« Undue Deference, and What Could Have Been | Main | A Few Good Reviews »
October 06, 2005
Whither Book Reviews?
I share your woe over the list of Boltype Books That Might Have Been. And I think, at a minimum, it gives us a deeper empathy for the problems facing the book reviews out there - there will simply never be enough space or time to get to everything.
As for Don Quixote, I confess actually feeling mild relief at not having taken it on - it's so thoroughly examined that it's hard to imagine what the mere 300 words we'd been allotted would really achieve. After all, my beloved James Wood took considerably longer than that when he looked at the book for the New Yorker and - despite his brilliance - I think even he was hard-pressed to say something new. (I think perhaps Nabokov was the last person to add something to the debate when he spoke of the book's remarkably cruel humor.)
So I'm actually comfortable having bypassed our personal favorites like the Baldwin and the Cervantes - after all, these books are not exactly wanting for an audience. I felt a bit differently about the Banville (personal bias notwithstanding) as he's an author who continues to struggle to find the audience he deserves.
Which brings me to the bigger point that I've been thinking about, that I think we've all wrestled with. What, exactly, ought a book review do? Is it merely a consumer guide to lead buyers through the jungle of titles? Or is it meant to shine a light on the less traveled byways, to make readers aware of things they might have missed. (The idealist will surely reply "Why not both?" but as noted above, time and space will also intervene, and decisions must be made.)
Do we remotely need yet another review of anything by Stephen King, John Grisham or any other more or less review-proof authors? Should book reviews reflect the purchasing choices of their readers (reviewing pop culture, self-help, celebrity memoirs) or should they be more lamp than mirror? And if they are lamps, whose lamps, exactly? Subjectivity is ever the sticky wicket, and although it's more or less implied that in reading a review you're accepting one person's take, that subjectivity takes on a different shade when it's applied to, for example, an editor's vision for what a book review should be.
For my own taste, there's nothing more boring than reading a book review full of titles I already know about. But I do sometimes forget that as a book blogger I'm a bit more plugged in to what's coming. What about you, Maud - and Toby, and anyone reading this? What should a book review do for you?
Posted by mark.sarvas at October 6, 2005 03:00 PM
Comments
I know I am way too often on record about this, but in the days of the $32.97 book, I am absolutely on the consumer's side and am taking the should-you-buy-this stance exclusively. Luckily, that involves taking the author's work in context, both in relation to his/her previous works and the works around him/her and the ongoing dialogue about whether or not J-Foer is the most annoying being on the planet. And even when there were paperback originals, there was the should-you-spend-three-precious-hours-of-your-life-on-this-thang angle. I think that's as useful as a plumber telling you how to fix your sink in the big picture. And that's a good thing!
Posted by: Old Hag at October 7, 2005 01:00 PM
(Sticky wicket - where does a bike-riding American pick that up :)?) I'd agree with Mark that there are too many reviews of the same material and this is not because he is more plugged in as a blogger - it is an uncomfortable, ugly fact. There are also too many copies in some shops of the big name writers, and reviewing by as large a network of competent evaluators as possible is one way to counter this problem.
Posted by: genevieve at October 7, 2005 05:07 PM