read a comment by Ian McEwan (in Time), saying that he didn't have a lot of time for those sites where the reader does all the reviewing. "Reviewing," he argues, "takes expertise, wisdom and judgment. I am not much fond of the notion that anyone's view is as good as anyone else's."
Elitist git, I say, actually.
Who has the privileged view? Who is allowed and entitled to have an opinion? Does the fact that I am an (erratically published) writer give me license to review? Or do I have to be a (regularly) published writer? Or is a literature degree enough? Or do I have to write reviews over 1000 words to matter? Or is it that my reviews have to assume some kind of universal stance of the literary critic?
I know that I often fall into that trap when I write in here, partly because I'm writing fairly short posts, partly because I am often writing about fairly "light" things. Partly, I hesitate to admit, because I've been uncertain of how well received a more truly critical piece would be - which is wrongheaded, and just plain wrong, given the people on my flist...
Don't you think other people feel this way? Particularly people who don't have the class or educational background to dress up their review in the terms of the Academy? "I don't know anything about Art, but I know what I like" is a defensive stance. It implies that criticism might well be aimed at them for their choices. And they are proven consistently right in that regard.
And I think that Oprah has done a tremendous job. She has gotten people in my family reading, and reading consistently. She knows how to choose books that will appeal to her audience and makes her choices from a wide range of genres and topics. If I don't like the books that she chooses, so what? It isn't a requirement that I like them. And her effect on the production and promotion of books is no more pernicious than total lack of readership outside of airplane books would be.
When choosing what to buy, I may often read Michiko Kakutani. Or, I may often go see what the Amazon masses have to say. And why not? Sometimes a thumbs up or thumbs down is just as useful in that situation as a well-considered thesis.
Finally, I review for myself, largely. I try to fix ideas in my head about what I have just read. I won't apologize for that, or for the lack of depth or length. I'm profoundly uninterested in meeting anybody's standards except my own.
*****
p.s. I must be the only person in the world who had a great experience with my book club. We were a great mix of academics and business types and had lively discussions about books ranging from Pynchon to the Bible. No problem at all with ambiguity.
p.p.s. Off topic, but I also really didn't like The Bone People. I thought that choosing to mythologize about child abuse was offensive, and that outweighed any positives about the writing for me. I might have preferred any number of less serious books to it as well.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
playing devil's advocate
Elitist git, I say, actually.
Who has the privileged view? Who is allowed and entitled to have an opinion? Does the fact that I am an (erratically published) writer give me license to review? Or do I have to be a (regularly) published writer? Or is a literature degree enough? Or do I have to write reviews over 1000 words to matter? Or is it that my reviews have to assume some kind of universal stance of the literary critic?
Don't you think other people feel this way? Particularly people who don't have the class or educational background to dress up their review in the terms of the Academy? "I don't know anything about Art, but I know what I like" is a defensive stance. It implies that criticism might well be aimed at them for their choices. And they are proven consistently right in that regard.
I am *delighted* to see the proliferation of review sites, book clubs, and reader/reviewers. You know why? Because it means that people are reading. I genuinely do not care (much) what they read. People may not go from The Da Vinci Code to Gravity's Rainbow, but they may well go from The Da Vinci Code to John le Carré, and then to Graham Greene. Who knows? If someone fails to tell them that it is difficult to read, they might move on to nearly anything...
And I think that Oprah has done a tremendous job. She has gotten people in my family reading, and reading consistently. She knows how to choose books that will appeal to her audience and makes her choices from a wide range of genres and topics. If I don't like the books that she chooses, so what? It isn't a requirement that I like them. And her effect on the production and promotion of books is no more pernicious than total lack of readership outside of airplane books would be.
When choosing what to buy, I may often read Michiko Kakutani. Or, I may often go see what the Amazon masses have to say. And why not? Sometimes a thumbs up or thumbs down is just as useful in that situation as a well-considered thesis.
Finally, I review for myself, largely. I try to fix ideas in my head about what I have just read. I won't apologize for that, or for the lack of depth or length. I'm profoundly uninterested in meeting anybody's standards except my own.
*****
p.s. I must be the only person in the world who had a great experience with my book club. We were a great mix of academics and business types and had lively discussions about books ranging from Pynchon to the Bible. No problem at all with ambiguity.
p.p.s. Off topic, but I also really didn't like The Bone People. I thought that choosing to mythologize about child abuse was offensive, and that outweighed any positives about the writing for me. I might have preferred any number of less serious books to it as well.