kanders@lll-tis-a (08/22/85)
From: kanders@lll-tis-a (Kevin Anderson) A few words of background information, so I won't be just a bunch of colored pixels on your screen: For the past six years I have been the Senior Reviewer of the Midwest Book Review, the second largest book-review organization in North America; I've had over a hundred book reviews published in dozens of different magazines, and I *enjoy* reviewing books. Consequently, I take a little interest in discussions like the one we've been having on the net, and I particularly take notice when people start comparing critics with things like slime covered slugs vomiting on themselves... (Although I should admit that I consider myself a "reviewer" instead of a critic, so maybe that doesn't mean me after all.) First, a lot of people are way off base by implying that critics rip apart each and every thing they review. Wrong-o, guys -- if you keep track, I think you'll find that critics give good reviews at least as often as they give bad ones. The problem is, most good reviews are relatively innocuous and nobody remembers them. . .but if you see a bad review of a book/film you liked, it's bound to arouse your ire and make you say some of the things that have been popping up on the net. I personally find that I give a good review to books usually more than 80% of the time -- that's not to say I think 8 out of 10 books are terrific, but that I am fairly good at selecting books I'll enjoy. Second, although a few pretentious critics may think so, the world really has no omniscient standard by which to say whether a critic is "right" or "wrong" -- YOU, the reader, have to select a reviewer/critic who is right for your own tastes. Different reviewers reflect different attitudes; I know what *I* like, and that is the only criterion I can use to judge a book...if you like the same types of books I do, then you'll probably agree with most of my reviews. If we have very different tastes, I'd suggest you find a different critic who will be more useful in helping you decide which books you'll like. But don't say I'm "wrong" because you don't agree with what I said about a particular book. For example, I find that I usually agree with Roger Ebert about films, and I usually disagree with Gene Siskel. However, a friend of mine has the exact opposite reaction. We don't fight over which critic is "right" -- she listens to Siskel, and I listen to Ebert, in order to make our decisions. I know a lot of people have a knee-jerk resentment toward critics, in which they show a snobbishness at least equal to what they perceive on the part of book reviewers. But the world just isn't black and white like that, and please stop using us as scapegoats. Kevin J. Anderson