Thank you so much for this. I am from Glasgow and had to leave Scotland because being gay was illegal then.. a long time ago. Meanwhile I have a Portuguese husband and I now live in Lisbon. When I read Shuggie Bane I wept, not because my situation was the same as his, but because his suffering was the same as mine was. I have started Young Mungo . I would like to congratulate the British publishers for such a wonderful, proud cover ... Thank you, Eric!
I think it's always difficult when a book critic wants to be a writer and they didn't manage to get there. Because jealousy can cloud one's judgement. He might be a writer but he is not Douglas Stuart and he knows it. And invention or experimentation is not always suitable for a story to be told. Nothing new under the sun!
Loved this, definitely agree with your frustration! Because I'm petty, I decided to be read a sample of Kevin Power's most recent book and found the same kind of 'cliches' he was complaining about in his review: "wild-eyed men" "stare in dazed horror" "I was awoken at 7 a.m. by the sound of someone hammering on our big front door." These aren't representative of his whole writing style , but it just shows how easy it is to pick out random sentences from a novel and critique them.
I loved Shuggie Bain but I was hesitant to read Young Mungo because the premise sounded very familiar. I just finished Young Mungo and I'm so glad I gave it a chance. Not only does Young Mungo stand on its own as a work of art, but I actually found it even more moving and brilliant. Thanks for such a great defense of this novel!
Hah! It’s not all book critics, I promise! The dumb, pedantic nit-picking all through this review could be done with any work of fiction, and like you say, it completely misses the point (and the power) of either book. The reviewer’s editor let him indulge a cranky mood - which is unprofessional on both their parts.
Slay queen ;) this was so well said! How infuriating is this review? I'm reading Shuggie Bain at the moment, and am finding that I lived through similar experiences as young Shuggie, so for someone to describe this book as a "parade of misery" is so disappointing, and clearly says a lot more about their privilege than it does about the story. As for the figurative language, this is a story of a lower class family surviving in a poverty stricken area, if the language was any more stylized it wouldn't align with the characters at all, and give off a completely wrong mood. You'd think, as a creative writing teacher he would understand that. And the attack on the "cliched" literary terms? does he forget that these books are for the common reader? that one; might not pick up on these or recognize them as cliche, and two; might actually appreciate them as something they can understand and that allows the narrative to continue its flow, instead of getting stuck on convoluted descriptions of things that don't need much attention. You would think as a creative writing teacher, he would have learnt to put aside his judgmental attitude when critiquing novels, especially since he would have far less advanced students who would be reading this novel and who dream to be able to publish something as successful one day. This guy is a pompous prick, generally speaking. Thanks for allowing me this rant, even though I'm basically just repeating what you said even better than I did haha!
Thank you! And I'm sorry you had that experience to relate to the novel in that way. You're so right that using a different kind of language wouldn't have worked for the story.
‘Flames, FLAAAAAAAMES!’ -Eric, I bloody love you. 😂 Good on you for this- this sounds like such a bad faith reading of the book. Like you said, dissenting opinion is all fine and to be expected with something as subjective as writing, but that review sounds especially unnecessary in its harshness. Get her, Jade! 😂 I hope you can now have some nice chocolate!
I didn’t love Shuggie Bain but I enjoyed it. It was a good book. Young Mungo I felt was just okay - not bad & not as good as Shuggie Bain. I’m not convinced YM would have received the critical acclaim it has were it not for the success of SB, but that’s probably true of many second novels & for many reasons
Minus the positive or negative content of the review, a huge red flag to me while reading reviews is if the reviewer, as in this case, has spent a disproportionate amount of time actually reviewing or revisiting a previous work. I understand laying a groundwork for a current review, but when your review comes up a few hundred words short of being paid, hacks tend to rely on this method to an annoying degree. But without that review, we wouldn’t have gotten this video, so the real winners here are your subscribers.
I adored it, thought it was a beautiful story told with truth and heart and the most gorgeous writing. It's the best book I've read in ages. Also, love a Clue reference!
Slight spoilers: The critic was correct though. Stuart’s descriptors all boil down to an overuse of adjectives and pat similes. Which is lazy because anyone can craft that kind of sentence. “As the freshly beaming face of his jovial mate met his gaze from across the tattered remains of his room, his face lit like the brightest bulb, illuminating that desolate place.” For example. Using lines like that in repetition diminish this supposed “tone” the author is trying to convey. It’s redundant and even somewhat self aggrandizing. It doesn’t help that most of the book is spent describing details that don’t pertain to either the plot or the tone. For example, Stuart describes how the doocot looks, but this is ultimately less relevant than the two individuals inside the doocot. In fact, it’s distracting. At one point he spends a couple sentences describing the nail polish on his mother’s fingers, then explains why it’s relevant. He’ll then repeat the same character quirk we already know about nearly every time we see her for the remainder of the novel. It insults its readers intelligence by assuming they can’t piece these things together themselves. I can picture a ratty shack or a bridge or an apartment on my own, his descriptions are not well written enough to justify their constant use. As far as the subject matter? Just because a book features a fringe group enduring hardship does not automatically make it a good book. In fact, it’s a very easy way to win awards because people like you conflate the two. That’s why they call movies that do so “Oscar bait.” It’s silly I have to explain this. Anyone can create a tragic character, especially one who is a minority. What matters is how the author uses their hardships for the development of the characters and the themes they want to impart. Sadly, the characters in this book barely develop at all. The development that does occur is not properly built either. The book’s primary conflict doesn’t even present itself until the halfway point (his relationship with James). The retreat with the two men doesn’t change his character either, which makes it a moot plot point (and is what the critic means by misery prn). The book ends the same regardless of whether or not he goes with them. Before the trip? He makes the decision to run away with James (apropos of nothing other than his love for James). After the trip? He runs away with James. The book fails to demonstrate how Mungo changes from this experience, instead it just gives him exactly what he wants without him having to earn any of it. Which is bad writing. Thematically the book has nothing to say either. Aside from maybe the assertion that being gay is difficult in a poor neighborhood, especially in the 90s. I guess this is maybe news to some people? Maybe those people will find this book illuminating, I found it obvious and lazy. Or perhaps that being a kind hearted person makes one a target for selfish people? But it’s never clear how Mungo manages to differentiate between those with his best interests at heart and those without after his change. He just rejects his entire family who… sacrifice themselves for him in the end? Speaking specifically about Hamish here, but for a second he also rejects his real caregiver in Jodie. So which is it? Was he wrong to trust them? Was he correct? What does this development mean for Mungo going further? It means nothing. It means he gets a good life with his lover after a miserable existence because… it’s nice to have a happy ending?
Eric you are right to share this rant with your audience - you are a perceptive reviewer & do right to voice your critique of this critic! Stuart deserved his booker prize, bringing out through his writing the harsh reality of Shuggie's life - it was a painful & necessary read. I haven't read 'Young Mungo' but will do so later this year.
