A name dropper is someone who drops names, not intimate stories about the names. And this author has an intimate appreciation for the writings of another author. I can see why you won’t delve further. For you, it would be pointless.
Guy Davenport wrote perhaps the most perceptive review of the many great reviews of the novel I managed to persuade Hamish Hamilton to publish in 1981, G.B. Edwards’ The Book of Ebenezer Le Page (a quote from which made it into the Wikipedia entry): ‘A masterpiece….One of the best novels of our time… I know of no description of happiness in modern literature equal to the one that ends this novel.’
(https://www.nytimes.com/1981/04/19/books/a-novel-of-life-in-a-small-world.html)
Kirkus Review ” But, unfortunately, in order to be astonished by Davenport of late means having to endure what once again here is a surfeit of the soft-core gay kiddie-porn (masquerading as Arcadian idylls) that he puts so much of his effort to.
I didn’t particularly notice the name dropping, but this piece, including its distinctive formatting, strongly signaled Davenport was a “literary” writer. He’s someone you read for new ideas, old ideas presented in a fresh way, and for the style. It appears he was also a wit with an inexhaustible supply of bon mots. Readers whose interests don’t lean that way probably would not be hooked by this article.
I started reading the article then went to Wikipedia for a better, or more accessible, sense of Davenport, then I finished the article.
I enjoyed this article but my sense is Davenport is probably an acquired taste.
Am i being cynical in thinking that, in praise of someone who “wasn’t a name-dropper” there’s an awful lot of names being dropped?
If so, that’d be a critque of the author of this piece rather than its subject. I can’t say the style would encourage me to delve further.
Perhaps someone who knows more about Davenport could comment on why i should?
A name dropper is someone who drops names, not intimate stories about the names. And this author has an intimate appreciation for the writings of another author. I can see why you won’t delve further. For you, it would be pointless.
I’m with you.
Guy Davenport wrote perhaps the most perceptive review of the many great reviews of the novel I managed to persuade Hamish Hamilton to publish in 1981, G.B. Edwards’ The Book of Ebenezer Le Page (a quote from which made it into the Wikipedia entry): ‘A masterpiece….One of the best novels of our time… I know of no description of happiness in modern literature equal to the one that ends this novel.’
(https://www.nytimes.com/1981/04/19/books/a-novel-of-life-in-a-small-world.html)
Kirkus Review ” But, unfortunately, in order to be astonished by Davenport of late means having to endure what once again here is a surfeit of the soft-core gay kiddie-porn (masquerading as Arcadian idylls) that he puts so much of his effort to.
I didn’t particularly notice the name dropping, but this piece, including its distinctive formatting, strongly signaled Davenport was a “literary” writer. He’s someone you read for new ideas, old ideas presented in a fresh way, and for the style. It appears he was also a wit with an inexhaustible supply of bon mots. Readers whose interests don’t lean that way probably would not be hooked by this article.
I started reading the article then went to Wikipedia for a better, or more accessible, sense of Davenport, then I finished the article.
I enjoyed this article but my sense is Davenport is probably an acquired taste.
Maybe you just lost the point of this beautiful tribute to an extraordinary person…
Thanks a lot for sharing, John Jeremiah Sullivan.
Regards from Hanne Herrman