.
| Hearsay: |
Moby looks at a dust up over a review in which it’s become apparent that teh reviewer’s political agenda and personal disagreement with the reviewed author was driving the substance of the piece. Luckily, Moby turns this from a simple “FIGHT! FIGHT!” piece into a thoughtful bit about the nature of how reviews are, and should be, assigned and executed.
In an age where more and more readers are writing subjective reviews on their blogs, on Amazon and elsewhere, we must be able to look to professional reviewers and expect an objective opinion. That said, all reviews are at some level a matter of taste and preference. But that doesn’t excuse Packer’s review, which seemed to me to be a review of Danner himself rather than the book Packer was supposed to evaluate. After reading his piece, I now know more about the man behind the book than I do about the book itself.
January 2006
December
2005
November
2005
October
2005
September
2005
August
2005
July
2005
June
2005
May
2005
April
2005
March
2005
February
2005
January
2005
December
2004
November
2004
October
2004
September
2004
August
2004
July
2004
June
2004
May
2004
April
2004
March
2004
February
2004
January
2004
December
2003
November
2003
October
2003
September
2003
August
2003
Bookninja © Copyright
The opinions expressed on this site are those of individual participants
and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the site owners,
organizers, or other participants.
[powered by WordPress.]
November 10th, 2009 at 7:12 pm
Okay, I’ll bite. I agree with Moby when he says, “I think the key debate outside of the article really pertains to how the “review” has developed, and where it is going. A good review focuses on the subject at hand both critically and objectively; it doesn’t permit a personal attack.” Yes, reliable reviewers are those that handle their subjects both critically and objectively.
November 11th, 2009 at 1:06 am
Complete objectivity is only possible from a sage. Us mortals
(99.99999999% of us) have deep-seated biases of many
kinds, many of them unknown even to ourselves. The best thing
is for the reviewer to honestly delineate his or her biases,
preferences, desires, when reviewing a book.
I find Danner’s beef problematic. Packer had disagreements
with Danner on the war in Iraq. But that doesn’t mean that
what Packer said was suspect. (One doesn’t have to be obsessive
in relating details of torture in order to report honestly
about it, e.g.). As the link makes clear, there was never any
personal animosity between Danner and Packer.
There will often be conflicts of opinion between a reviewer
and the author of the piece under review. It’s either
disingenuous or ad hominem to retort with the “unfair
subjective” bogeyman arguement just because the author
isn’t praised to the skies.
November 11th, 2009 at 12:29 pm
was that a poem?
November 11th, 2009 at 1:00 pm
Objective review:
This book was written in [language of creation] by [author's name], who lives in [author's hometown]. It spans [x number of] pages, divided into [y number of] [poems, stories, essays, chapters, etc.]. [Insert summary of plot, if any, here.]
November 11th, 2009 at 3:17 pm
I don’t think anyone is suggesting that negative reviews are verboten. But these days a well-reasoned critical argument is too often abandoned in favour of puffed-up, snarling pronouncements. And when a reviewer seems to take pleasure in doing a knee-cap job, I think the line of journalistic decorum has been crossed. One can be critical, even nagative, without being cruel or making it personal or just being a dink about it. In this case, Packer seems to be willfully ditching his journalistic/critical credibility to satisfy a chulrish urge to dig into Danner on a visceral level because he wanted to “win” their private debate in a public arena in a decidely underhanded way, i.e by taking their debate, without disclosure of bias, into a book review. He’s just giving people a reason not to take him seriously.
November 11th, 2009 at 7:03 pm
DB, I couldn’t have said it better myself.
November 12th, 2009 at 10:20 am
Okay, bringing this back to the question of Packer on Danner, I’d be curious to hear from the editor who commissioned and edited the review. Presumably, this person would have known about the prior, public conflicts between the two men. So presumably, s/he had Packer write the review because s/he thought that this would make for an interesting article for the readers of the NYT. Presumably, s/he thought that references to the “creepiness” of Danner were not beyond the pale because, after all, it sounds as tho Danner’s book is a piece of first person reportage and so it becomes almost impossible to say something about the book without saying something about Danner’s person, whether it be ad hominem or pro hominem. The book, as a work of journalism, clearly was not neutral, so why is there this burden of neutrality placed upon the review as a work of journalism? And what harm can it possibly do to a book to have vigorous public discussions about it? Answer: none. It can do nothing but good for it and its author, in terms of bringing it and its message to the awareness of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of readers.
