Nick Kocz's Ridiculous Words
  • SM Thayer
  • About
  • Writing
  • Contact
  • Blog

Reviews: An Uptick

3/4/2011

 
Picture
I read a fair number of book reviews.  Besides those in my local paper, The Roanoke Times, I’ll go online and read The New York Times and Washington Post reviews.  The New Republic and The Nation, two magazines I subscribe to, run excellent long-form reviews. 

Often, I’ll buy books because of these reviews.

However, for books that I know I absolutely must read, I’ll resist the reviews until after I’ve read the book.  For example, I’m not going to read reviews for the new Chris Bachelder novel, Abbott Awaits, which I ordered last night through Amazon.  Afterwards, I’ll hunt down reviews relentlessly, comparing my impressions against those reviews.  It’s what I do for fun: reading reviews to books I’ve already read.

I’ve noticed an uptick recently in the number of articles and blog posts about the book reviewing process.

Over at Ward Six, Rhian Ellis wrote,

“There's really no defending a negative review of a small press book by a non-famous writer -- ignoring that book, if you don't like it, is enough. Since so much of reviewing is a matter of taste, you risk sinking a person's nascent career because of your fickle whims. I don't approve.”

On the surface, this seems big-hearted.  Even if one were predisposed to writing negative reviews, it’s kinda dinky to set your sights on small press books when so many utterly wretched books are being published by major houses.

Then I read this article which suggested that bad reviews might actually be a good thing for small press books published by non-famous writers.  Even bad reviews provide greater exposure for those books, thus increasing the likelihood of purchases.

However, when consumers are already familiar with the book or author, bad reviews will not only depress sales but also decrease the likelihood that the book will be reviewed elsewhere (“negative information usually cuts down the number of product reviews”).

Meanwhile, at The Millions, Emily St. John Mandel wrote about what it’s like to receive bad reviews.  She accepts them gracefully, showing more class than Alice Hoffman and Richard Ford, whose pathetically horrible reactions to bad reviews are chronicled within her essay.

The most problematic book review essay is Charles Baxter’s “Owl Criticism,” which appeared last week in Fiction Writers Review.  Baxter has ideas about what a book review should accomplish, and how it ought to be accomplished.

“The marks of a trustworthy review, therefore, have a kind of doubleness: the reviewer manages to assert somehow that the book under discussion is of some importance for one reason or another; and second, a good review provides a formal description of the book’s properties, so that you could reconstruct it from the reviewer’s sketch of it.”

He adds that “a formal description” is “not the same as a plot summary, although a plot summary may figure into it.”

There’s nothing radical about this approach.  Baxter’s saying that a good review ought to provide a contextual frame through which to view the book AND allow readers enough insight about the book to make their own judgment about its value.

These criteria are valid.

Establishing such criteria however is only half of Baxter’s project.  Throughout much of the essay, he derides the surface-level this book is boring criticism one finds in Amazon.com customer reviews.

 “They are made up of what I call Owl Criticism. With Owl Criticism, you have statements like, ‘This book has an owl in it, and I don’t like owls.’”

Owl Criticism provides no understanding of the works in question.  It is “pointless.”

Taking potshots at amateur Amazon reviews sounds like good fun, but Baxter goes a step further: he states that only those with “technical knowledge” about “how novels are constructed” ought to be writing reviews.

Setting exclusionary standards for participation in literary discussions is a dangerous practice.  It’s not that hard to write a half-decent book review.  Especially now, during the publishing industry’s moment of crisis, we ought to be encouraging as many people as possible to be debating the merits of the books they love, and the books they hate.

Book buyers are intelligent people.  They know how to distinguish meaningful reviews from pointless Amazon chatter.

What makes Baxter’s faith in credentialed reviewers laughable is that, in the essay’s very next paragraph, he demonstrates that The New York Times and The Atlantic Monthly, two organs that rely on the credentialed reviewers he prefers, are also susceptible to practicing Owl Criticism.

There’s another troubling point that Baxter makes: he’d prefer to squelch further discussion about canonized classics like Madame Bovary and Anna Karenina.

“I’d assert that all these [people who write comments about canonized books] …are reviewing … novels that don’t need reviews, partly because the jury is no longer out; the jury has returned a verdict on these books by now, and it’s just plain obtuse to pretend that it hasn’t.”

