Rating: 
Summary: Interesting . . .
Review: Opinionated--Yes. Irreverent--Somewhat. Eclectic--Definitely.Some choices I just don't understand (Mario Puzo? John Grisham? Bret Easton Ellis? Tom Clancy? Jacqueline Susann? These people are "Fascinating"? Um, No.) But, a lot of excellent, even brilliant, authors are included that would otherwise be overlooked: Sherman Alexie ("The Lone Ranger..." stories are just brilliant), Paul Auster ("City of Glass"), TC Boyle ("Collected Stories"), Raymond Carver (ANYTHING by Carver), VS Naipul ("A House for Mr. Biswas"--stunning), David Foster Wallace ("Infinite Jest"--you'll never look at a book the same way again!), and my personal favorite--Lydia Davis ("Break It Down"--A MUST READ/ditto "The End of the Story"). The usual OWM (old white men) deservedly get mentioned: Roth, Irving, Bellow, Mailer, Wolfe, Vidal. Even if you don't like them, their work has certainly shaped American writing. Overall, an interesting selection of contemporary authors. Could have been a little more comprehensive on each entry, but still fairly thorough. Interesting trivia throughout.
Rating: 
Summary: Oh Please!
Review: Please please please! A quick scan in the bookstore reveals all sparkly smugness (is that a Salon specialty?)-- and a literary roundup that somehow ignores-- Donald Westlake (Richard Stark): Does crime writing get any better? Mark Richard: the real Southern Gothic Susan Minot: Wasp Soul Barry Yourgrau: genuinely unique imagination -- No W.G. Sebald! --- No Alex Garland! I would say this is not so much an "opinionated" guide as an annoyingly incomplete one-- and that the guiders could use a little counselling in their subject.
Rating: 
Summary: Often infuriating -- but indispensable
Review: Some of the reviews and "Must Read" selections make me engage in self-mutilation. In spots, the writing is embarrasing and too off-handish. Also, I am offended by the use of the word "Canadian" to describe a specific literary style (no writer is described as having an "American" style). The "See Also" sections can be right on target, too predictable or pathetically off-the-mark. Actually, due to the number of reviewers and essayists, the book as a whole is wildly, gloriously, confusingly inconsistent - books recommended in the essays and sidebars are frequently not highlighted as worth reading in the author sections. I've found, however, I can't live without it. After finding my favourite books praised, and reading and thoroughly enjoying "The World As I Found It" (Bruce Duffy), I stopped buying anything that didn't get a positive write-up in the guide. I lent the book to a friend who kept it for several weeks and I started experiencing withdrawl symptoms - shaking, insomnia, facial tics, etc. About eleven times every day, I thought "If only I could look that up in the Salon book....". I yearned to show people the wickedly accurate author caricatures or to quote the best reviewers (Laura Miller and Carter Scholz in particular). I am sadly, sadly addicted. Other people get wine, women, song.... I get snarky reference books.
Rating:
Summary: Often infuriating -- but indispensable
Review: Some of the reviews and "Must Read" selections make me engage in self-mutilation. In spots, the writing is embarrasing and too off-handish. Also, I am offended by the use of the word "Canadian" to describe a specific literary style (no writer is described as having an "American" style). The "See Also" sections can be right on target, too predictable or pathetically off-the-mark. Actually, due to the number of reviewers and essayists, the book as a whole is wildly, gloriously, confusingly inconsistent - books recommended in the essays and sidebars are frequently not highlighted as worth reading in the author sections. I've found, however, I can't live without it. After finding my favourite books praised, and reading and thoroughly enjoying "The World As I Found It" (Bruce Duffy), I stopped buying anything that didn't get a positive write-up in the guide. I lent the book to a friend who kept it for several weeks and I started experiencing withdrawl symptoms - shaking, insomnia, facial tics, etc. About eleven times every day, I thought "If only I could look that up in the Salon book....". I yearned to show people the wickedly accurate author caricatures or to quote the best reviewers (Laura Miller and Carter Scholz in particular). I am sadly, sadly addicted. Other people get wine, women, song.... I get snarky reference books.
