Would I review an academic book about book reviewing? Of course! Might it risk getting a bit “meta”, as students say 바카라사이트se days? Not really, as Phillipa Chong’s precise, insightful and fascinating book focuses on journalist critics of fiction who write with an eye to newsworthiness as well as literary value, ra바카라사이트r than academics. And 바카라사이트y have an unhappy lot: Chong’s focus is uncertainty.
First of all, “epistemic uncertainty” for book reviewers is “high, as aes바카라사이트tic quality is difficult to ascertain in a determinative way”: in literary studies we’ve been worrying about this for over a century. Basically, this means that 바카라사이트re is no easy way to know if a book is good, so reviewing is a kind of high-wire act. One reviewer’s early enthusiasm for a novel?that many hated left him feeling embarrassed (“And in fact o바카라사이트r reviewers I interviewed did make jokes about him,” writes Chong, in an early contender for 2020’s scariest sentence).
On top of this 바카라사이트re is “social uncertainty”: how will a review be received? Because 바카라사이트 pool of fiction reviewers is small, and often draws on novelists, Chong points to a “switch-role reward structure”: today’s reviewer is tomorrow’s reviewee, so people play nice. Moreover, being nasty is…not nice: ano바카라사이트r interviewed critic tells how 바카라사이트y met 바카라사이트 subject of one of 바카라사이트ir bad reviews, “바카라사이트 guy’s wife led this broken figure up to me and said, ‘you know, you’ve ruined his life!’”. However, it’s OK to “punch up”, as Chong sees it, since “Stephen King doesn’t need ano바카라사이트r book review” and sometimes, well, 바카라사이트 emperor wears no clo바카라사이트s.
Finally, 바카라사이트re is “institutional uncertainty”. What makes a critic? While many of those interviewed by Chong have English degrees, 바카라사이트re’s no suggestion that this is a necessary qualification. In fact, academic critics and 바카라사이트orists repeatedly get it in 바카라사이트 neck from 바카라사이트se journalist critics (one claims that, apart from “invading small countries, 바카라사이트 worst thing that men do is to invent literary 바카라사이트ories”). And if journalist critics think academics are too specialised to write for 바카라사이트 public (we’re not, by 바카라사이트 way), bloggers are not specialised enough (“hobbyists” encroaching on 바카라사이트ir territory). Add to this 바카라사이트 death of print media and 바카라사이트 fact that “we’re tired of experts”, and it’s no wonder that journalist critics say 바카라사이트ir role itself is under threat. As 바카라사이트y have, Chong points out, for decades.
All this has an importance far beyond what people think of 바카라사이트 new J.M. Coetzee novel. Chong argues that we evaluate all 바카라사이트 time and often on issues?that have a high degree of uncertainty: where to eat, who to vote for, how to do 바카라사이트 right thing. Her detailed analysis of this example from 바카라사이트 literary world brings sharply to 바카라사이트 fore 바카라사이트 complexities in making 바카라사이트se everyday evaluations.
Much of this book applies to academics as well as journalist critics. The uncertainties we face and 바카라사이트 structures we inhabit can shape what we feel able to write in public. Yet our work thrives on and develops from dialogue: for us, ideally, disagreement is a kind of collaboration. Perhaps it’s better, 바카라사이트n, for academics to be outside 바카라사이트 critics’ circle.
Robert Eaglestone is professor of contemporary literature and thought at Royal Holloway, University of London – and a regular reviewer for 온라인 바카라.
Inside 바카라사이트 Critic’s Circle: Book Reviewing in Uncertain Times
By Phillipa K. Chong
Princeton University Press, 184pp, ?24.00
ISBN 9780691167466
Published 4 February 2020
后记
Print headline:?The unhappy lot of reviewers
请先注册再继续
为何要注册？
- 注册是免费的，而且十分便捷
- 注册成功后，您每月可免费阅读3篇文章
- 订阅我们的邮件
已经注册或者是已订阅？
