By David Ross. Writing in The New Republic, Andrew Butterfield guts Steve Martin’s new novel, An Object of Beauty (see here), a racy and putatively biting satire of the modern art scene in Manhattan.
A dealer and scholar of real standing (see here), Butterfield accuses Martin’s novel of lazy preening and cliché mongering. In these regards, the novel sounds very much like the Hollywood movie that it will eventually become. Martin has merely saved his film adapters the trouble of dumbing things down and turning to pap whatever had personality.
Butterfield delivers a good number number of vicious but presumably merited groin blows, of which this is characteristic:
The Object of Beauty masquerades as a social satire – a sort of Bonfire of the Vanities, updated to cover the recent bubble in contemporary art – but really the book is a just a drab soap opera about the doings of one superficially hot but deeply unappealing young woman. Martin is too lazy or too diffident to try to describe this universe freshly or in any detail. Instead he lazily relies on knowingness. He drops names of famous people and famous restaurants without bothering in the slightest to tell you anything precise or new or imaginative about them. They are merely brands; shorthands for chic. If you already know what Sant’Ambroeus looks like, or who Bill Acquavella and Larry Gagosian are, you do not need to read the book. If you do not know who they are, or why they might have a claim on your time and attention, Martin will not tell you anything that will enable you to picture them. He does not even tell you why you should find them humanly interesting. All he makes you feel is that your ignorance should arouse your envy – that you, poor thing, are less fortunate than he and the fancy people in his book. The reader of this novel is like a tourist banished to the outside of the velvet rope.
Nothing is more gratifying than to see Hollywood pretension pricked upon the pin of genuine expertise. Celebrities insist on putting on their wire-rim glasses and taking “courageous stands” and opining about art and literature and world affairs. Sometimes they even wind up on the Council on Foreign Relations, as did Angelina Jolie back in 2007. Apparently being a former self-mutilating, heroin-using goth-girl counts as a resume point.
None of this buttoned-up activity impresses me. This is yet more acting and not even good acting.
The only celebrity extracurricular activity that I have ever been able to respect is Jennifer Tilly’s poker career. It takes mettle to plunge into one of the few activities in which you cannot trade on your looks or fame, and in which there’s no possibility of taking cover in the fuzziness of subjective and decadent standards, and in which you’re likely to wind up tainted with the faint stench of the Red States. Jennifer Tilly at the poker table is far more impressive than Angelina Jolie delivering “prepared remarks” at a lectern.
Wikipedia provides details:
On June 27, 2005, Tilly won a World Series of Poker bracelet (and $158,625) in the Ladies’ No-Limit Texas Hold ‘Em event, outlasting 600 other players. She followed up this accomplishment on September 1, 2005, by also winning the third World Poker Tour Ladies Invitational Tournament held at the Bicycle Casino in Los Angeles. Tilly has appeared in the GSN Poker Royale series. She appeared in the third season of Poker Superstars but was eliminated in the preliminary round. Tilly played in the Celebrity Poker Showdown which aired June 14, 2006, on Bravo. Tilly was knocked out in third place by Bravo’s online poker champion Ida Siconolfi (the first non-celebrity to appear on the show) when her A♣ K♥ failed to improve against Ida’s starting hand of K♣ K♠. Tilly appears as a celebrity, rather than a poker pro, in ESPN’s Pro-Am Poker Equalizer. Tilly also appears in the World Series of Poker Tournament of Champions 2007 Edition video game (along with boyfriend, Phil Laak) that was released in 2007 by Activision.
In a television interview in 2005, Tilly stated that at that point in her career she was more interested in pursuing poker than acting. By December 2008, Tilly announced her retirement from poker as a career. In her monthly column in Bluff Magazine she said: “I love poker but greatness in poker is an elusive dream. There are too many variants. Trying to find validation in poker is like trying to find a virgin in a whorehouse. I’m not giving up poker entirely – gambling is an addiction after all. I’m just going to treat it more like a hobby and less like a career.” Since January 2010, Tilly appears to have resumed her poker career. As of 2010, Tilly’s live tournament wins exceed $660,000.
Posted on January 6th, 2011 at 10:28am.
I like Martin’s writing. I guess I’m just too dumb to understand why smart people should look down upon it.