Salman's brought together some compelling themes but should have written this book five years ago

I agree. He should have also made the book non-fiction. It would have been a brilliant piece of work sans the cumbersome characters.

I am really really really curious about what you consider to be the "literary snobbery du jour". I suppose we just have wildly different sources because

1) Rushdie's latest was hardly overrated--the critical response in general was lukewarm. I mean yeah maybe Time Magazine or its equivalent--those who just take a look at the heavily hyped and award winning/nominated tomes for year-end lists--might have been all over it, but I'd hardly name them among any literary elite.

2) Maureen Dowd -- didn't her book get trashed? Resoundly?

3) The Historian -- didn't Little, Brown tout this as a "smart" Da Vinci Code or whatever? I can't see any self-respecting snob even touching a book linked with a Dan Brown product...but I suppose it's possible. ;)

4) Sarah Vowell -- That's weird that her book didn't make a lot of year end lists because throughout the year I got the impression that everyone in the know liked it a bunch.

I loved Devil in the White City and immediately went on a world's fair binge. Before reading this book I hadn't realized how important that event was to present-day culture. Fascinating.

And thank you, thank you for saying out loud (so to speak) how awful The Historian is. Even worse, I listened to the audio, which is the most overproduced to least effect of any audio book I've ever heard. Every character had a different actor - even if that character said one line, recounted by someone in a story told in a letter written by a third person and read by a fourth, that line was spoken by a distinct actor. The words, "he said" occur nowhere on the tape. Given the way the narrative was written in letters and recollections and documents, it was a very odd production decision.

Both White city and Sarah Vowell's are two of my favorites I read this year too. All of Vowell's books are amazing.


Good piece.
I'm glad I didn't read the Historian based on your comments.

My sources come from a lot of places such as salon.com, the New Yorker, NYTimes review of books and various friends and professors in the book business. You are right, some of the books I highlighted were poorly reviewed in some places and glowingly reviewed in others. But it seemed like the NYTimes especially would give a book a lukewarm review and then put it on it's notable book list (ie "The Sea"). So in the end "literary snobbery du jour" like any kind of coolness is guesswork. Mostly I tried to pick the books that I heard a lot about on NPR, read alot about in various literary magazines and newspapers, which (I think) got more praise than they were due. I am interested in what other people think are underrated and overrated.

I totally agree with you on The Historian, what a letdown that was. Trim 200 pages from it and it might've been something, but it was a big disappointment for me.

I'm really interested in checking out the Sarah Vowell book, sounds great.