America is full of stupid, fat people, innit?
A wonderfully caustic review of Bernard-Henri Lévy’s American Vertigo: Traveling America in the Footsteps of Tocqueville in yesterday’s New York Times Book Review. For the full story click here. For the highlights see below:
No TagsAny American with a big urge to write a book explaining France to the French should read this book first, to get a sense of the hazards involved. Bernard-Henri Lévy is a French writer with a spatter-paint prose style and the grandiosity of a college sophomore; he rambled around this country at the behest of The Atlantic Monthly and now has worked up his notes into a sort of book. It is the classic Freaks, Fatties, Fanatics & Faux Culture Excursion beloved of European journalists for the past 50 years…
[…]there’s nobody here whom you recognize. In more than 300 pages, nobody tells a joke. Nobody does much work. Nobody sits and eats and enjoys their food. You’ve lived all your life in America, never attended a megachurch or a brothel, don’t own guns, are non-Amish, and it dawns on you that this is a book about the French. There’s no reason for it to exist in English, except as evidence that travel need not be broadening and one should be wary of books with Tocqueville in the title.
[…]Lévy is quite comfortable with phrases like “as always in America.” Bombast comes naturally to him. Rain falls on the crowd gathered for the dedication of the Clinton library in Little Rock, and to Lévy, it signifies the demise of the Democratic Party. As always with French writers, Lévy is short on the facts, long on conclusions. He has a brief encounter with a young man outside of Montgomery, Ala. (”I listen to him tell me, as if he were justifying himself, about his attachment to this region”), and suddenly sees that the young man has “all the reflexes of Southern culture” and the “studied nonchalance . . . so characteristic of the region.” With his X-ray vision, Lévy is able to reach tall conclusions with a single bound.
And good Lord, the childlike love of paradox - America is magnificent but mad, greedy and modest, drunk with materialism and religiosity, puritan and outrageous, facing toward the future and yet obsessed with its memories. Americans’ party loyalty is “very strong and very pliable, extremely tenacious and in the end somewhat empty.” Existential and yet devoid of all content and direction. The partner-swapping club is both “libertine” and “conventional,” “depraved” and “proper.” And so the reader is fascinated and exhausted by Lévy’s tedious and original thinking: “A strong bond holds America together, but a minimal one. An attachment of great force, but not fiercely resolute. A place of high - extremely high - symbolic tension, but a neutral one, a nearly empty one.” And what’s with the flurries of rhetorical questions? Is this how the French talk or is it something they save for books about America? “What is a Republican? What distinguishes a Republican in the America of today from a Democrat?” Lévy writes, like a student padding out a term paper. “What does this experience tell us?” he writes about the Mall of America. “What do we learn about American civilization from this mausoleum of merchandise, this funeral accumulation of false goods and nondesires in this end-of-the-world setting? What is the effect on the Americans of today of this confined space, this aquarium, where only a semblance of life seems to subsist?” And what is one to make of the series of questions - 20 in a row - about Hillary Clinton, in which Lévy implies she is seeking the White House to erase the shame of the Lewinsky affair? Was Lévy aware of the game 20 Questions, commonly played on long car trips in America? Are we to read this passage as a metaphor of American restlessness? Does he understand how irritating this is? Does he? Do you? May I stop now?
America is changing, he concludes, but America will endure. “I still don’t think there’s reason to despair of this country. No matter how many derangements, dysfunctions, driftings there may be . . . no matter how fragmented the political and social space may be; despite this nihilist hypertrophy of petty antiquarian memory; despite this hyperobesity - increasingly less metaphorical - of the great social bodies that form the invisible edifice of the country; despite the utter misery of the ghettos . . . I can’t manage to convince myself of the collapse, heralded in Europe, of the American model.”
Thanks, pal. I don’t imagine France collapsing anytime soon either. Thanks for coming. Don’t let the door hit you on the way out. For your next book, tell us about those riots in France, the cars burning in the suburbs of Paris. What was that all about? Were fat people involved?










That was an incredibly tiresome review. It’s so obvious that the critic was mostly bothered by the nationality of the author and that he therefore had to try so hard to read negative things into every single sentence only so that he could counter with some equally hostile comment. Pissing on the French is apparently still hip in the states, but it was good to see Jon Stewart having more grace when Lévy visited his show last week.
I don’t get your objection — I thought the review was about how much fun the French are have pissing on us, and that you don’t even have to have writing skills to have a good go at it. I mean come on, are those misquotes? — because that writing is really really painful — “despite this nihilist hypertrophy of petty antiquarian memory; despite this hyperobesity - increasingly less metaphorical - of the great social bodies that form the invisible edifice of the country” puhleeeeeeese.
Without any leading from the author I do believe I can think for myself and be irritated by those quotes all by myself. The writer could be a fat midwesterner and that quote would still grate. But is it not ok to be sick of the French hyperbole of America? Was the reviewer lying? Have you read the book and do you know it to actually show a more nuanced picture of America than the reviewer claims? This question thing is fun.
And gee I am awful surprised Jon Stewart was so nice to him.
Mr. Berger,
I am holding you personally responsible for recommending a blog called ‘pickeled politics’ that you led me to believe was a haven for liberal muslims. More like yucky anti-Zionist creeps. Ewww.
Shaul, you’re going to have to explain yourself a little bit better than that, I’m afraid.
I haven’t read the book. And I have nothing against the French. I love France. I could live there. And yet, Garrison Keillor’s review was probably the most delicious thing I’ve read in the Book Review in weeks. Come on, people, lighten up: scathing reviews are always the best reviews to read, even if you don’t agree with the thesis.
And I have to say, based on the excerpts from the book that Mr. Keillor included in his review, his criticism doesn’t seem that far off base. “Profound insights” is not a phrase I’d expect to see on Mr. Levy’s book jacket.
I regularly read the Atlantic Monthly and I had a very hard time getting through Levy’s reports. I only read your excerpt of the review but I am in complete agreement. I did not recognize much of what he wrote about. That said, I have never really enjoyed Garrison Keillor either. I think Levy was scheduled to speak this past Sunday at the 92nd St. Y. I could not imagine paying $20 + to hear him speak. I still really enjoy the blog.
Paul, BHL definitely has a windy style which sounds even worse in translation. I tried to read beyond the first Atlantic excerpt, but gave up the struggle. Still, take a look at Martin Peretz’s defence in the New Republic…
Will do, Clive. Best. Paul.