« Collaboration: Not My Strong Suit | Main | Undue Deference, and What Could Have Been »
September 27, 2005
Navel Gazers R Us
Ahh, navel gazing. One of my favorite pastimes. Happy to oblige. Now, if only I knew the HTML for a backwards "R" ...
I suspect that - at least partly because of my screenwriting background, where one is perpetually subjected to the demands of "groupthink" in one form or another - I might be a bit more desensitized to the vagaries of group decision making. And I do enjoy collaboration — I can be a bit tunnel-visioned sometimes, so I welcome other perspectives. As it turns out, if anything, we were probably a bit too deferential to each other during this process, don't you think? We each stepped aside from books we suggested to allow room for books suggested by the other. (I'd originally hoped to see John Banville's The Untouchable get a self-made nod, for example, but stepped back to give room to The Sea, The Sea.) Of course, maybe that's the best possible definition of collaboration ...
I can certainly plead to having been a bit slow on the uptake with respect to Boldtype's choice to run only positive reviews. And, like you, that gave me some pause. But I think it's a trickier thing than it appears on the surface. We're both definitely believers in the importance of negative reviews for a variety of reasons - for me, I want them if only to provide for some calibration of my own taste against a reviewer's. The bigger question, here, of course, is of institutional credibility: A reader might fairly ask, "Well, how can I trust Boldtype if they like everything?"
It puts me in mind of an exchange I had with Alan Cheuse, way before I started The Elegant Variation. I'd left a comment posting at The Antic Muse on the whole Julavits/Snark debate, and I'd opined something (snarky) to the effect that if one only ran positive reviews, they risked becoming Oprah or Alan Cheuse. Imagine my surprise when about a week or two later, I received an email from him, asking me to explain what I meant. After I got over the shock of hearing from him, I explained that I simply felt that with every review I hear on NPR being positive, it cast doubt for me on his critical credibility. He told me that although he has written negative reviews — he sent me a copy of a review of Cosmopolis he'd written (for Bookforum, I think) — he felt that radio time for books was so valuable he didn't want to waste it on a negative review.
Well, I kind of understand that. Although I think Boldtype should, perhaps, be encouraged to call themselves something other than a book review. Toby used the term "shortlist of recommendations" in our discussions, which feels a bit more appropriate - I'm more comfortable if one discloses up front that, "Look, this is a list of recommendations, of things we like, not a formal review." I don't think there's any foul at all in choosing to promote work one is enthusiastic about - I do it on my "recommended" sidebar but I don't have (or feel the need for) an "Avoid At All Costs" sidebar (though that might be fun). The trouble starts when one solicits positive reviews, and I have no evidence of Boldtype doing anything like that. In fact, reviewers have the chance to simply opt out and not review a title they're not enthusiastic about. (Now, to be completely fair, I've just gone back on noticed that on Boldtype's home page it pretty clearly says: "Boldtype is an email-based book review that offers a monthly shortlist of worthwhile reads." I've never noticed that before, but I assume it's always been there. Toby?)
As for Laila, well, you and I both knew that this would probably raise a few eyebrows but I suspect it will be a tempest in a teapot - nobody barked when Christopher Hitchens reviewed Salman Rushdie for the Atlanic (except, amusingly, Laila and me), where the stakes and readership are a good deal higher. But personally, I'm fine with the eyebrows — I liked the book as much as you did. I read it cover to cover flying from L.A. to N.Y. for BEA - and completely missed the meal service because of it! So I have a clean conscience recommending it, as I imagine Hitch felt he had with Rushdie. (And it's worth reiterating that all we did was assign it for review — we have no control over whether the reviewer ultimately likes it.)
But this seems as good a place as any for me to attack head on an argument that drives me nuts — that bloggers are a clique. Can we be a bit too self-referential for our own good? Undoubtedly. But — for me at least — I always say that blogs are essentially a record of their hosts' enthusiasms. And it seems foolish to me to pretend that I'm not a fan of Laila's site (or yours) simply because I've come to know you or because we all cover books together or because my doing so will irritate someone. There are plenty of book blogs I don't mention at all because they don't register the same way. And in the case if Laila's book, frankly, wouldn't it be equally clique-y not to recommend it to protect her from the possibility of any bad notices?
The main thing is that I have faith in my readers. They know what I like, they seem to trust my taste. I hope they believe that I wouldn't jeopardize that relationship recommending something I didn't really believe in. I've gotten galleys of many books from people I know that I've never mentioned for just that reason. (Besides, even in the best case not everyone agrees — I recently heard from a reader who found Home Land disappointing despite my rave.)
Additionally, I think one of the reasons Boldtype wanted us was to cast a wider net in terms of titles to consider. To pick up books not necessarily on the radar of big reviewers. And what fits that mandate better than a small, literary collection of short stories from a small but respected independent press?
Finally, is there a book on this list that better fits our "self-made" criteria (on every level - from theme of the book to the author's personal story)? I don't see it. (Although I must confess, I'm quite pleased to see the Iris Murdoch on our final list.)
But maybe I'm just seeing what I want to see — and Lord knows, no blogger has ever done that before.
Posted by mark.sarvas at September 27, 2005 08:45 AM