n + 1 Loses It

Readers of this site will remember that I tried to maintain a civil tone in response to n + 1's recent shot at litblogs. I didn't use any bad names, and I even went so far as to call out one blog that I thought went too far in trying to tar n + 1. I did this because, as much as I disagreed with n + 1, I didn't think their remarks were that far out of line. I tried to consider their side and see their remarks as part of a constructive dialog on litblogs. In other words, I tried to keep perspective on this whole thing.

Unfortunately, n + 1 ediotor Keith Gessen seems to be losing his.

Gessen: The bloggers feel powerless. They think no one’s paying attention so they ratchet up the rhetoric, call us assholes, publish my e-mails . . . They’re not taking it seriously. They’re just doing gossip, just insulting people without any notion that they ought to be telling the truth . . .

Keith Gessen clearly knows that many bloggers denounced the publishing of the emails, since he thanked me for denouncing the act and left comments on The Millions, which also denounced it. In light of this, I don't see how he can say, with a straight face, that all bloggers feel powerless and condemn us all w/r/t the email publishing.

Moreover, I just don't se why Gessen should choose this moment to up his rhetoric. In the face of n + 1's attack, many bloggers reacted with fairness and tried to seriously engage Gessen's journal. Contrary to Gessen's asertions, many of us did not rachet up the rhetoric and many of us took his words quite seriously. Fairness would at least dictate that Gessen soften his remarks by noting that many bloggers tried to respond to his remarks in a constructive manner. But based on these comments, I don't think Gessen wants to be fair.

We also get:

One of the most frustrating aspects of the recent war with the lit-gossip-bloggers was that they functioned with an ideology which they don’t acknowledge to be an ideology — which is also the Eggers ideology — that literature is and ought to be a monolith, just as “lit-bloggers” are a monolith, and you’re either for or against.

I don't know precisely what "literature is a monolith" means, but I don't think litbloggers subscribe to this "ideology." There's been plenty of disagreement on what we do and do not like. For instance, Ed and I both were quite enamored of the recent Richard Powers novel, but Dan Green left a very negative, very lengthy post about it. Similarly, there's been much disagreement as to the success--or lack thereof--of the recent Thomas Pynchon. Further examples are easy to find.

In regards to being for or against literature--I can't remember the last time I called someone "against" literature, but my world is big enough to include people who love literature as much as I do, but who have different beliefs about it. Oprah Winfrey is a perfect example. I don't care much for her show, and I doubt Oprah would be my ideal reader, but I've repeatedly complimented the work she's done for literature.

It seems that Gessen is the monolithic one. You are either for or against n + 1. And, I would venture based on his remarks, if you have a litblog then you're de facto against.

And let's not forget about:

The blog war confirms: publishing is demoralized.

Honestly, I don't know what "the blog war" is, but to say that it confirms publishing is demoralized . . . well, that's a mighty leap there. With that kind of leaping power, Gessen might try out for the next Olympics.

On the whole, I find Gessen's remarks quite unfortunate. They doesn't take away from the fact that n + 1 published four good issues and that its anti-litblog op-ed made some decent points about litlbogs, but if this is indicative of the evolution of its editorial stance after the n + 1/litblog fracas, then, I'm sorry, they're losing it. These remarks are way off-base. It doesn't take much effort to dispell these generalizations; just read this blog, or a number of others.

And I'm sorry to say, but this does make me consider the rest of the mag in a different light. In the past I tried to keep n + 1's feelings about litblogs separate from the rest of the magazine, but if its lead editor is capable of going off the deep end and letting emotions dictate his remarks about litblogs to this extent, then I'm not sure I can trust his judgment when it comes to other matters.

(Dan Green makes much the same points as I do in this post, but with an uncharacteristically short one.)

Comments

[Richard]

Gessen is right, of course, that the blog war shows that publishing is demoralized. However, we should not forget that the current sectarian violence in the literary world, as many of us in the anti-blog war movement predicted four long years ago, is the direct result of the lies that the war was predicated on: that bloggers had weapons of mass communication, that blogs would produce "democracy" in the publishing world, that the bloggers were somehow connected with James Frey, etc.

Gessen may be convinced by his staged walk through the literary marketplace that editors are going about their business safely and that the book world will continue to "improve" if only more troops are sent to fight the blog war, but the American reader has had enough.

After so many casualties in this useless blog war, we have had enough. How many more innocents must die? Even n + 1 more death is too many. Stop the war!

[Richard]

After receiving some emails, I want to make it clear that my previous comment was certainly not meant to disparage Mr. Gessen or his brave service to literature during the Culture Wars of a previous decade. Indeed, I honor the valor he showed as a prisoner of war at Yale, when he was subjected to the unspeakable torture of having to endure endless hours of Harold Bloom lectures.

I was merely suggesting, like many fine literary gentlemen of a previous era, Mr. Gessen's views on the present blog conflict are colored by his experience as a prisoner of war in the Kramer Hilton.

No one can deny Mr. Gessen's devotion to literature. As one great writer once said, "Old editors never die; they just keep giving interviews."

[Scott]

Richard,

One question: does the blog war make Gessen more or less likely to win the Republican nomination?

[Richard]

Please excuse the failings of an elderly gay man. At this point in my life, I can't even write straight.

[Matthew Tiffany]

War. What is it good for?

I have a pithy, trumps-all comment saved at my site, but I'm hesitant to post it; this whole Gessen business is starting to smack of a viral advertising campaign. I'm sure this has gotten them a fair amount of attention, and some would say there's no such thing as bad publicity. (Don Imus might even say that, as he's got the Rush Limbaughs of the world saluting him now...)

Really, it's just sad, displays a lack of character. I don't think many people go into reading literary criticism to get the sort of sniping one gets from watching Entertainment Tonight.

[Jay Quackenbush]

To say that Keith Gessen is losing it is to imply that at some point he had it. When wet asphalt first came into contact with him it was largely due to the fact that n+1's editorial m.o. was characterized by taking a legitimate critical observation and making of it a grotesque that ceases having anything to do with reality. It's true of too large a majority of n+1's output to chalk it up to chance, and at this point I think an argument could be made that it's unofficial editorial policy. For eg see the articles on dating, marco roth's take on michel houellebecq, and Elif Batuman's eulogy for the short story and the pattern becomes clear. Gessen's latest outburst is totally in keeping with the aesthetic principles of critical grotesquerie that n+1 is founed on.

[Sylvia]

Blogging criticism has just opened up a new genre of lit criticism!

Check out Video Book Reviews