How would you rate books if they were to be reviewed?

[Fisherwoman]

Movie reviews as well as videogame reviews are considered an artform on their own and many times people read them for pleasure. Some of our great essays are reviews for movies and videogames and some of our great writers like Roger Ebert and Alex Navarro (if you be into videogames) consistently craft great prose on perhaps some of our most popular forms of art and entertainment. However, literary criticism is another story. Yes, it does exist but it is miles from being the popular forms of criticism that other forms of criticism are. Those other forms of criticism are entertainment in and of themselves and remain a great following in their own news and inudstry.

So, why is literary criticism not up to how it should be? The answer is threefold I think. one.

1 There is no singular source for literary criticism. Most movies and videogames have singular sources, whether they be magazines, webistes, or newspapers. Books really do not have any major source for professional literary reviews.

2 They need a numeric rating system. Numeric ratings systems, if it be the 1-10 or 1of4 stars system, are fantastic. They are because they act as a symbol of the review's themes and conclusions and officialize the elements of the review. They are an art in and of themselves and they are very important.

3 Most existing literary criticism is too scholary. Reviews are about reccomendations and casual analysis. You can sum up a book thematically and touch on whatever you would want to without writing a thesis. In fact, thesises tend to turn people off, because, yes, people want insight, but they also want a commercial reccomendation and they want more of a personal filtering. Rather than having a forced essay, people want a casual ponderance that analyzes and deconstructs, while also not spoiling and also while telling them whether or not something is worthwile.

I would adore literary criticism from a pop criticism perspective, and that might just bring into popular culture literature.

[cuppajoe_9]

1 There is no singular source for literary criticism. Most movies and videogames have singular sources, whether they be magazines, webistes, or newspapers. Books really do not have any major source for professional literary reviews.

Try here: http://aldaily.com/

[Fisherwoman]

Try here: http://aldaily.com/
Yo thanks. I enjoy them. A bit moralistic, one review I read, but it sure does follow the review style.

[cuppajoe_9]

No problem. Welcome to LitNet, by the way.

[stlukesguild]

Movie reviews as well as videogame reviews are considered an artform on their own and many times people read them for pleasure. Some of our great essays are reviews for movies and videogames and some of our great writers like Roger Ebert and Alex Navarro (if you be into videogames) consistently craft great prose on perhaps some of our most popular forms of art and entertainment.

SLG- Yes, movie and videogame reviews may be considered an art form... but then again, so might pulp "romance" novels. The question as to the quality or lasting value of such art is something else entirely.

However, literary criticism is another story. Yes, it does exist but it is miles from being the popular forms of criticism that other forms of criticism are. Those other forms of criticism are entertainment in and of themselves and remain a great following in their own news and inudstry. So, why is literary criticism not up to how it should be?


SLG- Yes indeed... there is a great gap between literary criticism and the prose mastery of a "thumbs up/thumbs down". Most serious literary criticism does not limit itself to a quick synopsis followed by a snap value judgement ("I liked the characters. The plot unfolded rapidly. I found it easy to understand.) Rather, literary criticism often involves a far more in-depth exploration of the work in question and truly good criticism can open up a work to new and deeper interpretations. Truly great literary criticism, whether we speak of Walter Pater, T.S. Eliot, Virginia Woolf, Emerson, Samuel Coleridge, etc... often results in a work of literature that can be as strong as (or stronger than) the works being discussed. If serious literary criticism is less popular than critics of popular mass media it is probably for the very reason that serious literature is not less popular than the mass media... and this is certainly not to be seen as a bad thing.

The answer is threefold I think. one.

1 There is no singular source for literary criticism. Most movies and videogames have singular sources, whether they be magazines, webistes, or newspapers. Books really do not have any major source for professional literary reviews.

