I’ve been wanting to blog this for a while — the problem of offering a negative review without (a) appearing like a jackass and (b) making enemies.
If (a) and (b) aren’t a problem, then I suppose you can do what you like. But most of us don’t want to be William Logan, known as “the most hated man in American poetry”, do we? So how do you balance being critical and being mean?
I’ve read some very interesting arguments about this problem off late.
Nic Sebastien borrows from Victoria Chang‘s idea that “what we need in poetry are more people who don’t have a stake in it, more people who don’t know the people, the real people behind the words to care about poetry enough to write about it” to suggest a body of independent critics for poetry.
That’s not to say poets shouldn’t review, but that if we have a set of people who aren’t poets, who aren’t worried about offending anyone, and who enjoy and engage with poetry, then maybe it would be easier for us all to lose our nervousness about saying, “Well, I don’t like this.”
As for offending people, it does happen. When you say “the poetry community” it actually is small enough to be called a community, especially within countries, if such borders still matter. Poets tend to read each other’s blogs; many Facebook with each other; it’s all quite out there.
I don’t know how to review poetry collections, frankly. I tried once and it ended up being a really awful undergrad essay. Most of the time, I just say what I like/love and ignore what I think is really bad.
For that matter, I don’t review fiction or movies well either. It’s a talent I don’t have, although, if forced to, I can manage to write something in “review language”. The key difference, however, is that I’m more than ready to criticise a novel or film if it’s badly made or if I have strong reasons for disliking it. I’m as ready to criticise Arundhati Roy or Madhur Bhandarkar as I am to praise Kazuo Ishiguro or Anurag Kashyap (provided they’re doing bad/good things respectively, of course). It’s extremely unlikely that they’ll read what I write about them, and even if they do, what are they going to do? What does it matter? They’re up there, doing their thing, and I’m just a blogger.
I wonder if poets rely on blog reviews more than novelists do. They probably do, and so it matters what people say if what they say is googleable. Maybe it doesn’t even matter who the reviewer is.
I’m painting a dark, dark picture.
According to Jason Guriel,
…when a book of poetry receives a tough verdict we often label the review “negative” and speculate about the reviewer’s motives, the agenda behind the takedown. Indeed, behind words like “negative” and “agenda” and “takedown” lurks the sense that the reviewer is the one making the trouble, and the book of poetry — whether it deserved a kicking or not — is being bullied. We’re far less paranoid about motives when, say, a movie receives a tough review in the New Yorker or Slate or Rolling Stone, even when we disagree with the verdict-even when we’re so outraged we fire off an e-mail to some editor’s in-box. This is because negative reviews of movies (and LPs and TV shows, etc.) represent the norm, and aren’t usually labeled “negative.” Movie critics with whom we disagree are merely wrong; poetry critics (and politicians) go negative.
[...] But negativity, I’m starting to think, needs to be the poetry reviewer’s natural posture, the default position she assumes before scanning a single line. Because really, approaching every new book with an open mind is as well-meaning but ultimately exhausting as approaching every stranger on the street with open arms; you’ll meet some nice people, sure, but your charming generosity won’t be reciprocated most of the time. What’s worse, a tack-sharp taste, dinged by so much sheer dullness, will in time become blunted (into blurb-writing, no doubt). When braving any new book of poems — particularly by an author you’re not too familiar with — it’s best to brace yourself and expect the worst. This needn’t involve cynicism. Indeed, you probably shouldn’t be opening the book in the first place if you aren’t, on some deep level, already hoping for the best — that is, the discovery of a great poem. But hope should remain on that deep level, well-protected, until the shell that shields it is genuinely jarred.
This was in Poetry‘s March issue and unsurprisingly got a lot of attention at the electronic version. I only just bothered reading some of the comments posted, and the first (by Kent Johnson), which says pretty much what Nic and Victoria Chang said (albeit much later), is well thought-out:
I do think there’s a fundamental reason why timidity and obsequiousness tend to dominate poetry criticism these days, and it’s a pretty uncomplicated one: Reviewing tends to be done by *poets,* and poets use the mode of criticism more often than not as a form of ingratiation with other poets. As U.S. poetry (mainstream and post-avant) has become more tightly tethered to academic careerism, a sycophantic tendency naturally becomes the ubiquitous norm, to the point where the “review” and the “blurb” begin to overlap in purpose and effect.
