'No point in reviewing a novel by Stephen King'

I have a lot of respect for Linda Richards; a site like January, devoted as it is to book reviews, is a rare and wonderful thing. (And it’s nice that she has listed me as a contributing editor.) But I disagree with her idea of what a book review is worth.

I hadn’t intended on reviewing Blaze, Richard Bachman’s posthumous novel. Not because it isn’t a good book—I pretty much knew that it would be—but because, on a certain level, there’s just no point in reviewing a novel by Stephen King or, as is the case here, a novel closely associated with him.

See, nothing I say or do here will alter your decision with regards to Blaze. You’re either already a big King fan and have read Blaze or ordered your copy or, at most, are waiting for the book to come out in paper. Or you’re one of those tight-lipped types who were warned about cholesterol when you were 12 and thus avoid it. You were told there were things that were better for you. And while King novels, like stuff with cholesterol, might be delicious, the possible downside haunts your joy, so you don’t stand in that line. And, either way, my words won’t alter your resolve. You’ll either read this and nod your head in agreement or toss your hair in indignation. I’m fine with either reaction. Or both. But, either way, most of the time I figure my energy is better spent telling you about books you might not have gotten wind of, rather than those you come to with predetermination.

So I decided not to review Blaze.

But then, of course, she does. Which is fine. And the fact that I’m one of those people who is neither a big King fan—I’ve read very little—nor “one of those tight-lipped types” is beside the point. The point is that, for me anyway, a book review is not a sell job. It is not an 800-word campaign against its reader’s resolve or ignorance; rather, it’s an engagement with the book. You can engage the book well or not well, in a way that is interesting and entertaining or in a way that is narrow and boring. I just don’t think the point should be making fans.

I understand Richards’ point, though. It can be tough to practice criticism on an audience made deaf by its own opinions. Here is Fintan O’Toole (from The Economist, 1996) on the role of a critic:

Critics should be honest enough to accept that they represent nobody but themselves—not the art form, not even in any real sense the newspapers that employ them. Their job is not to report on how a work was received by an audience. It is not to sell books or tickets. It is not to reform or mould the practice of theatre or music or poetry. And it is not to maintain, as arbiters of taste and value, the authority of the institutions who print their opinions.

The job of the critic is to try to ignore the magnifying effect of print and hyperbole, to preserve a sense of proportion, and to give a genuinely individual opinion. It is a modest but by no means a contemptible task. And it is one that is inextricable from the artistic process itself.

For better or for worse, this is what guides me.

PREVIOUSLY: “People who’s job is to criticize other peoples work don’t have much going for them”

Comments

[Linda L. Richards]

You misunderstand my point here. Surely you know that, for me, "review" and "sell job" don't belong in the same thought.

Sure: one aspect of review is the reviewer's engagement with a book, but that is really only a single aspect. It must be: we're not circus ponies, after all. People aren't just showing up to watch us do our tricks; at least most of them aren't.

Here's what I believe (and I also believe in the possibility that I may be incorrect): most people who read book reviews do so in order to find help in determining where they should invest their own precious reading time. I've never felt that my readers are well served by being offered reviews of books that everyone else has already talked about or is getting ready to discuss. And a book by Stephen King? Well that's way beyond even the normal tidal wave of infoclanging about a book. Do I *really* need to add to all that noise? It's boring, right? To talk about a book that everyone is talking about. It's sleep-inducing. And in the case of King, as I said in the review, your mind is probably made up before the book even hits the shelves: you think you know what's going to b there. So, as *you* said *I* said, I decided not to review the book.

But then this happened: I read the book. And it moved me beyond anything I'd anticipated. And that feeling -- that passion for a book -- pushes everything else out the window. No matter what else I felt or thought I knew, I wanted to share that feeling. Not because I wanted to sell a book (shame on you!), but because the feeling that reading that book gave me was too exquisite to keep to myself.

[Brendan Wolfe]

Thanks for your response, Linda. I certainly didn't mean that you were literally trying to sell books with your reviews. I apologize for the implication. And you may be dead-on about why most people read book reviews. It just happens to be counter to how & why I read and write them. Which is probably why you're the editor and I'm not!

Reviewing a book that has already been widely reviewed or discussed is certainly infoclanging if all a review does is provide some plot summary and an opinion or two. And most reviews do that (and many that I write do that) and I find those reviews to be the ones that are sleep-inducing. They're boring whether they're about a Stephen King novel or a novel by an author I've never heard of. They're just boring.

Which is why I don't read as many reviews as I'd like, and why, therefore, I don't look to them for book-buying advice.

Instead, reviews I like to read -- and I want to emphasize that this is a preference, not some guideline I expect others to follow -- are a sustained and personal engagement with the book. (You say that this personal engagement is just one aspect of a review. I disagree. But I may see "engagement" in broader terms than you.) Such reviews usually make some kind of judgment about the books; that judgment, however, is not nearly as important as the quality of thought and writing in the review itself.

You say that readers aren't "showing up to watch us do our tricks." You might be right about that. But it's why I show up. I want to be entertained with good writing and challenged with thoughtful writing. I want to participate in a discussion that is not dependent upon whether I have read the book but which is edifying nevertheless.

That's a lot to ask of a book review. Too much to ask most of the time. But it's what I aspire to read & write.

Thanks again for your response, Linda. I suspect that, in the end, we may be making similar points from different directions.