Thursday, November 22, 2012

... only because I'm an inveterate scab picker ...

Hi All,

For your edification and glee, the NY Times book review of "Rust and Bone" and also the film review, which appeared today in the Times movie section.

One might think, judging by these reviews, that Mssr Audiard crafted a silk purse from a sow's ear — a sentiment which in my more maudlin moments I tend to agree with.

A little background: I'd gotten an email from my publisher, WW Norton, telling me that the collection was set to be reviewed in the Times. This was, to them and me, a pretty big deal. I don't know that any book review really moves the needle, sales-wise, but still it's a cool thing to happen.

Unless it's a slam.

Which this was!

And so I got up on Christmas Day, of all days, head down to my folk's basement and read the review online.


A few days later my editor emails me a note that, I recall, had a line like: "This reviewer is clearly the sort of person who thinks that bugs exist to be squashed, lightbulbs exist to be broken, and is very unhappy with the state of her existence."

Now I don't know that the reviewer was unhappy. Probably not, actually. And I always wondered if I was the bug she thought existed to be squashed, as per my editor's note. Nonetheless, it was a bit of a bummer.

Anyway, I thought I'd post one of the most scathing reviews the book ever received alongside what, to my mind, is one of the more impressive and well-considered reviews I've read about the movie, both published in what I assume is the biggest newspaper in all the land.

Book Review — yeeeeouch!

Movie Review

All best, Craig.

1 comment:

  1. I've seen the movie. It is great but I suspect the book is even better and it is probably because the book was so good that it became impossible to convert it into a film. I think the film is a good excuse for you to persuade your publisher to get your books into the UK. Belfast is a great place and I think you would like it.