Re: Ex Occidente Press
 

While that does make sense, surely the kind of adverse criticism* you (the creator of the object in question) get is more important than the critic.

*If it's actually helpful in fixing a problem the creator wasn't aware of. Not the sort of two sentence long web review that amount to to either Yes or No.

Re: Ex Occidente Press
 

Thank you.

I have some sympathy with the notion that the critic is there to protect an idea of literary standards, but it seldom seems to work that way. I suppose, in the end, it's just one of the hazards of the job. You can't expect criticism always to be fair or helpful. But as a writer, I think you're within your rights to complain about it. Also, I think another part of the job of critic (especially in a 'review') is to give a very vivid idea of what the book is like, to help readers make up their own minds if they don't share the reviewer's tastes. I recall an essay in which Burroughs says that critics can lay a curse on a book by writing the review in prose that conjures up no vivid images, thereby creating an association in the mind of the reader with dullness. Having said that, these are merely message boards, and comments here are, of course, not in the way of being official reviews, so I think we should treat it more as conversation, really.

Very true.

Re: Ex Occidente Press
 

I think anyone should be able to write a review in public on the internet - as I have been doing a lot recently.

The question is who judges the judges?

Perhaps we should write reviews of reviews, as someone did recently on my review of 'Teatro Grottesco'! :)

Re: Ex Occidente Press
 

I agree with that, that as long as both reviews are of a decent standard. I have a slight dislike of big review coloums and the like giving extremely, short sweeping reviews without really explaining the good or bad points in any depth. If its a choice between a one of the above or a well thought out review from Random Internet Poster then I'd probably more likely to listen to Random Internet Poster's.

Notes on the Writing of Reviews? Reviewing reviews sound an interesting idea. I supose you could allways create a frame work for reviews on specific sites though it would limit creative discourse some what.

Re: Ex Occidente Press
 

Reviews are not necessarily critical but descriptive / interpretative / evaluative in that order.
Some people are made to be reviewers and have no skill in creating what they review - and some writers have not the skills to review. So I think that question may be spurious.

Of course, I am good at writing and reviewing. ;)
des

Re: Ex Occidente Press
 

In theory it should be able to go on as long as there is something constructive to be gained from evaluation. In practise it's probably going to stop once veryone gets board and wanders off. Pardon the overt cynicism.

Of course, where may I ask did your review of Teatro Grottesco appear?

Re: Ex Occidente Press
 

A ratcheting review with many hands...
An intriguing concept.


Thanks for the interest. It is here:
http://weirdmonger.blog-city.com/tea...as_ligotti.htm

And it was in turn briefly reviewed here:
http://grimreviews.blogspot.com/2009...s-ligotti.html

Re: Ex Occidente Press
 

Thanks Nemonymous, I'll check it out in a second.

Re: Ex Occidente Press
 

A possible source of difficulty in these discussions is that we are using a pre-digital era literary vocabulary – rightfully so, but what we're talking about is the Internet. It's important to remember that a blog or a forum posting is not a review. A review has been submitted to the editor of a journal, accepted and published. It exists in a context that is not the world of the Internet. What we're talking about on this thread is not reviews: it's something actually much closer to a phone call or a conversation over a table than a published review.

One of the long-recognised conventions of reviewing is that it is not interactive. An author has right of reply if the review contains factual inaccuracies or is in some other way grossly misleading. But in the culture of literary journals, very few authors would write letters to say "I don't like it when people criticise my work" or "I think my work deserves more praise" – and no editor would publish such a letter. But because Internet forums allow direct and informal dialogue, the expectations of 'right of reply' are much greater.

Even in the world of pre-digital publication, there is a major exception to this convention: the fields of journalism and academic writing, where the book and the review are essentially both part of an ongoing discourse between peers. In that context, 'right of reply' is necessarily a given. My favourite example (from my student days) is Ernst Gellner's splenetic review of Paul Feyerabend's book Science in a Free Society. Gellner, a right-wing scientific 'realist', treated the left-wing social constructivist views of Feyerabend with scorn and contempt. Feyerabend, in a long and hugely entertaining response, took on Gellner's review point for point. His letter included the observation: "It's a shame you didn't read my argument more carefully or get someone to explain it to you." That comment still delights me more than two decades later.

My work has received many hurtful reviews over the years, but so far I've never attempted to take issue publicly with a reviewer. If someone were to express a negative judgement of my work on this forum, I hope (but can't guarantee) I'd maintain a discreet silence. But as I've said already, an opinion posted on a forum is not a review. Let's endorse (wholeheartedly) the right of forum members to express their literary opinions honestly and clearly, and let's endorse (more guardedly) the right of authors to argue back if they feel they have to. This is a forum, not a literary journal. The only rules are the ones we invent.

Finally, let's keep in mind the fact that one good book is worth more than all the Internet postings ever shot into cyberspace.

