Title of the year.

I haven't read all of it yet, but I was predisposed to love this book because of its title: How Beautiful It Is and How Easily It Can Be Broken. (I love its cover, too.)

It's a book of critical reviews and writings by Daniel Mendelsohn, who is evidently a longtime contributor to publications like the New York Review of Books. I'd never actually heard of him; I literally requested this book from the library because the title stood out. But I'm glad I got it. When it's done well, I find that critical reviewing and writing can be really enjoyable to read (Anthony Lane and Lee Siegel are two of my favorite such writers), and can lead to lots of other pleasurable reading (and watching, in the case of movie reviews). In this collection there's reviews of the books The Lovely Bones, The Hours, and Middlesex; there's also movie reviews of 300, Kill Bill Volume 1, and Brokeback Mountain.

But let's get back to that title. Mendelsohn explains it thus: "'How beautiful it is and how easily it can be broken' is a quote from the state directions to a play by Tennesse Williams, a great American drama about the victimization of a fragile girl who is tragically in love with beautiful, breakable things: the famous glass menagerie that gives the play its title, and which of course provides a richly useful symbol for the themes of delicacy and brittleness, of the lovely illusions that can give purpose to our lives and the hard necessities that can shatter them...

But to my mind Williams's haunting phrase illuminates not only the nature of certain works that have preoccupied me, but also something about the nature of the critics who judge those works. For (strange as it may sound to many people, who tend to think of critics as being motivated by the lower emotions: envy, disdain, contempt even) critics are, above all, people who are in love with beautiful things, and who worry that those things will get broken." (p. xvii.)

That is a good paragraph about being a critic, I think. And let's face it, I just love the phrase, even if it started life as a lowly stage direction. Do give it some thought today as you deal with your daily frustrations, and try to go easily on the world. After all, how beautiful it is, and how easily it can be broken.

Comments

[Sarah]

Mendelsohn wrote an interesting book, which of course I haven't yet read but mean to sometime, titled THE LOST: A SEARCH FOR SIX OF SIX MILLION. It's about his retracing the lives of six of his family members lowst in the Holocaust.

[Brandon]

I'll have to check this out. It's interesting. Besides, I've been wanting to read more criticism, for some reason.

[Citizen Reader]

Sarah,
Your breadth of knowledge is truly stunning. I thought his name was familiar. Let me know what you think of "The Lost," okay?

Brandon:
ooh, ooh, ooh, if you're up for criticism you've GOT to read "The Braindead Megaphone" by George Saunders--he even has a piece on Kurt Vonnegut! And really, do try Anthony Lane's "Nobody's Perfect." It's genius. Pure genius.

Yes, read "The Braindead Megaphone." It is the best book I've read this year. It is both thoughtful and entertaining. And it explains why the Dixie Chicks should exist and Diane Sawyer should go home. The Chicks can play instruments and have convictions. Diane can only play the American public. But I digress. Saunders weighs in on many, many interesting subjects that are truly diverse. I found his point of view fascinating and fair-minded, honest and yet hopeful. I am still scratching my head as to how he does it.

Oh, let me add that the piece on Vonnegut is interesting, and I cannot remember it exactly, but I do not know if Vonnegut did find WWII absolutely necessary.

[J.S. Peyton]

I'm a going to enthusiastically third the recommendation for "The Braindead Megaphone." It's nothing less than amazing. And "Nobody's Perfect" had me shocked beyond belief that I could enjoy reading movie reviews so much. Anthony Lane is the man.

Hmm, Citizen Reader. It appears you and I have similar taste when it comes to criticism, which of course means that now I have to buy Mendelsohn's book.

J.S.!
See, now this is where I should have been more clear in my review. What I loved about this book was the title; the criticism itself was well-written but not anything I particularly agreed with myself. Not that it shouldn't be read--but this is one I'd take a look at from the library before I purchased. It's good, but it's no George Saunders or Anthony Lane. How do you feel about Dale Peck?