Your linked reviewer says some nice things about BEATRICE AND VIRGIL, and argues that "even the cynical should find it engaging." Well, now I am confused. I read a few days ago (with some difficulty and discomfort) your previously linked review by E.C., and came away feeling that neither Martel nor E.C. were very "engaging." So, which reviewer should I believe? Today's or E.C.? Ah, there is the rub! The two reviews (thanks to you, Frank, a veteran reviewer/critic whose judgment I respect) remind me that the "art" of book reviewing is often complicated by subjectivities that get in the way of objective reviewing and criticism. So, while I grudgingly respect both reviewers and their points in view in the case of BEATRICE AND VIRGIL, I remain confused. Do I trust the most recent review or do I trust E.C.? And here is the bottom line: how could two qualified reviewers be so different in their reviews? We answer that question and we are well on our way to answering all of the questions involved in the problem of book reviewing.
My own feeling would be to go with Ed's, principally because of how much of the text he cited that sounded so bad to my ears. But yes, R.T., there is a huge subjective component in reviewing. I think I can cite chapter and verse demonstrating that The Da Vinci Code is an objectively bad book. I also think The Road is and for much the same reason: implausibilities that ought to make it impossible to suspend disbelief (Brown's book, of course, also suffers from plain historical inaccuracy). But that doesn't mean everybody will agree with me.
Your linked reviewer says some nice things about BEATRICE AND VIRGIL, and argues that "even the cynical should find it engaging." Well, now I am confused. I read a few days ago (with some difficulty and discomfort) your previously linked review by E.C., and came away feeling that neither Martel nor E.C. were very "engaging." So, which reviewer should I believe? Today's or E.C.? Ah, there is the rub! The two reviews (thanks to you, Frank, a veteran reviewer/critic whose judgment I respect) remind me that the "art" of book reviewing is often complicated by subjectivities that get in the way of objective reviewing and criticism. So, while I grudgingly respect both reviewers and their points in view in the case of BEATRICE AND VIRGIL, I remain confused. Do I trust the most recent review or do I trust E.C.? And here is the bottom line: how could two qualified reviewers be so different in their reviews? We answer that question and we are well on our way to answering all of the questions involved in the problem of book reviewing.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteMy own feeling would be to go with Ed's, principally because of how much of the text he cited that sounded so bad to my ears. But yes, R.T., there is a huge subjective component in reviewing. I think I can cite chapter and verse demonstrating that The Da Vinci Code is an objectively bad book. I also think The Road is and for much the same reason: implausibilities that ought to make it impossible to suspend disbelief (Brown's book, of course, also suffers from plain historical inaccuracy). But that doesn't mean everybody will agree with me.
ReplyDelete