Just Do It

I finally managed to watch on C-SPAN the "Ethics in Book Reviewing" panel discussion from the recent Book Expo America. Quite frankly, most of it was pablum (except for John Leonard's remarks and some of David Ulin's), when it wasn't largely just self-serving. The discussion really wasn't so much about "ethics" as it was about insuring that most of the assumptions motivating mainstream book reviewing remain resolutely unexamined. The general impression I got from the panelists was that what reviewers and editors are doing these days is just fine, except in the rare instances when it's not, but those don't really matter since print book reviewers are clearly so well-intentioned.

One of the unexamined assumptions that seems to be shared by these book reviewers is that the reviewer should not look at other reviews before doing his/her own, an issue that came up near the end of the session. "Just review the book" seemed to be the consensus advice among those left to discuss the matter.

There are several problems with this notion that reviews should be written in a critical vacuum, however. One is that it implicitly posits a recognized, shared set of criteria by which reviewers should go about "just" reviewing the book at hand. The reviewer needn't look at what others are saying because everyone is applying these same standards, even though they might come to different conclusions in the process. Ignoring those other reviews presumably avoids contaminating one's own conclusions with theirs, leaving the purity of one's response intact.

There is no such purity of response. If there is a shared set of critical standards that reviewers must apply, that in itself is the product of reviewers' assimilation of those standards through reading other reviews. If there are no critical standards to be uniformly and objectively applied in particular cases, then the reviewer's response is unavoidably intuitive and subjective, and while this sort of encounter with the text might thus be more recognizably "pure," I don't see the point in protecting it from intelligent or provocative things other reviewers might be saying. As a reviewer, you might be overlooking something in your own apprehension of the text, and to be alerted to this by another review can only be helpful. Why let your impoverished reading stand when you can easily enough enrich it?

In my opinion, this hands-off approach to reviewing only reinforces the idea that book reviews are essentially "consumer reports," an attitude to which Francine Prose earlier in the discussion took exception. Each reviewer goes about his/her business of "just" reviewing the book and sends the results out to the reading public. These readers then consult a sampling of such assessments and make a decision about which one to trust, or how each one contributes to an overall assessment that helps the reader choose to purchase or not to purchase the "product" in question. Unless you think the reader is only going to read your review, which is possible but not likely, and certainly not likely among readers of the more intellectually weighty book review publications such as the NYTBR or Bookforum or The Atlantic, to refuse to consider the commentary other serious reviewers and critics have already provided seems to me a refusal to engage in the kind of ongoing critical discourse about new works they most decidedly need if they're not to become like most movies--appear with great fanfare in the form of reviews (mostly offered up over the same weekend) and then, after the equivalent of the obsession with a movie's "grosses," effectively disappear.

Certainly not all reviewers would be able to cite other reviews even if they wanted to. With every new book, some reviewers have to go first. But surely Prose and Leonard and Carlin Romano don't really have these kinds of "notices" in mind. (Although there probably is some pressure among editors to get his/her review out first, itself a destructive impulse that's all about bringing attention to one's own publication rather than considering the literary quality of new books.) They're interested in the kinds of reviews that might also claim the status of criticism, even if of a relatively preliminary sort. I, for one, don't see how serious criticism can occur without the critic taking some account of what other critics have said. Moreover, to maintain that reviewers ought to actively avoid engaging with other analyses, should consider book reviewing as the opportunity to "just do it," seems to me an outright repudiation of criticism as anything other than the insulated opinion-mongering of self-appointed "experts."

Comments

[Niall]

"One is that it implicitly posits a recognized, shared set of criteria by which reviewers should go about "just" reviewing the book at hand. The reviewer needn't look at what others are saying because everyone is applying these same standards, even though they might come to different conclusions in the process."

Uh ... doesn't it implicitly posit exactly the opposite of this? That everyone is applying their own criteria, but might be swayed from those criteria towards a bland consensus by too much consultation with what's already been said?

"I, for one, don't see how serious criticism can occur without the critic taking some account of what other critics have said."

Because it can apply things that have been said about the author's other work, or about similar works, or about relevant themes, or whatever. I think it's perfectly possible, for instance, to write a useful critical review of, say, a new Thomas Pynchon novel based on a working knowledge of Pynchon's previous books, even if you have no idea what anyone else has said about this particular Pynchon. (Much as I might wish that some of the later reviewers of Against the Day had read John Clute's review ...)

As it happens, I think a happy medium is the best approach. I tend to write a first draft naively, as it were, then go and read other reviews. That way I know that I've said what I want to say in a way that is specific to me, but I can also see if I've been haring off in a different direction, and need to refine or better support the statements I'm making.

[Dan Green]

I certainly hope it doesn't mean reviewers assume everyone is applying "their own criteria." This means no common ground at all where critical analysis is concerned, and I do believe there is *some* common ground. Otherwise, book reviewing is just a game of idiosyncratic personal responses, which makes the whole thing mostly useless.

I do think its possible to review the new Pynchon with "a working knowledge of Pynchon's previous books," but this working knowledge should include some knowledge of what critics have said about Pynchon (not just in brief book reviews) or it isn't really a complete "working knowledge."

[Niall]

"This means no common ground at all where critical analsis is concerned, and I do believe there is *some* common ground."

Sure. Perhaps I should have said "sets of criteria", or talked about emphasis. I'm sure you and I, for instance, have different sets of criteria by which we evaluate what we read, and place different amounts of emphasis on some of the criteria we share; but I know we agree on some areas as well. But I still think the concern that too much pre-reading of other reviews could lead to blandness is justifiable.

"but this working knowledge should include some knowledge of what critics have said about Pynchon"

Right. But I don't see any particular reason why it *has to* -- or even any reason why it *should* -- include some knowledge of what critics have said about the Pynchon under review, which is where your argument seemed to be headed. (Though as I said, I think it *can* include such knowledge.)

[Dan Green]

"But I don't see any particular reason why it *has to* -- or even any reason why it *should* -- include some knowledge of what critics have said"

I can see plenty of reasons why it *should*--a complete "working knowledge" for one. If it's a relatively brief newspaper-type book review, it isn't *necessary* for the critic to cite or show familiarity with other critics or reviewers, but I, for one, usually take reviewers who do seem to have this kind of familarity more seriously more readily.

[Niall]

I take reviewers and critics who seem to have a familiarity with an author's body of work and what's been said about it in the past more seriously than those who do not seem to have such familiarity -- in general. Sometimes I also value a naive response. But, as I say, I see any reason to expect or to disparage the person reviewing Against the Day for the New York Times if they don't demonstrate familiarity with what the reviewer in the TLS said about the same book two weeks earlier.

[xensen]

Book publishers generally include excerpts from reviews of an author's previous books as well as blurbs about the current one when they send galleys for review. Many reviewers see advance reviews in publications like Publishers Weekly or Kirkus. Assigning reviewers are likely to have met with the publisher's representatives at the BEA and other conferences and fairs. There is also the general chatter and buzz of the publishing community. All of which means the review does not happen in a void whatever the reviewer's intentions may be. A competent reviewer will not be unduly influenced by reading additional reviews, and could benefit from them. An incompetent review will recycle the publisher's press release regardless.