Review of Alain de Botton's "Pleasures and Sorrows of Work"

My review of Alain de Botton's Pleasures and Sorrows of Work is in the New York Times Book Review of 28 June 2009. I'm afraid I wasn't crazy about it. As it happens, though, I wrote favorably about de Botton's How Proust Can Change Your Life in a round-up of Proust news published in Lingua Franca almost exactly a decade ago.

Comments

[Joe Linker]

My father once tried to explain to me that there are two kinds of jobs: blue collar and white collar. He was blue collar, and proud of it, and hoped the same for me. In his retirement, I tried to explain to him that there was now a third kind of job: pink collar. After some discussion, he said he didn’t understand the difference between pink and white collar jobs. I conceded his point, but told him one difference was that white collars made more money, and played golf in their spare time, and often even during work, if their collars were starch white, while pink collars went home and had to cook dinner and give the kids a bath. He said pink collars sounded like day laborers (except the dinner and bath parts), by which he meant unskilled labor… It’s too bad de Botton’s book isn’t better, because the need for the discussion is huge, i.e. how we live our lives, how we judge the man from his apparel, or from his occupation. Thoreau advised caution when considering enterprises requiring a new suit of clothes. But Cage said it’s not irritating to be where one is; it’s only irritating to think one would rather be someplace else, to which Thoreau’s reply might be his yes, most men lead lives of quiet desperation.

[Caleb Crain]

Thanks, Joe. In his new book Shop Class as Soulcraft, Matthew Crawford has some very interesting things to say about the jobs you're referring to as "pink collar," and I hope to say more about his book soonish.

[PAB]

I really like the review. Even though I haven't read the book (nor anything of Botton's but "On Love"), you captured the almost-inescapable pomposity of the project well.

[Alain de Botton]

Caleb, you make it sound on your blog that your review is somehow a sane and fair assessment. In my eyes, and all those who have read it with anything like impartiality, it is a review driven by an almost manic desire to bad-mouth and perversely depreciate anything of value. The accusations you level at me are simply extraordinary. I genuinely hope that you will find yourself on the receiving end of such a daft review some time very soon - so that you can grow up and start to take some responsibility for your work as a reviewer. You have now killed my book in the United States, nothing short of that. So that's two years of work down the drain in one miserable 900 word review. You present yourself as 'nice' in this blog (so much talk about your boyfriend, the dog etc). It's only fair for your readers (nice people like Joe Linker and trusting souls like PAB) to get a whiff that the truth may be more complex. I will hate you till the day I die and wish you nothing but ill will in every career move you make. I will be watching with interest and schadenfreude.

[David Jones]

oh dear...

[Ezekiel Smithburg]

I'm a huge fan of what work of de Botton's I have read, and I sincerely suspect the negativity of this review is merely the result of thinking differently than de Botton. I suspect that for many, even most people, his work holds little value. On the other hand, I don't think it any less valuable as a result of that, for those of us who do value it, value it greatly. I hold few possessions dearer than my first de Botton book, The Art of Travel, acquired at Shakespeare and Co. in Paris.

On the other hand, I was absolutely shocked to see how you responded, Alain. From the spirit of your writing I would've figured you would've had a bit more insight and maturity than this; I would've suspected you could've seen that -- perhaps -- the reviewer just thinks differently than you and those who appreciate your work. I do appreciate that it must seem like a tragic loss of publicity, but I suspect much more of your publicity is really word of mouth. Don't rely on old media reviewers, or everyone to think your work is great. Instead of trying to convince everyone, you can just speak to those who already want to listen.

That's all I've got.

[Alain de Botton]

Ezekiel, I appreciate your words. The reason I was led to respond to this review - and I have never done something like this before - is the sheer vindictive lunacy of the accusations levelled against me. My response may seem deranged, but only if you hold in mind two things: the book I've written and what the reviewer said about it. The gap is so large that this goes way beyond a casual and quite understandable case of a reviewer not liking a book. Everyone is allowed their own taste and I'd be the last person to force a consensus. However, there's a point at which a review becomes so angry, cruel and mean-spirited that perspective just disappears and one is into new and uncharted terrain. I'm responding to this review as a way of proposing that forgiveness is perhaps not always the only option when the provocation has been enormous.