Rating:
Summary: Salon.com Knows its Literature
Review: The Salon.com Reader's Guide to Contemporary Authors is one of the best books on contemporary literature I've ever read. With the notable exclusions of writers John Nichols, David James Duncan and Arundahati Roy, the book is a comprehensive (though it claims not to be) and witty guide to all books not yet considered "classic" yet well on their way. I am a college writing and literature instructor, so I first browsed the volume as an interested teacher (always looking for ways to get students to like reading), but ended up unable to put it down because I so loved its insight and humor about all the writers I've loved or hated over the years. I was delighted at the validation I received for not really liking trendy writers such as A.S. Byatt, Edwidge Danticat or Brett Easton Ellis, and thrilled that authors Jim Harrison and Salman Rushdie were finally given the fair criticism they deserve, not based on scandal or hype or Brad Pitt. In fact, I found Salon's criticisms generally accurate with regard to books I've read already. Never nasty, the critics sum up the influence the writer has had and honestly discuss whether or not the influence is justified. I also learned much about the writing of authors I have always meant to check out and I learned about writers I've never heard of but now want to read desperately. I wish this book had been published years ago. I am definitely going to recommend it to all of my reading friends and my students and I eagerly await the second edition (for surely there must be a second edition now that Jonathan Franzen has written The Corrections?) Thanks, Salon.com, for filling a void so humorously and honestly.
Rating: 
Summary: Be Warned.....
Review: This "guide to contemporary authors" is really a guide to "Salon-approved" authors. You should be aware that this book is actually more of a collection of critiques, as opposed to a "guide" to contemporary authors. Sum it up? It's what you would expect from Salon: white, male heterosexuals need not apply. If you are white, it's best you be female; if you are male, it's best you be gay; if you write and want to be reviewed favorably in the 2nd edition, it's best you make clear your political sentiments (so Salon will know what to write about you). Harsh? Maybe. True? Undeniable. My suggestion: forget this "guide" to contemporary authors and read a few and write your own - it has to be better than this collection of political and social commentaries.
Rating:
Summary: The straight scoop on modern writers
Review: This book does what it sets out to do and then some. Filled with bits and pieces about your favorite authors, and even your not-so-favorites. Written in a reference type style, it zips right along from Attwood to Bukowski to Rushdie. Imminently readable and filled with astute observations, tongue-in-cheek humor, and wonderful nuggets of insider scoop, this reader's guide is a valuable resource for any bibliophile. Two snaps up!
Rating:
Summary: silly
Review: This book isn't awful, but any self-professed "Guide to Contemporary Authors" that fails to mention BOTH Patrick O'Brian and Ruth Rendell strikes this reviewer as just plain silly. Is it because they're both "genre" writers -- an epithet that's usually lobbed in a writer's direction in lieu of actually bothering to read him (or her)? Are the two not hip enough? Not controversial enough? Not postmodern enough? Of course, I understand that the editors only had limited space for this guide. That's sort of the nature of guides, what? But, that said, the only-vaguely coherent parameters for writer-inclusion laid down in the book's introduction do little to make clear why some writers are in, and others are out. Oh, crap. Why am I bothering? It's a fine book. I'm just glad I stole it, instead of shelling out a double-sawbuck.
Rating:
Summary: Rabid Readers, Buy This Book!
Review: This is a book to devour. I certainly did so, several times over. How many times do you visit the fiction section and see names and names of authors on the spine and wonder what they're like? Especially contemporary authors that haven't established a worldwide reputation like say Faulkner yet? You don't have time to sample them all randomly. Then this book comes along, and in it are about 100 such contemporary authors, all about them, what they wrote, which book to start with first. And you devour it. And you send copies to all your best reading comrades, so they can share the love. This is a really good book. And the way these reviewers chose the authors is based on who they loved, not some college canon or the like. I don't know of any comparable book anywhere. I ended up indulging in a lot of new authors and new books and some I didn't care for, naturally, and some I adored.
Rating:
Summary: great... both an indispensible tool and a DAMN good read
Review: this is what I needed! and so many other people too... a place to run when someone talks glibly about some author... you want a basic, opinionated take on them, and you want a list of the person's books -- but with a sub-list of the ones that are notable and should be read. AND you want the word on "what is the ONE book by them that you should read if you were only to read one?" I just wish to god they had this for popular music. and maybe they're doing it. would be a harder task. LOVE this book.
| 
