Reviews

In a Twilight book shop, having just finished
the first chapter of the third book. Is the
disgust clear enough on my face?

"JOHN. They were attentive.
ROBERT. Yes. (Pause.) They were acute.
JOHN. Mmm.
ROBERT. Yes. (Pause.) They were discerning.
JOHN. I thought they were.
ROBERT. Perhaps they saw the show tonight (pause) on another level. Another, what? another...plane, eh? Another level of meaning. Do you know what I mean?
JOHN. I'm not sure I do.
ROBERT. A plane of meaning.
Pause.
JOHN. A plane.
ROBERT. Yes. I feel perhaps they saw a better show than the one we rehearsed.
JOHN. Mmm."

-- David Mamet, A life in the theatre: a play


--

I tend to do this thing, and I'm not entirely proud of it. It feels dishonest to me, or like in doing it I'm preparing to be dishonest later.

This thing I do is reading reviews of a book after I've finished it.

I try not to read reviews beforehand, relying more on the book's reputation, my friends' opinions, or--call me crazy--my own reaction to reading the first chapter. Stephen King suggests reading the first 10% before deciding whether to continue to the end. I've appropriated that rule. So if I read the first 45 pages of a 450-page novel and still don't care about the story or characters, I put it down. Sometimes I return to it later, as I did with Roth's The Great American Novel, and find it worthwhile (most books are, if given your attention). But for the most part, I am reluctant to reread a book that I know from experience is boring.

Why do I read reviews after the book, then, if I consider myself enough of a reader to be discerning? Why does it matter what anyone else thinks?

Tough question. I guess it's the same reason anyone first seeks the opinion of others after sharing a common experience, rather than coming right out with one's own criticism: "Well, thank God that's over, right?...Right, guys?" I have this desire to shape my reactions based on others'. It's like research for a thesis. And it's not like this is exclusive to movies, either. I check RottenTomatoes.com to see what enlightened film-seers have said about the movie I just paid to see. What have the experts said? Where do I agree and disagree with them? How can I frame my opinions in such a way as to sound educated and well-read despite the fact that this is the only book I've read (or movie I've paid to see) in the last three months?

More tough questions.

--

My sister is playing Zelda on the Wii right now, and I find myself distracted by a parabolic spectacle: Link "activates" a monolithic suit of armor by throwing something at it, and it comes to life, hopping on its stone pedestal of a foot in whatever direction Link is running. It holds a massive hammer and resembles a soldier in Zigzag's army from The Thief and the Cobbler. It follows Link around for maybe a minute until it has been led to a particular spot, and then it stops, raises its hammer, and smashes whatever is before it. Then, its act of violence done, the runic glow fades from its body and it turns back to lifeless rock.

I can't help but think that, in some way, reading reviews post-book is like leading the statue to smash something. I seek it out. I activate it. It comes with me. I show it the thing I want to smash. And in a single, irreversible blow, it destroys the thing that was.

--

King also says not to read the summaries printed on the backs of books, because they weren't written by the author but by some post-grad publishing house clerk who just had a one-night stand with the book, having scanned it in five hours, once.

Also, not to read reviews printed on the first ten pages because the people who wrote those either weren't good enough to be hired by the publishing house, or are friends of the author returning a favor.

I wonder how he'd feel about me blogging, then, having never been hired by a publisher or befriended by a reputable author. There is a "Chris" sound in "hypocrisy."

I know the hatred of critics is a popular one, but I also can't shake that most of the artists I admire detest the very idea of criticism. Not just that they feel uncomfortable having their stuff reviewed, but that they feel dirty because of it. For King or Mamet, their venue is the popular one, and their judgment can only come from their audience of readers or theatre-goers. (And for those who intrinsically despise those two, I'm sure we can find a common role model who hates critics, too.)

Criticism is a coulda-shoulda business, one that keeps amateurs out of the ring through mere intimidation. And the sad thing is that those who have gone to college have been trained to do the same. Myself included.

I need to try to be more a fan of good art than a critic of bad art. As my grandma should have taught me, if you have nothing nice to say...do you really think writing a paper about it will make you feel better?

--

That said, I thought the newest Twilight movie was suck-awful. And I didn't have to read any reviews to reach that conclusion.