In effect, he’s saying that we ought not challenge the wisdom of past authorities; yesterday’s critics, he implies, know what’s best for us today.

This too is dangerous.

A constant and aggressive re-assessment of past masterpieces is necessary to sustain a thriving culture.  Literature is, in part, a conversation.  Our understanding of our literary heritage informs our understanding of contemporary writing.  When one cuts debate of these past classics, rigidifying our understanding of them, contemporary literature’s potential to change will be hampered.

To a point, I understand why Baxter thinks it’s pointless to continue to re-evaluate someone whose reputation seems everlastingly secure.  Take Shakespeare.  My children’s children’s children will still read him in their English lit classes.  I mean, it’s doubtful that Shakespeare will ever fall into neglect, right? 

However, it’s conceivable that the Shakespearean works we prize most can change.  At the present moment, we privilege his tragedies.  But imagine what could happen if, over time, the comedies or histories gain ascendency.  Such a re-evaluation would likely a huge impact on contemporary aesthetics.

Over time, reputations fall and rise.  Cynthia Ozick, in her review of Saul Bellow’s letters, notes an enormous list of mid-twentieth century writers who are fading fast into irrelevancy.  No doubt, interest in some of those writers will undergo a resurgence, thus re-shaping contemporary writers’ understanding of their craft. 

Ars longa, Hippocrates wrote.

But reviews need not be shorted.

Addendum

I first heard about Baxter’s essay through Gabriel Blackwell, The Collagist’s Book Review editor who ably edits reviews that I’ve written.  Earlier this week, Mark Athitakis also discussed the essay in his American Fiction Notes blog.  Scroll through the comments and you’ll find John Updike’s thoughts about writing book reviews.  Updike’s ideas seem about right, don’t they?


Gabriel Blackwell link
3/4/2011 02:49:11 am

I think that Baxter's ideas aren't actually that far off from Updike's. Maybe I'm giving him a more generous read.

Really, what I seized on in that essay is the idea of "Owl Criticism" itself, the (very real) problem of reviewers dismissing a book on extra-literary (or typically extra-literary) grounds. What the book is "about" is seldom what the book is about. Dismissing a book on those grounds, whether on a book's Amazon page or in the pages of the NYTBR, is only in certain extreme cases helpful to the reader. Because it is (almost) never the "subject" that turns us off or gets us excited about the book. If it were, would we even bother to read <em>Anna Karenina</em> when we could just read the latest Nora Roberts? It seems to me that that's Baxter's point. If we're just reviewing the "subject" of the book, we're going to write ourselves out of existence every generation. It is the way that subject is treated that's important, and that cannot come through in so-called "Owl Criticism."

Book reviews that read like customer satisfaction surveys reduce literature to commodity, ephemera. I don't say that it isn't those things, but it shouldn't be only those things. Describing what is exemplary about a piece of fiction is not always easy, but it is always rewarding. And if one feels there is nothing exemplary in the particular book he or she is looking at, why is that person even bothering? That kind of review is a waste of everyone's time. It really doesn't matter whether what the reviewer finds exemplary is distasteful or dissatisfying -- teasing that out and articulating it will be rewarding for the reviewer and the reader.

gabe link
3/4/2011 03:30:59 am

Just ordered Bachelder's book yesterday too! And I'm waiting to read reviews until after.

nick link
3/4/2011 03:49:18 am

Gabriel, thanks for commenting!
You’re right—in writing about what they find valuable in a review, Updike and Baxter aren’t that far apart. If anything, Updike nails it with more concision than Baxter. And you’ve nailed the précis of Owl Criticism better than Baxter.

I’m just not in favor of the caveats Baxter raises. Eight or ten years ago, people of Baxter’s mindset ranted about how all book blogs were essentially mindless bleatings by the uncredentialled masses. While that might have been true of some blogs, it was not always the case. As the book blog genre has matured, the quality of their reviews has increased. If anything, internet book blogs have re-invigorated serious discussion of literature in this country.

The Amazon review genre is still in its infancy. There’s no reason to presume that its quality of discourse will forever remain stunted as the genre matures. I’m unstudied in the history of book reviews, but I’d guess that when the first book reviews began appearing, whether by word-of-mouth or through circular letters, much of what passed for criticism was of the “This booke is excellent” or “This book is boring” variety. Things change. One of the greatest consolations in life is the realization that pendulums swing.

