糖心传媒淎 haunting allegory of man糖心传媒檚 savagery against man and one of the most essential books to come out of the Iraq War, or any war.糖心传媒澨切拇綌Elliot Ackerman, National Book Award finalist for Dark at the Crossing

I actually 诲辞苍糖心传媒檛 know Eliot Ackerman糖心传媒檚 work, but his although the real kind, not the fun WWE kind. Regardless, this book is 糖心传媒渙ne of the most essential糖心传媒� and I糖心传媒檇 like to think that I read some essential books.

糖心传媒淎n extraordinary piece of work. With uncompromising focus, Ahmed Saadawi takes you right to the wounded heart of war糖心传媒檚 absurd and tragic wreckage. It is a devastating but essential read, one that I am sure I will return to again and again.糖心传媒澨切拇綌Kevin Powers, bestselling author and National Book Award finalist for The Yellow Birds

I do know Kevin Powers though and . . . wait. There糖心传媒檚 a trend developing here. Two National Book Award finalists who both think the book is 糖心传媒渆ssential糖心传媒�? What are the odds? That糖心传媒檚 weird.

糖心传媒淏rilliant and horrifying, Frankenstein in Baghdad is essential reading.糖心传媒澨切拇綌Rachel Cordasco, World Literature Today

Trifecta! This book is essential. All I can glean from this is that one day Rachel² will be a finalist for the National Book Award. (Get writing, Rachel!)

One more:

糖心传媒淕ripping, darkly humorous . . . profound.糖心传媒澨切拇綌Phil Klay, bestselling author and National Book Award winner for Redeployment

Lesson #2: If you win a National Book Award, you 诲辞苍糖心传媒檛 have to say a book is essential.

(Bonus points to The National for using a thesaurus: 糖心传媒淭ells a vital 蝉迟辞谤测.糖心传媒�)

But what makes a book 糖心传媒渆ssential糖心传媒�? Can a book even be 糖心传媒渆ssential糖心传媒�? What does that mean? It糖心传媒檚 just not possible for a book糖心传媒攁ny book糖心传媒攖o be urgent, necessary, or luminous. I just listed the three jacket copy/blurb words that drive Coffee House糖心传媒檚 Caroline Casey insane. There糖心传媒檚 a podcast from some years back where she loses her shit about this. 糖心传媒淏ooks do not give off light!糖心传媒�

And she糖心传媒檚 right. The usage of these words in blurb speak is fairly lazy and basically a non-signifier. Show me a book that糖心传媒檚 essential to living and I糖心传媒檒l show you 100 million people who 诲辞苍糖心传媒檛 read. It糖心传媒檚 especially odd that Penguin used two blurbs postulating this same imaginary world on the back cover.

The other blurbs糖心传媒攏ot necessarily worth repeating here糖心传媒攁lso have a lot in common: 糖心传媒淎 haunting allegory,糖心传媒� 糖心传媒渉orrifically funny and allegorically resonant,糖心传媒� 糖心传媒渁 haunting allegory,糖心传媒� 糖心传媒渢his haunting novel,糖心传媒� 糖心传媒渁 haunting and startling mix of horror,糖心传媒� 糖心传媒渄arkly humorous,糖心传媒� 糖心传媒渇unny and horrifying,糖心传媒� 糖心传媒渟tay for the dark humor,糖心传媒� and 糖心传媒渢ouches of black comedy.糖心传媒�

I糖心传媒檓 glad I read this essential allegory of darkly comic horror!

I糖心传媒檝e been an audiobook devotee for years now. Ever since I admitted to myself that I am never going to make enough time to read all the random books that sound interesting, but which aren糖心传媒檛 essential to my career or life. Books like The Luminaries or A Brief History of Seven Killings, two audiobooks I totally loved.

Sometimes audiobooks are just flat out entertaining糖心传媒攍ike Seven Killings, which is as much an audio performance as anything else糖心传媒攁nd other times, they糖心传媒檙e just totally function. A sort of life hack to getting things finished and off the 糖心传媒渢o read糖心传媒� shelf. If I only listened to these on my bike rides to and from work, I would finish a 250-page book every week. That糖心传媒檚 not bad!

To be honest, I usually listen to these at the gym . . . with the Kindle version in front of me. That糖心传媒檚 totally overkill, but for some of these books, it糖心传媒檚 essential that I have both to really be able to get into the text. Besides, running on a treadmill is boring as fuck. Having someone read in my ear while glancing at words on a page, or touch-flipping a page, is literally 400% more engaging than running.