SLG- Actually, I think that anyone knowledgeable of literature would have no trouble telling you where to look for literary criticism, be it various newspapers (The New York Times and The London Times-TLS/Times Literary Supplement) or magazines/periodicals: http://newpages.com/litmags/index.htm

2 They need a numeric rating system. Numeric ratings systems, if it be the 1-10 or 1of4 stars system, are fantastic. They are because they act as a symbol of the review's themes and conclusions and officialize the elements of the review. They are an art in and of themselves and they are very important.

SLG- So art should be reduced to a simple numerical system? It's got a good beat and you can dance to it, Dick. I give it an 8":confused:

3 Most existing literary criticism is too scholary. Reviews are about reccomendations and casual analysis. You can sum up a book thematically and touch on whatever you would want to without writing a thesis. In fact, thesises tend to turn people off, because, yes, people want insight, but they also want a commercial reccomendation and they want more of a personal filtering. Rather than having a forced essay, people want a casual ponderance that analyzes and deconstructs, while also not spoiling and also while telling them whether or not something is worthwile.

I would adore literary criticism from a pop criticism perspective, and that might just bring into popular culture literature.

SLG- But then some people who read... especially those who read what is defined as "literature"... want something more than Oprah.

[ShoutGrace]

I can personally say, right off the top of my head, that I have filled many a vacant hour reading criticism for Ernest Hemingway's "Hills Like White Elephants," and that it has entertained and stimulated me far beyond what the story originally did. It has also likely entertained, interested and stimulated me far beyond what a arbitrary 8.4/10 rating would have.


Why pander Literature to the masses?


**EDIT**




3 Most existing literary criticism is too scholary.

There isn't such a thing, in my opinion.

1.) Because scholary isn't a word*, and

2.) Because that very aspect of scholarly effort is what interests me (and I presume others) in the criticism.



*That's just for my own amusement and concerns something insignificant in my brain, please, take no offence. :)

[Fisherwoman]

Movie reviews as well as videogame reviews are considered an artform on their own and many times people read them for pleasure. Some of our great essays are reviews for movies and videogames and some of our great writers like Roger Ebert and Alex Navarro (if you be into videogames) consistently craft great prose on perhaps some of our most popular forms of art and entertainment.

SLG- Yes, movie and videogame reviews may be considered an art form... but then again, so might pulp "romance" novels. The question as to the quality or lasting value of such art is something else entirely.

However, literary criticism is another story. Yes, it does exist but it is miles from being the popular forms of criticism that other forms of criticism are. Those other forms of criticism are entertainment in and of themselves and remain a great following in their own news and inudstry. So, why is literary criticism not up to how it should be?


SLG- Yes indeed... there is a great gap between literary criticism and the prose mastery of a "thumbs up/thumbs down". Most serious literary criticism does not limit itself to a quick synopsis followed by a snap value judgement ("I liked the characters. The plot unfolded rapidly. I found it easy to understand.) Rather, literary criticism often involves a far more in-depth exploration of the work in question and truly good criticism can open up a work to new and deeper interpretations. Truly great literary criticism, whether we speak of Walter Pater, T.S. Eliot, Virginia Woolf, Emerson, Samuel Coleridge, etc... often results in a work of literature that can be as strong as (or stronger than) the works being discussed. If serious literary criticism is less popular than critics of popular mass media it is probably for the very reason that serious literature is not less popular than the mass media... and this is certainly not to be seen as a bad thing.

The answer is threefold I think. one.

1 There is no singular source for literary criticism. Most movies and videogames have singular sources, whether they be magazines, webistes, or newspapers. Books really do not have any major source for professional literary reviews.

SLG- Actually, I think that anyone knowledgeable of literature would have no trouble telling you where to look for literary criticism, be it various newspapers (The New York Times and The London Times-TLS/Times Literary Supplement) or magazines/periodicals: http://newpages.com/litmags/index.htm

2 They need a numeric rating system. Numeric ratings systems, if it be the 1-10 or 1of4 stars system, are fantastic. They are because they act as a symbol of the review's themes and conclusions and officialize the elements of the review. They are an art in and of themselves and they are very important.

