... this is a very interesting post (and not because of the kind reference to me) Confessions Of A Book Reviewer .
What is interesting - actually appalling might be a better word - is the story about journalist Rachel Cooke and her Texas namesake.
Update: I didn't have time to comment earlier - and I also wanted to think about it a bit before I did - but I was appalled in a different way by what Shameless's reviewer friend had to say. I deal with publicists all the time. I've even had lunch with some. But I have never known one who expected a favorable review. The attitude of the pros was well put by one from a very large publisher, when I told her than I had indeed read the book she had encouraged me to review and that I did intend to review it, but I just couldn't say much good about it. She said that, while not thinking of me as a horse, the old saying of leading a horse to water applied. In other words, she had done her job. She brought the book to my attention.
As for changing a review to make it more favorable than what the reviewer wrote - I would never think of doing that (I remember telling a reviewer not so long ago that I didn't agree either with his review or the book he reviewed, but that was neither here nor there, since I wasn't reviewing it). You could never make that sort of a change without obtaining the reviewer's permission and seeking it would destroy your credibility as an editor.
None of which is to say I doubt Shameless's friend's veracity. I wish I could.
The whole post was ghastly, wasn't it Frank. (Or, more accurately, what was conatined within it.) Actually, although I was on one level repelled by the Rachel Cooke/Texas story, on another I wasn't, becuase that is the level of journalism over here the majority of the time. Even the Times, the paper of record (as it still likes to style itself on occasion), is full of complete vacuous non-stories, many of them distasetful to boot. For example, this Borat movie -- I can only imagine Rupert M has shares in the movie becuase for weeks, maybe months, before it opened the Times was running regular huge page 2 and page 3 stories about this comedian playing Borat for real (it is what this man does, he has various characters) -- and lots of lavatorial unfunny stories about him standing outside the White House, annoying the Kazak authorities,etc. I mean, who cares, but it struck me as such a waste of space, as well as "promotion" for a movie on news pages --- I am sure many Times readers decided not to see the movie on the basis of the coverage. One day, the front cover featured a massive head shot of the actor, in colour. No "news" to go with it. What is happening these days? Are there any news values, or do we just go from adverts and promotion straight into the fact-free opinion pages? (Fact-checkers are not part of the UK newspaper scene, this ignorant journlists write op-eds without any of the intelligence and research of, say, Bryan Appleyard. It is quite horrific -- if one disagrees with one of Bryan's pieces, then that is fine as one has been presented with a well-researched, reasoned argument that is a pleasure to read. But this shrill, ill-informed rubbish -- eg someone's views on the Madonna adoption story as a times op-ed, when clearly the writer knew nothing and had not bothered to find out anything about it (as she had to issue not one but two corrections subsequently -- an amazing event in itself that anyone bothered).
ReplyDeleteSorry to go on, you hit a nerve!
It's even worse than you think, Maxine, because the Times of London is probably better than any paper printed in the U.S. The Inquirer had all sorts of stuff about Borat, too - and the movie critics tell me the movie is, at least in part, quite funny (though I doubt if it's my cup of tea). Moreover that melding of advert and journalism is definitely increasing. I continue to think that much of the problem has to do with how hard it is to do simple reporting - not just the leg work, which is hard enough, but the kind of writing that just tries to present an honest picture of events and issues. It's easier to bloviate. Everybody wants to be a pundit.
ReplyDeleteIt is very hard to do what Bryan Appleyard does, let alone do it so well.
It's those hundreds of dollars that are impressive, Scott.
ReplyDelete