the narrowest, soundtrack-to-my-life aspects of music."

Almond's ROCK AND ROLL WILL SAVE YOUR LIFE is about how, with aging, he came to love it  differently from how he did in his youth—and why music matters to him—and us in our daily lives. Which is to say that Almond's intent is to discuss music through the spectrum of how it worked as a soundtrack to his life. That being the case, it is chintzy, or worse, to criticize this approach. (I take it Hampton prefers a more academic turn.) Truly, the only fair question is whether Almond succeeded with his approach.

Hampton says no, he did not. Fair enough.

But what Hampton views as narrow I view as compelling—and expansive. From highlighting Styx and ignoring Dylan to championing obscure singer/songwriters like Boris McCutcheon and Dayna Kurtz, the soundtrack of Steve Almond's life has demonstrably evolved. Why can't there be a story in that? Does Howard Hampton mean to suggest that critics should be born with their musical taste and I.Q. fully evolved or that musical growth is beneath him?

Hampton doesn't even like the term Almond has created for describing the kind of obsessive music fan that he is—"Drooling Fanatic." Hammond deems it to be "heavy-handed." Okay, but what I don't get is how Hampton, or anyone, could be unamused by Almond's characterizations of this type, whatever you want to call it. In a near-perfect chapter called "The Mating Habits of the Drooling Fanatic," Almond writes:

"Anyone who has dated a Drooling Fanatic can recall the painful moment when it becomes apparent that he...is going to try to use music to compensate for deficits of charm, intellect, and sexual prowess. You can safely conjure the usual mood-setting clichés—soft lighting, red wine, incense—as our Fanatic makes his way to the stereo, poorly pretending his musical selection is happenstance when he has spent the past week (at least) worrying [about] the aphrodisiacal merits of Mile Davis's Kind of Blue versus Sinatra's In the Wee Small Hours."

Random House's copyright lawyers are about to be unleashed, but I can't help it. Here's one more classic scene from the life of a Drooling Fanatic:

"But okay, let's say you're the patient type. You find our enthusiasm endearing.  You mistake our fanaticism for passion. For whatever reasons, you get involved with us. Congratulations! You will now be subjected—more or less constantly—to the ridiculous bigotries so integral to the Drooling Fanatic self-esteem complex. We will squint at your CDs and when you ask why, we'll say, 'Oh no, nothing, I just didn't realize Pearl Jam was still together.'"

Besides the fun aspect of ROCK AND ROCK WILL SAVE YOUR LIFE, there is much serious criticism to be found in it even though, SPOILER ALERT!, that serious criticism is...fun to read.

One chapter, "How Dave Grohl Taught Me to Stop Whining....," is simply essential reading for anybody, serious or not, who wants to know how celebrity profiles have perverted music writing:

"The first time Dave Grohl spoke to me, approximately fifty-nine hours after we were first supposed to meet...I was so instantly grateful, so starstruck, so possibly and confusingly in love, that I could only nod my head and fight back tears. Grohl didn't just say hello. He walked up in plain view of his posses and smiled at me and said, 'Hey man, you're always so mellow. We've got to get some time to hang out. Can you hang out tonight?'—an outburst of such diabolical psychological brilliance that for a few moments I actually felt guilty."

I admit that Almond's a tough nut to crack. But his insights are so fresh, and his humor so ripe, that I hereby forgive him for the book's few clunkers, and even for his distaste of rockabilly music and the Velvet Underground.

Favorite line: "For years, I had assumed that throwing beautiful words at the page would make my prose feel true. But I had the process exactly backward. It was truth that lifted the language into beauty and toward song."

Click here to read more Editors' Picks.