While some of the observations about reviews being plot-oriented may be true, I think readers who want more do have other sources. I’d say about half the NY Times reviews (both daily and Sunday) do go beyond that. And the New Yorker’s longer pieces certainly do (and I wish there were more). And certainly the New York Review of Books does.

I will also admit that there are lots of very good readers who revel in supplementary reading and that my grumpiness is more a reflection of personal taste than anything else.

I think I will just avoid the Great American novel discussion, beyond stating that I do find quite a lot of good fiction is being written in the U.S. these days. Maybe not THE great novel, but some very good ones.

As for the dumbing down of the reading public, both the interviewer and Carey commented on it in general, not necessarily in relation to whether or not readers appreciate his book in particular. Carey statement was that “we seem to have come to understand that a novel is a plot synopsis and so you will forever find the reviewing of books in this country to be mostly occupied with plot synopsis – this happens and that happens, and then – as if somehow the story was art. And that to retell the story was to understand the art”. I don’t want to clog up your comments with the full quote, but I found it very interesting and not wholly wrong.

I agree with you that a book should stand on its own. But I do enjoy sometimes exploring it outside of the cover flaps. If the author has created an entire microcosm of words and plot that is fascinating and complex enough to want to take that extra step past just reading it and learn more? I see supplementary reading to be a lot like discussing a book with a friend – you get to find out the things you miss or see what other people take away from it. For example, I’ve heard multiple authors say that sometimes a reader will approach them and point out something they hadn’t intentionally put into the book, but which was completely obvious once it was pointed out. I like that… that there might be something in their own novel that even they didn’t get the first go round.

Now I’ve rambled on. I hope I didn’t offend, I agree completely that an author’s explanation in defense of his/her book can be annoying and obnoxious. But if it’s more of a sharing, I actually do enjoy it.

I don’t do very much supplementary reading at all, particularly in the area of authors explaining what their book is about. My reasoning is: If it is not apparent in 400 pages of reading the novel, perhaps he should do the rewrite instead of me reading his explanations about how to read it? If he can’t make the point apparent in the published book that I have paid for, perhaps the failure is his, not the reader’s? My image is one that I take from an artist (sorry, can’t remember who) who said: “When I put my signature on the painting, it exists in and of itself. My work has been done.” By all means, let writers promote their work — they are not allowed to tell readers how to read it.

I think Carey is grossly inflating the nature of his book if he is linking it to a critique on democracy. There are far, far better treatises (indeed, better columns daily in the NY Times) on that subject than what is contained in this book. It is a decently-written look at a period of American history, not much more. As for ranking it with the “great American novels”, he is well, well back with this one. And to download that onto the “dumbing down of the reading public” is, quite frankly, offensive. I certainly make no reference to the “dumbing down of the American author” — although I do think a case could be made regarding this book.

I haven’t read it yet, but actually had the novel in hand yesterday to buy (I ended up passing it up for David Mitchell). I’m not sure how much you like to supplement your readings, but Peter Carey just had an excellent interview on KCRW’s Bookworm with Michael Silverblatt (I’ll put the link at the end of my comment). I’ve had lukewarm feelings about Carey’s novels as well – I never made it through Oscar & Lucinda, but I did finish True History of the Kelly Gang & His Illegal Self which weren’t terrible (high praise, huh?). He’s an author I keep wanting to appreciate but never seem able to.

I bring up the interview because Carey discusses Parrot & Olivier as a critique on democracy. And he seemed to lean more in the direction of sharing Olivier’s fears than Parrot’s hopes. They also discuss it being the kind of great American novel which is no longer being written and the dumbing down of the reading public (who are interested mainly in plot synopsis rather than the art of literature which Carey seemed to feel rested mainly in the prose). Not having read the novel I’d be interested in your thoughts.

As always, thanks again for the review!

http://www.kcrw.com/etc/programs/bw/bw100722peter_carey