I loved Shuggie Bain! When I heard about Young Mungo I eagerly bought a copy. I have just started reading it, 20 pages or so, and I can tell it is going to engross me as did his first novel. Thank you for this critique of the critic. I guess if a book's language isn't innovative it's just a waste of his time. Poor man stuck in his ivory tower.
I just picked this up because of the cover, I gay man late 20s who grew up in a hyper masculine environment in a low income household, not in Scotland but in Europe. I really thought I was going to love this, maybe it’s a generational thing I don’t know. It was good but the best parts weren’t explored enough. And the build up just didn’t have enough payoff. I don’t regret reading it I think the time we spend in Mungos head and how he’s described is incredible, I really feel like I get who he is. The rest is not up to par with that unfortunately for me.
Really enjoyed your review of this review. I’ve read neither of the Douglas Stuart books so I cannot speak to their quality. As you say, I think it is clear that the reviewer doesn’t think much of Stuart’s prose and has made the entire review about that. It does sound like Stuart’s writing can be messy in ways that might irritate a reader for whom prose matters most, but how many people put prose above everything else? I’m guessing not many. And to use that as the reason to completely trash a book -without exploring the books theme,characters, or emotional impact- is bad reviewing.
I’m even more excited to start reading Young Mungo today. 😆 I always takes issue with book reviews/critiques that seem less like a critique and more like a failure of empathy on the critics part. Almost like they miss the point of reading…
I wonder to what extent Power criticism of Stuart’s writing is the result of an expectation over what Scottish writing ‘ought’ to look like. Stuart’s writing is stylistically conservative (which I have no issue with!), especially compared to someone like James Kelman’s. When How Late It Was, How Late won the Booker there was a bit of controversy (someone called it ‘inaccessible’, someone else called Kelman ‘an illiterate savage’) due to its style - it’s stream-of-consciousness and written completely in Scots. I do think there’s a big issue with Stuart being so readily accepted by critics outside of Scotland compared to Kelman - his writing is Scottish, but not TOO Scottish, you know? But I wonder whether Powers’ has read Stuart and been upset that it isn’t Kelman - why can’t this working-class Glaswegian writer be like this other working-class Glaswegian writer?! It’s a wildly lazy (and borderline xenophobic) perspective to adopt, but my instinct is he may have wanted Kelman 2.0 from Stuart. The whole review reads like it should have been an academic essay comparing the various approaches Glaswegian writers have taken to the novel (you could chuck Alasdair Gray - another very structurally experimental writer - in the mix as well). It’s a totally unsuitable approach for a piece of journalistic writing. I actually often have issues with critics not being critical (in an analytical sense, not whatever the fuck Powers is doing here) enough of popular novels - I don’t think either Shuggie Bain or Young Mungo are as perfect as the consensus has decided (though I do think they are both very good!), and I get frustrated with the many reviews which don’t delve into potential issues, but this a ridiculous piece of writing. One of my tutors during my undergrad also writes reviews on a regular basis for a well-respected literary magazine, and we had to write a review as one of our assessments during a contemporary lit module - there’s no way this would have gotten a good grade in that class lol
Oh my goodness, what a negative review. I loved Shuggie Bain and my Dad is from Glasgow and lived in tenements and ended up an alcoholic so I felt Douglas Stuart couldn't have written the book better, it was perfect, I was there with Shuggie. Unless this critic has lived in Glasgow in the 80s and experienced the hardships, I think he needs to get off his high horse. That's my rant over. I haven't read Young Mungo yet but can't wait to read it, I'm only holding off because I loved Shuggie so much.
I lived, as a student, in one of the "worst" areas of the Castlemilk Estate for many years in the 80's and Shuggie brought me right back there to recall vividly the awful experiences and suffering of the mainly wonderful people who lived there. I also have yet to begin Young Mungo as Shuggie Bain was so affecting I'm still processing it.
Thank you for this!!! Also though… the critic literally got the name of one of the principal characters wrong. At least in the US version it’s James not Jamie Jamieson. Clearly he wasn’t paying much attention. 😒
Eric, spot on rant of this review. For a professional reviewer, it sounds like he was competing with Douglas Stuart rather than actually giving a genuine impression of his works. I completely agree that the two novels were similar in some themes but overall very different. I loved them both and felt like what Stuart gave us was a realistic idea of what life in Glasgow would be for a poor family affected by so many hardships. His description of the characters of Shuggie and Young Mungo were so different, despite some overlap in personal traits. Both books were well written and powerful. Sounds like the professor is jealous of Douglas Stuart’s success. Rant away!! 🔥💜🔥
Totally agree with your review of the review and I loved how much you went for it! It blows my mind to see people viewing their negative opinions as objective fact, particularly in relation to well received or price winning books. When it’s so clear that a huge number of people disagree with you, how can you be so confident that you’re right in thinking something is objectively bad?! 😆 I’m thinking more of Shuggie Bain here as I haven’t looked at many reviews of Young Mungo yet. I’m looking forward to picking it up!
I love your review! An American academic, the NPR book critic, reviewed Young Mungo very highly. For me, I liked how it was constructed and I liked the ending.
👏👏👏 Excellent well balanced review (and rant) unlike the review you are critiquing. I've only just finished Young Mungo and feel both traumatised and heart-warmed by it in equal measure. I also loved Shuggie Bain. They are not the same book at all. Personally, I love the style Douglas Stewart uses. The "professional" reviewer is clearly a jealous snob with no taste who has never been to Glasgow! I love your reviews Eric. Thank you 🙏
I love the sass here and how protective yet rational you are of the book. I'm about to start on Young Mungo and have been largely avoiding all reviews of the novel but I couldn't go past this video!
I haven't read either of these Douglas Stuart books yet, but I must say, after hearing your rant against this critic, it certainly makes me want to go out and buy them both. Love your insights and videos. Thanks.
I like the simplicity and don't think the use of flowery language would be appropriate for the book. It is commented on several occasions that Mungo doesn't know what certain words mean (like 'vagrancy' or 'irony') so I personally feel it is a bit twisted to make the book more complex than what the protagonist would be able to understand.
🤣🤣I love a rant! Have not read Young Mungo but did read Shuggie Bain and was moved by it. Makes me want to read Young Mungo more so his review had the opposite effect.
Oh wow, those critiques are horrible! I found the writing brilliant in delivering the realities of life, it struck so close to home that it felt entirely depressing for me. It was so sad but i read this in the grey winter of a covid year and in the end I felt depressed. Id rather have a story - or life -(shouldnt we all) that is mostly sunny with blackness only creeping in for random tragedies. In Shuggie's reality the black bled into everyday leaving everything as grey as the bookcover. It felt hopeless to me and so i didnt enjoy it per se but if i had to critique it Id say that the prose and the storytelling and the mood and the lifestyle were very realistic! So much so that it really sucked me into it and made me feel in the shoes of all that gray. That takes talent. Everything in that story is someone's life out there. Perhaps that critic lives too shielded from the "realities" he claims are exaggerated.
