Jerome Weeks' farewell column

LAST WEEK, Jerome Weeks accepted a buyout offer from The Dallas Morning News beginning Sept 15, rather than work in a severely reduced arts section. Staff employees were told they could write a farewell column but it would have to be OK'd by management first. At any rate, Jerome's farewell column was refused, and thus far just one farewell column from the 111 people leaving the paper has appeared. Here is what he wrote.
by JEROME WEEKS
It's a little thing, but I'm looking forward to reading for idle pleasure again.
Readers have often told me that being a full-time book critic must be a dream job. And I agree. It's practically a leisure-time activity. Let me take a moment here to put my feet up on my desk. Ahh.
Still, as Mark Twain observed, anything you're not obliged to do is play. Anything else is work. And as a book journalist, one is obliged to race after the Media Now-Now-Now - what critic David Denby once called "information without knowledge, opinions without principles, instincts without beliefs."
What's more, book culture may seem a dwindling, quaint endeavor to advertisers in mad pursuit of illiterate teens and at a time when arts coverage in general is getting dumped or fragmented into a million Web sites. But there are hundreds of thousands more new books released per year than TV shows, sports programs, movies or CDs. For all the talk of the death of print, more people have access to more books now than at any time in history.
That's amazing but it means keeping up is a full-time sprint. A book columnist must read in gross tonnage, read hastily in trains, planes and lunch lines and read books no one should bother with. One can endure a film or a concert for two hours; reading a pointless book can take days. Recall those dreaded high school assignments: A bad book can seem like a prison sentence.
I know, I know. You spend your time heroically putting out fires and saving lives in the ER. All of this reading doesn't really sound like work to you. But it is. Otherwise, we wouldn't pay researchers, law clerks, teachers or librarians.
OK, so we don't pay them much. Which just shows how little we actually value reading. Critic Walter Kirn has observed that the novelist is "culturally invisible" today because his job offers few rewards to the big-dog male ego. The same is true of reading. Nowhere in films or TV do characters read -- other than the "bookish girl" or the action hero, but only when he must desperately decipher the Sacred Inca Brain Codex for clues to foil the arch-fiend's dastardly plot -- a plot the "bookish girl" could have figured out long ago.
Still, for reviewers, one of the accidental delights of the job comes precisely from reading many of those books we'd normally use for attic insulation. It's a central pleasure of art: discovery. Finding that what we couldn't imagine happening in a book can not only happen but succeed, endure, excite.
Then there's the joy of relaying this to readers. To re-live the thrill. And, of course, there's the pleasure of irking some people, notably bloggers. Mustn't forget that.
All of which keeps the neurons firing. Helps stave off Alzheimer's, as the doctors advise. So for all of this and a paycheck, if little else, I'm grateful. I've been doing it, on and off, in academia and the media, since I wrote my first published newspaper review at 20.
On the third hand, turning such pleasures into a chore can warp a person. No, not warp them into the cliché of the curmudgeon-critic but give them a pained relationship to what they love. I read books the way I breathe, but lately, when another three-pound monster has landed on my desk, I've flinched.
So it'll be a relief to read for pleasure again. One reason it's particularly appealing these days is that it's so counter-culture -- so counter to our prevailing techno-bully-rapid-response-profit-margin mindset. It's seditious fun being idle, being un-productive.
Let's not fool ourselves. Publishing is an industry like any other, and a book is a commodity like any other. But reading is slow, it's private, it's non-electronic. Reading fiction is particularly suspect in our Get Ahead Nation. Traditionally, it has been a "woman's pastime." It's not necessarily self-improving. For that matter, it's often not necessary at all.
So yes, being a book columnist is one of the last, great gigs in the grumpy, panicked world of newspaperdom. But although print journalism and books are far from gone, this little corner of them is. Just now, there was room for my big feet on my desk because it's been cleared off. The books have been boxed up, shipped out.
I've left one novel unpacked, though. I plan to read it on the train home, maybe share it with my daughter, Suzanna, because it looks like one she might enjoy. So, if you don't mind, I'll turn off this computer now.
You will no longer be able to:
E-mail jweeks@dallasnews.com
**



9 Comments:
Several things about Weeks' column. Why the Belo folks wouldn't publish its inoffensive comments is hard to understand. There's nothing in it that goes beyond the routine and expected criticism of our current culture. Maybe Belo is more conservative than previously thought.
As for Mr. Weeks' time constraits, the fact is that anybody who loves to read will make time to read for pleasure. It really does enhance your life as well as your critical faculties and that helps in doing your job. I'm the book editor, critic, columnist, reporter, reviewer of fiction, nonfiction and poetry readings, occasional movies, write food and travel stories from time to time, do an obit now and then and belong to a book club that meets monthly and is reading "Emma" this month, and there's still time to read a few pages of a book for enjoyment.
