Batten down the hatches!
Once again, online book reviews are under attack. This time, by Sven Birkerts, in a piece in The Boston Globe that was posted online printed on July 29, 2007. At least, I assume it was printed as well as put on the Interweb.
Birkerts paints himself as a greying book reviewer. I'd say the same about myself, but hey -- I went to the salon today. Look ma! No greys!
Birkerts says that he is "paranoid enough -- or maybe forward-looking enough -- to imagine the day when magazines and newspapers have begun to dwindle away and the world of text has shifted dominantly to screen." Two points: 1. Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean that everyone isn't out to get you; and 2. I don't think that's forward-looking -- I think that's realism. Because everyone has seen how many papers are shrinking, and how the in-print book reviews in particular have all turned to vapor.
Birkerts wonders whether the advantages/gains of blogging can make up for the losses in the print market. No. And yes. No, because there are folks who really would love to hold a wonderful bit of print and read book reviews, and their opportunities to do so are shrinking. Yes, because the blogosphere can review far more books than a Sunday paper (even a good one), and can provide links and support.
Birkerts bemoans the time-suck that is hypertext linkage. Okay, that's not exactly how he said it, but it is what he meant.* And I get his point. If you read my posts, you know that there are links there that you can follow if you want more content or information. But one needn't follow them to make sense of what I'm saying, or to get the point. And that is true of most of the good reviews I see online. They contain original content and opinions, with links to useful things like the author's website, perhaps the publisher's information, and the like. And to me, that's value added, not a weakness.
Birkerts gets to the point: Reviews are for self-important, super-smart literati, and not for "normal" people.** I call "bullshit." I may not be self-important, and he may not consider me one of the literati, but I most certainly count as smart (there, is that self-important enough for you?) and I am most definitely one of the "artists and thinkers." Ergo, I can effectively critique and/or review books. And he can kiss my grits.
He continues that there's a problem with blog reviews who use an "I've been thinking" approach: "At some level it's the difference between amateur and professional. What we gain in independence and freshness we lose in authority and accountability." If I understand him correctly, and I believe I do, what he says is "Waah! *stomp* Unfair! Waah!" Also, I reject his assertion that lit reviews are necessarily authoritative and accountable. What of places like Kirkus who utilize anonymous reviews? Do we know whether the reviewer is an amateur or professional? Intelligent? An artist and thinker? If they are anonymous, are they truly accountable? And if I render an opinion, am I not accountable for it? Is my authority not built in the same was as Berkirts's is, one review at a time?
Birkerts cites Cynthia Ozick's piece in Harper's, where she bemoans this loss of authority and accountability in literary review, and says there is a need for "unhurried thinking, the ripened long (or sidewise) view, the gradualism of nuance." Here's the thing. Read one way, Ozicks and Birkerts are Luddites. Or, if you prefer a paraphrase from Wayne's World, they're saying "we fear change." Print moves more slowly than the global computer network, and slower means more nuance. Again, I call "bullshit."
For instance, I reviewed Tips on Having a Gay (ex)Boyfriend on my blog, and interviewed Carrie Jones, the author for The Edge of the Forest. All that took me at least 15-20 hours. You read that right. First, I had to set it up. Then, I read the book. Then, I posted a set of tips about her book. Then I spent about two hours writing up the questions I asked her. Then I spent at least an hour and a half integrating her answers into a document to send to the remarkable Kelly Herrold. Then I posted a book review of her book, which took about an hour and a half to get right. Yeah, the time spent doesn't necessarily show, but that's because it's good writing, for which I am accountable. And unlike many print reviewers, I provided full disclaimers of my personal interest in the author and her book. I didn't get paid to review it, but I have an online-friend relationship with her, which I disclosed. And incidentally, reviewing a book by a friend is far more difficult than one by a stranger.
While I agree with Mr. Birkerts that I'd like to continue to see print reviews, I happen to think that his assertion that print reviews the litblogosphere is "too fluid in its nature ever to focus our widely diverging cultural energies" is squarely wrong. If we have widely diverging cultural energies, then it seems to me that the narrow confines of the shrinking print review sections he names are insufficient to touch on them, let alone focus. (Insert lengthy argument on the underrepresentation in print review columns of children's authors, new authors, minorities, comic writers, and other "widely divergent" groups here.)
What I conclude: Print reviews can be great, but merely being in print and/or written by a curmudgeon doesn't make them so. Blog reviews can also be great, and the authority and accountability of litblog reviews can be equal to or even greater than print reviews. Deal with it.
* What he said was "that it is alarmingly easy to slide into a slipstream, or, better, go rollicking in a snake-bed of sites and posts, where each twist of text catches hold of another's tail, the whole progress and regress morphing into a no-exit situation that has to be something new under the sun."
** Here's the paragraph: "But this "mattering" requires the existence of a common ground, a shared set of traditions -- a center which is the collectively known picture of private and public life as set out by artists and thinkers, and discussed and debated not just by everyone with an opinion, but also most effectively by the self-constituted group of those who have made it their purpose to do so. Arbiters, critics . . . reviewers."
For other opinions on the subject, see Frank Wilson's post over at Books Inq., the blog by the book reviewers at the Philadelphia Inquirer; Ed Champion's rant and check soon over at Chasing Ray for Colleen Mondor's thoughts as well. Or hey, google it, but, y'know, watch out for those hypertext links. They're a time suck.