Re: Ex Occidente Press
 

Above all, critics need to be knowledgeable, opinionated and insightful. By default, such skills can only be acquired by wide-reading, passion for the subject and - within certain exceptions - a healthy mix of wisdom and maturity. Any fool or wiseacre can be a pedant; it doesn't take much talent or skill to spot a typo or split infinitive. Yet writers (whether they be poets, playwrights or novelists) continually 'break the rules' that the guardians of pedantry seek to uphold. We are "taught" (for example) that alliteration, repetition and ambiguity is "bad", and that conventions of grammar should be correctly followed. Utter nonsense. Don't the guardians know that God is Pooh bear?

A judge in a court of law is not dissimilar to a good reviewer. He or she has to carefully and knowledgeably sift through evidence and experience to arrive at a reasonable and accurate conclusion. Admittedly a reviewer has greater leniency and is permitted to judge things from a personal and opinionated subjective perspective. I'm less concerned with the length or depth of a review than I am with the following concerns:

1. Reviewer inexperience. Although any graduate is capable at 21 of highlighting grammatical failings or deviations, I don't think any reviewer under the age of thirty has sufficient experience and maturity to critique professionally.

2. Reviewer bias. I've witnessed many examples of reviewer bias. Some writers take delight in savaging their enemies; others will puff the work of a friend or crony to order, regardless of the quality of the work. For example, All Hallows, the Ghost Story Society, the BFS, Ramsey Campbell and his message board chums. Some argue that the genre is so small that it's impossible not to have conflicts-of-interests, some that there is no such thing as Incestuous Reviewer Syndrome. Well, I disagree. We are each of us responsible for our own ingerity, and the number of people who work, read, write and publish in the genre is far larger than the number of MPs sitting in the House Of Commons. There are no excuses for not being able to critique the work of our peers professionally, other than those trotted out by who benefit from the 'status quo' and wish to see it perpetuated.

3. Reviewer Laziness. Some reviewers don't familiarise themselves with the work they are reading. They read hastily and fail to undertake the same level of research that writers often engage in. Yet if they seek to judge a writer who has spent weeks working on a book, the least they can do is read the book thoughtfully and check out any facts or claims.

4. Revewer renumeration. Journals that review books should not only furnish a reviewer with a gratis copy of the book, but they should pay good reviewers as much as they pay the writers.

5. Declaration / conflict of interest. Reviewers who critique the work of friends or cronies should openly declare their interest. I remember being appalled to learn that Ramsey Campbell not only knew who 'Joe Hill' was [Stephen King's son] when giving his debut collection a massive plug in All Hallows a couple of years ago, but that he had failed to mention this in his review. As he quite probably knows Mr King Snr and - without wishing to be unkind - might wish to ingratiate himself with such an influential person in the horror genre, it casts his eulogic review in a different light. In any other line of business this would be deemed a blatant conflict of interest, yet for some reason both the reviewer and the editrice believed that it wasn't, and that their readers and potential book-buying customers didn't need to know about it. In my opinion, the best reviewers are either top quality writers themselves, or else shrewd scholars who put aside personal concerns and focus purely on the work in hand.

The reviewers I personally dislike the most are those who use a review as a platform for launching their own odd proselike tirade. I apologise again for referencing Ramsey Campbell - who I am sure has learnt from past mistakes and youthful naivety - but some of his reviews in early 70s fanzines are classic text-book examples of this. In one brash, arrogant sentence, he would dismiss the entire life's work of this or that author, and then proceed to devote a lengthy review to how better a writer he or she would have been had they only done it his way. Tonight driving home I listened to Bowie's last great album ['Scary Monsters'] which has the wonderful line 'As ugly as a teenage millionaire pretending it's a whizz-kid's world', and this could apply in this case. For example, perhaps the worst thing that ever happened to Ramsey Campbell was that he had his first collection published by Arkham House. And perhaps the worst thing that has happened to several cronies of RC's is that he has heaped praise on them which was not actually merited. Where is the balance and honesty let alone wisdom? In the long run readers will prove the best critics. Great books are often overlooked in the short term but rarely are over the course of time. In contrast many eagerly-hyped works quickly fall by the wayside, damning their champions with tainted association.

Integrity, integrity and integrity: to be respected, a reviewer should cultivate and practise integrity.

A while ago I obtained copies of papers appertaining to anthologies edited by Dorothy Sayers and Marjorie Bowen; although it was obvious that M R James was, via his publisher Edward Arnold, less than keen to grant these fine female authors permission to use his work (James preferred dealing with men), they nevertheless tenaciously ignored James' fussy prejudices, believing that his work was of such a high standard as to merit inclusion in books they were putting together. For me this is a good example of professionalism. In contrast, when I cast an eye over horror anthologies currently in print, the vast majority of contributors are cronies of the commissioning editor, and as obvious are the omissions, inclusive of many fine stories which were overlooked because of petty unprofessionalism. Personally, I never read reviews, because I don't trust reviewers. I've even heard of one case of an All Hallows reviewer being dropped because he failed to praise the fictional debut of the maqazine editor highly enough. As a consequence the only books I buy are those based upon word-of-mouth recommendations from trusted, shrewd friends.

JK