This was fantastic! (Your snap and perfect sarcasm made me laugh.) So glad you did this. Someone needs to send it to the reviewer, to help him learn how to review. I’ve been on a long hold list at my library (the length of which is encouraging in itself!) But instead of waiting, and in response to this reviewer, I’m going to download the audio this morning.
I felt the same way when I read a review about one of my favourite books, nutshell by Ian McEwan. In my opinion this book is a masterpiece no matter what a random book critic thinks about it. I haven't read young Mango yet but I have read Shuggie Bain and although my childhood had nothing in common with that of Shuggie I felt deeply connected with him and that in my opinion is proof that Stuart is a good writer. Plus I strongly doubt that the critic you've been talking about is a good teacher. Young people need encouragement and empathy, not someone in huge need of confirmation of their enormous egos.
Your review of the review makes me really want to read the book :) thank you! Also, wouldn't fluffy word choices be inappropriate for a book about struggling working class or unemployment? I love it when authors enhance what they are saying by the way they say it, it's like set dressing or something.
I've got to be honest and say I was greatly disappointed with Young Mungo. It was nowhere near as wonderful as Shuggie Bain. I can't imagine someone not liking Shuggie.
Not that i wish to defend Kevin Power in any way, but his novel Bad Day in Blackrock was one of the most griping books I have ever read. And when i got to the end, i began to read it again, which is a very rare occurrence for me. Gay author John Boyne said of Bad Day: "An excellent novel... It comes from the gut, it's raw, it's passionate" The (award winning) movie it inspired was rubbish in my view, though that probably wasn't Kevin's fault. My own debut novel Dolly Considine's Hotel has unfortunately been ignored by professional critics, and being ignored is even worse than been panned. But 15 Goodreads reviewers took the trouble to post their opinions.
I thought parts of Shuggie Bain were powerful - like when Agnes goes down in the rain to sell her awful fur coat, for instance. All in all, I did find his prose plodding and flat though. I haven't been interested in picking up Young Mungo due to it sounding so much like Shuggie. I found a lot of the descriptions dull and obvious and unfortunately YM seems the same, so I'm still not going to give it a go. I did find Shuggie Bain to be something of a 'parade of misery', as Powers puts it, because it seemed to wallow in these characters' troubled lives and somehow make it all seem sentimental... I do wish the review you were critiquing had mentioned more of the issues YM talks about (lgbt stuff, abuse etc.) but there's no way of finding it online that i can see, and you didn't leave a link for it, so it's hard to know if Powers didn't actually acknowledge any of that. You also lambast Powers for being too mean and for belittling the novel, but then you belittle the reviewer too in regards to his profession and how he words things... so is one of you really more sincere than the other? If you had gone back to YM and found some sections of writing that you thought proved Power's points wrong, then i might side with you, but as far as reviews go, Powers has convinced me more. Just my opinion. I think if you sat and re-read Stuart's 2 novels a couple of times you would probably start to find the prose dull and the stories too drawn out... a good book for me, measures up to a re-read and even improves upon one. I wonder if you would re-read SB and YM and still find them as brilliant and emotional? I enjoyed this video so much though and wish more booktubers would talk about book reviews!
Fair enough if you didn't connect to Stuart's books as strongly. And yeah, I'm probably as bad as Power as his "review" frustrated me so I felt like clapping back. How is there no way of finding it online? If you do a search for Kevin Power Irish Times Young Mungo his review immediately comes up (though it's behind a paywall): www.irishtimes.com/culture/books/young-mungo-heartfelt-book-of-love-in-glasgow-marred-by-cliche-1.4850052 I read out and showed the review in its entirety as I was going through it so there's nothing Power wrote that was left out and, no, he didn't discuss any of those issues. I might feel differently about the books if I reread them, but maybe I'd love them even more? In my post about the novel I discuss lines and aspects of the book I find powerful and effective: lonesomereader.com/blog/2022/5/10/young-mungo-by-douglas-stuart
@@EricKarlAnderson Oh, the paywall must've hidden it from me then. I was searching 'Kevin Powers Young Mungo Irish Times' maybe coz I misspelled his last name that ruined the search I don't know. Thank you for posting the link and responding. I hope you do grow to love the books even more if you do reread them 🤗 And I didn't realise the review in the Irish Times was that short. In that modest of a word count, perhaps Power felt he didn't have the space to go into complex issues like LGBT+ and sexual/physical abuse topics... or maybe he did originally write about those but constricted to the word count, chopped them out or felt they didn't fit in well with the tone of his review. Either way, plenty of other reviewers mention those topics in the novel. And reviews are only one critic's opinion of a work aren't they? They're not entire essays of literary criticism. I think both of your feelings and thoughts around the books are valid, and were helpful to me, as a reader who hasn't read YM on deciding whether or not I would appreciate the book.
There’s definitely humour in Shuggie but how anyone can laugh at Stuart’s accurate portrayal of working class Glaswegians is beyond me. It’s simply homophobic not to like Young Mungo
I believe the mark of an excellent storyteller is one who can completely draw you in and suspend time.Douglas Stuart is an example in my opinion, of a masterful novelist. In both “Shuggie Bain” and notably “Young Mungo”, Mr Stuart created characters who displayed resilience and triumphed in the face of heartbreaking circumstances. The review you noted,appears mean spirited and does nothing to dispel or deny the power and beauty of these books.
I LOVED Shuggie Bain. Mr. Stuart made me care intensely about the characters in his Booker Prize winning book. His writing inserted the reader into the life and world of Shuggie and his family, and even though it was indeed a harsh and tragic world, I feel that his style made the experience of the book more poignant. A more hyperbolic or experimental style would have spoiled the emotional impact of the book. Mr. Stuart’s portrayal of a young boy’s growing awareness and acceptance of being gay is also the best I have ever read. I think the reviewer you are critiquing is jealous of Mr. Stuarts success. If he knows how to write a better book, then he should write one. I think I will definitely read Young Mungo at some point.
I thought that Shuggie Bain was one of the better recent winners of the Booker. Powers obviously didn't like it but he has a perfect right to say so, Eric, just as you have a right to express your dislike of his views. He won't put me off from reading the book but his opinion or disdain is as valid as it is most probably wrong headed. It is what he is paid for and successfully so as you gave him your airtime.
a lethargic malaise is not a tautology. There's nothing wrong with ascribing the quality of the malaise. I do think that much of the literary criticism industry and it is an industry, offers up mates reviewing mates, or enemies reviewing enemies and that's without the key point you made about Powers, a writer and teacher (!), reviewing narrowly according to his tastes in how literature ought to be constructed.
Perhaps the book reviewer does not like certain segments of the population, is jealous of the author's success, or is looking for attention by writing a negative review........any of these reasons means the review is irrelevant and should be disregarded.
"The style of the novel should suit its ideas and purpose..." yes yes yes. So glad you saw fit to respond to the review. Not yet read either book but this only encourages me to read it!
"Young Mungo" seals it: Douglas Stewart is a Genius. Headline from the book review in the Washington Post by Ron Charles. I think I'll stick to this review over the amateur laughing stock who wrote the one you are discussing.
