The past two essays in this series concerned the identification of potentially underrated books. This essay, the final piece in the prologue of this series, concerns the most important yet most subjective part of this process — analyzing potentially underrated books to determine their true status.

While this process is inherently subjective to a large extent, I’ve put together a structure that I’ll follow when analyzing each book. This should limit my personal biases against certain genres or authors and give each book a fair chance.

Without some sort of structure, my reviews would be colored by what sort of mood I was in when reading the book, or perhaps my opinion of the author’s personal beliefs. Neither of these factors has anything to do with the book’s artistic merit.

Nor does (despite the prevailing atmosphere in the literary world) an author’s race, gender, sexual orientation, hair color, ice cream preference, or any other irrelevant personal characteristics.

Not even the author’s previous work or social context matters when analyzing one of their works — all that matters is what’s on the pages. Each work of literature, while being read, is a universe unto itself. How could anything not in this universe matter to the truly engrossed reader?

And this series is for readers. Unlike academic literary criticism written for academics, this series is very much popular literary criticism written for readers who are hungry to experience beautiful works of literature.

The Method

Close Reading

First and foremost, as you likely already figured out, my approach to literary criticism is based on close reading. Close reading requires approaching each book with a clear mind, focusing intently when reading, and submitting entirely to the authorial vision. Only then will the true depth (or lack thereof) of the work be revealed.

Logical Originality

As a fiction writer, I see no point in creating something unless it’s original in some way. Unfortunately, many writers now and throughout history seem not to share this conviction.

One of the first things you’ll learn in a creative writing class is not to use cliches. However, many writers have a rather narrow definition of what constitutes a cliche. To them, cliches are metaphors and similes that have been overused to the extent that they’re essentially meaningless.

But plot, characters, style, and themes can all be cliched. Whenever I come across a book that’s wholly original in all of the above, there’s a good chance I’m reading a very good, if not great, work.

That is, if there’s some sort of logical structure that allows the reader to understand the work. Some writers seem to expect readers to acclaim them as geniuses purely because they couldn’t make heads or tails of an unnecessarily difficult book.

Walking A Well-Lit Path

While my approach to literary criticism isn’t directly copied from another writer, I don’t claim to have created a totally new way to read books. My approach to reading books with a critical eye is inspired by the work of Frye and Bloom most of all.

My approach to writing the reviews themselves will also be based on the approach taken by an influential writer, though one far better known for his fiction.

John Updike was also a prolific and highly regarded literary critic. In his non-fiction collection Picked-Up Pieces, he laid out 5 excellent rules for reviewers to follow when writing about books:

1. Try to understand what the author wished to do, and do not blame him for not achieving what he did not attempt.

2. Give enough direct quotation—at least one extended passage—of the book’s prose so the review’s reader can form his own impression, can get his own taste.

3. Confirm your description of the book with quotation from the book, if only phrase-long, rather than proceeding by fuzzy précis.

4. Go easy on plot summary, and do not give away the ending.

5. If the book is judged deficient, cite a successful example along the same lines, from the author’s oeuvre or elsewhere. Try to understand the failure. Sure it’s his and not yours?

As far as I’m concerned, every book reviewer should print these rules out and tack them to the wall above their writing desk.

Final Thoughts

Next week’s essay will cover the first underappreciated book in the series. After that piece, the series will be a bit more sporadic, though I’ll try to cover at least one underappreciated book per month. In between installments of this series, I’ll publish weekly essays covering anything and everything related to writers, writing, and writings.

Misquotes are usually treated as nothing more than careless errors. In a journalistic context, where the truth is supposed to be end-all and be-all, this holds true. In every other context, however, I think misquotes, while inaccurate, can offer an interesting window into the mind of the misquoter.

A misquote happens when the communicator isn’t completely certain about the exact wording of the quote they have in mind, so they take their best guess. Their best guess is first and foremost based on their perception of the original speaker, as the misquoter is trying to figure out what he original speaker most likely would have said. The interesting part of this isn’t the guesswork, it’s the subjective perception the misquoter has of the original speaker, their image of the original speaker through the lens behind their eyes where they view the world.

Perhaps more interesting still is the second part of the process that produces a misquote. This involves the misquoter checking the first version of their educated guess against their perception of the quote itself.

Does this sound right?

While the first version of the misquote may be colored by a personal affinity or dislike for the speaker that isn’t particularly interesting to anyone other than the misquoter, the second version, the version the misquoter releases into the world, is colored by their perception of the message itself. This is what allows the third party, the receiver of the misquote, the opportunity to connect with the misquoter.

So that’s how they see the world… hey, that feels familiar.

DFW Misquotes Wittgenstein

For the type specimen, let’s look at David Foster Wallace’s misquote of one of Wittgenstein’s most famous assertions. In an interview with German TV, DFW was asked if humor could only come out of something sad.

When asked about “big issues” like this, it seems that novelists are expected to come up with an answer more insightful than the average halfway intelligent person could spit out on the spot.

DFW, clearly uncomfortable, eventually said “I know that Wittgenstein believed that the most serious and profound problems and questions and issues could only be discussed in the form of jokes.”

At face value, this does seem to be the sort of insightful and referential answer novelists are expected to come up with. There’s only one problem – this is very different from the quote DFW was trying to recite.

Wittgenstein’s Words

It’s worth noting that the exact quote DFW was thinking of was not a direct quote of Wittgenstein at all — it was Norman Malcom, one of the philosopher’s biographers, paraphrasing something Wittgenstein had once said off-the-cuff in a lecture. The exact quote from Ludwig Wittgenstein: A Memoir is: “It is worth noting that Wittgenstein once said that a serious and good philosophical work could be written that would consist entirely of jokes (without begin [sic] facetious).”

