The Austrian Cultural Forum (ACF) is eye-catching. The building’s zigzags penetrating and receding from the brick facades vertically paving 53rd St. Manhattan exudes a bit of swagger. This afternoon, I finally had the pleasure of exploring the tantalizingly narrow building, to listen in on the workings of the critical mind. My adventure through PEN World Voices Festival 2010 continued, but this time I heard from the critics, rather than the writers.
And what a dapper panel! On the stage: three smartly dressed, distinguished critics and members of the National Books Critics Circle—Eric Banks, Jane Ciabattari, and Rigoberto González—with Mary Ann Newman of the Catalan Center at NYU 
rounding out the panel.
And the empty chair…
The impetus of the panel was to discuss particular PEN WVF writers—their influences, receptions here and abroad, personal journeys, and so on. But I didn’t come to this panel to hear what the critics think of these writers. No, I came with a critic’s mind (a critical mind). I wanted to gain insight on the construction of the craft: how does a critic think? How does the critic approach the author or novel? How do they sell the author, novel, and their criticisms to the audience? As an editor and critic in the next generation of influential writers and critics (yes, The Mantle is heading in that direction!), it’s important to learn the craft from our predecessors—to pluck from their wisdom various techniques, to understand what works and what doesn’t, and to apply the tactics to our own approach, to shape our own voices.
So for all you wannabe critics out there, here’s what the (upstart) critic heard at the ACF:
Eric Banks started us off with reviews of two authors, Peter Schneider (Germany)and Peter Stamm (Switzerland) (the latter sat two seats behind me—no pressure on Banks!). With Schneider’s The Wall Jumper (as in, the Berlin Wall), Banks recently re-read the novel to see if it might appear dated in today’s post-1989 world. Would it be merely a nostalgic trip? No. Happily, Banks finds the novel is refreshingly transcendent of time and place. Although the novel is constrained by particular geography and political events, it still resonates in today’s Web 2.0 world. Critical technique at play: re-reading/re-visiting a piece with fresh perspectives from a changing world.
Regarding Stamm, Banks’ critical maneuver was to sell the book and author with plaudits of Stamm’s ability to tightly and beautifully construct a story, one that transcends cultures and place. Thus, Stamm should be seen as a storyteller, not merely as a Swiss writer. Critical technique at play: extolling the craft of writing and storytelling.
Onto Jane Ciabattari, who sang the praises of this year’s PEN WVF honoree, Sherman Alexie. There’s a reason Ms. Ciabattari is the president of the National Book Critics Circle: she deftly deployed a number of critical techniques. To wit, Ciabattari drew the audience in by reciting a six word poem by Alexie called, “The Human Comedy.”
“My ex-wife. My brother. They eloped.”
Critical technique at play: The hook.
And then, while it was a bit too long… Ciabattari used a device common with the long, critical form—a broad, sweeping view of history. Ciabattari gave the audience a bird’s eye-view of Native American populations on this continent, coast to coast, from first contact by the Europeans through the 1840s through the 1960s until today. Critical technique at play: Giving an extended historical context.
Which was followed by a short personal history of Alexie (the New Yorker formula). We learned that Alexie read Grapes of Wrath at the ripe age of five, that his inspirations include Walt Whitman and Stephen King, that he attended Gonzaga University but didn’t discover his writerly self until he landed at the University of Washington. And that he calls himself an “Indian,” rather than a “Native American,” a rule that Ciabattari also followed. Critical techniques at play: Triple whammy: Providing an intimate portrait of the subject, re-telling the journey of the subject, and accepting the narrative of the subject.
Just when you thought it was all over… In preparing for this discussion, Ciabattari apparently had a conversation with the author (by phone? E-mail? In-person?). She then quoted from their conversation in order to illuminate Alexie’s thoughts on current events and topics. Critical technique at play: Interviewing the subject.
And finally, Ciabattari’s final salvo was to conjecture as to what Alexie might say at his upcoming Arthur Miller Freedom to Write Lecture (we’re covering that, so check back later!). She mused that he was going to have something to say about the internet’s effects on writing, especially its effects on minority voices and community’s, and how these voices will be able to engage modern society. Critical technique at play: Predicting the future to bring the audience back for more.
In short, Ciabratti nailed the critical moment. (My critical technique at play: unapologetic praise).
Next up was Rigoberto González, who introduced the audience to Mexican writer Martin Solares, and in particular, the author’s new book, Los Minutos Negors (The Black Minutes). Los Minutos Negros is, as González reports, a “border novel,” as in, a book falling into the genre(!) of Mexican-American border tales. [Side note: please don’t tell me that literature now is being divided into endless genres, thereby going the way of the ever-increasing plethora of musical genres.] In any case, González reveals that the typical border-novel has characteristics on the political and environmental bleakness of the region. At the same time, he warns that there are two strong elements at play in Solares’ book, which critics use to either lump the book into the genre of “crime fiction” or “magical realism.” Well, González urges, it is both of these, and it is neither. Those interested in the crime-fiction aspect will be dismayed at the slow pace of events. Those piqued by magical realism may be put off by the hard reality underpinning the novel. Critical technique at play: Establishing literary framework.
Ok, so now we know where we are, and we know what kind of book we are dealing with, so where does the critic go from there? González pulls from the aforementioned historical context approach, in a much abbreviated fashion. To understand what is happening in Los Minutos Negros, we must have a little understanding of Mexican politics, especially in the 1970s. We must take this knowledge and couple it with an understanding of the critical border issues today, namely the unending murders of women (mostly prostitutes), immigration disputes, and rampant corruption. With these political and historical elements in mind, the reader is well-placed to enjoy the novel. Critical technique at play: Double whammy: Providing an abbreviated historical context coupled with an abbreviated contemporary, political orientation.
If his mission as a critic is accomplished, the results of González’s promotion of Los Minutos Negros will help usher in an era where English language readers will reach across the border to discover today’s up-and-coming Mexican writers.
Lastly, Mary Ann Newman offered her insights into Catalan writer Quim Monzó. But I wonder why she was on the panel, and maybe she did too, because she quickly admitted that she was not a critic. Instead, she offered up rambling praise for her friend Monzó (and Catalan literature at large), while trying to orient the audience with hints at Monzó’s political and literary influences. Critical technique at play: The panel equivalent of blurbing for a friend’s book.
Newman did offer this little nugget at the end, however: in speaking about a book of Monzó’s she translated, and which failed to win over a critic of the New York Times Book Review, Newman pointed out that because the critic was not an expert in Catalan literature, the proffered context of the book was aimed at the reader, rather than the writer.
Which brings up a complex question for all critics: when writing your critical piece, who is the intended audience? Potential readers? The writer? Other critics?
Critical technique at play: Leaving the reader with something to consider.
.jpg)
Post new comment