I think this is the angriest you've ever been in a video! But for good reason - critics so often intellectualise things and hold media to the ridiculous standard of either perfection or perfection regarding their specific tastes, and then dismiss something impactful or generally acclaimed that doesn't fit those tastes. Also, since when is birds swooping cliche? Just because something has been described a certain way before, that doesn't make it cliche?! I haven't read Young Mungo yet and I'm also furious with the review!!
Fab comment, but it's not "shoogie" or "shoog". It's pronounced "sh~ugh~ie" and "sh~ugh". The "ugh" is important. And Hamish is pronounced "HAY~mish" not "HAM~ish".
I think it is wonderful of you to fight for what you believe. It is after all just an opinion so I found your passion a little obnoxious. The critic has his points. They are not your concerns but they are valid concerns. For example, you say the critic picks out cliché expressions which you dismiss. You then claim that one of the novel's strengths is its originality, but the clichés suggest otherwise. You haven't denied that the clichés are there so we want to know how they are a strength or why it is that they don't matter or don't mar the book as the critic claims. Your point is that the clichés are fine...and the book is original. This doesn't sound right. You say well why can't he use clichés? They work. This may be true but you can't then say the book is original, not in this arena. It is true that teachers tell students to avoid cliché. Are you saying "fire away"? Most writers work very hard to express things in new and different ways. Think of Martin Amis and other word smiths. The critics is also disappointed by the material feeling worked over, that his first work and his second work seem similar, or familiar, that their worlds lack distinction. Your reply is that they don't but my sense is that they do. The point you could have made, but you didn't say that you were not tired of that world and felt ready for more. This seems fine. Roth's books feel this way. If you dig one, maybe like me you are ready for more. But if you didn't like one, then maybe it would be easy to dismiss another when it is just more of the same. You clearly love his voice and that world of feeling alienated by your sexuality. This excites you and you feel comfy. The critic is not actually required to have empathy for the characters. You do, great, but he doesn't. It didn't work for him. Maybe being gay helps. Not sure. The way you describe the book, one gets the sense that being a gay reader would help a lot, just as being female no doubt helps one to like Jane Eyre. Does a male reader of Hemingway have to like Jane Eyre in the same way as a young woman? Readers like you are the best kind of readers they can be. Your enthusiasm is a dream come true for a writer, but harsh criticism is needed, too. Theatre lovers like me can see how the loss of good critics in NY has contributed to the lowering of standards. John Simon, the nasty monster of New York theatre criticism, is dead but so is good NY theatre and that phenomenon may not be a coincidence. Gushing audiences make theatre almost unwatchable. Gushing readers don't ruin it for others, but the writer might learn something from your man at Trinity. I hope he does.
The way his subjective concerns take up the bulk of the review really don't give a fair impression of the novel's content. I don't think the many examples he give necessarily are cliches. I've not read any book before which describes all the issues I listed and gives such a bracing perspective on them so it is original and new. Are there other books which you've read covering these subjects? My point was that the identities of the characters across Shuggie Bain and Young Mungo are superficially similar but the choices they make and the way they react to the situations they are in are VERY DIFFERENT. Compare the way the mothers live with addiction across the two novels. Compare the way the sons embody and live out their homosexuality. They are very DIFFERENT. There are many novels concerning heterosexual relationships that I've read that I relate to equally strongly. Sure, we connect with literature differently based on our own distinct characteristics but if we have any humanity we'll feel empathy for the dilemmas people face whoever they are. I've not been to NYC in many years but there is a lively theatre scene in London where lots of shows transfer from NYC and vice versa. I've seen a number of great shows in recent months. Maybe you're not going to see the right theatres.
@@EricKarlAnderson I think London has the great theatre critics lacking now in New York. Yes, theatre from London is marvelous. Nobody thinks NY theatre compares favorably to the subsidized theatre of the UK. Miller and Mamet write about it extensively. In fact, Mamet writes about it in his new collective of essays. It is a real and tragic reality. The disappearance of the newspapers is part of it, but the main problem is the disappearance of the middle class theatre-goer, replaced by the tourists, and the disappearance, according to Fran Leibowitz,, of the discerning gay audience killed by Aids. She speaks about this at length in the films Scorsese made with her. I am not seeing the wrong theatres. The theatres are full of TV actors, people who see one play every five years, no critics to evaluate the productions beyond their entertainment value, and greedy producers.
For those who don't know the Madeline Kahn reference watch this and please watch the movie Clue immediately: ua-cam.com/video/RxUaZh_b1Yk/v-deo.html
Hahahahahahaha... PERFECT. Brilliant!!! Totally forgot about this scene. But fits what you want to say!!!
I was literally thinking about this movie this morning! One of my faves!
Thank you so much for this. I am from Glasgow and had to leave Scotland because being gay was illegal then.. a long time ago. Meanwhile I have a Portuguese husband and I now live in Lisbon. When I read Shuggie Bane I wept, not because my situation was the same as his, but because his suffering was the same as mine was. I have started Young Mungo . I would like to congratulate the British publishers for such a wonderful, proud cover ... Thank you, Eric!
It's moving to hear how the novel had such a strong effect on you and good to hear you were able to get away.
I think it's always difficult when a book critic wants to be a writer and they didn't manage to get there. Because jealousy can cloud one's judgement. He might be a writer but he is not Douglas Stuart and he knows it. And invention or experimentation is not always suitable for a story to be told. Nothing new under the sun!
👍
Loved this, definitely agree with your frustration! Because I'm petty, I decided to be read a sample of Kevin Power's most recent book and found the same kind of 'cliches' he was complaining about in his review:
"wild-eyed men"
"stare in dazed horror"
"I was awoken at 7 a.m. by the sound of someone hammering on our big front door."
These aren't representative of his whole writing style , but it just shows how easy it is to pick out random sentences from a novel and critique them.
Ha! 👏 👏👏👏
Get him, Fiona!! 💥👌🏼
I loved Shuggie Bain but I was hesitant to read Young Mungo because the premise sounded very familiar. I just finished Young Mungo and I'm so glad I gave it a chance. Not only does Young Mungo stand on its own as a work of art, but I actually found it even more moving and brilliant. Thanks for such a great defense of this novel!
Thanks for your review. I agree with you.
Hah! It’s not all book critics, I promise! The dumb, pedantic nit-picking all through this review could be done with any work of fiction, and like you say, it completely misses the point (and the power) of either book. The reviewer’s editor let him indulge a cranky mood - which is unprofessional on both their parts.
Yes! Also, may I be granted the title of The White Knight of Booktube (as opposed to The Dark Prince)?
Slay queen ;) this was so well said!
How infuriating is this review? I'm reading Shuggie Bain at the moment, and am finding that I lived through similar experiences as young Shuggie, so for someone to describe this book as a "parade of misery" is so disappointing, and clearly says a lot more about their privilege than it does about the story.