November 12th, 2009 at 6:42 pm
Wow, talk about a serious soft-pedal of a potentially serious conflict of interest, Zach. I too would be curious to hear from the editors/publishers of those magazines that you regularly write reviews for — Canadian Notes & Queries, Arc Magazine, Qui ll& Quire – if this is really your opinion on this matter. It would certainly make it easier for me to figure out how to spend my subscription dollars.
Chris
November 12th, 2009 at 6:58 pm
Chris, what I’m saying is, I highly doubt that Packer slipped one by a credulous editor. Barring hard evidence to the contrary, one can only assume that the editor _chose_ to commission Packer to write the piece and chose him for a specific reason: his history of disagreement with Danner. Similarly, I had the scholar Kirsten Seaver review Paul Chiasson’s _The Island of Seven Cities_–for Canadian Notes & Queries; see, I _am_ one of their editors, so now you’ve heard from them–precisely because I knew she had a history of disagreeing quite strongly with the thesis presented in Chiasson’s book. I thought it would make for an engaging piece of criticism, and I was right. As for Arc, I’ve twice won the annual award they give out for best review and have four reviews and an essay appearing in their next issue, so I can only assume they’re satisfied with my work. As for Q&Q, they keep calling and I keep following their conflict of interest guidelines, but please feel free to dig up an instance in which you think I haven’t. (SWB, you listening to this? Chris thinks yer a jerk.) Writing short reviews for an industry trade mag is a very different ball of wax from writing review essays for the biggest newspaper in the world. Just guessing.
November 12th, 2009 at 8:36 pm
An appeal to your own authority is a classic fallacy of logic Zach and I’m not going to accept it as fact. And yes, I would like to hear from Steven W. Beattie and Dan Wells and Anita Lahey and any other magazine editors you write reviews for if you really believe writing critically and objectively about other poet’s books beyond you. If you really don’t beleive in an ethics of reviewing, then, yes, I want that on the record so I know where to spend my magazine subscription money. It is too important of a topic not to have an unequivocal answer on what appears to be the “Wilford Brimley-Quaker Oats- Just eat it- it’s good-for-ya” school of poetry reviewing. Honestly, I have serious reservations about your ability to review poetry in this country and l think I deserve some straight answers.
Chris
November 12th, 2009 at 9:15 pm
Well, I have serious doubts about your ability to write poetry in this or any other country, so I guess we’re square on this “important … topic,” dude. Toodles.
November 12th, 2009 at 10:31 pm
As predictable as his need to stop and fight is Zach taking a cheap shot- and running like a coward at the first sign of some blood on his lip.
November 13th, 2009 at 5:33 am
Actually, I tend to withdraw once I see the foamy blood on the other feller’s lips. I have a preternatural fear of communicable diseases; call it hydrophobiaphobia. BTW, is this the same Michael who once proposed publishing a book of my criticism? It’s such an unusual name, it must be! But I lose track, since SOOOO many publishers have suggested it would be a worthwhile endeavour. Ciao, Mikey.
I think we’ve (by we, I don’t mean me) lost sight of the fact that this thread is not about poetry reviewing in Canada. Not even remotely. It’s about a review of a book about war and brutal violence. Fond as I am of trivial concerns, I’d actually much rather talk about this than the wounded feelings of privileged lyricists. So, anyone read the back and forth between Packer and Danner? Anyone agree with me that it was not only a reasonable, but an intelligent decision to have Packer review Danner’s book?
November 13th, 2009 at 6:54 am
I like how the subject can change from Iraq to Canadian poetry with no damage to the unifying theme of sectarian warfare.
November 13th, 2009 at 3:19 pm
Cheap shot indeed. This is what I’m talking about. A guy gets called on talking in circles and supporting his own points with naked assumptions and his own authority, and he just punks out. Embarrassing. Can someone call time of death on this thread?