The BBC Radio 4 programme Off The Page on which dovergreyreader recently appeared along with a "professional" book reviewer and a psychologist (see my previous post), seems to have sparked off a discussion on the difference between book-bloggers and those who review books for a living.
I think the essence of book blogging is that the writers do it for sheer pleasure. They love books, read because they have to, and enjoy writing about their reading experiences. This means that they tend to write only about books they enjoyed. They don't write about books because they have to, and so if they don't enjoy a book they tend to either discard it before they've finished it, or else forget about it as soon as they can.
This is definitely my approach, but the programme caused me to think about my own reviews and I found it very difficult to find any really critical reviews. I occasionally point out flaws or where things could be improved but I discovered that I've only written two or three real stinkers. And it seems that the thing that sparks me off is books which I think are pretentious.
Cliffs by Olivier Adam for example: writing like this really gets me going in critical vein:
dissolving in into tears in the middle of the meal . . . her arms
around us tight and her tears soaking into our hair . . . a terrible
sadness invaded the space, drying out the texture of the air . . . a
sadness wreathed in fog, like and endless November, froze us from
inside and a lump rose in my throat for no apparent reason
or
"Our lives are alike. Our lives are the same and blighted. We
mourn the same dead and live in the company of phantoms. . . . Lost
forever in the crowd, our lives fit into a thimble. However tall we
stand on tiptoe, we remain smaller than ourselves. . . We cry out in
the night, scream and tremble with fear".
I think someone spent a little too long in the creative writing class!
Another one that got me going was The Winter Vault, by Anne Michaels, and for much the same reason. Its not that the book is bad - it has many good features and was reviewed in a number of qality newspapers, but the writing style is just too much for my unsubtle northern ears. For example, my wife and I have had countless conversations during our long marriage, but none quite like this:
- You're like a man seen from a distance, a man who we think has
stopped to tie his shoelaces but who is really kneeling in prayer.
- Our shoelaces have to come undone, said Avery, before we ever think to kneel
It would be cruel to repeat any more of the quotations I listed in my review, and in any case, no doubt there are people who love this sort of writing.
So, in summary, if you get reviewed by A Common Reader you're probably going to have a fairly comfortable ride because I wouldn't have even finished your book unless I enjoyed it and I certainly can't be bothered to write about books which are just "poor". But sometimes I encounter a style of writing which sends me off into satirical mode. I usually feel ashamed of myself and consider deleting the post a few days later, but by then its usually attracted some comments and it seems a shame to remove it.
But what am I worrying about. The Daily Mail review of The Winter Vault was really caustic:
"Avery and Jean . . . lie next to
each other at night telling the stories of their lives, laced with
gnomic utterances on love and world events. The characters never come
to life, serving only as mouthpieces for the author whose tendency
towards the portentous weighs as heavily as the Abu Simbel stone".
Now that's what I call criticism!
The picture at the top of this post is included solely to brighten up this post. It is from a photograph I took of he Lewes Embroidery and shows the area I live in.