Fails to capture

Essays in epistolary snootiness

September 10, 2009  4 comments

As a connoisseur of the higher snootiness to be enjoyed in tiffs on the TLS Letters page, I was slightly disappointed by this effortful complaint that recently appeared from the pen of Toby Litt:

Sir, – While it covers the basics of the editorial relationship between Raymond Carver and Gordon Lish, James Campbell’s review of the Collected Stories (July 31) fails to capture what is really important about the publication of Beginners alongside What We Talk About When We Talk About Love.

Having thus glibly condescended to Campbell (“covers the basics”!), Litt, whose own books are gifted to the world in strict alphabetical order by title (he has lately reached the letter J), goes on to explain that “what is really important” about the publication of the new Carver material is, er, what it can be interpreted to say about the “creative writing” industry.

It’s understandable that Litt, who teaches “creative writing” at Birkbeck, should be particularly interested in this topic, but is it really fair to accuse James Campbell of “fail[ing] to capture what is really important” about the Carver book because he didn’t choose to write about it in his original (excellent) piece, instead choosing to write about, er, what Carver and “Carver” actually wrote? Is it not rather fantastically rude (as well as absurd) of Litt to do so?

I regretfully conclude, then, that Litt’s salvo is not sufficiently subtle to warrant praise as higher snootiness: it too obviously combines a plainly unwarranted assault on the original writer with a preening announcement that the correspondent’s own hobbyhorse is the most interesting thing that can be said about the topic at hand. I think we can say, indeed, that Litt has failed to capture what is really important about the aesthetics of a truly fine snoot.