I know I said I’d post on Tuesdays, Thursdays, and
Saturdays, but I just hate waiting and I have too many thoughts to be patient
anyways. So, here I am! Hope your Monday has gone well (it’s about 8 o’clock in
my time zone).
Today, I read an article from The Guardian, by Robert McCrum;
it was discussing the differences between professional reviewers and amateur reviewers
(i.e. bloggers). The final statements were decidedly leaning towards
professional reviewers, because their works were thoroughly edited and
carefully polished until the final diamond was shining before them, ready to be
published, as compared to the “raw” postings of a blogger. The author wrote,
and I quote:
None of this [editing] guarantees that such a review will not be savage, destructive, ad hominem or partisan, but it will be considered, and it will loosely articulate the idiolect of literary criticism, a genre that stretches back to Hazlitt, Coleridge, Emerson, Dr Johnson and Macaulay, to name but a few. Any good print reviewer today stands on the shoulders of giants. In other words, such criticism is a) professional, b) not anonymous and c) placed in a literary critical context.
Now, it does say print
reviewer. I will allow that minor nuance…
When I first read this, my thoughts were somewhere along the
line of: “This man practically called me and everyone else who blogs about
books a babbling, bumbling band of baboons.” (Thank you, Ms. Rowling) I was
quite offended, to be perfectly honest. But, once I took a step back and
swallowed some of my pride, this man *sort of* has a point. Bloggers do tend to
have more of a subjective view, in the fact that we express explicit opinions –
I do like this, I don’t like this. But every human being expresses an opinion
in every word that they speak or type – no one is truly objective. Unless you’re
a Vulcan, in which case this post is moot and you can leave now.
Other than that, I really don’t agree with McCrum. (See – we
bloggers know how to get to the point.) There is a time and a place for an
eloquent, high-brow review that nit-picks every single theme, character, and
flaw. I can appreciate the deep analysis and philosophical arguments as to the lasting
importance and impact a book might have, but, when I’m trying to decide if I
want to read a book or not (and this applies to movies, music, and tv, as
well), I just want the straight facts. And most of the time, a blogger will
fill that need better than a professional review. I want the honest truth about
something – Did it suck? Is it so cliché that it’s good? Am I going to pee my
pants laughing? Should I bring a box of tissues? Am I going to be so horribly
disappointed at a novel-to-film adaptation that I’ll need my rotten tomatoes?
Such questions need answers.
Sure, a blog post is raw. It may include some curse words,
some sarcastic wit, some colloquial expressions that are “banned” in
literature, but it gets the point across in a way that I won’t have to spend an
extra half hour using my dictionary.
That’s all I have to say on that subject. As always,
comment, question, wax lyrical about how incredible I am, and so on… (Just
kidding on that last part… A bit.)
Bonus question for the day: Do you prefer professional
reviews or blogger reviews?
Contact me:
Twitter: @astrid_elaine
Email: astrid.elaine2@gmail.com
Adios, and see you tomorrow!
~ Astrid Elaine ~
PS: Here’s the link to the review I just reviewed - http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/booksblog/2012/oct/01/professional-book-reviewers-better-amateurs?CMP=twt_fd
No comments:
Post a Comment