Criticising the critics
A friend of mine lately had occasion to write a negative review of a poetry collection. The review is here: for the record, the quotes in it made me suspect that, though I shared some of the criticisms, I would probably have liked the book better than the reviewer did. Which means, in my view, that the review did its job; it indicated to me, the prospective reader (for whose benefit, let us not forget, reviews are written) what sort of poetry it was and how I was likely to react to it. I have before now bought a book on the basis of an unfavourable review, if it gave enough in the way of quotes and examples to make me think it was likely to be more to my taste than it had been to the reviewer's.
What the review was not was in any way personal or ad hominem, nor was it the result of careless reading, as apparently the publisher has suggested. The reason I think I'd have liked the book better is not that I think my reading would find anything the reviewer's had missed, but rather that we have different priorities - to oversimplify somewhat, the reviewer misses a human element in the collection (the "ghostly inhabitants" of the houses); I could probably do without it, though not having read the book, I can't say for sure. It is not a careless reading; it is one possible reading, by a reviewer who is herself a poet and of whom it certainly can't be said, as this publisher has, that her "reading skills are not up to the job".
It isn't unknown for poor readers, and even surprisingly unintelligent people, to write reviews for reputable publications. I cherish a memory of one, not of any book of mine, where the reviewer spent some time explaining a verse form she clearly thought the poet had invented: it was a sestina. If I'd been the author under discussion, I might have thought it worthwhile to contact the editor privately and point out that s/he was employing someone who needed to do a lot more reading and study before publishing reviews. It is also legitimate to correct actual errors of fact (one thinks of the reviewer who, not mindful of the dictum "I is a lie", assumed that a poem about IVF was autobiographical and that the poet's child had in fact been conceived that way: not so).
Other than that, the only dignified stance a poet can take on reviews is to ignore them. Even thanking someone for a good review is a bit problematic, especially if you know them, because it makes it sound as if they were doing you a personal favour, when in fact they were doing their job impartially. Yes, they may well miss things you think they should have spotted, or interpret something otherwise than you'd like. But that is arguably just as much your fault: you are the one trying to communicate your intent to reasonably intelligent folk (and if they aren't that, then you wouldn't really want your work to please them anyway).
Most of Bethany's principles on reviewing in her blog article are also mine. Unlike her, though, I do review work by poets who happen to be my friends or ex-students. I've been around a lot longer and would be hard put to it to avoid every poet I've ever had contact with. It doesn't stop me saying what I think about them, as I do about anything I review. Since I don't do it for money any more, I can afford not to bother with work that is emphatically not to my liking, so my reviews are more likely to be positive than not, but I hope they are balanced - when I do rave about something, it's because I am genuinely that keen on it. Even so, I have had the odd tight-lipped comment from a publisher on a "balanced review", where said publisher clearly wasn't using "balanced" as a compliment but rather as a synonym for "niggardly". It hasn't changed my estimation of the book in question - interesting but uneven - any more than a subsequent review which took a far more enthusiastic line has changed it. Again this was a matter of priorities and different readings: the constant repetition of a particular poem-structure struck me as tedious, him as powerful. That's my privilege, and his.
In that case two different reviews came up with two different readings, which is the ideal situation. The more plentiful reviews are, the more this happens and the less one reading can skew the reader's views in advance. This is one reason I have been trying, all year, to do at least two reviews, preferably of new work, a month. Poets are always moaning about a lack of reviews: very few of them try to do much about it on each other's behalf. But my advice would be: if you don't like the quality of reviewing, do some yourself.
What the review was not was in any way personal or ad hominem, nor was it the result of careless reading, as apparently the publisher has suggested. The reason I think I'd have liked the book better is not that I think my reading would find anything the reviewer's had missed, but rather that we have different priorities - to oversimplify somewhat, the reviewer misses a human element in the collection (the "ghostly inhabitants" of the houses); I could probably do without it, though not having read the book, I can't say for sure. It is not a careless reading; it is one possible reading, by a reviewer who is herself a poet and of whom it certainly can't be said, as this publisher has, that her "reading skills are not up to the job".
It isn't unknown for poor readers, and even surprisingly unintelligent people, to write reviews for reputable publications. I cherish a memory of one, not of any book of mine, where the reviewer spent some time explaining a verse form she clearly thought the poet had invented: it was a sestina. If I'd been the author under discussion, I might have thought it worthwhile to contact the editor privately and point out that s/he was employing someone who needed to do a lot more reading and study before publishing reviews. It is also legitimate to correct actual errors of fact (one thinks of the reviewer who, not mindful of the dictum "I is a lie", assumed that a poem about IVF was autobiographical and that the poet's child had in fact been conceived that way: not so).
Other than that, the only dignified stance a poet can take on reviews is to ignore them. Even thanking someone for a good review is a bit problematic, especially if you know them, because it makes it sound as if they were doing you a personal favour, when in fact they were doing their job impartially. Yes, they may well miss things you think they should have spotted, or interpret something otherwise than you'd like. But that is arguably just as much your fault: you are the one trying to communicate your intent to reasonably intelligent folk (and if they aren't that, then you wouldn't really want your work to please them anyway).
Most of Bethany's principles on reviewing in her blog article are also mine. Unlike her, though, I do review work by poets who happen to be my friends or ex-students. I've been around a lot longer and would be hard put to it to avoid every poet I've ever had contact with. It doesn't stop me saying what I think about them, as I do about anything I review. Since I don't do it for money any more, I can afford not to bother with work that is emphatically not to my liking, so my reviews are more likely to be positive than not, but I hope they are balanced - when I do rave about something, it's because I am genuinely that keen on it. Even so, I have had the odd tight-lipped comment from a publisher on a "balanced review", where said publisher clearly wasn't using "balanced" as a compliment but rather as a synonym for "niggardly". It hasn't changed my estimation of the book in question - interesting but uneven - any more than a subsequent review which took a far more enthusiastic line has changed it. Again this was a matter of priorities and different readings: the constant repetition of a particular poem-structure struck me as tedious, him as powerful. That's my privilege, and his.
In that case two different reviews came up with two different readings, which is the ideal situation. The more plentiful reviews are, the more this happens and the less one reading can skew the reader's views in advance. This is one reason I have been trying, all year, to do at least two reviews, preferably of new work, a month. Poets are always moaning about a lack of reviews: very few of them try to do much about it on each other's behalf. But my advice would be: if you don't like the quality of reviewing, do some yourself.
No comments have been added yet.
