Questions ..

[Will Layman]

Put more simply, book reviews are a form of journalism and literary  
criticism is a form of academic discourse.

While there may be a sliding scale between them, journalism is  
essentially driven by:  a deadline, a word count, and an intended  
audience.

I write music reviews, and I  think all the time about how different  
they would be if I was writing them for a different venue and  
audience.  Which is not to cut bad reviewers a break, but which is to  
recognize that they operate with a hand tied behind their backs.

The reviews of AtD have been prime examples of the dilemma reviewers  
face.  We scoff when the reviewer talks about "Thomas Pynchon, the  
reclusive  hipster icon" etc, but most people who might read the  
review don't know Pynchon from Dean Koontz.  So the reviewer -- with  
an 800 word max -- reverts cliche and shorthand.  By the time the AtD  
reviews get through a quick take on the Chums and the historical  
period and Traverses maybe, what's he or she got left for real  
analysis?  And so the better reviews have almost all been from pretty  
sophisticated publications that gave their reviewers a higher word  
count to deal with.

The reviews I've resented the most were the ones that dealt with the  
length primarily, making the review be about the act of slogging  
through it -- like the three-part NEWSWEEK review, which was  
complimentary and sweet but was ultimately about the reviewer rather  
than the book.  But, you could tell, the guy was literally struggling  
with the deadline and at least had the courtesy to admit that he  
hadn't finished the book when his first review was due.

-- Will

On Dec 16, 2006, at 1:44 AM, Joshua Lind wrote:

> From: Tim Strzechowski <dedalus204 at comcast.net>
>
>> What is the relationship between "book review" and "literary
>> criticism"?  Does One *lead* to the Other?
>>
>> Does one *inform* the other?  If so, how?
>
> Tim,
>
> Those are great questions.  I think book reviews are often just  
> first impressions of a novel, while literary criticism represents  
> deeper analysis.  Some reviews have lasting merit because the  
> reviewer seemed to catch the gist of it, while other reviews miss  
> the mark because they concentrate on some aspect of the novel that  
> doesn't hold up after further study.
>
> I've recently become interested in Marguerite Young's novel "Miss  
> McIntosh, My Darling," but the novel seems to have been spurned by  
> literary critics.  Book reviews are about the only thing to go on.   
> If I were to work on a piece of literary criticism, I would  
> necessarily have to start with the book reviews because they  
> represent the only possible material for a literature review.
>
> It's important to keep in mind that reviewers are under a deadline  
> and are sometimes forced into less-than-"in-depth" analyses.  The  
> famous example is the reception of William Gaddis's "The  
> Recognitions."  Jack Green's blistering broadside against those  
> reviewers makes for interesting reading.  It's available at:
>
>   http://www.nyx.net/~awestrop/ftb/ftb.htm
>
> -Josh