Journalista anthologies
Lots of comments on book reviews here these days. But in truth, I'm simply seeing a lot of intriguing books being reviewed recently. Could the New York Times be trying to help me get through the impatience of waiting for publication by reminding me, brick by brick, of why I set out to do this in the first place?
Here the Times reviews Journalistas, an anthology of journalism by women, and says: Female journalists have been around a long time. They may or may not have voices different from men. But many of them write splendidly. In the case of this book, reviewer Jill Abrahamson is glad that the anthology focuses on war, because she believes that's what's important today. Fair enough; that's a reviewer's prerogative.
Sadly, however, that focus means the anthology excludes the work of Caroline Lockhart, where an anthology focusing on geography, community, individualism, or humor (which have all also been surprisingly male-dominated fields) might not have. I myself would prefer to read such an anthology.
Then again, anthologies of journalism are very difficult to pull off. By definition, journalism is not intended to last; it's intended to be consumed, perhaps internalized, and forgotten. Some greatest anthologized journalism -- H.L. Mencken, early Tom Wolfe, John Hersey's "Hiroshima" -- really has more to do with the skills of the writer than the act being performed. And, you could argue, if those writers hadn't achieved great success in other areas, nobody would have noticed their journalistic output. (Carl Hiaasen is an even more interesting example: his novels are great novels, his columns taken one by one are probably great columns, but the anthologies of the columns are impossible to get through.)
So it was with Lockhart. If she hadn't become a famous novelist and rancher, I never would have read her journalism. Yet now that I have, I wish others could notice her Boston Post work, some of which could stand with most of the anthologies I've read.
I'm always interested in feedback, via info at johnclaytonbooks ddot comm
Here the Times reviews Journalistas, an anthology of journalism by women, and says: Female journalists have been around a long time. They may or may not have voices different from men. But many of them write splendidly. In the case of this book, reviewer Jill Abrahamson is glad that the anthology focuses on war, because she believes that's what's important today. Fair enough; that's a reviewer's prerogative.
Sadly, however, that focus means the anthology excludes the work of Caroline Lockhart, where an anthology focusing on geography, community, individualism, or humor (which have all also been surprisingly male-dominated fields) might not have. I myself would prefer to read such an anthology.
Then again, anthologies of journalism are very difficult to pull off. By definition, journalism is not intended to last; it's intended to be consumed, perhaps internalized, and forgotten. Some greatest anthologized journalism -- H.L. Mencken, early Tom Wolfe, John Hersey's "Hiroshima" -- really has more to do with the skills of the writer than the act being performed. And, you could argue, if those writers hadn't achieved great success in other areas, nobody would have noticed their journalistic output. (Carl Hiaasen is an even more interesting example: his novels are great novels, his columns taken one by one are probably great columns, but the anthologies of the columns are impossible to get through.)
So it was with Lockhart. If she hadn't become a famous novelist and rancher, I never would have read her journalism. Yet now that I have, I wish others could notice her Boston Post work, some of which could stand with most of the anthologies I've read.
I'm always interested in feedback, via info at johnclaytonbooks ddot comm