An answer to my title-question is one of Johnson’s parenthetical statements:
(Interestingly, by the way, it’s in top-tier journals where negative reviews are most likely to appear, since the capital accruing to the poet-reviewer compensates for the risk.)
And he also suggests a way to skirt the problem:
Given this, maybe it’s time that magazines, large and small, go back to the venerable practice of having (at least some) reviewers write anonymously or pseudonymously. This would no doubt free things up a bit and generate a bit more critical candor and healthy challenge — bringing forth not just a smattering of “negative” takes on mid-level poets, such as we’re beginning to see in Poetry, but all-out, room-clearing broadsides on the hallowed, smugly repetitive, big-award-winning figures in the board room that almost no one dares touch.
Overall there are several points to think on. If we are to get non-poets to review poetry books, where will we find them? Are there enough non-poets interested in poetry to do the job? Is being critical the appropriate stance to take before reading a book — any book? Will anonymous reviews lead to unruliness and unnecessary speculation? Should poets just forget about making Facebook friends and say what they think?
i nearly went to the college where william logan lectures but then fell ill before and missed the deadlines. in retrospect i’m kind of glad!
Should poets just forget about making Facebook friends and say what they think?
Interesting that this kind of behaviour would exist in the realm of professional poetry. On a number of internet site it is possible to have your work received well just by being active and comment kindly towards others. I would have thought that when moving up towards a professional grade that this behaviour would disappear, replaced with a more no holds barred, ‘you’re old enough to hear this’ attitude.
Kind of depressing to think about. Where then, can poets get objective responses to their work? Obviously non-poets that have the ability to review poetry would probably come from the stock of other writing disciplines. Prose and script writers, perhaps, that have an ear for the elements that make up good poetry. But how to persuade them to start reviewing poetry if all they’ll do is make enemies?
There are no objective, unbiased reviews anywhere, so why should poetry be any different? Just let people read and decide for themselves. If you take them out of the equation, the sycophants won’t have anything to do, and will disappear. Happily ever after will ensue shortly, I’m sure.
(But I don’t have a stake in the poetry world, so my opinion may well be objective. Or it may be a hack theory of a blowhard in a more educated forum.)
@ George
Oh my, William Logan himself. I’m curious to know how he lectures, though.
@ Phill
I think the ‘you’re old enough to hear this’ attitude can be seen in workshops where more experienced writers continue to hang out. Even then, there is usually some fluffing, but only some. Reviews seem so different, comparatively.
I may have exaggerated the childishness of poets — I doubt it’s that bad. But even then, there seems to be a serious problem.
It’s interesting to think about novelists reviewing poets. Do they have the skills? I’d wager that the average poet understands novels better than the average novelist understands poetry — and by “understand” I mean “is familiar with the genre”, not “can decode every word of every line to read an outrageous allegory into everything”.
@ Sumant
OK, you need to stop mentioning your hack theories on my blog.
“There are no objective, unbiased reviews anywhere, so why should poetry be any different?”
No one’s asking for objective, unbiased reviews. The issue has more to do with minimising the problem of writing blurbs instead of reviews simply because you don’t want to lose friends in the industry.
“Just let people read and decide for themselves.”
Which people? Most people who read poetry are poets, struggling or otherwise — we’ve established that already. As for deciding for oneself, that’s what usually happens when you read a book. But before you read a book, you need to know such a book exists — that’s part of the review’s job. It’s silly to assume we could do without reviews, if that’s what you’re suggesting.
At what point does a review become a blurb? If one doesn’t expect an unbiased review, what purpose does it serve? Also, if it is not meant to induce potential readers to read poetry, what purpose does the review serve? One does not need to review a book in order to inform readers of its existence, just a note from the publisher (which they do send out with every released book) ought to suffice. Now, maybe you can try answering the question I have raised above – what purpose does a review serve?
