Jeff in Venice, Death in Varanasi, Hogwash in the New Yorker!
April 14th, 2009 Posted in Steve | No Comments »
In the latest New Yorker Angels in the Outfield film
, a double-sized travel-themed issue, James Woods lavishes three pages of praise on Geoff Dyer’s latest book Jeff in Venice, Death in Varanasi
. Woods describes the book as “relentlessly funny,” “savagely funny,” “wonderful,” “pungent and funny,” “very amusing,” “original” “affecting,” and “unexpected” – and those are just the prisable bits from a general slurry of praisesong. Dyer’s work, we’re told, is “familiarly postmodern”:
Grande gestures are futile, and in the place of hard work or exacting thought there is sex and drugs and clubbing, and various kinds of mind-bending music. Everything is unfinishable, belated, and philosophically twilit.
Toward the end of his piece, Wood goes from hyping Dyer specifically to writing a hall-pass for every lazy artist who’s ever lived:
In the earlier books, Dyer’s characters failed to write not because they were indifferent to writing but because they wanted too much to write. Negative liberty expresses a fear of completion; if you never start a work, then at least there is no chance of your having finished it. To complete something is in some ways to make it disappear; not starting it is a preemptive strike against loss, a way of elegizing what has not yet disappeared.
It’s impossible to say what would prompt somebody with Wood’s sterling work ethic to write such nonsense, and it’s likewise impossible to figure out how a lazy, self-indulgent, and utterly ineffective collage like Jeff in Venice, Death in Varanasi somehow managed to appeal to a critic of Wood’s usual circumspection – wanderlust, maybe? A little bit of Walter Mitty peeking through?
However his review happened, it’s completely wrong: Jeff in Venice, Death in Varanasi
is narcissistic effluvia of the most toxic kind, worthless as a novel, worthless as two connected novellas, worthless in its pages and paragraphs, and worthless in its every line. Many of you (although perhaps not Daniel Green, at least writing here) have a high regard for Wood’s literary criticism, and in my opinion that regard is justified – but not this time.
Still, anybody can lapse now and then. Hell, I declared East Lynne a masterpiece when it first came out. I was wrong then, and Wood is wrong now, but we can both go on to be both right and good – which is more than can be said for Geoff Dyer.
Steve Donoghue