One of the many things I appreciated in your comment was this line:

“Book reviews that read like customer satisfaction surveys reduce literature to commodity, ephemera.”

What strikes me though is that the articles I cited all fear that mindless discourse decrease book sales. In doing so, these comments are reducing literature to the realm of commodity. This seems self-defeating, pegging a book’s worth solely to its sales volume. More so, I’m just not sold on the idea that Owl Criticism seriously influences anyone’s buying habits. Maybe I’m wrong. Maybe my faith in the intelligence of the book-buying public is misguided.

Another thing in your comments that I thought was first-rate was this: “If we're just reviewing the "subject" of the book, we're going to write ourselves out of existence every generation.”

Thank you for providing such excellent food for thought.


Comments are closed.

    Categories

    All
    Adam Johnson
    Alan Cheuse
    Alexander Solzhenitsyn
    Alexi Zentner
    Amber Sparks
    Amy Rowland
    Andrew Wylie
    Andy Warhol
    Anna Snoekstra
    Ann Patchett
    Arsène Wenger
    Aubrey Hirsch
    B.A. Paris
    Barack Obama
    Ben Fountain
    Ben Marcus
    BEST DAY EVER
    Bob Dylan
    Book Reviews
    Bryan Furuness
    Cathy Day
    Children Of Paradise
    Chimamanda Adichie
    Christine Butterworth-McDermott
    Daniel Patrick Moynihan
    Dave Housley
    David Bowie
    David Foster Wallace
    David Lynn
    Donald Barthelme
    Donald Trump
    Don't You Cry
    Ed Falco
    E.M.Forster
    Emma Chapman
    Emmanuel Adebayor
    Flannery O'Connor
    Flash Fiction
    Frank Conroy
    Fred D'Aguiar
    F. Scott Fitzgerald
    Gabriel Blackwell
    George Harrison
    George Saunders
    Gillian Flynn
    Girija Tropp
    Harper Lee
    Heart
    Hillary Clinton
    I Will Never Leave You
    Jacob Appel
    James Lasdun
    James Tadd Adcox
    Jane Fonda
    Jeff Ell
    Jenniey Tallman
    John Cusack
    John Lennon
    John Updike
    Joyce Carol Oates
    J. Robert Lennon
    Julie Lawson Timmer
    Kaira Rouda
    Kate Atkinson
    Keith Banner
    Kenyon Review
    Kim Jong Il
    Kyle Minor
    Lance Olsen
    Len Kuntz
    Lenny Dykstra
    Leslie Pietrzyk
    Lily Hoang
    Lisa Jewell
    Lou Reed
    Luke Geddes
    Mary Kubica
    Melissa Febos
    Milan Kundera
    Molly Gaudry
    Nicholson Baker
    Notes For My Biographer
    Pablo Picasso
    Paula Hawkins
    Paul Maliszewski
    Paul Mccartney
    Philip Roth
    REAL: Regarding Arts & Letters
    Richard Peabody
    Rick Moody
    Robert Kloss
    Robert Smartwood
    Roxane Gay
    Shirley Hazzard
    S.J. Watson
    S.M. Thayer
    SM Thayer
    Stéphane Hessel
    Stuart Dybek
    Submission Fees
    Sven Birkerts
    Tadeusz Borowski
    The Beatles
    The Fall Guy
    The Girls In The Garden
    The Good Girl
    The Official Catalog Of The Library Of Potential Literature
    Thomas Mallon
    Tim O'Brien
    Tony Earley
    Umberto Eco
    Virginia Woolf
    Wells Tower
    Willem De Kooning
    Working Class Hero

    Archives

    August 2018
    January 2018
    January 2017
    December 2016
    November 2016
    August 2016
    July 2016
    May 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    January 2016
    September 2015
    February 2015
    November 2014
    September 2014
    July 2014
    May 2014
    April 2014
    March 2014
    February 2014
    December 2013
    November 2013
    May 2013
    March 2013
    December 2012
    November 2012
    June 2012
    May 2012
    April 2012
    December 2011
    November 2011
    October 2011
    August 2011
    July 2011
    June 2011
    May 2011
    April 2011
    March 2011
    February 2011
    January 2011

    RSS Feed

Powered by Create your own unique website with customizable templates.