There is a symbiotic relationship between author and reviewer because they thrive upon each other. But a word of caution to potential reviewers from author Kurt Vonnegut, says Col R Hariharan – “We are what we pretend to be. So we must be careful what we pretend to be.”
I
don't know how many read book reviews that usually form part of newspaper Sunday
supplements. Probably there are not too many, but I am one of them. It was an
early habit I picked up probably from my grandfather, a police sub-inspector by
profession. He was not only a collector of books, but also critical reviewer of
whatever he read. His reviews were oral, coming out loud and clear, whenever he
could round up a few of us as audience. His collection was mostly of Tamil
classics. Books on Indian philosophy and Sir Walter Scott’s novels were also
there.
I
was drawn to review of books, thanks to my grandfather's compulsive and at
times highly critical reviews, dished out sometimes with pungent humour. In
addition to being an avid reader of books, I became a selective reader of book reviews.
I also reviewed books occasionally. They included a wide range - management
studies, military history, memoirs etc.
I
was reminded of my grandfather's no-holds-barred style of criticism, when I
read Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn's book The
Full Circle. Even though he never completed reading The Count of Monte Cristo, the Nobel Laureate for literature was
scathing in his criticism of the author Alexandre Dumas. The terrible memories
of his imprisonment during his exile, immortalized in Solzhenitsyn's book The Gulag Archipelago, probably made him
so critical of Dumas 'a free person.' He mocked at Dumas ignorance about the
horrors of prison life for writing about a “benevolent prison.” Poor Dumas'
Château d'If was a product of his imagination of another era, when writing
about prisoners carrying latrine buckets was just not done, as Solzhnetsyn had
wanted.
When
I read this, I realised how judgemental reviewers can be. Most of the reviewers
end up analysing the book and the author, based upon their own life experience.
Perhaps this is what adds colour to reviews, provided the reviewer fulfilled
two conditions: he had read the book and feels strongly about it. Otherwise,
the review will be bland, placid and quickly forgotten.
Well
known American post modern novelist Kurt Vonnegut once said "any reviewer
who expresses rage and loathing for a novel is preposterous. He or she is like
a person who has put on full armour and attacked hot fudge sundae."
Probably Vonnegut was expressing his dismay at the unfairness of author-bashing,
like a father who cannot stand to see his son bullied by armed ruffians.
However,
some authors take too badly to critics. Oliver Markus Malloy, author of some
'Comic' writing (as he describes his books) is caustic about critics. He says
"It is the Yelp effect. Every half-wit who eats food thinks he's s a food
critic. Don't get me started on people 'reviewing' books they didn't even read.
Who needs information when you can have an uninformed opinion?"
Sometimes,
when I read a book review, like Oliver, I also get the uncanny feeling that the
reviewer had only read the blurb on the book jacket, and not the book. Of
course blurb writing itself has become an art - a good blurb, though less
laudable in its purpose than a bikini, does the same job: covering essential
parts while creating interest.
Do authors need critics? Somerset
Maugham, one of the most popular story tellers of all times, was never a
favourite of critics. In fact, Bloomsbury literary elite never showed any
interest in him. He was fiercely self-critical as a writer with small
vocabulary, with little gift of metaphor and the "striking simile seldom
occurred" to him. But the great story teller did not need critics to make
him popular, but his media reviews did it.
All authors do not have Maugham's
gift of storytelling. In the electronic era, authors need critical acclaim to
gain attention; even some notoriety comes handy at times. So they need a
reviewer. Secondly, the internet seems to have made everyone an author; some of
them are budding, but many are blooming authors. So, even the world of pulp
romances has become congested. When 'tall dark handsome' has become a cliché,
how does an author make his or her mark writing yet another romance? The experienced
editor may suggest introducing a steamy sex encounter in page 20, and every ten
pages thereafter. This might have worked in the days of DH Lawrence, but not
anymore. I can hear some young voices asking the question
"DH... who." Actually their ignorance of the yore, provides the
answer. We are living in the era of live streaming sex scenes on call in the
ether. So commonsense tells us that not
many will be thrilled with sex on page 20.
This is where a review on multimedia
format comes in handy, because whether the book is good or a goof up, a review
provides exposure, even if it is negative. So a review has become more
important now than ever before for an author.
There is a symbiotic relationship
between the author and the reviewer because they thrive upon each other. But a
word of caution to potential reviewers from Vonnegut might be useful.
"We're what we pretend to be. So we must be careful what we pretend to
be."
[The
writer is a retired colonel of the Intelligence Corps. He writes and speaks on South Asia and its
neighbourhood as well as terrorism, the areas of his specialties during the
service.]