So I listened to Frankenstein in Baghdad. But since I try not to give my money to corporations like Penguin Random House (which makes such a difference), this time I didn糖心传媒檛 get the Kindle version. For whatever reason, this totally wrecked my ability to really comprehend this book. Not that I couldn糖心传媒檛 follow the plot糖心传媒攚hich isn糖心传媒檛 all that complicated, really, given that most of it is in the title and those essential blurbs糖心传媒攂ut that I kept drifting off due to all the descriptive bits that, to me as a reader, seemed unnecessary.

Even before he spoke I had made up my mind to buy the recorder, not because I needed it but as a kind of charity. I was even more resolved when I heard he had large debts and needed to pay them off before going back to his family in Maysan Province. But I didn糖心传媒檛 expect to buy a story or pay four hundred dollars. I couldn糖心传媒檛 pay such an amount on short notice.

Perfectly normal paragraph. One that you can more or less skim when you糖心传媒檙e reading. 糖心传媒淢ade up mind to buy the recorder . . . more resolved, large debt . . . can糖心传媒檛 pay on short notice.糖心传媒� Got it. Good.

Is there anything else in there that truly adds to the style or story? Not really. some details, but nothing that糖心传媒檚 written in such a striking manner as to hold your attention. Nothing essential anyway.

The thing about listening to audiobooks though is that they糖心传媒檙e so slow. Whatever you can read in a minute takes about two-and-a-half when read out loud. That can really strain your attention if most of what糖心传媒檚 being read is superfluous information related in a fairly flat style. And for this book, I just couldn糖心传媒檛.

By contrast, I糖心传媒檓 not listening to A Girl is a Half-Formed Thing and am locked into it 100%. And in December, Dhalgren kept me captivated for all 38 hours (or so). For me, style is an absolute key to being able to pay attention. Books that ride on accurately relating extraneous information are ones that I should read with my eyes, skimming the meh parts.

Where to start! There糖心传媒檚 so much here that糖心传媒檚 right down the middle of the 糖心传媒淲hat Makes Chad Mad糖心传媒� plate. I would bat .400 against this article. I糖心传媒檓 the Mike Trout of making fun of shit like this!

Easy digs first: The tenth most reviewed book of 2017? Frankenstein of Baghdad, which was released on January 23, 2018. Good work!

But that糖心传媒檚 a nitpick. I mean, once upon a time Tilted Axis posted a list of four books in translation by women to read for Women in Translation month, but had to delete one when they realized the author was a man. Mistakes happen. Hell, look at every one of these posts. (Although these aren糖心传媒檛 clickbait and clickbait is FAIR GAME for being called into question seeing as sites like LitHub and Buzzfeed and Flavorwire糖心传媒攆or all the good they do do糖心传媒攏amely profit by strip mining culture and aggregating the work of others for their own benefit. This used to be called exploitation, but now it糖心传媒檚 called 糖心传媒渟trategic content reformulation.糖心传媒�)

What糖心传媒檚 more astonishing though is what made Frankenstein in Baghdad 2017糖心传媒檚 tenth most reviewed book in translation.

In case you糖心传媒檙e not a long-time reader or Three Percent Podcast listener, I should take a second to explain that this entire 糖心传媒渞anking糖心传媒� on LitHub is based on LitHub糖心传媒檚 project. A literary Rotten Tomatoes, this launched a couple years ago with the intent of pooling reviews, assigning them a grade (used to be a letter grade but now they just put them into very broad buckets), averaging them, and listing which books are the 糖心传媒渕ost reviewed,糖心传媒� 糖心传媒渂est reviewed,糖心传媒� etc. It糖心传媒檚 a poor man糖心传媒檚 attempt at applying math to literature and pretending this has objective results.³

I wrote a very long chapter of a never-to-be-published book about poor Book Marks and all its problems, and Tom and I ripped it a few times on the podcast. But rather than start from a theoretical perspective of why this is an overall bad idea that rewards popularity over diversity (which, not surprising, given recent LitHub controversies, especially concerning Arabic literature) and is just an attempt to create more clicks for a clickbait website and more sales for The Big Five, let糖心传媒檚 get all empirical and look at the data.

