Friday, March 13, 2009

Maxine nails it ...

... Redefining the book review. (Hat tip, Dave Lull.)

I flatter myself that I have a good eye for quotes, but I agree with Maxine that they can get in the way. I think they are essential only if style seriously enters into a discussion of the book. No. 6 strikes me as another example of a synthetic ethic. Just be honest and fair. If your friend writes a book you don't like, pass on reviewing it. If your friend writes a book you genuinely like, what's wrong with saying so? And why would you want to read a book you were predisposed to dislike, and why would you be predisposed to dislike something you haven't read? Finally, Maxine is too modest. She's been in the swing of it for quite some time now.

2 comments:

  1. Maxine says:

    'I think it is fine for a reviewer to opine that a book does not succeed at what it seems to attempt.'

    I agree, but that isn't Updike's point. He says:

    'Try to understand what the author wished to do, and do not blame him/her for not achieving what he/she did not attempt.'

    There is a big difference between judging whether a writer succeeded at what was intended or failed at what was never intended in the first place.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Interestingly, I've just come across this quotation from a letter Flannery O'Connor wrote to an editor who'd asked her to rewrite Wise Blood:

    'In short, I am amenable to criticism but only within the sphere of what I am trying to do; I will not be persuaded to do otherwise.'

    You can read the entire passage here:

    http://www.artsjournal.com/aboutlastnight/2004/03/tt_she_knew_she_was_right.html

    (via Maud Newton:
    http://maudnewton.com/blog/?p=9209)

    ReplyDelete