Rewarding Mediocrity?
Interesting post at the Reading Experience slapping reviewers on the wrist for their positive takes on Amy Bloom’s novel Away which Dan Green thinks is mediocre. I haven’t read the novel, so I have no opinion on it one way or the other. But I find the idea that reviewers may actually reward mediocrity and unoriginality interesting. It’s certainly true that some novels are easier for a reviewer to grok on a first read, and under the pressure of deadlines those novels may come off better than ones that require multiple reads to fully appreciate. There is a phenomenon in high schools, for example, related to the fact that writers who use a lot of symbolism are easier to teach because it’s something for the teacher to latch onto and create a discussion around. (This is, of course, a gross generalization, but I’ll throw it out there anyway.)
May 13, 2008 at 9:04 pm
I would like to think this isn’t true, because I’d like to believe that most reviewers–if not all–are smart, demanding readers who are instantly bored by mediocrity and excited by the original and complex. I’d also like to believe in unicorns, but all I’ve got are rhinoceros.
(That said, I also think it’s true that smart, demanding readers can disagree wildly about the same novel.)
May 13, 2008 at 9:10 pm
Considering I have to stay away from entire websites of crapola, I’m not sure I share your view of this on the reviewer side, but it surely would be nice.
Like I said, I haven’t read the novel. There’s also a fine line between “derivative” and “traditional,” with the latter being just fine.
JV
May 14, 2008 at 6:02 am
Yeah, I know it’s not true every time I read (the vast majority of) review coverage, which tends to be staid, and often about seemingly staid books. Definitely agree on traditional vs. derivative — and I think even derivative can have its charms, if there’s something else going on, or it’s subverting the thing it’s ripping off at the same time.