John Le Carre's Latest Spy Thriller Is Ponderous, Heavy-Handed And Obvious

Michiko Katutani offers an interesting review in the New York Times of John le Carre's latest spy thriller.

“A Delicate Truth,” John le Carré’s new thriller, is anything but delicate: it’s ponderous, heavy-handed and obvious — everything that his wonderful early Smiley novels, which traded in moral ambiguity and psychological nuance, were not.

Although Mr. le Carré hit his stride again in 2010 with "Our Kind of Traitor," this new novel resembles two preachy recent books of his, "Absolute Friends," (2004) and "A Most Wanted Man" (2008). It is so hobbled by ideological fervor — a detestation for the way the United States and Britain have waged the war on terror — that it rapidly devolves into a didactic and ungainly pitting of good against evil with an utterly predictable story line.       

You can read the rest of the review via the below link:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/01/books/a-delicate-truth-by-john-le-carre.html?_r=0

Light Out, Huck, They Still Want To Sivilize You

Michiko Kakutani at The New York Times weights in against the idea of changing Mark Twain's great classic Adventures of Huckleberry Finn.

Kakutani writes:

Haven’t we learned by now that removing books from the curriculum just deprives children of exposure to classic works of literature? Worse, it relieves teachers of the fundamental responsibility of putting such books in context — of helping students understand that “Huckleberry Finn” actually stands as a powerful indictment of slavery (with Nigger Jim its most noble character), of using its contested language as an opportunity to explore the painful complexities of race relations in this country. To censor or redact books on school reading lists is a form of denial: shutting the door on harsh historical realities — whitewashing them or pretending they do not exist.

Mr. Gribben’s effort to update “Huckleberry Finn” (published in an edition with “The Adventures of Tom Sawyer” by NewSouth Books), like Mr. Foley’s assertion that it’s an old book and “we’re ready for new,” ratifies the narcissistic contemporary belief that art should be inoffensive and accessible; that books, plays and poetry from other times and places should somehow be made to conform to today’s democratic ideals. It’s like the politically correct efforts in the ’80s to exile great authors like Conrad and Melville from the canon because their work does not feature enough women or projects colonialist attitudes.

You can read his piece via the link below:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/07/books/07huck.html?_r=1