« The Searchers | Main | TQC Long Essays Series »


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Great post. It often seems that reviewers like Miller, not the "average" readers she condescends to, are the ones looking for guidance in what to read. So large print runs, "major" publishers, and glossy pre-pub materials create an echo chamber effect whereby reviewers can decide, "This must be a 'significant' book because the publisher says so. I'll give it a big splashy review that will show how wonderful my literary acumen is."

Thanks for this Daniel. This is enough to make me boycott Salon.com, whose "Books" section now runs a distant second to the absurdities that the Huffington Post pops up with.

There are so many things to respond to in Miller's piece, but I'll limit myself to observing that it's axiomatic that readers who "can find time for only two or three new novels per year" are probably the least discriminating readers of all.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.


Post a comment

Your Information

(Name and email address are required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)


  • Daniel Green is a literary critic and sometime fiction writer. His reviews, critical essays, and fiction have appeared in a variety of publications, both online and in print. He has a Ph.D focusing on postwar American fiction and an M.A. in creative writing.

Daniel Green's Current Website