According to Book Marks (still one of the worst puns in the book world . . . see, the books are given 糖心传媒渕arks糖心传媒� and 糖心传媒渂ookmarks糖心传媒� are a thing you put in books and denial aside MY GOD do we live in an industry of lose-lose puns [redundant?]), Frankenstein in Baghdad has received seven reviews. Seven?! That糖心传媒檚 interesting . . . Here糖心传媒檚 the list: NY Times (rave), Booklist (rave), Chicago Tribune (mixed)⁴, Seattle Times (rave), World Literature Today (rave), Kirkus (positive)⁵, and Publishers Weekly (positive)⁶. That糖心传媒檚 it. Seven reviews makes your book the tenth most reviewed translation of 2017. (Even though it came out in 2018, yes, I糖心传媒檒l stop now.) The number one, most review book in translation received fourteen.

By contrast, fucking Maze Runner: Death Cure has 132 reviews on Rotten Tomatoes. One hundred and thirty-two. Compared to fourteen.

What does that mean? Two things: That fourteen is a small sample size for judging anything, and that Book Marks is pretty constricted in where it糖心传媒檚 drawing its reviews from. There is a listing at the bottom of their 糖心传媒淗ow It Works糖心传媒� page of where LitHub pulls from to construct Book Marks, but the list does smack of exclusivity. But there are plenty of legitimate (糖心传媒渋ndie糖心传媒�?) review sites not included (SPOILER: Quarterly Conversation, The Complete Review, Music & Literature, Drunken Boat, Three Percent, and many many more, all of which review 20 times more translations a year than O: The Oprah Magazine, but maybe we糖心传媒檙e糖心传媒ot professional enough? Or experts about translation⁷?) all of which is just another sad-but-true indicator that, much like Trump糖心传媒檚 America, this industry also thrives on the rich getting richer and shaking each other糖心传媒檚 hands as they do.

Example: The New York Times reviews a lot of Penguin books. They just do. And these books are highlighted on the Book Marks website as the most reviewed (and best reviewed). Coupled with LitHub糖心传媒檚 spiderweb strategy of gobbling up all lit blog traffic for their own content, readers might actually be fooled into thinking this is some kind of democracy and buy into the narrative that the best new books are always from the biggest presses, and why bother with anything else? Point being: as 糖心传媒渇un糖心传媒� as listicles can be in a world more and more dependent on instant gratification, they糖心传媒檙e never really eligible for face-value or all-inclusive accuracy. Like all those cover blurbs at the beginning, the information in question is being curated in a way that, while some may see it as essential, is in fact detrimental to the entire process. A monoculture thus does make.

This idea is put in stark relief when you list the publishers of the most reviewed translations of 20糖心传媒�: New Directions (the go-to press for translations among 99% of reviewers⁸), FSG, Riverhead, FSG, New Press (sort of surprised, but mostly because I found Black Moses to be a really tedious book compared to Mabanckou糖心传媒檚 other works), New Directions, Knausgaard or I mean Penguin, Counterpoint, New Directions, Penguin. How many of these presses really do translations? One. New Directions. The rest are dilettantes that leverage money and power for cultural goodwill. I糖心传媒檓 so glad LitHub can give them a pat on the back for their utter devotion to bringing international voices to America!

Another thing! If seven reviews over all of 2018 2017 is enough to be the tenth most reviewed translation then translated literature has a serious problem. Or not? Most indie press buzz is from booksellers. Actual readers. The typical promotional structure is so removed from the presses who invest the most intellectual capital into diversifying book culture. And LitHub is 100% reinforcing that structure with . . . well, their entire website. That糖心传媒檚 their actual M.O., which is clear as day if you pay attention or just look at this post in question.

Wait. WAIT. Why isn糖心传媒檛 Tell Me How It Ends: An Essay in Forty Questions by Valeria Luiselli NOT on this list? It was reviewed in the New Yorker, New York Times, Kirkus, NPR, Publishers Weekly, LITERARY HUB, Rolling Stone (!!), New York Times Sunday Book Review, GQ, Chicago Tribune, The Guardian, 贬补谤辫别谤糖心传媒檚, The Nation, Minnesota Public Radio (I糖心传媒檓 sure the NY-centric LitHub is . . . nevermind), Financial Times, Vulture, Vol. 1 Brooklyn, Miami Rail, Brooklyn Magazine, Latin American Literature Today, In These Times, Times Literary Supplement, The Intercept, World Literature Today, Remezcla, The Millions, Paste, The Riveter, Shondaland, The Rumpus, more LITERARY HUB, Dissent, Writer糖心传媒檚 Bone, Bookwitty, Proximity Magazine, Texas Observer, Houston Chronicle, In Order of Importance, Ploughshares, Signature, THE Magazine, and Drunken Boat. That糖心传媒檚 1 . . . 2. . . . 7 . . . 14 . . . 41?! More than 14! So, why, again, isn糖心传媒檛 this book on the list? Even restricting it to LitHub Friendly sites, it糖心传媒檚 more than enough. Maybe there糖心传媒檚 a problem with the whole Book Marks system? SHOCKER.