As for the figurative language, this is a story of a lower class family surviving in a poverty stricken area, if the language was any more stylized it wouldn't align with the characters at all, and give off a completely wrong mood. You'd think, as a creative writing teacher he would understand that. And the attack on the "cliched" literary terms? does he forget that these books are for the common reader? that one; might not pick up on these or recognize them as cliche, and two; might actually appreciate them as something they can understand and that allows the narrative to continue its flow, instead of getting stuck on convoluted descriptions of things that don't need much attention.
You would think as a creative writing teacher, he would have learnt to put aside his judgmental attitude when critiquing novels, especially since he would have far less advanced students who would be reading this novel and who dream to be able to publish something as successful one day.
This guy is a pompous prick, generally speaking.
Thanks for allowing me this rant, even though I'm basically just repeating what you said even better than I did haha!
Thank you! And I'm sorry you had that experience to relate to the novel in that way.
You're so right that using a different kind of language wouldn't have worked for the story.
‘Flames, FLAAAAAAAMES!’ -Eric, I bloody love you. 😂
Good on you for this- this sounds like such a bad faith reading of the book. Like you said, dissenting opinion is all fine and to be expected with something as subjective as writing, but that review sounds especially unnecessary in its harshness.
Get her, Jade! 😂
I hope you can now have some nice chocolate!
Thanks! I had to recline with a good book to calm myself down. 😅
I didn’t love Shuggie Bain but I enjoyed it. It was a good book. Young Mungo I felt was just okay - not bad & not as good as Shuggie Bain. I’m not convinced YM would have received the critical acclaim it has were it not for the success of SB, but that’s probably true of many second novels & for many reasons
I agree!
Well said. As a Scotsman ( not from Glasgow) both novels present a vividly accurate portrayal of this strata of Scottish life beautifully.
I ve just finished. I can't stop crying😭. I loved it. Thank you very much❤
Minus the positive or negative content of the review, a huge red flag to me while reading reviews is if the reviewer, as in this case, has spent a disproportionate amount of time actually reviewing or revisiting a previous work. I understand laying a groundwork for a current review, but when your review comes up a few hundred words short of being paid, hacks tend to rely on this method to an annoying degree. But without that review, we wouldn’t have gotten this video, so the real winners here are your subscribers.
Isn’t real life garish and over sentimental sometimes?
I adored it, thought it was a beautiful story told with truth and heart and the most gorgeous writing. It's the best book I've read in ages.
Also, love a Clue reference!
I'm so glad you felt that way about the book! And thanks, Clue is one of my all time favourites! 😊
The minute I saw that cover I was like yes ma'am, 5 stars. Excellent read, highly recommend it. Have I read it yet? Nope. Critics and suck it.
Oh girl, it's always a Kevin, isn't it?
@@booksaremysociallife 😂😂😂
🤗📚
Slight spoilers:
The critic was correct though. Stuart’s descriptors all boil down to an overuse of adjectives and pat similes. Which is lazy because anyone can craft that kind of sentence.
“As the freshly beaming face of his jovial mate met his gaze from across the tattered remains of his room, his face lit like the brightest bulb, illuminating that desolate place.” For example. Using lines like that in repetition diminish this supposed “tone” the author is trying to convey. It’s redundant and even somewhat self aggrandizing.
It doesn’t help that most of the book is spent describing details that don’t pertain to either the plot or the tone. For example, Stuart describes how the doocot looks, but this is ultimately less relevant than the two individuals inside the doocot. In fact, it’s distracting. At one point he spends a couple sentences describing the nail polish on his mother’s fingers, then explains why it’s relevant. He’ll then repeat the same character quirk we already know about nearly every time we see her for the remainder of the novel. It insults its readers intelligence by assuming they can’t piece these things together themselves. I can picture a ratty shack or a bridge or an apartment on my own, his descriptions are not well written enough to justify their constant use.
As far as the subject matter? Just because a book features a fringe group enduring hardship does not automatically make it a good book. In fact, it’s a very easy way to win awards because people like you conflate the two. That’s why they call movies that do so “Oscar bait.” It’s silly I have to explain this. Anyone can create a tragic character, especially one who is a minority. What matters is how the author uses their hardships for the development of the characters and the themes they want to impart. Sadly, the characters in this book barely develop at all. The development that does occur is not properly built either. The book’s primary conflict doesn’t even present itself until the halfway point (his relationship with James). The retreat with the two men doesn’t change his character either, which makes it a moot plot point (and is what the critic means by misery prn). The book ends the same regardless of whether or not he goes with them. Before the trip? He makes the decision to run away with James (apropos of nothing other than his love for James). After the trip? He runs away with James. The book fails to demonstrate how Mungo changes from this experience, instead it just gives him exactly what he wants without him having to earn any of it. Which is bad writing.
Thematically the book has nothing to say either. Aside from maybe the assertion that being gay is difficult in a poor neighborhood, especially in the 90s. I guess this is maybe news to some people? Maybe those people will find this book illuminating, I found it obvious and lazy. Or perhaps that being a kind hearted person makes one a target for selfish people? But it’s never clear how Mungo manages to differentiate between those with his best interests at heart and those without after his change. He just rejects his entire family who… sacrifice themselves for him in the end? Speaking specifically about Hamish here, but for a second he also rejects his real caregiver in Jodie. So which is it? Was he wrong to trust them? Was he correct? What does this development mean for Mungo going further? It means nothing. It means he gets a good life with his lover after a miserable existence because… it’s nice to have a happy ending?
Wow this is everything! I love a good well thought out intelligent rant. Perfect!
Thank you! 😊
Eric you are right to share this rant with your audience - you are a perceptive reviewer & do right to voice your critique of this critic! Stuart deserved his booker prize, bringing out through his writing the harsh reality of Shuggie's life - it was a painful & necessary read. I haven't read 'Young Mungo' but will do so later this year.
Thank you! 😊
Reminds me of the obstinate food critic Anton Ego in 'Ratatouille' but in the end he turned a new leaf.
😄
I loved Shuggie Bain! When I heard about Young Mungo I eagerly bought a copy. I have just started reading it, 20 pages or so, and I can tell it is going to engross me as did his first novel. Thank you for this critique of the critic. I guess if a book's language isn't innovative it's just a waste of his time. Poor man stuck in his ivory tower.
Exactly!
I just picked this up because of the cover, I gay man late 20s who grew up in a hyper masculine environment in a low income household, not in Scotland but in Europe. I really thought I was going to love this, maybe it’s a generational thing I don’t know. It was good but the best parts weren’t explored enough. And the build up just didn’t have enough payoff. I don’t regret reading it I think the time we spend in Mungos head and how he’s described is incredible, I really feel like I get who he is. The rest is not up to par with that unfortunately for me.
Really enjoyed your review of this review. I’ve read neither of the Douglas Stuart books so I cannot speak to their quality. As you say, I think it is clear that the reviewer doesn’t think much of Stuart’s prose and has made the entire review about that. It does sound like Stuart’s writing can be messy in ways that might irritate a reader for whom prose matters most, but how many people put prose above everything else? I’m guessing not many. And to use that as the reason to completely trash a book -without exploring the books theme,characters, or emotional impact- is bad reviewing.
