From Jalglish aka ex- Expat Nov. 30 2013
[attempted contribution to discussion of op ed by Garfield Nov. 29, on the merits of the "positive" review... alas I was too late, goddammit!]
As a lifelong part-time professional book reviewer and
editor, I could bore you with volumes on the topic, but I’ll say this
(hopefully briefly).
This topic is actually about censorship but no one has mentioned that ugly word... so I'll break the ice.
Ordering some kind of outcome for book reviews is equivalent
to censorship and should always, by any self-respecting reviewer, be refused.
Similarly, authors should never pick their reviewer. It may seem reasonable at
first to reject the negative review on the basis of the statistical likelihood
of “many good books” out there going unreviewed, but in fact reviewers aren’t
statisticians and can only judge one book at a time. Suppose I read one poor
book -- whose full failure isn’t apparent until the last chapter -- and at the
end have to throw it on the pile of discards. What a lot of wasted effort added
to the already gruesome amount of work involved in reviewing well and
conscientiously! It’s a dishonest and exploitative editorial policy (and really
makes me glad to I don’t use “Good Reads” or “Buzzfeed”).
At the same time, as a writer who wants to get published, my
fate is tied to the title I review. Deep in the heart of the most conscientious
reviewer – such as that of the character in ‘The Figure in the Carpet”—is an
invisible conflict of interest between the critic’s desire for attention and
his intellectual honesty. To resolve this, (if I can pick my book) I’ve always
leaned toward authors I genuinely admire, but if assigned a title I must have
total autonomy.
If these conditions aren’t met, you are either living in a
tyrannical principality or similar country that – while professing a liberal
press – actually doesn’t understand it in the least, especially the “critical”
part. Alas the situation is all too common!
I usually sent back to contributors reviews that were shallow
or too positive, with the comment, “Where’s the criticism?”