(I’ve already provided counters for why your reason is invalid. Now you can tell me why we can’t do without reviews, and why my theory is now silly.)
This is not a problem that’s unique to poetry: I read a lot of fiction, mostly SF and fantasy, and reviews in those fields are almost universally positive. I think partly there’s a sense that negative reviews “hurt the genre” or “hurt the community”, and no-one wants to be the bad guy– especially since the industry figures for the last decade or so have been that reading is a dying art. (I think those figures are a bit overblown, but that’s a side issue.)
I like the idea of anonymous reviews, but it could take a strong editorial hand to keep them from turning into grudge fests. There should be standards for self-recusal.
A forum on the current state of poetry reviewing will be published this Friday, May 1, at Mayday Magazine, a new online poetry journal. Prompted by Kent Johnson’s thinking about the possibility and need for “a ‘satellite economy’ of apocryphal reviewing,” a number (approx. 30) of poet-critics (including Stephen Burt, Ange Mlinko, Michael Robbins, Bob Archambeau, Maureen McLane, Joe Amato, Dale Smith, Annie Finch, Mark Halliday, and many others) will think about the way forward for poetry criticism. I hope you’ll check it out!
It’s not enough to have reviewers who don’t have a stake in being friends with poets. We need to have the venues, too. Anyone can put up a blog, but big established blogs are more visible.
Unfortunately, many online blogs and journals are edited by people more interested in networking than in critical consideration of poetry. I could name names, but I’ve been advised that doing so is outside the established bounds of enlightened debate.
I would urge you all to check out coldfrontmag.com. Three new reviews a week, positive and negative alike, reviewed by poets and non-poets alike. No proponent for the ad hominem argument that poets shouldn’t review poetry can be taken seriously; writers review poetry. Some write it too.
I write experiential reviews about poetry books ( http://www.philart.net/chrispurdom/poetrybookreviews.php ). Some are of books I buy, some are books people send me. I do warn poets they might want to read the reviews before sending me a free book, because my review is going to be about my experience reading the book. Over all the purpose of the review is to encourage people to realize that it’s OK to read a poetry book to have a reaction, and that poetry reading doesn’t require a degree in poetry. Mostly I started doing it because the blurbs so rarely seem to have any relationship to the books they’re on, and most of the reviews I read I can’t make any sense of. I don’t want disinterested reviews. I want reviews by people who get something visceral out of reading a poetry book.
@ Sumant
I was not suggesting that the sole purpose of a review is to inform people of the existence of a book, but it is part of its function. To say that a listing of recently published books offers the same visibility as a review (especially in a widely read newspaper or journal) is absurd. There’s a hierarchy of presence in the various media available for reviewing.
As for bias, there is one in every opinion, and a review is an opinion. An objective opinion is a commonsensical notion. A review should not however go so far as to be prejudiced or insincere.
The purpose of a review then is to offer an honest opinion of a work. It may or may not influence readers to buy the book, but it’s obviously influential in some way. It also may offer insight on how to read the book, but not necessarily. It may entertain.
@ Tiel
“This is not a problem that’s unique to poetry”
Hmm, you have a point there. I get the feeling the problem is worse for poetry and certain other genres, but overall, books do seem to get a lot of positive reviews. A movie, on the other hand, is much more likely to get called out if it’s not up to par.
@ Michael
That looks really interesting. I’ll look forward to reading the discussion.
@ EK
“We need to have the venues, too. Anyone can put up a blog, but big established blogs are more visible.”
This is true. Hehe, I’d love to know which journals/blogs you’re talking about, privately, if you’re willing to tell me.
@ John
Thanks for the link.
@ Christopher
I get the feeling I’ve visited your site before, and I liked what I read. Very interesting. Thanks for reminding me about it.
Kent Johnson’s letter sparked a very nice roundtable where a number of people weigh in on this issue:
http://maydaymagazine.com/issue1roundtableresponses.php
Thanks, I have that bookmarked already.
[...] Aditi Machado [...]