Did you see Howard Davies' comments on reviews a week or so ago? Davies, chairman of the Man Booker judges this year, said that reviewers were often too inclined to praise works by established authors, and not open enough to new writing. That created a bit of a furore, but I have some sympathy: it's less common than it ought to be to read a review which is critical of a living great (not necessarily pans it, just says, not his greatest). Most authors are human, after all, and the standard is bound to go up and down a bit! To give (some of) his exact words:
“There appear to be some novels where people leave their critical faculties at home. They decide ‘so and so is a great novelist’ or ‘an up-and-coming novelist’, and give them the reverential treatment,” he said.
Recalling reviews for Jeanette Winterson’s The Stone Gods, he said: “Jeanette Winterson’s book is an odd book, unlike anything she’s written before and, in my view, doesn’t come off. Yet it was treated with absolute kid gloves by pretty well everybody.”
Too many critics, he said, shied away from real criticism. “The only way you can detect that the reviewer doesn’t like the book is when they spend the whole time simply describing the plot. They’re not brave enough to say, ‘It doesn’t work’. [They] are tolerant of untidy novels. They don’t care whether they’re readable or not.”
I make no comment on the Winterson, which I know nothing about. But my attention was caught by this, from Sandra Parsons in The Times, under the heading Wise Words:
"The reason I am never going to read Ian McEwan’s On Chesil Beach (which was shortlisted for the Man Booker Prize this year but didn’t win) is because his previous novel Saturday received rave reviews when it was in fact mediocre. The sense of betrayal when you buy a book because of the review, only to find it dull, ill-written or unreadable, is huge. Which is why, despite never having met him, I now worship Sir Howard Davies, chairman of this year’s Man Booker, for saying what the book-buying masses have known for years: never judge a book by its review."
I've really enjoyed McEwan before - especially Enduring Love - but I so agreed with Parsons on this one; I looked at a lot of reviews when Chesil Beach came out, and I was impressed by their tone, and predisposed to like the book - both from my familiarity with his earlier work, and also because I really like Chesil Beach itself (there, isn't that a bad reason for reading a book!). But ten minutes in a bookshop looking through the book made me sure I would never buy it, and never read it: I thought it grotesque and extremely unattractive. Whether you agree with me or not is almost irrelevant, because I'm very prepared to admit that there will be people who find it sensitive and fulfilling as a novel - but the point is that I don't recall seeing a review which was critical at all (though I'm open to correction on that, I don't read them all by any means).
But, finally, it gives me an excuse for quoting the angry X Trapnel, from Books Do Furnish A Room by Anthony Powell, on reviewers:
"How one envies the rich quality of a reviewer's life. All the things to which those Fleet Street Jesuses feel superior. Their universal knowledge, exquisite taste, idyllic loves, happy married life, optimism, scholarship, knowledge of the true meaning of life, freedom from sexual temptation, simplicity of heart, sympathy for the masses, compassion for the unfortunate, generosity - particularly the last, in welcoming with open arms every phoney who appears on the horizon. It's not surprising that in the eyes of most reviewers a mere writer's experiences seem so often trivial, sordid, lacking in meaning."
Wow! If in any doubt, of course, you can rely on a small selection of carefully written, honest blogs - even if we are all a little idiosyncrastic (or ignorant) at times! Happy reading!
I see Powell had something else to say on the subject: of Quiggin, "He was a professional reviewer of notable ability, much disliked by some of the older critics for the roughness with which he occasionally handled accepted reputations".
A bit of a jostle would do the likes of Mr. McEwan no harm, perhaps.
Posted by: Karen | Monday, 22 October 2007 at 09:30 AM