Exactly!
I’m even more excited to start reading Young Mungo today. 😆 I always takes issue with book reviews/critiques that seem less like a critique and more like a failure of empathy on the critics part. Almost like they miss the point of reading…
Yes! Hope you connect with it too.
I wonder to what extent Power criticism of Stuart’s writing is the result of an expectation over what Scottish writing ‘ought’ to look like. Stuart’s writing is stylistically conservative (which I have no issue with!), especially compared to someone like James Kelman’s. When How Late It Was, How Late won the Booker there was a bit of controversy (someone called it ‘inaccessible’, someone else called Kelman ‘an illiterate savage’) due to its style - it’s stream-of-consciousness and written completely in Scots. I do think there’s a big issue with Stuart being so readily accepted by critics outside of Scotland compared to Kelman - his writing is Scottish, but not TOO Scottish, you know? But I wonder whether Powers’ has read Stuart and been upset that it isn’t Kelman - why can’t this working-class Glaswegian writer be like this other working-class Glaswegian writer?! It’s a wildly lazy (and borderline xenophobic) perspective to adopt, but my instinct is he may have wanted Kelman 2.0 from Stuart. The whole review reads like it should have been an academic essay comparing the various approaches Glaswegian writers have taken to the novel (you could chuck Alasdair Gray - another very structurally experimental writer - in the mix as well). It’s a totally unsuitable approach for a piece of journalistic writing. I actually often have issues with critics not being critical (in an analytical sense, not whatever the fuck Powers is doing here) enough of popular novels - I don’t think either Shuggie Bain or Young Mungo are as perfect as the consensus has decided (though I do think they are both very good!), and I get frustrated with the many reviews which don’t delve into potential issues, but this a ridiculous piece of writing. One of my tutors during my undergrad also writes reviews on a regular basis for a well-respected literary magazine, and we had to write a review as one of our assessments during a contemporary lit module - there’s no way this would have gotten a good grade in that class lol
Oh my goodness, what a negative review. I loved Shuggie Bain and my Dad is from Glasgow and lived in tenements and ended up an alcoholic so I felt Douglas Stuart couldn't have written the book better, it was perfect, I was there with Shuggie. Unless this critic has lived in Glasgow in the 80s and experienced the hardships, I think he needs to get off his high horse. That's my rant over. I haven't read Young Mungo yet but can't wait to read it, I'm only holding off because I loved Shuggie so much.
I lived, as a student, in one of the "worst" areas of the Castlemilk Estate for many years in the 80's and Shuggie brought me right back there to recall vividly the awful experiences and suffering of the mainly wonderful people who lived there. I also have yet to begin Young Mungo as Shuggie Bain was so affecting I'm still processing it.
Thank you for this QUALITY CONTENT ❤ I love your channel, Eric. You're so insightful.
Thank you so much! 😊📚
Flames!!!!! OMG! Can't believe you referenced by favourite movie of all time!!!!
Thank you for this!!! Also though… the critic literally got the name of one of the principal characters wrong. At least in the US version it’s James not Jamie Jamieson. Clearly he wasn’t paying much attention. 😒
Eric, spot on rant of this review. For a professional reviewer, it sounds like he was competing with Douglas Stuart rather than actually giving a genuine impression of his works. I completely agree that the two novels were similar in some themes but overall very different. I loved them both and felt like what Stuart gave us was a realistic idea of what life in Glasgow would be for a poor family affected by so many hardships. His description of the characters of Shuggie and Young Mungo were so different, despite some overlap in personal traits. Both books were well written and powerful. Sounds like the professor is jealous of Douglas Stuart’s success.
Rant away!! 🔥💜🔥
Thank you! 😊 And you're so right about the books.
I love this video! Please destroy more critics in the future. This was gold.
Haha! Thanks!
I love it when you get feisty. I'm yet to read Young Mungo. Your critique of the critic feels fair.
💁🏻♂️😊
you snapped! points were made!!
😊
Can’t decide what I loved more, your Madeline Kahn impression or Young Mungo, which I finished reading yesterday. ❤️
😊🤗 I'm so glad you loved the book too.
Totally agree with your review of the review and I loved how much you went for it! It blows my mind to see people viewing their negative opinions as objective fact, particularly in relation to well received or price winning books. When it’s so clear that a huge number of people disagree with you, how can you be so confident that you’re right in thinking something is objectively bad?! 😆 I’m thinking more of Shuggie Bain here as I haven’t looked at many reviews of Young Mungo yet. I’m looking forward to picking it up!
Exactly!
I love your review!
An American academic, the NPR book critic, reviewed Young Mungo very highly.
For me, I liked how it was constructed and I liked the ending.
Thank you!
👏👏👏 Excellent well balanced review (and rant) unlike the review you are critiquing. I've only just finished Young Mungo and feel both traumatised and heart-warmed by it in equal measure. I also loved Shuggie Bain. They are not the same book at all. Personally, I love the style Douglas Stewart uses. The "professional" reviewer is clearly a jealous snob with no taste who has never been to Glasgow! I love your reviews Eric. Thank you 🙏
Thanks so much! I’m glad you feel the same.
I watched Clue immediately after watching this. Hilarious!!!!! I liked both "Shuggie Bain" and "Young Mungo" too!
Haha! I’m so glad you found Clue funny. And glad you like Douglas Stuart’s work.
excellent critique of the critic! I also don't see what was so cliche in the examples given.
Thanks!
I love the sass here and how protective yet rational you are of the book. I'm about to start on Young Mungo and have been largely avoiding all reviews of the novel but I couldn't go past this video!
Thanks. Hope you connect with the novel!
I haven't read either of these Douglas Stuart books yet, but I must say, after hearing your rant against this critic, it certainly makes me want to go out and buy them both. Love your insights and videos. Thanks.
Great! 📚
I like the simplicity and don't think the use of flowery language would be appropriate for the book. It is commented on several occasions that Mungo doesn't know what certain words mean (like 'vagrancy' or 'irony') so I personally feel it is a bit twisted to make the book more complex than what the protagonist would be able to understand.
🤣🤣I love a rant! Have not read Young Mungo but did read Shuggie Bain and was moved by it. Makes me want to read Young Mungo more so his review had the opposite effect.
This is gold. I watched it twice.
Loved it! And you are totally on point regarding the critic.
Thanks!
Oh wow, those critiques are horrible! I found the writing brilliant in delivering the realities of life, it struck so close to home that it felt entirely depressing for me. It was so sad but i read this in the grey winter of a covid year and in the end I felt depressed. Id rather have a story - or life -(shouldnt we all) that is mostly sunny with blackness only creeping in for random tragedies. In Shuggie's reality the black bled into everyday leaving everything as grey as the bookcover. It felt hopeless to me and so i didnt enjoy it per se but if i had to critique it Id say that the prose and the storytelling and the mood and the lifestyle were very realistic! So much so that it really sucked me into it and made me feel in the shoes of all that gray. That takes talent. Everything in that story is someone's life out there. Perhaps that critic lives too shielded from the "realities" he claims are exaggerated.
