jimb@ISM780B.UUCP (12/17/85)
>/* Written 10:12 pm Dec 12, 1985 by barb@oliven in ISM780B:net.sf-lovers */ > >Having a joint B.A. degree in Fine Arts and English, I fear I've spent a >great deal of time reviewing creations -- and reviewers. Reviewing is an >art, it really is, and few people do it well. But the major gist is: Most >reviewers see what they expect to see. Umm, certainly valid in some cases. I had to fight my expectations when I read ROBOTS AND EMPIRE. In the other direction, I had to fight the expectations I had when I read PRACTICE EFFECT after STARTIDE. I can only speak for myself though. I would hope that most reviewers/critics maintained enough intellectual honesty to accept each work fresh, on its own merits, but I concede that I may be unreasonably optimistic. >And then they go on, in great detail, often, to prove to others that what >they saw was actually in the work. I wonder if Shakespeare really intended >such a fascinating mosaic of meaning scholars have attributed him with. I agree. Part of the problem in reviewing a work though, is to accept it for its own intentions. For a reviewer to not be in sympathy with a work's intentions is one thing; I accept it if it's acknowledged up front. Where it gets sticky is in trying to establish what a work is trying to do; you can't (I don't belive) judge the movies STAR WARS and 2001 by the same standards because their intents are different. Judging intent is tricky, but necessary. >I would think such works would be entirely too self-conscious to read. >(Note T.S.Elliot's *The Wasteland* -- which I actually think is a practical >joke on reviewers/critics.) True. On the other hand, even an author might not be conscious of all the intents working in a story/character/scene, so both writing and reading can proceed without self-conciousness. I once wrote a story opened with a intellectually/emotionally frustrated adolescent prince looking out a balcony window, observing a servant sweeping a courtyard below. One of the comments I got was that the physical isolation between prince and servant mirrored the psychological isolation very well. This hadn't occured to me, and yet it was absolutely true. (It was the wrong point-of-entry for the story, but that's a different matter.) >I recall a quote from somewhere: "Those that can't create, review." >Or something along those lines. I believe the statement is a bit too >general and too harsh (though sometimes applicable). I'll agree with your uncertainty. It does seem that, on one hand, one can't review adequately unless one understands the writing process from the inside. On the other hand, a review by an unsuccessful writer is suspect to envy and jealousy if it's a negative review, or ass-kissing if it's a positive review. In either event, the audience/author can ask, "Who is *s/he* to criticize the work?" A review by a peer, a seasoned pro, is even more suspect to charges of jealousy/favoritism. >But there is a real risk in reviewing to slip away from the work into a >private world of (often) propaganda. The review, in effect, becomes, as is >said in music, a fantasy on a theme. Amen. >Every reviewer should remember, no matter how hard he/she tries to be >objective, that he/she is stating an opinion. His/Her opinion. Rather >than saying, this book is trash (even if it is), say, 'It is my opinion >that this book is trash, and here is why...'. After all, one man's dross >is another's treasure. No dispute. That's why I'm a lot more comfortable with reviews that give readers a context/basis for the reviewer's belief. If readers agree with the context/basis, then they can have confidence in a review; if not, the review can be ignored. >Case in point -- Zelazany's *Lord of Light*. It makes the all time top >ten of a good friend's reading list, but my husband (the one who reads >during t.v. commercials)(and usally through the programs, too) has never >been able to finish it. Does this make a qualitative judgement against >*Lord of Light*? No, for both responses are a matter of personal taste. > >You may enjoy High Opera. I can't manage much heavier than Gilbert and >Sullivan. But I don't discount Wagner as junk. I'm with you on the opera, on both counts. This reflects one of my pet themes, that Good Art is not synonomous with Good Read, or whatever. There are more or less agreed upon esthetic standards for determining good art -- though the standards stand up only as long as no one tries to define them too closely, and they do change with time and culture. Very few people (I think) would argue that a Spiderman comic book is superior to FINNEGAN'S WAKE, but relatively few people will read FW instead of the comic book. FW meets high artistic standards, whether you like it or not is irrelevant. >Well, I have gone on too long. (I know, never apologize -- I'm sorry.) >[:-)] But remember, ye reviewers with criticism on your keyboards, >your opinion, though valid, is by no means universal. And, like >everything I've here writ -- may be totally wrong. Ditto. >Adieu -- and Happy Holidays! >Barb And also to you. (I would have replied by e-mail but couldn't find a path. This way, others can jump in if they're so inclined.) -- from the bewildered musings of Jim Brunet {ihnp4, decvax}!ima!jimb (most reliable) ucbvax!ucla-cs!ism780!jimb ihnp4!vortex!ism780!jimb or jimb at ima/*cca-unix.arpa ^ this asterisk is necessary!