I was reading John Crowe Ransom’s article called ‘Criticism, Inc.’ and it states a wonderful thing about reviewers.
He says that a reviewer has a job of presentation and interpretation as well as criticism. The reviewer should know when the criticism begins and make it as clean and definitive as “his” (or her) business permits.
A review, in my opinion, should not consist of just amazing things about the literary work. It needs to state the negatives, too. That is how the reads of our reviews can get an idea about what exactly they can expect.
I have always tried to write such reviews. I tell my readers if there are any loopholes and I even state it clearly if there are any editing errors, be it grammatical or spelling-wise. These tiny things are important to be told, I think.
But, there have been times when I haven’t been able to wrap my head around a single negative thing regarding the book. Does that mean that it is perfect? This is when I try to look at the book from a different perspective. There are books that ARE DEFINITELY perfect to me. But, I will l always keep trying to keep my reviews as helpful as they can be for the readers.
What do you think? Would love to know in the comments section. Let’s talk!
Here’s the link to John Crowe Ransom’s article ‘Criticism, Inc.’ if you’d like to give it a read: https://www.vqronline.org/essay/criticism-inc-0
Would love to connect with you on:
Goodreads: Meher Gandhi
- Review: ‘Alathea: Goddess and Empress’ by Dylan Madeley
- Being a reviewer, I want to talk about this.
- Book Review: ‘Make Your Own Luck’ by Bob Miglani and Rehan Yar Khan
- Bustle ‘Bout Books: Review- ‘The Corona Diaries’ by Gurjeevan Singh
- Bustle ‘Bout Books: Review- ‘Soliloquy of a Small-town Uncivil Servant’ by K.K. Srivastava