[Alana]

Mr. Crain, I'm afraid your review only seems to indicate that you missed the point of Alain de Botton's latest work -- and indeed, that you miss the point of a great deal of his work. Certainly, de Botton is a bit more of a documentarian in The Pleasures and Sorrows of Work than you might usually find him in his more philosophical pieces, but the objective remains the same: getting the reader to think in a different way about a subject that might not be given enough thought. De Botton painted some incredibly human characters that were quite poignant in many ways, though your selected quotes taken out of context indeed give them a mocking tone that the book itself lacked. A dry sense of humor about certain things is not the same thing as contempt. By resting your focus here, you failed to understand the larger questions this book compelled people to ask about themselves and society at large.

Of course, I could be wrong. It's entirely possible that you did look deep within and try to answer some of the questions that such a book requires of the reader.... such as "What has brought me to this occupation?" and "Do I feel fulfilled by my job?" If that is the case, then I think, given the vitriolic response you made, that your answers were not to your liking, and so you chose to vent your fury on Mr. de Botton. What else could explain such hostility?

[Richard Whittall]

Welcome to the American publishing business, Alain. I should say I'm currently reading Pleasure/Sorrow and it's a cracking read, certainly puts one into a tangential state of mind without bleating about how and what I should think about the state of the modern world.

I should say though there are many authors who would DIE to have even a negative review in the NYT, so cutthroat is the biz...just to keep these things in perspective. I've actually bought many a book simply based on the vitriolic/scared response of a pretentious reviewer, and I don't doubt there are many others that do too. The Book section is entertainment, much like its cousin in the Review.

[Marian]

I wish I had read the review before I read AdB's comment about the review. While Mr Crain's commentary is as condescending as he accuses Mr. de Boton's book of being, for an adult to write anywhere "I will hate you until the day I die" is just ridonculous. Good grief, I think the last time I said that I was six years old and in a sandbox.

To satisfy my curiosity, I went to amazon to see readers' response to the book, and they're terrific, bordering on adoring. For God's sake Mr. de Boton, the review has not "killed" your book. Give readers more credit. And while I'm not suggesting that you roll over and take it, your response, I think it might be fair to say, was extreme. Your book has been on my To Read list for several months. It just got scratched off. And not because of the pissy review.

[Ezekiel Smithburg]

Alain, I can't say anything regarding the book in comparison to the review, as I haven't read this one yet. In fact, this was my first time hearing of it. So now it's on my list to buy. =]

Entirely unrelated: I would seriously appreciate being able to buy all of your books on the kindle. I travel quite a bit and it's much easier to carry my kindle than tons of books; to the point that I avoid buying paper books anymore, in fact. I noticed while writing this that most of your books are now available on kindle, whereas they weren't when I'd last checked, but the remaining few are lost sales!

[Julius Ceasar]

Is that *really* Alain de Botton commenting above with oaths of everlasting hate? It doesn't sound like him. For a start the idea that poor book sales in the US from a single negative NYT book review would invalidate two years of work sounds decidedly unphilosophical; surely the work has merit in and of itself, or it does not, regardless of what's written in the NYT.

The author of "The Consolations of Philosophy" knows this to be true, and so my suspicion is that the author of the comment above is not actually Alain de Botton.

[Julius Caesar]

Impostor! My name is "Caesar", so I hope no-one was fooled by the above subterfuge.

[Marcus Aurelius]

This is definitely a fake comment - de Botton would never say such things. Is it the reviewer trying to cook up a storm!

[Susan Orkin]

I can see a new trend, publicity departments in publishing houses, realising that a vitriolic response from the reader attracts sales and attention, manufacturing outrage. Couldn't everyone just be a bit more civilised. Caleb put your gun down, Alain, go and write another brilliant book.

[Susan Orkin]

PS: i don't think this was ADB in any case.