Bob Hoover, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
Jerome Weeks has been brilliant, witty, and insightful for decades. Appreciation for language and arts comes naturally enough to him. Many can savor good reading; not many can write well about what's worthwhile reading. That's labor's love is real, honest work, as anyone who writes for deadlines must know.
Making creativity in these genres accessible is both public service and good business, especially where newspapers are well connected to a vibrant community. The good critic helps audiences find what enthralls and delights, while also gently instructing readers on what makes one book or play exceptionally virtuous or vulgar by reasonably understood criteria. That's no mean feat for the long run.
I knew Jerome as a kid, when his older brother and I would beg him to join us for backyard ball games. He did so reluctantly, and sometimes could not be cajoled or bullied into joining our exuberant competitive foolishness outdoors. He could be a good sport for awhile, but eventually his priorities and principles called him back to more authentic and intellectual pursuits. Dallas readers have been lucky to have him in print all these years.
Jim Woodward, Sacramento, CA
I groaned in dismay when I first read the news about Jerome being let go. I've shared several delightful conversations with him at NBCC meetings and BookExpo. The Dallas Morning News is losing far more than it is saving by getting rid of him.
How cruel that the DMN not only gutted its cultural coverage, but stifled the voices of those who provided it, after letting them think they'd be heard one more time. I hope that the 109 others whose farewell pieces were killed find outlets like this one to run them.
--Bella Stander, Denver CO
my heart aches for the good people, including jerome, who got the heave-ho from belo. i worked there for 11 years as a features writer, columnist and food writer, and i loved what it was when i arrived in 1989. and now this. what a loss of institutional memory; what a loss of talent; what a loss, period. if the refusal of his column is indicative of what dallas readers have to look forward in the future, my heart aches for them too.
ellen sweets
reporter/the denver post
It's not just Dallas in this fix. The Richmond Times-Dispatch has recently let go beloved columnists (and not printed final columns) and has drastically reduced arts coverage on all fronts.
At a recent meeting the paper held to appease the arts community, they patted our heads and said 'there, there' without resolution on issues of concern.
Of course, Nascar got an entire section, but not the beginning of the arts season.
Generally speaking, when one leaves a position, it is best to describe one's former employer in glowing terms. Not in self pity and "what the world needs is me".
Why review crappy books anyway? A cursory look at a book jacket is quite enough for most to understand whether a book is a genre piece or not, a romance or a serious effort at "The Great American Novel". Critics that review crappy books are basically no more than the policemen of the critical media and being employed as one isn't something to crow about nor is being released from an average position as "sieve artist" isn't something to sigh over or become despondent about.
Move on, move up and consider yourself released from this moral prison you were in (as per the article which they failed to print and it is no wonder to me why they wouldn't find it 'quality' work).
I think you missed an opportunity to say something timely or outrageous and basically wrote a "sub-postal" as in going postal report of why you were 'laid off'.
In a country where people really are having a hard time of it, this is ludicrious and self serving penmanship.
Sorry but it is the way I see this sort of thing and that Ron Silliman feels you have somehow been deprived of the opportunity to expose the "ethics" of your employer...well...speaks volumes for the ethics of both.
Not only that, you don't serve the poor readers who lack your abilities very well. What does this "confessionalism" do for them and their reading habits and skills?
Not everyone is an Einstein you know and some like their escape to remain exactly that, escape. Don't ruin it for them by confessing to your crime of "tolerance" of the mediocre for their sake. That is not very nice and quite arrogant of you.
No more Jerome Weeks! Another loss to the hemorraging arts community. While his departure is sincerely mourned, it is not unexpected; have you noticed that whatever does not pander to the lowest common denominator of our society is gradually but inexorably being expunged?
Someone mentioned that the Belo company is more conservative than suspected; I say it is the opposite. After reading and noticing the changes in the Dallas Morning News for the better part of half a century, I expect it to change its name to the Dallas Daily Worker in a very short time.
Are you kidding me?
One poster on this board mentioned increasing rejection of "art that does not pander to the lowest common denominator of our society." Well, yeah...and it has been going on in this country for quite some time. Even more so in the era Bush & Rove.
Remember, we have man in the White House who is proud of the fact that he does not read newspapers; the same man who also mocked a reporter(David Gregory) as an "intercontinental" for having the temerity to speak in French to the president of France.
Can't say I am really surprised Jerome Weeks didn't get this article past the censor of his former corporate master.
Kudos Mr. Weeks.
See, here's the thing. I'm genuinely disappointed by Jerome's dismissal. But I am not surprised. The newspaper business, at least as currently practiced, is in its last throes. I give it maybe - maybe - 10 years, and that's just for the stalwarts. Expect more of the same as a once great and important industry descends into irrelevancy.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home