A Word of Advice for the Negative Reviewer
…from the excellent Helen Gardner:
"Critics are wise to leave alone those works which they feel a crusading itch to attack and writers whose reputations they feel a call to deflate. Only too often it is not the writer who suffers ultimately but the critic
The man recover’d of the bite
The dog it was that died
When the dust and flurry of the argument has subsided, the writer has not been ‘dislodg’d’. He is still there:
Still green with bays each ancient Altar stands
Above the reach of sacriligious hands."
Which is great and poetic and all, however, is silence enough? Is it enough just to praise what is good, and ignore what is bad? Surely, it’s preferable, instead of abdicating responsibility, to tell the truth? Yes, leave the field if the urge to attack and deflate can’t be held in check, but otherwise, identify both good and bad, compare the two, and to try explain what makes them so and why. Reserve superlatives for the superlative. Use the superlative to improve the improvable.
Related posts:
May 19th, 2009 at 1:47 PM
“Which is great and poetic and all, however, is silence enough?”
I like your answer—”no” seems so obvious as to barely need stating. I’d rephrase Gardner’s assertion as being, “beware of relentlessly and thoughtlessly attacking.” It reminds me of John Updike’s rules for reviewing, which I cited in this post: http://jseliger.com/2007/02/07/martin-amis-in-seattle/ about a Martin Amis novel that made me ambivalent. The rules themselves are here: http://bookcriticscircle.blogspot.com/2006/06/reviewing-101-john-updikes-rules.html , and, if I could summarize them, I would say that they warn the reviewer to be more aware of his own weaknesses than he thinks he needs to be.
May 20th, 2009 at 9:46 AM
Thank you for your brief and thoughtful analysis of the reviewer’s dilemma. Reviewers, I think, serve readers best when they focus on a book’s merits AND deficiencies for purposes of giving readers fair notice about what they ought to expect if they choose to read the book under consideration. Too many reviewers, especially online, rely upon publishers to provide review copies; thus, reviewers are hesitant to bite the hand that feeds them, which means the reviewers shy away from negative comments (which adds up to a failure to report accurately to the readers). That is a growing problem online.
May 22nd, 2009 at 8:14 AM
R.T. Davis’ point is relevant and true – many of the book reviews online are hesitant to rate the book “down”. Either everyone really loves everything, or a lot of people are bluffing quite a bit. With a growing trend like this but a firm belief in the amateur review (a lot more down-to-earth and to the point than professional ones), I think it’s important to understand HOW to review negatively. There’s a way to criticize a book or a novel without resorting to common insults. I’m not sure why many cannot see that line.