Volume 31 , No. 2, published in January 2010, featured a survey of contributors’ views on “bad” books.
What constitutes a bad book? Is it an overrated “good” book? Can an otherwise good author produce a “bad” book? Is the badness in style, in execution? Or is it in theme or outlook? Or is the notion of a “bad” book even comprehensible in the age of postmodernism, poststructuralism, and cultural studies?
Calling the question of “bad books” to the fore elicited—as might be expected—an overwhelming response. The forty responses published in January 2010 were selected to demonstrate the sheer variety of responses to what at face value seems a simple question. But as with most literary matters, nothing is as simple as it appears—not even the question of what constitutes a bad book.
From Eyal Amiran’s comments on the badness of Bond to Zahi Zalloua’s asking whether the state of bad books is hopeless, you’ll find that there’s a lot to think about when it comes to the question of bad books. Some of the comments you’ll find agreeable; others disagreeable. Regardless, after reading them we think that you’ll at least agree that there is just as much to say about bad books as there is to say about good ones.
ARCHIVES
Archives: Charles Johnson reviews Richard Wright
Charles Johnson reviewed Richard Wright's American Hunger in the inaugural issue of the American Book Review, Volume 1 , No. 1, December 1977.
LATEST ISSUE
Focus: Satire — Summer 2024
Satire as threat and joy at the extremes