Peter Benchley's JAWS: What the critics thought in 1974
Upon its release in 1974, Peter Benchley's novel "Jaws" catapulted into literary stardom, leaving an indelible mark on popular culture and forever altering perceptions of the ocean and its inhabitants. The gripping tale of a small seaside town terrorized by a monstrous shark not only captivated readers worldwide but also ignited fervent discussions among critics, who grappled with its themes, impact, and portrayal of marine life. We delve into the critical reception of "Jaws" during its initial publication year, exploring the diverse array of opinions that emerged from literary circles.
By examining the reviews and analyses penned in 1974, we gain insight into the novel's immediate cultural significance, its reception within the literary landscape of the time, and the controversies it sparked. Through this retrospective lens, we aim to uncover the nuances of the critical discourse surrounding Benchley's seminal work and its enduring legacy in the annals of literature and popular fiction.
Despite its commercial success, reviews of "Jaws" were mixed, with criticism directed primarily at the human characters. Michael A. Rogers of Rolling Stone bluntly stated, "None of the humans are particularly likable or interesting," adding that the shark was his favorite character "and one suspects Benchley's also." Steven Spielberg echoed this sentiment, admitting that he initially found many characters unsympathetic and rooted for the shark, a perspective he altered for the film adaptation.
Critics also lambasted Benchley's writing. Time reviewer John Skow dismissed the novel as "cliché and crude literary calculation," criticizing its lack of life and momentum in events and likening the climax to a bath tub version of Moby-Dick. Donald Newlove of The Village Voice called "Jaws" out for having a plot with "rubber teeth," branding it boring, pointless, and trite. An article in The Listener found the plot lacking bite, only coming alive during shark attack scenes, which were deemed naive attempts at energizing a faltering story.
However, some reviewers found the depiction of shark attacks entertaining. John Spurling of the New Statesman praised the shark's portrayal as skillfully intense, while Christopher Lehmann-Haupt lauded the novel's strong plot and thematic depth in The New York Times. Robert F. Jones of The Washington Post hailed "Jaws" as more than just a gripping fish tale, noting its tight pacing and enduring metaphorical impact. New York reviewer Eliot Fremont-Smith, though acknowledging the lack of memorable characters, found the novel immensely readable, attributing its appeal to Benchley's adept storytelling.
In the years following the release of his novel, Benchley became increasingly troubled by the negative portrayal of sharks and became a fervent supporter of ocean conservation. In a 2000 article for National Geographic, he lamented his work, expressing regret and acknowledging that with current understanding of sharks, he couldn't write "Jaws" today without feeling guilty.
Upon Benchley's passing in 2006, his widow Wendy stressed that he always maintained "Jaws" was fiction and bore no responsibility for perpetuating shark fear, drawing parallels to Mario Puzo's detachment from the Mafia in "The Godfather."
Words by Ross Williams
If you would like to write for The Daily Jaws, please visit our ‘work with us’ page
For all the latest Jaws, shark and shark movie news, follow The Daily Jaws on Instagram, Twitter and Facebook.