I糖心传媒檓 not done railing. Come back tomorrow for a February Translation Preview filled with fiery opinions, critical analysis of publishing economic structures, and jokes. Tell your friends. Don糖心传媒檛 let listicles get all the hits. Read different and think.⁹

¹ One of the weirdest lines in the reviews for this book comes from Dwight Garner糖心传媒檚 piece in the 糖心传媒淚t is no surprise to learn that he won the International Prize for Arabic Fiction, a kind of Booker Prize for the region, for Frankenstein in Baghdad.糖心传媒� Let糖心传媒檚 not get into the question as to whether this is surprising or not糖心传媒攚hich presuppossed a knowledge of 糖心传媒渢he region糖心传媒檚糖心传媒� books and what the award rewards and all of that糖心传媒攂ut just look at that 糖心传媒渒ind of Booker Prize糖心传媒� bit. From Wikipedia: 糖心传媒淭he International Prize for Arabic Fiction (IPAF) (Arabic: 丕賱噩丕卅夭丞 丕賱毓丕賱賲賷丞 賱賱乇賵丕賷丞 丕賱毓乇亘賷丞糖心传媒�) is a literary prize managed in association with the Booker Prize Foundation in London, and supported by the Emirates Foundation in Abu Dhabi.糖心传媒� Yeah, kind of like a Booker Prize for the region. Or, simply, 糖心传媒淎 Booker Prize for Arabic writing.糖心传媒�

² Full disclosure: Rachel is a friend and former guest on the Two Month Review who blurbed Fres谩n糖心传媒檚 The Bottom of the Sky.

³ Another disclosure: If there was a way of calculating wRC+ for books based on advance, marketing budget, sales, and cultural impact, I would probably love it.

⁴ This is what makes a review mixed: 糖心传媒淕iven these characters糖心传媒� remove from the Whatsitsname, it糖心传媒檚 difficult for them to captivate. Perhaps the reason for this owes something to the author糖心传媒檚 rather obvious pursuit of allegory.糖心传媒� In other words, having a nuanced read is 糖心传媒渕ixed.糖心传媒� This is the ONLY mixed review. All the others are 糖心传媒渞aves糖心传媒� or 糖心传媒減ositive.糖心传媒� If you 诲辞苍糖心传媒檛 see a problem here, email me so that we can argue.

⁵ I can糖心传媒檛 distinguish between a 糖心传媒渞ave糖心传媒� and a 糖心传媒減ositive review糖心传媒� and I 诲辞苍糖心传媒檛 want to put more effort into this.

⁶ What does it mean that both 糖心传媒減ositive糖心传媒� reviews are from the trade magazine (less influenced by buzz and advertising, the ones reviewing the book well in advance of publication), whereas the 糖心传媒渞aves糖心传媒� are from the handful of remaining newspapers that review books?

⁷ If you 诲辞苍糖心传媒檛 see a problem with this either, just DM me so that we can argue.

⁸ I love New Directions, but the world is sheep and they are easily the most established publisher of hip intellectual books just sitting out there ready to be reviewed.

⁹ I got so invested in banging out an old school Three Percent rant-icism that I forgot to make one very important point: this book was translated by Jonathan Wright. You wouldn糖心传媒檛 know by looking at the book糖心传媒檚 cover or it糖心传媒檚 but I糖心传媒檓 so very sure that糖心传媒檚 not because Penguin doesn糖心传媒檛 give two fucks about translators, but because . . . I糖心传媒檓 out of bad jokes. Jonathan Wright once wrote a post for us that I use in my class every year, and which, thank the gods above, always makes my students rail against Andrew Wylie, Alaa Al Aswany, commercial publishing, bad ideas of what makes a good translation, and 糖心传媒淢y wife understood my need for the solitude.糖心传媒� So good to see you again, Jonathan. I hope you糖心传媒檙e well.