The Netanyahus.

Joshua Cohen won this year’s Pulitzer Prize for Fiction for his short novel The Netanyahus: An Account of a Minor and Ultimately Even Negligible Episode in the History of a Very Famous Family, which fictionalizes a real event involving Benjamin Netanyahu and his father, the Zionist historian Benzion Netanyahu, visiting Cornell University and the esteemed literary scholar Harold Bloom. This is a travesty; in a year with several better books (at least two by Black authors), the selection of such an unfunny, narrow work for the highest honor in American literature undermines the award and robs more deserving books of attention.

The book is narrated as a memory by a professor from Corbindale College in upstate New York, a badly disguised stand-in for Cornell, who is chosen to be on the committee to interview the senior Netanyahu for a faculty position because he’s the only Jewish professor in the department. They expect Benzion to show up alone, but instead, he brings his wife and three unruly children – Benji, the middle one; Yonatan, who would later die a hero in the raid on Entebbe; and Iddo, who’d later become a physician, author, playwright. Benzion doesn’t actually reach Corbindale until the middle of the novel, so the first half is the sort of insular follies that made Netflix’s The Chair a modest hit among academics, as well as a portrait of the casual anti-Semitism of the late 1960s. Then the Netanyahus show up and trash everything, including the novel itself.

The entire family, in the book at least, sucks. The father is an intellectual, a strong Zionist who makes compelling arguments on the pages, but he’s also a selfish asshole. His wife is worse, and invites her entire family to stay with the protagonist, whose wife wants no part of this (nor should she). The two older boys are assholes, not just in the way that most teenaged boys are, but with a spectacular lack of self-awareness. I suppose Iddo is the least offensive of the bunch, but the point is that these are deeply unlikeable, one-dimensional characters who suffocate the last half of the novel with their presence, and add nothing to it.

Cohen’s writing is insufferably pretentious, right down to his frequent, deliberate choices of uselessly esoteric vocabulary words. Writing of a character “knowing at some chthonic lake-depth that …” is pointless, just a way to send the reader to the dictionary to show off your own linguistic prowess. (It means “relating to the underworld.” “Abyssal” would have worked better here, or just saying “knowing at the deepest level of his subconscious,” which uses words any middle school student could understand.) Another passage goes “logopoeic, propaedeutic,” using words only an academic might know and love – more on that in a moment. “Nugatory” does not, in fact, refer to the center of your 3 Musketeers bar, but is the rare word that describes itself: of no value or importance. In other words, worthless. The word Cohen needed was “worthless,” but he chose the more difficult one. The entire book is like this, and it is a work of supreme arrogance.

So why the heck did it win the Pulitzer? It’s not actually funny. The story is small and unremarkable, and the themes are fairly narrow. But it is a book about academia, and about Harold Bloom. At least 30% of the Pulitzer Prize Board for 2022 comprises current professors or Deans. The majority of the Board are current or former writers who would probably all be familiar with Bloom’s work. This is a book for them and about them. It’s The Artist and Argo telling Hollywood that movies are important. The Netanyahus puts a fancypants college at the center of its narrative, and takes one of the great critics and historians of literature and makes him the protagonist. The Board probably couldn’t resist. I can’t think of another explanation – I’ve read all of the Pulitzer winners, and this is the worst choice in at least 25 years. I found nothing at all redeeming in The Netanyahus except that it’s short. There were so many better books right in front of them – Hell of a Book won the National Book Award for Fiction and The Love Songs of W.E.B. Du Bois won the National Book Critics Circle Award for Fiction, so they weren’t obscure, and both were miles and miles better than this thing. Patricia Lockwood’s No One Is Talking About This made the Booker Prize shortlist, and it’s better and far more relevant to our current moment. Colson Whitehead’s Harlem Shuffle and Torrey Peters’ Detransition, Baby were better. And that’s just among novels I read. I know it’s just a prize that doesn’t make the novels considered any better or worse, but these awards drive sales, and I’d rather see a better book get that big sales bump than this nonsense.

Next up: Alan Hollinghurst’s The Line of Beauty, a Booker Prize winner from 2004.

Comments

  1. Brian in ahwatukee

    Related – did you read/review the night watchman? From 2021. I’m 2/5 through and well…I haven’t read the runners up yet either but I have questions.

    I’ll read this one shortly. Still wish we could comment on order posts

    • I did – liked it, probably would have voted for The Vanishing Half instead, but it was solid.

      Sorry about the older posts thing but the spam I would otherwise get was unmanageable.

  2. Brian in ahwatukee

    Oh. Did you review it? I can’t find it – can you link it for search challenged individuals like myself.

    Spam. Yes, you’ve shared this before and it sucks 🙁

    • I read the night watchman a little while ago and looked for Keith’s review too and couldn’t find it. I had issues with it and wanted to see if I missed something. Other reviews I found, despite being extremely positive, just confirmed for me the problems I had with it. It felt like a novel version of an Oscar-bait movie: very mediocre but touches on “important” things. The weird thing was I felt more emotion in the few pages of the afterward than I did in the entire novel. I wanted to read a book by that author and not the novel’s author (I know they’re the same person).

    • I didn’t – I felt burned out on blogging, especially about books, last year, and didn’t review a number of books that I liked (No One Is Talking About This) or that were important for some reason (this one). I think I’ve gotten over whatever that was, at least.

  3. If I wanted showy vocabulary like that, I’d just listen to Bad Religion’s “Suffer.”

    Come to think of it, I think I’ll do that now.

  4. Brian in ahwatukee

    Darn. This is one I’d like to read your thoughts about. Fwiw I think you do an exceptional job reviewing books and often check here before reading nyt or guardian or whatever

    Glad you are better.

  5. I read The Netanyahus a few months ago, on the strength of a positive New York Times review. I didn’t like it very much. I didn’t find it clever or insightful. It’s like a bad Philip Roth parody. Although I didn’t hate it as much as you did. One thing I did hate: I know it’s fiction but I thought the portrayal of Yonatan was especially sleazy, given that he’s no longer alive. I was shocked when it won the Pulitzer. Your explanation for why it won sounds valid.

  6. Brian in ahwatukee

    Finally got to and finished this. I also WTF at some of the word choices. It almost felt like it’s an antithesis of something like The Goldfinch which used common vernacular causing an ruckus. Overall it just didn’t accomplish anything or leave me wondering about the book. It basically told me a somewhat bad politician came from a ghastly family and along the way we learn about a made up Harold Blum. The follow up was more pretension with a list of authors Bloom used to know. It’s almost like an academic made a love story to a hero of his and we got to come along for the ride.

    Asan aside I read Palmares and that seems like a nod to Jones’ past work more than a worthy book. It’s a sloppy epic. I have monkey boy left but so far it’s not a great year for Pulitzers