I loved Shuggie Bain and definitely plan to purchase and read Young Mungo soon!
The same happened with Yanagihara’s latest novel. I really loved it.
I’m bumping up my star rating of Young Mungo as a result of Powers review. 😆 Stuart is a master wordsmith.
Fab! 📚
Doglus is my mums best friend and I call him my uncle
This was fantastic! (Your snap and perfect sarcasm made me laugh.) So glad you did this. Someone needs to send it to the reviewer, to help him learn how to review. I’ve been on a long hold list at my library (the length of which is encouraging in itself!) But instead of waiting, and in response to this reviewer, I’m going to download the audio this morning.
Thank you! 😊 I hope you connect with the novel too.
It sounds to me like the reviewer is just jealous of Douglas Stuart's success and has completely lost touch with the struggles of the common folk.
👍
Young Mungo is a very dark, brilliant, shocking book. I loved it as much as I loved Shuggie. Who cares about what other people think.
I felt the same way when I read a review about one of my favourite books, nutshell by Ian McEwan. In my opinion this book is a masterpiece no matter what a random book critic thinks about it. I haven't read young Mango yet but I have read Shuggie Bain and although my childhood had nothing in common with that of Shuggie I felt deeply connected with him and that in my opinion is proof that Stuart is a good writer. Plus I strongly doubt that the critic you've been talking about is a good teacher. Young people need encouragement and empathy, not someone in huge need of confirmation of their enormous egos.
I'm so glad you felt that way about the novel!
Your review of the review makes me really want to read the book :) thank you! Also, wouldn't fluffy word choices be inappropriate for a book about struggling working class or unemployment? I love it when authors enhance what they are saying by the way they say it, it's like set dressing or something.
That’s so great to hear, thank you! And yes, that form of language wouldn’t work at all for this story.
You go Eric!!
😊
I can’t wait to read Young Mungo. I loved Shuggie Bain. The only thing I don’t like in the new book is the cover, but that’s my problem 😂
Hope you connect with the new novel too.
I think the long struggle Power had in writing a follow-up to his highly successful debut has to be a factor.
I've got to be honest and say I was greatly disappointed with Young Mungo. It was nowhere near as wonderful as Shuggie Bain. I can't imagine someone not liking Shuggie.
That’s okay
I love Clue.
I could quote from it all day. 😄
Not that i wish to defend Kevin Power in any way, but his novel Bad Day in Blackrock was one of the most griping books I have ever read. And when i got to the end, i began to read it again, which is a very rare occurrence for me. Gay author John Boyne said of Bad Day: "An excellent novel... It comes from the gut, it's raw, it's passionate" The (award winning) movie it inspired was rubbish in my view, though that probably wasn't Kevin's fault. My own debut novel Dolly Considine's Hotel has unfortunately been ignored by professional critics, and being ignored is even worse than been panned. But 15 Goodreads reviewers took the trouble to post their opinions.
Perhaps it was the link to goodreads, which i have now deleted.
Your description of rage at the beginning of the video is fitting to many situations
Thanks for your review of this book
Mrs White mood!
I thought parts of Shuggie Bain were powerful - like when Agnes goes down in the rain to sell her awful fur coat, for instance. All in all, I did find his prose plodding and flat though. I haven't been interested in picking up Young Mungo due to it sounding so much like Shuggie. I found a lot of the descriptions dull and obvious and unfortunately YM seems the same, so I'm still not going to give it a go. I did find Shuggie Bain to be something of a 'parade of misery', as Powers puts it, because it seemed to wallow in these characters' troubled lives and somehow make it all seem sentimental...
I do wish the review you were critiquing had mentioned more of the issues YM talks about (lgbt stuff, abuse etc.) but there's no way of finding it online that i can see, and you didn't leave a link for it, so it's hard to know if Powers didn't actually acknowledge any of that. You also lambast Powers for being too mean and for belittling the novel, but then you belittle the reviewer too in regards to his profession and how he words things... so is one of you really more sincere than the other? If you had gone back to YM and found some sections of writing that you thought proved Power's points wrong, then i might side with you, but as far as reviews go, Powers has convinced me more. Just my opinion. I think if you sat and re-read Stuart's 2 novels a couple of times you would probably start to find the prose dull and the stories too drawn out... a good book for me, measures up to a re-read and even improves upon one. I wonder if you would re-read SB and YM and still find them as brilliant and emotional?
I enjoyed this video so much though and wish more booktubers would talk about book reviews!
Fair enough if you didn't connect to Stuart's books as strongly. And yeah, I'm probably as bad as Power as his "review" frustrated me so I felt like clapping back.
How is there no way of finding it online? If you do a search for Kevin Power Irish Times Young Mungo his review immediately comes up (though it's behind a paywall): www.irishtimes.com/culture/books/young-mungo-heartfelt-book-of-love-in-glasgow-marred-by-cliche-1.4850052
I read out and showed the review in its entirety as I was going through it so there's nothing Power wrote that was left out and, no, he didn't discuss any of those issues.
I might feel differently about the books if I reread them, but maybe I'd love them even more?
In my post about the novel I discuss lines and aspects of the book I find powerful and effective: lonesomereader.com/blog/2022/5/10/young-mungo-by-douglas-stuart
@@EricKarlAnderson Oh, the paywall must've hidden it from me then. I was searching 'Kevin Powers Young Mungo Irish Times' maybe coz I misspelled his last name that ruined the search I don't know.
Thank you for posting the link and responding.
I hope you do grow to love the books even more if you do reread them 🤗
And I didn't realise the review in the Irish Times was that short. In that modest of a word count, perhaps Power felt he didn't have the space to go into complex issues like LGBT+ and sexual/physical abuse topics... or maybe he did originally write about those but constricted to the word count, chopped them out or felt they didn't fit in well with the tone of his review. Either way, plenty of other reviewers mention those topics in the novel. And reviews are only one critic's opinion of a work aren't they? They're not entire essays of literary criticism. I think both of your feelings and thoughts around the books are valid, and were helpful to me, as a reader who hasn't read YM on deciding whether or not I would appreciate the book.
great critique of the critic...well done! Do more of these :)
Thanks! 😊📚
yup, you cleared whatever that man's name was
There’s definitely humour in Shuggie but how anyone can laugh at Stuart’s accurate portrayal of working class Glaswegians is beyond me. It’s simply homophobic not to like Young Mungo
So fair! 👏🏽
Even your rants are nice 😂
😇
GET HER, JADE! 😜💅
That was epic. Well done, Eric!
Clearly this reviewer suffers from an inferiority complex. I really feel sorry for his students.
Thank you! 😊
Oh snap. This reminded me of Virginia Woolf’s A Room of One’s Own where she has the take down of a particular critic. 🔥
All I want to do is make Virginia proud. 😄😊
Go Eric x
😊
I believe the mark of an excellent storyteller is one who can completely draw you in and suspend time.Douglas Stuart is an example in my opinion, of a masterful novelist. In both “Shuggie Bain” and notably “Young Mungo”, Mr Stuart created characters who displayed resilience and triumphed in the face of heartbreaking circumstances.
