- Rick Moody is the worst writer of his generation.
I apologize for the abruptness of this declaration, its lack of nuance, of any meaning besides the intuitive; but as I made my way through Moody's oeuvre during the past few months I was unable to come up with any other starting point for a consideration of his accomplishment. Or, more accurately, every other starting point that I tried felt disingenuous, nothing more than a way of setting Moody up in order to knock him down. One of those starting points was this: "Rick Moody is a lot of things, but he is not actually dumb." This was an attempt at charity, and though I still think that it's true enough, I don't think that it matters; at any rate, his intelligence does not make up for the badness of his books. Another attempt: "In his breakthrough novel The Ice Storm, Rick Moody evinces a troubling fascination with adolescent sexual organs that is partially explained in his latest book, The Black Veil, a so-called 'memoir with digressions.'" Again, the observation strikes me as correct. The problem here was in assuming that what most readers think of as the subject of a story has any role in a Moody project beyond giving his tangled prose something to wrap itself around, the way a vine will wrap itself around the nearest thing to hand, be it trellis, tree, or trash.
Yet another false start: "The Black Veil is the worst of Rick Moody's very bad books." Here the first mistake was in focusing on the books themselves, which bear the same relationship to Moody's career as his subjects do to his prose: the former come across as little more than a prop for the latter, incidental, interchangeable. Moreover, Garden State, Moody's first book—despite his citing "the proposition put forth by a vocal minority: that Garden State is my best novel"—is, in fact, even worse than The Black Veil; and "The Black Veil is the second worst of Rick Moody's very bad books" just doesn't have the same ring to it.
Stop reading here if you are looking for a calm dissection of the work of Hiram Frederick Moody III. At this point, the use of the diminutive "Rick" is about the only wise decision that I am willing to give him credit for. The plain truth is that I have stared at pages and pages of Moody's prose and they remain as meaningless to me as the Korean characters that paper the wall of a local restaurant. Actually, the comparison is not particularly apt, because I know that the Korean writing means something, but I am not convinced that Moody's books are about anything at all. In fact, it is only when I consider The Black Veil stripped of any pretense to content that I can ascribe it a measure of objecthood—not as the diagnostic, hermeneutical genealogy that it purports to be, but rather as the latest in what I have come to regard as a series of imitations or echoes of Moody's more talented, or at any rate more authentically individual, peers.
Finns det någon kritiker i världshistorien som inte anser sig vara "rättvis"? Förlåt, men jag är lite allergisk mot uttrycket "hård men rättvis", även om man förmodligen kan vara det. Det är väl framförallt sådana som Simon Cowell som har frambringat denna allergi.
SvaraRaderaAnonym 15:49. Om du menar att alla kritiker i hela världen anser sig vara rättvisa, så menar jag att du har fullkomligt tokfel, och att världen i själva verket kryllar av recensenter som med berått mod avviker från det rättvisa och balaserade redovisandet av recensionsobjektets förtjänster och eventuella tillkortakommanden. Låt mig blott ge tre exempel på sådana avvikelser:
Radera1. Den amerikanske klimatförnekaren John O'Sullivan tog igår på sig att redovisa innehållet i den klassiska rapporten Carbon Dioxide and Climate: A Scientific Assessment (National Academy of Sciences, 1979). O'Sullivan påstod exempelvis att rapporten pekade på att "the greenhouse gas effect was not real". Med tanke på vad som faktiskt står i (den ännu mycket läsvärda!) rapporten är det uppenbart att O'Sullivan inte hade någon som helst avsikt att rättvist redovisa dess innehåll. Tvärtom blåljög han.
2. Göran Malmqvist, ledamot i Svenska Akademien, skrev följande i ett brev tidigare i år till den kinesiska författaren Li Lis hustru: "Som Ni kommer att se av mitt brev till Er make ställer jag honom inför ett val, som kan ha den största betydelsen för hans fortsatta verksamhet. Jag har också rått honom att diskutera detta val med Er, som ju också kommer att bli lidande om hans uppträdande skulle tvinga mig att publicera en utomordentligt kritisk recension av hans Tranströmer-tolkningar. Jag vill ogärna medverka till att så sker." Här är det uppenbart att Malmqvist tänker sig sin egen recensionsverksamhet inte som ett rättvist rapporterande utan som ett medel för att skada en person han kommit på kant med.
3. Säg den svenska småbarnsförälder som aldrig, sedan treåringen presterat något fult obegripligt kludd med sina färgkritor, hävt ur sig "Åh, vilken fin blomsteräng du har ritat!" eller någon liknande uppmuntrande men djupt oärlig kommentar...
Länken till Malmqvist-citatet blev fel i föregående kommentar. Klicka här istället.
RaderaMer om sågning på bosjo surrar!
SvaraRadera