SLG- So art should be reduced to a simple numerical system? It's got a good beat and you can dance to it, Dick. I give it an 8":confused:

3 Most existing literary criticism is too scholary. Reviews are about reccomendations and casual analysis. You can sum up a book thematically and touch on whatever you would want to without writing a thesis. In fact, thesises tend to turn people off, because, yes, people want insight, but they also want a commercial reccomendation and they want more of a personal filtering. Rather than having a forced essay, people want a casual ponderance that analyzes and deconstructs, while also not spoiling and also while telling them whether or not something is worthwile.

I would adore literary criticism from a pop criticism perspective, and that might just bring into popular culture literature.

SLG- But then some people who read... especially those who read what is defined as "literature"... want something more than Oprah.
Roger Ebert sums up movies amazingly in a concise way that appeals to the common man. I have nothing against scholarly criticism, when done with passion, but there is a reason why people love pop reviews. They are ultimately more satisfying. They are more about insight and less of thesis. I love pop reviews, and I wish there were a pop critic, who'd write pop reviews of books, in the way I'd want, because ultimately that kind of criticism is more compelling, I think because the critic has much more analytic freedom.

[Fisherwoman]

I can personally say, right off the top of my head, that I have filled many a vacant hour reading criticism for Ernest Hemingway's "Hills Like White Elephants," and that it has entertained and stimulated me far beyond what the story originally did. It has also likely entertained, interested and stimulated me far beyond what a arbitrary 8.4/10 rating would have.


Why pander Literature to the masses?That is the kind of criticism I talk about. I want to read stuff like that, and the numeric system is merely a symbol to review indiviudal work. When you talk of other apsects, you wouldn't have numeric. On gaming webiste, people discuss the nature of their medium and its many fascinating aspects.
I might have misrepresented myself. I am for all that intense stuff, if done in an accesable way, but not in the stead of normal reviews.

[ShoutGrace]

This is where I disagree:


In fact, thesises tend to turn people off, because, yes, people want insight, but they also want a commercial reccomendation and they want more of a personal filtering.

I just want the insight, and I enjoy the insight, and the insight is what I read the criticism for. I couldn't care less who wrote the paper - a machine could have wrote the paper, for all I care.

I like to read different views, interpretations and explications of Literature and it's meaning. The more scholarly, the better.

[Fisherwoman]

This is where I disagree:



I just want the insight, and I enjoy the insight, and the insight is what I read the criticism for. I couldn't care less who wrote the paper - a machine could have wrote the paper, for all I care.

I like to read different views, interpretations and explications of Literature and it's meaning. The more scholarly, the better.But I don't mean scholarly as in less intelligent. I mean as in terms of casualness. Casual writings better expresses insight because it does so in a way that not only is more clear because it is not bound by formalities, but also because it gives more insight into the reviewer. Reviews are just as much about insight of the reviewer as they are of the movies. That's why we follow individual reviewers so closely. In a scholarly review, the work takes full precedence, but I want also insight to the reviewer and what he feels and thinks. That's why people love Ebert and Roeper and other critics. They become like pals, and you get to understand how they feel about work, and ultimately their entire body of work becomes a grand personal a statement on their medium of choice.

[bluevictim]

Why pander Literature to the masses?Why not?

I don't see why there shouldn't be reviews that try to make "literature" more accessible. I highly doubt that reviews like this would have an adverse impact on the scholarly secondary literature. Why not write reviews that many people would want to read for fun? I don't think the use of a numerical rating system by some critics would reduce the art form to a simple numerical system. It certainly hasn't with films, stage productions, and video games.

It is certainly true that most sources of reviews of literature try to project an intellectual air, as if literature is only for "smart" people. If it's ok to pander to the egos of these "smart" people, it seems to me that it should be ok to pander to the appetites of the "common" people.

I'm in favor of efforts to make "Literature" more accessible. I think Fisherwoman should start writing some of these popular reviews. Maybe she'll make "Literature" popular and we can all stop complaining about how the masses don't appreciate literature.

