… I prefer that attention to plot be kept to a minimum--fiction reviewing is difficult precisely because it should be primarily evaluative or analytical, yet it seems that often the reverse holds true: we get a recap of the plot and, almost as if they're thrown in as a bonus, perhaps a few lines at the end rendering some quick judgment.
Treatment of "plot" in reviewing is actually where the "art" comes into the reviewing. You can't analyze or evaluate if you don't make plain to the reader what the book is about and who the characters are that inhabit it. You also can't let the review turn into a book report. So what you want to do is get across to the reader what the premises of the action are and who figures principally in that action. Of course, I am distinguishing, as Aristotle did, between plot ("the soul" — the substantial form — "of the drama") and the action, the incidents recounted. I also think that, regarding evaluation, it is better to show than to tell, and that a work should be judged on its own terms. In other words, let's skip the comparisons with other works (which usually give me the feeling that the reviewer is trying to show off). The review is about the work under review, not about the reviewer. I prefer a phenomenological approach. If I can accurately and precisely portray my reading experience, you will know what I felt about the book.
No comments:
Post a Comment