[Sextus Empiricus]

The London Guardian casts doubt as to whether the normally 'amiable' de Botton could really have been moved to write such a post:
http://tinyurl.com/km5zmn

[Susan Orkin]

I just want Alain and Caleb to get on - we live in a world of terrorism, pornography, cruelty, crass commercialism, Michael Jackson-mania... and you'd think that two sensitive, writerly, meek types like that could find things in common. Caleb, you started it. You say sorry. Alain, come out of your hole and shake hands with your erstwhile enemy. The blogosphere would rejoice. Book reviewing is a dying art, the books pages are dropping like flies. Do we really want to spend the dying days of book reviewing writing vicious reviews like Caleb's on Sunday?

[randall]

It sure was ADB--he tweeted something to the tune of 'come and tell my new friend what you think of his review' and linked here, only to delete it--maybe when he came to his senses.

viz http://twitter.com/leylandrichard/status/2393455772

http://twitter.com/alaindebotton/status/2393534171

unfortunately Alain is Farrah Fawcett to Alice Hoffman's MJ as far as yesterday's irate author news goes.

Also, the London Guardian? They're doing two now? Nitwit.

[Sextus Empiricus]

Hah, I've begun to understand why de Botton is so annoyed with the New York Times. He's basically a rather good writer (with a few lapses: do NOT buy his book Kiss and Tell), but for whatever reason, the New York Times totally has it in for him. In 2000, they published a burn-my-face-off-with-your-viciousness review of The Consolations of Philosophy. Then in 2002, they hand his next book over to Michiko Kakutani, she of the famously destructive review. And so on and so forth. I think de Botton occupies an interesting space in the imagination of the 'Brooklyn reviewer'. He's not got street cred like fellow brits geoff dyer or zadie smith (he's too urbane, and even seems to be swiss in some strange way), and he's also not an academic, so the academics hate him for stepping out of the ivory tower. So this is a guy with some very loving readers but few friends in the NY book scene. Someone do him a favour and get him a gang. What about those bully boys at n+1? They'd take care of him when someone beat him up. Couldn't James wood take him under his arm (then again, they've probably got some british feud going)? Someone give him a New Yorker profile, that will quieten the Brooklyn voices

[Susan Orkin]

Sextus, your theory is way too intellectualised. It's interesting, however, how christian the blogosphere basically is about bad reviews: people like randall (see above) basically feel that authors should turn the other cheek and not reply. I wonder why that should be, in an interactive age?

[Sextus Empiricus]

A hilarious bit of historical context on authors answering critics. The great Richard Ford actually shot a bullet through his critic's book:

http://www.salon.com/books/feature/2009/06/30/critic_fight/

[randall]

Susan, I don't "basically feel" that way--I was just offering evidence that this happened when you (and others, along with the London Guardian) seem to have basically felt it didn't.

If I were De Botton, though, I wouldn't have taken the fight to the critic's blog. With his resources he could have done much more to bring his vengeance to fruition in a lasting way than a few comments, tweets and a few days of discussion by the peanut gallery. Seriously. If you say you'll hate someone until the day you die don't go leaving a comment on their blog about it, that's like writing a love letter in Comic Sans.

[Susan Orkin]

Randall, you're raising a really interesting point about what a GOOD response is to a BAD review. One view is don't do anything (that's the standard view). Then there's the try-to-get-a-shot in where you can. So a punch up at a literary party, or (the modern equivalent) a punch up on Twitter. Then there's your suggestion, that one should nurture vengeance, write something big and solid around the hurt. I can see your point, but I can also see the point for the writer of giving no more time to the bad review than the bad review gave to writing it. It seems our dear Caleb didn't ponder this one long and hard - so perhaps old Buttons is right to take a pot shot back.

[Jolie]

Susan said: "people like randall (see above) basically feel that authors should turn the other cheek and not reply. I wonder why that should be, in an interactive age?"

You just said it. This is the interactive age. It's TOO easy to interact, and the discussion inevitably devolves into comments like "I'll hate you till the day I die." What's next? "I hate your face"?

If an author and reviewer can speak to each other with civility and restraint, that's great, but civility and restraint aren't the order of the day when it comes to the internet. The speed and ease of internet discussion usually lead to people saying things they'll regret (which are amusing for me as an observer, but obviously bad for the "professional" person saying them).