The review you noted,appears mean spirited and does nothing to dispel or deny the power and beauty of these books.
Yes!
Just be sure to send them all the links when Young Mungo wins the Booker Prize.
🤣😜
God the audiobook is spellbinding
I LOVED Shuggie Bain. Mr. Stuart made me care intensely about the characters in his Booker Prize winning book. His writing inserted the reader into the life and world of Shuggie and his family, and even though it was indeed a harsh and tragic world, I feel that his style made the experience of the book more poignant. A more hyperbolic or experimental style would have spoiled the emotional impact of the book. Mr. Stuart’s portrayal of a young boy’s growing awareness and acceptance of being gay is also the best I have ever read. I think the reviewer you are critiquing is jealous of Mr. Stuarts success. If he knows how to write a better book, then he should write one. I think I will definitely read Young Mungo at some point.
I thought that Shuggie Bain was one of the better recent winners of the Booker. Powers obviously didn't like it but he has a perfect right to say so, Eric, just as you have a right to express your dislike of his views. He won't put me off from reading the book but his opinion or disdain is as valid as it is most probably wrong headed. It is what he is paid for and successfully so as you gave him your airtime.
This gets a like for the Clue/Madeline Kahn reference alone.
😊
a lethargic malaise is not a tautology. There's nothing wrong with ascribing the quality of the malaise. I do think that much of the literary criticism industry and it is an industry, offers up mates reviewing mates, or enemies reviewing enemies and that's without the key point you made about Powers, a writer and teacher (!), reviewing narrowly according to his tastes in how literature ought to be constructed.
Yes! 👏
Perhaps the book reviewer does not like certain segments of the population, is jealous of the author's success, or is looking for attention by writing a negative review........any of these reasons means the review is irrelevant and should be disregarded.
I've never seen you this angry before. 😀
"The style of the novel should suit its ideas and purpose..." yes yes yes. So glad you saw fit to respond to the review. Not yet read either book but this only encourages me to read it!
😊 Great! Hope you connect with them.
"Young Mungo" seals it: Douglas Stewart is a Genius. Headline from the book review in the Washington Post by Ron Charles. I think I'll stick to this review over the amateur laughing stock who wrote the one you are discussing.
Yes, Ron Charles’ gives a much better critique!
I think this is the angriest you've ever been in a video! But for good reason - critics so often intellectualise things and hold media to the ridiculous standard of either perfection or perfection regarding their specific tastes, and then dismiss something impactful or generally acclaimed that doesn't fit those tastes.
Also, since when is birds swooping cliche? Just because something has been described a certain way before, that doesn't make it cliche?! I haven't read Young Mungo yet and I'm also furious with the review!!
Yeah, it really annoyed me. And your points are absolutely right.
Fab comment, but it's not "shoogie" or "shoog". It's pronounced "sh~ugh~ie" and "sh~ugh". The "ugh" is important.
And Hamish is pronounced "HAY~mish" not "HAM~ish".
I think it is wonderful of you to fight for what you believe. It is after all just an opinion so I found your passion a little obnoxious. The critic has his points. They are not your concerns but they are valid concerns. For example, you say the critic picks out cliché expressions which you dismiss. You then claim that one of the novel's strengths is its originality, but the clichés suggest otherwise. You haven't denied that the clichés are there so we want to know how they are a strength or why it is that they don't matter or don't mar the book as the critic claims. Your point is that the clichés are fine...and the book is original. This doesn't sound right. You say well why can't he use clichés? They work. This may be true but you can't then say the book is original, not in this arena. It is true that teachers tell students to avoid cliché. Are you saying "fire away"? Most writers work very hard to express things in new and different ways. Think of Martin Amis and other word smiths. The critics is also disappointed by the material feeling worked over, that his first work and his second work seem similar, or familiar, that their worlds lack distinction. Your reply is that they don't but my sense is that they do. The point you could have made, but you didn't say that you were not tired of that world and felt ready for more. This seems fine. Roth's books feel this way. If you dig one, maybe like me you are ready for more. But if you didn't like one, then maybe it would be easy to dismiss another when it is just more of the same. You clearly love his voice and that world of feeling alienated by your sexuality. This excites you and you feel comfy. The critic is not actually required to have empathy for the characters. You do, great, but he doesn't. It didn't work for him. Maybe being gay helps. Not sure. The way you describe the book, one gets the sense that being a gay reader would help a lot, just as being female no doubt helps one to like Jane Eyre. Does a male reader of Hemingway have to like Jane Eyre in the same way as a young woman? Readers like you are the best kind of readers they can be. Your enthusiasm is a dream come true for a writer, but harsh criticism is needed, too. Theatre lovers like me can see how the loss of good critics in NY has contributed to the lowering of standards. John Simon, the nasty monster of New York theatre criticism, is dead but so is good NY theatre and that phenomenon may not be a coincidence. Gushing audiences make theatre almost unwatchable. Gushing readers don't ruin it for others, but the writer might learn something from your man at Trinity. I hope he does.
The way his subjective concerns take up the bulk of the review really don't give a fair impression of the novel's content. I don't think the many examples he give necessarily are cliches. I've not read any book before which describes all the issues I listed and gives such a bracing perspective on them so it is original and new. Are there other books which you've read covering these subjects? My point was that the identities of the characters across Shuggie Bain and Young Mungo are superficially similar but the choices they make and the way they react to the situations they are in are VERY DIFFERENT. Compare the way the mothers live with addiction across the two novels. Compare the way the sons embody and live out their homosexuality. They are very DIFFERENT. There are many novels concerning heterosexual relationships that I've read that I relate to equally strongly. Sure, we connect with literature differently based on our own distinct characteristics but if we have any humanity we'll feel empathy for the dilemmas people face whoever they are.
I've not been to NYC in many years but there is a lively theatre scene in London where lots of shows transfer from NYC and vice versa. I've seen a number of great shows in recent months. Maybe you're not going to see the right theatres.
@@EricKarlAnderson I think London has the great theatre critics lacking now in New York. Yes, theatre from London is marvelous. Nobody thinks NY theatre compares favorably to the subsidized theatre of the UK. Miller and Mamet write about it extensively. In fact, Mamet writes about it in his new collective of essays. It is a real and tragic reality. The disappearance of the newspapers is part of it, but the main problem is the disappearance of the middle class theatre-goer, replaced by the tourists, and the disappearance, according to Fran Leibowitz,, of the discerning gay audience killed by Aids. She speaks about this at length in the films Scorsese made with her. I am not seeing the wrong theatres. The theatres are full of TV actors, people who see one play every five years, no critics to evaluate the productions beyond their entertainment value, and greedy producers.
I have tried several times to make a comment, but each time i do, my comment disappears after a few seconds. Am i doing something correct?
i mean incorrect of course