Birkerts paints himself as a greying book reviewer. I'd say the same about myself, but hey -- I went to the salon today. Look ma! No greys!
Birkerts says that he is "paranoid enough -- or maybe forward-looking enough -- to imagine the day when magazines and newspapers have begun to dwindle away and the world of text has shifted dominantly to screen." Two points: 1. Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean that everyone isn't out to get you; and 2. I don't think that's forward-looking -- I think that's realism. Because everyone has seen how many papers are shrinking, and how the in-print book reviews in particular have all turned to vapor.
Birkerts wonders whether the advantages/gains of blogging can make up for the losses in the print market. No. And yes. No, because there are folks who really would love to hold a wonderful bit of print and read book reviews, and their opportunities to do so are shrinking. Yes, because the blogosphere can review far more books than a Sunday paper (even a good one), and can provide links and support.
Birkerts bemoans the time-suck that is hypertext linkage. Okay, that's not exactly how he said it, but it is what he meant.* And I get his point. If you read my posts, you know that there are links there that you can follow if you want more content or information. But one needn't follow them to make sense of what I'm saying, or to get the point. And that is true of most of the good reviews I see online. They contain original content and opinions, with links to useful things like the author's website, perhaps the publisher's information, and the like. And to me, that's value added, not a weakness.
Birkerts gets to the point: Reviews are for self-important, super-smart literati, and not for "normal" people.** I call "bullshit." I may not be self-important, and he may not consider me one of the literati, but I most certainly count as smart (there, is that self-important enough for you?) and I am most definitely one of the "artists and thinkers." Ergo, I can effectively critique and/or review books. And he can kiss my grits.
He continues that there's a problem with blog reviews who use an "I've been thinking" approach: "At some level it's the difference between amateur and professional. What we gain in independence and freshness we lose in authority and accountability." If I understand him correctly, and I believe I do, what he says is "Waah! *stomp* Unfair! Waah!" Also, I reject his assertion that lit reviews are necessarily authoritative and accountable. What of places like Kirkus who utilize anonymous reviews? Do we know whether the reviewer is an amateur or professional? Intelligent? An artist and thinker? If they are anonymous, are they truly accountable? And if I render an opinion, am I not accountable for it? Is my authority not built in the same was as Berkirts's is, one review at a time?
Birkerts cites Cynthia Ozick's piece in Harper's, where she bemoans this loss of authority and accountability in literary review, and says there is a need for "unhurried thinking, the ripened long (or sidewise) view, the gradualism of nuance." Here's the thing. Read one way, Ozicks and Birkerts are Luddites. Or, if you prefer a paraphrase from Wayne's World, they're saying "we fear change." Print moves more slowly than the global computer network, and slower means more nuance. Again, I call "bullshit."
For instance, I reviewed Tips on Having a Gay (ex)Boyfriend on my blog, and interviewed Carrie Jones, the author for The Edge of the Forest. All that took me at least 15-20 hours. You read that right. First, I had to set it up. Then, I read the book. Then, I posted a set of tips about her book. Then I spent about two hours writing up the questions I asked her. Then I spent at least an hour and a half integrating her answers into a document to send to the remarkable Kelly Herrold. Then I posted a book review of her book, which took about an hour and a half to get right. Yeah, the time spent doesn't necessarily show, but that's because it's good writing, for which I am accountable. And unlike many print reviewers, I provided full disclaimers of my personal interest in the author and her book. I didn't get paid to review it, but I have an online-friend relationship with her, which I disclosed. And incidentally, reviewing a book by a friend is far more difficult than one by a stranger.
While I agree with Mr. Birkerts that I'd like to continue to see print reviews, I happen to think that his assertion that print reviews the litblogosphere is "too fluid in its nature ever to focus our widely diverging cultural energies" is squarely wrong. If we have widely diverging cultural energies, then it seems to me that the narrow confines of the shrinking print review sections he names are insufficient to touch on them, let alone focus. (Insert lengthy argument on the underrepresentation in print review columns of children's authors, new authors, minorities, comic writers, and other "widely divergent" groups here.)
What I conclude: Print reviews can be great, but merely being in print and/or written by a curmudgeon doesn't make them so. Blog reviews can also be great, and the authority and accountability of litblog reviews can be equal to or even greater than print reviews. Deal with it.
* What he said was "that it is alarmingly easy to slide into a slipstream, or, better, go rollicking in a snake-bed of sites and posts, where each twist of text catches hold of another's tail, the whole progress and regress morphing into a no-exit situation that has to be something new under the sun."
** Here's the paragraph: "But this "mattering" requires the existence of a common ground, a shared set of traditions -- a center which is the collectively known picture of private and public life as set out by artists and thinkers, and discussed and debated not just by everyone with an opinion, but also most effectively by the self-constituted group of those who have made it their purpose to do so. Arbiters, critics . . . reviewers."
For other opinions on the subject, see Frank Wilson's post over at Books Inq., the blog by the book reviewers at the Philadelphia Inquirer; Ed Champion's rant and check soon over at Chasing Ray for Colleen Mondor's thoughts as well. Or hey, google it, but, y'know, watch out for those hypertext links. They're a time suck.