Poem Subjects; Worst Book Reviewing Words
Two characteristically interesting items from Mark Sarvas at The Elegant Variation:
A) Check out this 2006 NPR interview, in which [Ed] Hirsch shares William Matthews’s list of the "Four Subjects of Poetry," which we reproduce with considerable delight:
1. I went out into the woods today, and it made me feel, you know, sort of religious.
2. We’re not getting any younger.
3. It sure is cold and lonely (a) without you, honey, or (b) with you, honey.
4. Sadness seems but the other side of the coin of happiness, and vice versa, and in any case the coin is too soon spent, and on what we know not what.
B) Bob Harris’s Seven Deadly Words of Book Reviewing at the NY Times’ Paper Cuts blog:
poignant: Something you read may affect you, or move you. That doesn’t mean it’s poignant. Something is poignant when it’s keenly, even painfully, affecting. When Bambi’s mom dies an adult may think it poignant. A child probably finds it terrifying.
compelling: May things in life, and in books, are compelling. The problem is that too often in book reviews far too many things are found to be such. A book may be a page turner, but that doesn’t necessarily make it compelling. Overuse has weakened a word that implies an overwhelming force.
Reviewers often combine these first two words. Like Chekhov’s gun. If there is a poignant in a review’s third paragraph, a compelling will most likely follow. Frequently reviewers forestall the suspense and link the words right away, as in “this poignant and compelling novel…”
intriguing: It doesn’t mean merely interesting or fascinating although it’s almost always used in place of one of those words. When it is, the sense of something illicit and mysterious is lost.
eschew: No one actually says this word in real life. It appears almost exclusively in writing when the perp is stretching for a flashy synonym for avoid or reject or shun.
craft (used as a verb): In “The Careful Writer,” Theodore M. Bernstein reminds us that “the advertising fraternity has decided craft is a verb.” Undeterred, reviewers use it when they are needlessly afraid of using plain old write. They also try to make pen a verb, as in “he penned a tome.”
muse (used as a verb): Few things in this world are mused. They are much more often simply written, thought or said. “War is hell,” he mused. Not much dreamy rumination there.
Stretching for the fanciful — writing “he crafts or pens” instead of “he writes”; writing “he muses” instead of “he says or thinks” — is a sure tip-off of weak writing.
lyrical: Reviewers use this adjective when they want to say something is well written. But using the word loosely misses the sense of expressing emotion in an imaginative and beautiful way. Save lyrical for your next review of Wordsworth.
It’s possible to (mis)use all seven words in a one-sentence book report: “Mario Puzo’s intriguing novel eschews the lyrical as the author instead crafts a poignant tale of family life and muses on the compelling doings of the Mob.”
Perhaps, readers, you’d like to add your favorites?
March 27th, 2008 at 7:38 AM
How about luminous?
March 27th, 2008 at 10:20 AM
"eschew: No one actually says this word in real life. It appears almost exclusively in writing when the perp is stretching for a flashy synonym for avoid or reject or shun."
Tin-eared bluenoses should eschew the writing of proscriptive doodles about writing. No word is automatically off-limits, as every word carries its own sound, rhythm and shade of meaning. It’s not the "word" itself, but the writer’s combination of words, that makes a cliché (or not). Otherwise, we could never use the words "life", "love", "food", "the", "and" and so on…
March 27th, 2008 at 11:11 AM
"a good read" – maybe not a problem at the New York Times, but a curse on litblogs.
March 27th, 2008 at 1:53 PM
Oh yes, "luminous", the new, and even vaguer, replacement for "lyrical".
SA – you went right after the weakest entry in the list.
March 27th, 2008 at 5:26 PM
It isn’t necessarily over used in reviews because it has negative connotations, but I’m really starting to tire of the word ’solipsistic’ it saturates a lot of writing about the novel…
Compelling has long been on my disgust list…
SA scores with yet another sparkling point…a regular Steve Nash…
March 28th, 2008 at 3:00 AM
Nigel:
I thought to myself…"Steve Nash? Steve Nash? A critic? A novelist? Son of Ogden? Who…?"
March 28th, 2008 at 11:20 AM
[...] I typed in a quick review (using all the proper jargon of course). Here’s a [...]
March 28th, 2008 at 12:20 PM
Steven: re: your unmatched literary point scoring:" Steve Nash has redefined the role of point man [in the National Basketball League] and helped take Phoenix to the top of the West. He’s a two-time MVP, a six time All-Star and the league’s assist leader for the past three seasons. To top it of he’s one of Time Magazine’s 100 most influential people. And if being the top floor general in the pros wasn’t enough he can also crush you on the soccer field, too."
You really need to get out from behind all those books my man.
March 28th, 2008 at 12:56 PM
Nigel!
Ha ha! You probably don’t know I’m co-raising a 2 year old with my beloved (a very popular classical musician, I might add)… haven’t watched a millisecond of TV in ten years! When I get from behind these books, I’m busy getting sand in my shoes at the playground…gritty, man. Gritty.
March 30th, 2008 at 9:33 AM
[...] other day I stumbled across this hilarious blog post about all the once-glorious adjectives that book reviewers have over-used to the point where they [...]