A re-run on Radio National about reviewing has stayed with me over the past couple of days.I am still left with the question of 'what is the role of the reviewer?'
Is it to give a personal response to something they have read?
Is it to promote discussion about a literary piece and a broader discussion of literature as a whole?
Should they inject their review with their personality or not?
Should it get personal?
Is it a way to fill space, get newspapers sold, get people clicking onto blogs?
Is it about the reader? The writer? The publishing house or the reviewer?
Still pondering this one.
5 comments:
i think its a combination of everything.
i review personally, ramble a lot, use 'i' and talk about my feelings when reading it.
its not literary by any means and not technical at all.
but thats the way my readers and i like it.
Me too!
I think the role of a reviewer is to give readers an idea of what they can expect from a particular book. A reviewer's opinion will be personal to some extent(it's just not possible to be entirely objective), and that's okay as long as it's honest. But let's hope reviewers think twice before condemning someone's work.
Hi Robyn, sometimes I wonder if reviewers feel they need to say something negative to balance their review?
A review reveals more about the reviewer than it does about the object of the review. Here's my review of reviewers:
Reviewers just want attention.
What does that say about me?
Post a Comment