Many of the people
who write about books are probably engaged in writing their own, and/or would
like to publish someday, and with the way things are now, why would one stomp
on the hand that might feed them?
Jacob Silverman in Slate asks for more critical response from these book reviewers, though
clearly, anyone who is a critic would have to be passionate enough about the
work to understand the process by which it is created, and this explains the
sympathetic and friendly strain in criticism. His argument seems to come down
on how social media is really becoming too friendly for any real criticism. It’s
easier to not dwell on a book you don’t like, and far more uplifting (as well
as positive to one’s career, perhaps) to review one you do like. This is
nuanced, I believe, what he’s asking for, but it’s not like every reviewer is
thinking of unicorns and rainbows. Just look at B. R. Myers in The Atlantic. I don’t agree with everything
he says, but much of it is right on, particularly this piece.
On the other hand, what I like
about this piece from Lev Grossman is that you can almost be certain which book
he’s talking about, and it’s a shame that he doesn’t want to come right out and
admit it, because the writer in question has so much apparent power in the
industry, such that if Grossman did say something, he could imagine losing his
position at Time, his publishing
contract, his career. Might I add, nothing could be as bad as a book that came
out last year with art in the title, but with art nowhere else in the book.