[stlukesguild]

Roger Ebert sums up movies amazingly in a concise way that appeals to the common man. I have nothing against scholarly criticism, when done with passion, but there is a reason why people love pop reviews. They are ultimately more satisfying.

There is indeed a reason why popular criticism appeals to the larger audience. It's the same reason that popular art appeals to the larger audience. Its the same reason that Brittney Spears and Dan Brown appeal to more people than Beethoven and Dante. They are indeed more "satisfying"... in the sense that they are less challenging and less demanding upon the audience.

[stlukesguild]

Why pander Literature to the masses?

Why not?

I don't see why there shouldn't be reviews that try to make "literature" more accessible. I highly doubt that reviews like this would have an adverse impact on the scholarly secondary literature. Why not write reviews that many people would want to read for fun?...
It is certainly true that most sources of reviews of literature try to project an intellectual air, as if literature is only for "smart" people. If it's ok to pander to the egos of these "smart" people, it seems to me that it should be ok to pander to the appetites of the "common" people....

Personally, I don't think that "serious literature" is something that will ever become the popular pasttime of the masses. It never has been and probably never will. Such literature is too demanding... too challenging for a mass audience who wish merely to be entertained. It makes too many demands upon the reader and often requires a great investment on the part of the audience. Some may interpret this as rather "elitist"... and in a sense, I am fine with that. Art has always been "elitist". However, such "elitism" is not a result of social class nor is it a question of intelligence or how "smart" a segment of the audience is. Surely, there are brilliant physicists, engineers, and doctors who know next to nothing of literature. Experience and knowledge, however, do play a role. The critic who explores a work of literature with a deep understanding of literary history, the elements of the languages, critical theory, etc... is not "pandering" to a certain audience by "putting on airs" of intellectual superiority any more than is the original author who draws from his or her knowledge base of linguistic "rules", poetic or prose form, literary predecessors, etc.... Such a critic, I would suggest, is merely exploring the work of literature from a perspective of a reader possessing a greater-than-average experience and a knowledge base that surpasses that of most readers. Such experience and knowledge is something of an "elective affinity" in the sense that it is there to be had by anyone who is willing to invest the effort and time... but the average reader is not so inclined.

You may prefer a critc who is like a casual pal... an everyday common Joe... but myself... I don't turn to art for further reinforcement of the mundane... I look to art as a means of engaging in a sort of communication or intercourse with a unique and brilliant mind. When it comes to literary criticism I am more interested in the unique insights, the intelligent and in-depth analysis, understanding, and judgement... and the brilliant and uncommon... even exceptional interpretations. Certainly, I would not thumb my nose at such a critic if he or she were also able to masterfully throw off the witty bon mots ala Oscar Wilde, Mark Twain, or Ambrose Bierce... but I guess I am one of those who finds a certain unique pleasure to be found in the challenging... demanding... even the difficult. I find that the rewards of such art are far greater than those afforded by the easily entertaining.

[bluevictim]

Personally, I don't think that "serious literature" ... I find that the rewards of such art are far greater than those afforded by the easily entertaining.You quoted my post, but I have to admit it's not clear to me how your post relates to what you quoted. How does the existence of critics that aim to be beneficial to many people hinder you're ability to enjoy difficulty?

[Pendragon]

I review books for amazon.com from time to time. They use a 5 star rating system, which I find a bit restrictive. But nothing restricts what I may say about whether I think the book well written, poorly written, boring, a cheap rip-off of another's work or anything else. I end each critique with a cryptic "Quote the Raven..." Several authors have contacted me, because if I am going to exercise free speech and tell them what I think, I will let them respond. I have had nothing but positive feedback, only today an author contacted me to say his new release of a book I critiqued would have three new stories and one edited one, since I was right about what was wrong with the story. Sooner or later someone will fuss, no doubt, but meanwhile, I have a few friends in the business!