A new Australian
newspaper called Saturday is set to come onto the market next year. I hope it
does well, we need a lot more diversity in the Australian market. The newspaper
will review books, nothing unusual there. What is unusual is the book reviewers
will be anonymous, with the by-line for each review just containing made-up
initials.
In a
discussion on the Sunday Extra program on Radio National Erik Jensen, the editor of the newspaper,
said that anonymity should lead to more fearless reviews. He said many book
reviewers were prone to timid reviews as they did not want to offend writers
they knew in the small Australian literary scene. This argument is frequently
used to criticise the standard of literary criticism in Australia. Whether it
is true, can only really be answered by each individual reviewer.
Jensen
feels that giving reviewers anonymity will make them more fearless in their
reviews, and result in better reviews. Stephen Romei, the literary editor of
the Australian, was also part of the Sunday Extra program. He wondered if
anonymity might encourage more negative reviews of books, as the reviewers
tried to show that anonymity meant they were now free to say what they really
thought about a book.
There is
always the problem that a writer who personally dislikes another writer could use
their anonymity to attack that writer. Conversely, if there is no by-line, how
do we know that a glowing review was not written by the writer’s best mate or
an editor who hopes to win the author over to their publishing house.
I read
reviews in The Age, and I always
check who the reviewer is so I can establish where they are coming from and if
they have any knowledge of the genre they are reviewing. For example, Lucy
Sussex (pictured) one of The Age reviewers, is a literature professor at Latrobe
University who writes speculative fiction so I feel she is qualified to judge science
fiction.
In
contrast, I read a review in The Age by
a literature professor of a Mathew Reilly book. The professor seemed to judge
it against classical works of literature, and not as the techno-thriller it is.
His big complaint was the lack of sex, which seemed like a juvenile attempt at
suggesting readers of techno-thrillers are asexual.
I would
prefer reviews to have a by-line and be knowledgeable and fearless, but also tactful.
Would you
bother reading anonymous reviews? I am not sure I would. I am unlikely to read
anonymous reviews on Amazon.
3 comments:
When I write reviews, I always put my name to them. In fact, it's a policy of mine to write under my full name whenever I produce commentary. (The one exception is on Twitter, where I use the name @graywave, because it's short and my real name is only a click away.) If you don't put your name to your opinions, how can anybody judge what they're worth? And how can anybody who disagrees engage you in discussion? Anonymous reviews on Amazon are a good example of how low the standard can get - anonymous reviews on Goodreads are a better example. (Why is Goodreads so feral?)
Yes, I agree, some people are under various kinds of social pressure to remain silent and anonymity allows these people to speak out. Anonymity has great value in allowing oppressed people to be heard. Cloaking cowardice, ignorance, cupidity and spite in anonymity abuses this valuable tool and tars all anonymous commentary with the same brush.
Actually, I can't believe someone is launching a dead tree newspaper. The triumph of hope over the Internet?
I always put my name to reviews I put on Goodreads and Amazon. If I think a book I've read is bad, I usually don't review it, unless the author is a huge name and I reckon they can take the heat eg Ben Bova. I did not realise the reviews on Goodreads were that bad, but the ones I read are usually written by writers I have connected with.
Everyone must have heard how concentrated our media is. The Guardian started an Aussie online version last year. The Daily Mail (I think) is about to start a tabloid online version in Australia, and now Saturday, a real paper paper. Murdoch will have to get onto Tony to ban the starting of new newspapers.
Interesting that a paper would start up at all given the state of newspapers generally, especially given their current waning memberships and the proliferation of review sites.
I agree with you, I think to hold a certain amount of power coupled with anonymity gives rise for some jealous hack, or failed writer to inject their personal opinions into the review. Everyone should be held accountable and if the reviewer doesn't have the guts to write a honest review, whether they know the writer or not, then they are not much a reviewer at all. Give it to someone with some balls.
Post a Comment