TDR Letter
December 12, 2003
Subject: Mea
Culpa: I review books by Michael Bryson
Dear Editor,
Hey Michael:
Enjoyed the article, and have a few thoughts to send along, neatly wrapped and carried by little, scurrying non-threating email robots, because there are so many damn parties this Christmas that I'm afraid I might see you.
I'm a little surprised you argue that a book reviewer shouldn't worry about being "right" because they can't be. But I can't review a historical novel and then claim it's dry and boring
because it doesn't have enough of the twentieth century in it for my taste, so surely there's a certain framework for judging a book, and surely that framework involves putting personal taste aside. Or at least, trying to put personal taste aside. I can understand that expectations can be wrong, and that this kind of let down can be hard to diffuse from the
judgment of a novel - but I think it has to be said that it makes little sense to be critical of a book for failing to accomplish something it isn't trying to do. Jane Eyre can't be faulted for not having relevance to Iraq (and yet if someone found that boring they could "back that up" with evidence since it doesn't, after all, have any such thing) so I think the extra detail that's missing here is just about having the logical framework for the review. When it comes to book reviewing, I'd suggest that it's not about simply backing up your opinion as well as you can, but also about attempting to objectively judge how well a book succeeds or fails at what it's trying to do (which may be very different from how much you like it, or how much you're interested in what it's trying to do).
Also, "deep empathy." Hmm. Some empathy, yes. Deep? I dunno. Is it the job of a reviewer to be so weepy and overcome that he/she ignores faults? To accuse a reviewer of a lack of empathy seems to be an easy, and fairly sweeping way to dismiss criticism, a little like saying "ah, ya don't know what the fuck ya talking about." I'd argue in favour of objectivity, rather then empathy, in favour of a review written by someone who's (again) looking at how well the book succeeds or fails at accomplishing it's own goals. And as you suggest, the review certainly shouldn't be written by a friend. I've seen those kinds of reviews, and they gloss over faults. I know you're not advocating that kind of reviewing, but isn't that empathy?
How are we to be both objective and empathetic?
Alex Boyd
*
Michael Bryson responds:
Hi Alex: "How are we to be both objective and empathetic?"
Excellent question. Excellent questions in your email over all. Hmm. How to respond?
Those are good challenges to what I said. You're right that I could have provided -- or at least struggled more to provide -- a logical basis for approaching a review. I admit I was thinking more of reviewing fiction/poetry than non-fiction, where objectivity is more plausible. I would try and weasel out of the criticism by saying "well, that's what I meant when I said 'make a good argument and back it up with evidence.'" I tend to think:
present the evidence for your argument and let the reader decide whether that evidence is valid or not. Some people find one kind of evidence persuasive and others a different kind. Maybe that goes part of the way to answering your question ... but my argument could have been improved with an approach more along the way you're suggesting.
Regarding empathy. I admit I don't see empathy connected with "weepy" in any way. I was trying to say one should try to review the book against what the author was trying to achieve. One can never be certain what that is, but one can use one's empathy to try to approach that. My example was my own review of the Robertson book. Did I try hard enough to walk in his shoes? Ultimately, I don't know. I did try.
(Did I succeed? Not for me to judge. I throw myself on the mercy of the
court.) I couldn't get any more empathetic than I did get. I find pushing myself to empathize with the author does help me get "deeper" inside the book. Helps me be more objective, one might say. Less flippant. I foreground subjectivity, deny objectivity, and
_try_ to avoid flippancy by trying to make a deep, honest engagement with the book.
It seems to me that every reviewer that does this will have something valuable, and different, to report. I'd like to encourage diversity of views, because I'm a greedy reader, and I want to listen to the variety.
Is that any better? Thanks for the question. I appreciate being "called to account."
*
Alex Boyd responds:
It sounds a little like we might be using different terms for somewhat similar things here - maybe to a certain extent what I call remembering to note the book's goals you call empathy with the book?
And I do think that "logical framework" for the book I'm talking about is, to at least a certain extent, covered by your suggestion that the reviewer "make a good argument and back it up with evidence." That's assuming the reviewer is using common sense (eww, Harris has ruined that expression for me).
Best,
A.
|
