I don’t have time or energy to do this discussion the justice it deserves today, but it is a topic I’m deeply interested in, not just as something that’s relevant to me, but as something that has pretty serious implications for reading and reviewing culture as a whole:
Should people who are writers also be reviewers? (Particularly in a literary scene as small and as close as Melbourne’s, where everyone knows everyone) Is a reviewer’s expression censored somewhat for fear of making enemies amongst their peers?
Over on Literary Life today, Megan has posted about her stress about this issue. The post (sorry, Megan, but…) is a bit of a stress-rant, but the discussion which follows is well worth a look-in.
The post comes at a particularly relevant time for me, as I’ve just submitted my next review for Catalyst, and it’s reasonably negatve. It’s of a book from a debut novelist, which is a category of writer who usually get softer reviews so as not to crush any dreams. But it’s also from a French/American, and I was a bit disgusted with myself when I was writing the review, finding myself thinking, “This woman won’t meet me.” Because of this, I somehow gave myself permission to say just what I was thinking – while I made sure all criticisms were grounded and just, I didn’t go to the pains that I would for a Melbournian or Australian writer to say these things very softly. Don’t get me wrong – I don’t generally censor myself in writing reviews about people I know or have the capacity to know in the future, and if there is an existing relationship I’ll always flag it for total disclosure. However, the way I deliver negative criticism is something I’m much more aware of for these people, than remote authors who are (in the case of classics) dead, or else so remote to my sheltered existence (as with the upcoming review of Elena Mauli Shapiro’s novel) that they probably won’t read the review or ever meet me.
Is this sort of self-preservation bias acceptable? Avoidable? Should writers be reviewers at all?
Sam van Zweden 
10/03/2011 at 2:56 am
Hmm, I think I remember Kalinda talking about this topic, or maybe it was Di in Non-fiction class? It has definately made me think more closely about the relationship between the reviewer and the reviewee. I guess the question is, who will review the books? It is possible to a writer who is not disposed to some form of bias opinion on the matter? I guess as writers we know how easily feelings can be crushed by giving a negative review but I guess at the end of the day, its just a book review, its just one person’s opinion!
Its just like in journalism a left or right wing writer may give a certain slant on a piece of writing, even if they are trying to remain neutral it is a pretty hard thing to do. And then of course there’s the outspoken like Andrew bloody Bolt who will deny the fact that he’s blantenly endorsing the libs, be honest dammnit!
Well done on giving a bad book review! I want to read it 🙂
10/03/2011 at 11:21 am
Sent the “bad review” off to Catalyst yesterday, I think the issue should be out about the end of March? I’m not entirely sure, but I’ll let you know. Possibly post it on here too, as Jane (editor) is fine with me doing that.
Melinda Harvey used to talk a bit about this topic also, as I think she’s conscious of it too. Maybe it is about empathy, Shan. About knowing how it’d feel to have your baby torn from limb to limb by a total stranger. But at the same time, that’s what you put your work up for when you publish.
10/03/2011 at 4:45 am
I’ve been thinking about this a bit too and I think you can be critical and honest toward someone’s work or an author you know without crushing them and pissing them off. The problem I think then would not be with the reviewer, but how the reviewee receives criticism. If you’re not thick-skinned enough to handle it when someone gives your book a bad review, not just some slanderous attack, but an honest appraisal, you probably shouldn’t be asking people to read your work.
10/03/2011 at 11:35 am
I like that idea, Ben, that “if you’re not thick-skinned enough to handle it when someone gives your book a bad review … you probably shouldn’t be asking people to read your work.”
I’ve often wondered why in writing classes they don’t cultivate a more honest atmosphere, even in 2nd year of my course now people can’t take criticism of certain things. It’s the only way to get anywhere!
17/03/2011 at 3:55 pm
Excellent question, Sam. I’ve only written a few reviews, and I find it hard.
I read somewhere, that (for poetry I think it was) with so few reviews/reviewers out there, and with such a comparatively small market, poetry couldn’t afford to have a lot of negative reviews floating around. The fear seemed to be about turning an already smallish reading public off poetry.
Whether it’s a valid point might have to do with how much stock readers put in reviews?
17/03/2011 at 5:57 pm
I know I certainly value a review more for the quality of the writing than as a serious decision-making criteria for book purchases. Reviews need to be entertaining pieces of writing in their own right; the opinion side rates on a different scale…
I see what you’re saying about poetry, and it’s scary. Great quote I found a while ago, can’t remember where, that criticizing poetry is like attacking a butterfly with a bazooka… Seems to be the general feeling. I really enjoy picking poetry apart though, why not do that with contemporary stuff and judge what in it’s valuable and what works?
18/03/2011 at 4:04 pm
Wow, that’s quite a quote – makes poetry seem all too fragile huh?
I think such hesitation to offer in-depth critique actually ends up stunting the growth (to some extent) of the writer – because truly insightful criticism can be rare, and so damn value. Looking forward to your review, Sam!