What's Happening?
Ross Barkan, editor-in-chief and co-founder of The Metropolitan Review, argues that 'little magazines' and literary publications should dedicate more space to reviewing new books. This call comes in response to observations, including those by Naomi Kanakia,
that many contemporary literary journals, while engaging in cultural and literary matters, often prioritize political or discourse essays over traditional literary criticism of new works. Barkan notes that publications like The Baffler, The Point, The Drift, and n+1 infrequently review new novels unless they can be integrated into a broader cultural argument. He contrasts this with the historical practice of magazines like the Partisan Review, which actively engaged with new novels. The decline of dedicated book review sections in newspapers and the internet's impact on review visibility are cited as contributing factors to this void. Barkan suggests that even shorter, more direct reviews, similar to the 'capsule reviews' published by the Whitney Review of New Writing, could help address the issue.
Why It's Important?
This shift in literary criticism has significant implications for the U.S. literary landscape and the careers of contemporary authors. When new books are not adequately reviewed, they struggle to gain visibility and critical recognition, potentially hindering their success and the development of a vibrant contemporary canon. The focus on older, reissued works, as highlighted by n+1, further exacerbates this issue by diverting attention and critical resources from living authors. For readers, the lack of comprehensive reviews makes it harder to discover new voices and understand current literary trends. This trend could lead to a less dynamic literary culture, where the 'newness is ignored,' as Barkan states. The economic impact on authors, publishers, and independent bookstores, who rely on critical attention to drive sales and engagement, is also considerable. The current environment may favor established authors or those whose work fits into broader cultural debates, potentially marginalizing emerging writers.
What's Next?
Barkan advocates for a change in priorities among literary magazines, suggesting they can, at a minimum, review five new novels per issue. He believes this doesn't require extensive, time-consuming research into an author's entire oeuvre but rather a willingness to engage with individual new works fairly. The Metropolitan Review, for instance, aims to publish both shorter, traditional reviews and longer critical essays. The discussion also points to platforms like Substack as potential avenues for filling the review void, given the contraction of traditional newspaper arts sections. The hope is that by consciously prioritizing reviews of new books, these magazines can help build a 'present day canon' and ensure that the work of living artists receives the critical attention it deserves, fostering a more vibrant and responsive literary culture.
Beyond the Headlines
The debate over literary criticism reflects a broader cultural tension between engaging with the past and embracing the present. While appreciating historical works is crucial for understanding literary antecedents, an overemphasis on reissues and established authors can stifle innovation and the emergence of new artistic movements. The internet's influence, prioritizing 'discourse essays' for page views, highlights how economic models can inadvertently shape cultural output. This raises ethical questions about the responsibility of literary institutions to nurture contemporary art and provide a platform for diverse voices. The challenge lies in balancing the need for in-depth, scholarly analysis with the practical demands of reviewing a constantly expanding body of new literature, ensuring that critical engagement remains relevant and accessible to a wide readership.