As a paraphrase, this line is intended to communicate a Wittgensteinian concept rather than pass on the great philosopher’s words verbatim. As with a misquote, a paraphrase, though intentional, is intended to accurately translate a tricky concept into an easier-to-understand format.

Perhaps Malcolm’s paraphrase was inaccurate itself. But what really matters is not what Wittgenstein actually said, or even whether Wittgenstein himself said it. The concept, the idea of a meaningful exploration of the human experience told entirely in the form of jokes, had passed into cultural discourse. It became one of Wittgenstein’s most famous quotes (even if it was only his concept) after Malcolm’s book was published.

A Peephole Into DFW’s Mind

DFW’s quote is just that — his own words, spoken as a quote of a great mind perhaps as a gesture of humility or to validate his own concept. His concept: The most serious issues (rather than a philosophical work) can only be (rather than could be) discussed (rather than written) in the form of jokes.

If you’ve read Infinite Jest, this concept will feel familiar. After all, the book endlessly discusses serious issues in the form of jokes. Furthermore, the narrative voice does seem to invite the reader into a discourse of these serious ideas, presented in a humorous way.

A Quote That Stands On Its Own Merit

So DFW badly misquoted a paraphrase of Wittgenstein that, for all we know, was misremembered by Norman Malcolm. But who gives a fuck?

The most profound issues can only be discussed in the form of jokes. That’s a concept worth chewing on, no matter how it came to be.

I’m not sure I completely buy this, but I think there’s some truth to it. My misquote might go something like this: “The most important problems of the human experience can best be discussed in the form of jokes.” You can quote (or misquote) me on that.

Final Thoughts

The “Underappreciated Books” series will resume next week with a presentation of my approach to literary criticism. I’ll try to make it a little less dry and self-absorbed than it sounds. See you then. 

In last week’s essay, I explained my need to write about underappreciated books. But how to identify such works? I’m far from a walking literary encyclopedia. A certain book that I feel is underappreciated may have won major awards and accumulated a passionate readership.

It’s also worth noting that I’ve stayed away from literary circles, at least as much as a working writer can, for several years now. Perhaps certain books have re-emerged from the ether over the last five years or so without my noticing it.

If I want to conduct a rigorous search for potentially underappreciated books and create a list I won’t be embarrassed about, I need to gather the relevant and contemporary facts.

There are two characteristics that a potentially underrated work of literature must have. First, it must have significant aesthetic merit. I can only determine this by reading and analyzing the work, but evidence of critical acclaim is an indicator in this direction. Second, the book must not have the sort of large and passionate readership it deserves, given this aesthetic merit. To determine a book’s readership, I’ll examine its sales rankings and evidence of online discourse.

By considering numerous external sources, I hope to identify works I’d never have considered, whether I’ve read them or not. I’m also trying to give a fair shake to works from literary movements or modes I don’t particularly like.

For example, I’ve never been a big fan of magical realism, but I’m sure there are numerous great works of this movement that deserve more appreciation than they’ve been given.

The System

My semi-scientific system for identifying potentially underrated literary works considers three factors to determine a book’s popularity and four factors to determine its level of critical acclaim.

Determining Popularity

Wouldn’t life be grand if you had an extra $3,350 laying around? If I did, I might spend it on BookScan. I don’t, so I have to indirectly infer a given book’s commercial success using freely available data. This includes Amazon sales rankings, Worldcat’s library listings, and the Google search volume for the book’s title.

Determining Acclaim

There is no single authoritative gauge of a book’s critical acclaim. Metacritic doesn’t cover books. The most similar outlet that does cover books, BookMarks, seems to only rate books published in the last few years.

Of course, it’s possible to simply read through as many professional reviews as possible to gauge critical opinion of a work. This is a good starting point, but I’ll also be looking at award wins and nominations and how many academic citations the book has accumulated.

I’m also going to be looking at reader ratings on Goodreads and Amazon. While many of these reviews are terrible and the ratings incomprehensible, my theory is that the law of averages will result in relatively accurate ratings after 100 or more have been tallied.

Qualifiers

Any book that has won the Pulitzer Prize, National Book Award, National Book Critics Circle Award, PEN/Faulkner Award, International Dublin Literary Award or Booker Award isn’t underappreciated enough to be eligible. Though some such works are underrated these days (and many recent award winners grotesquely overrated), a book that’s won a huge award isn’t underappreciated enough to be spotlighted in this series. The same goes for works by Nobel Prize-winning authors.

Unfortunately, books must also have been published in English. I can’t help but think of the many great works that have never been translated into English precisely because they’re underappreciated, but I’m (for the moment) monolingual. I do have a half-serious ambition to learn Spanish, so perhaps I’ll be able to expand the scope of this series one day.

Perhaps most importantly, only works of literature are eligible. I define literature as literary fiction, poetry, and plays. I’m sure there are many underrated works of non-fiction and genre fiction, but literature is most important to me and there are only so many hours in the day.

From Potentially Underrated To Certified Underrated

The semi-scientific system discussed in this essay only serves to identify potentially underrated books. I’ll need to read and analyze each candidate to determine whether it deserves to be spotlighted.

Of course, this is partially subjective. However, I’m also working on a system of literary criticism that I’ll apply equally to each book. This will help me remove personal biases so I can give each book the respect (or disrespect) it deserves.

Final Thoughts

I’ll talk more about this approach to literary criticism in the next essay in this series, which might not be published for a few weeks. In between installments of this series, I’ll write about a wide range of topics within the literary universe.