Let me step back....
I hope you know, both from my in-depth piece here, and many other outlets including this excellent piece by SBTB, that the NYTBR wrote what was supposed to be a column on the state of Romance today. But what they actually published was a judgmental and dismissive article about the genre.
Yesterday-- over a week later-- they got around to this response. Click through to read it and then come back here....
....Not helpful at all, right?
Specifically though, I am most mad about this line:
"Our goal is not simply to recommend books or enthuse about them — though we do have two recurring features reserved for exactly those functions: our weekly book recommendations and an occasional column called “The Enthusiast.” Our goal is to assess and critique the books on offer."And previously, they argue that Mr. Gottlieb is doing “critique" correctly because he is:
"a longtime editor of writers including Michael Crichton and Toni Morrison; an accomplished critic who has written on dance, music, biography and a wide range of fiction and nonfiction; and also a voracious reader of contemporary romance."I agree, in their reviews they are critiquing books. The NYTBR does not only give positive reviews, and they shouldn’t. But, when you review genre titles critically, you should review them within the confines of the genre they are written in-- not in comparison to literary fiction. Just because Mr Gottlieb reads romance novels, doesn’t mean he knows how to review them. What he does know is how to critique the more “literary” or high brown variety.
Seriously, I think we all learned this in Kindergarten math-- you compare apples to apples, not apples to oranges. Do they really not understand this?
But why specifically am I so mad. Well many reasons, but the one I am most qualified to get on a soapbox and shake my public fist at is this-- I am a professional genre reviewer and I don’t think what Mr. Gottlieb did was be a genre critic.
Let me explain. I review literary fiction, nonfiction, science fiction, fantasy, and horror. Mostly, horror but I am paid to review those other genres too. Each and every time I get a title to review, I judge it based on its genre. How is it in comparison to other books in the genre? Is it better than its peers? What does it do best given its genre confines? Where is it weaker than its peers?
I am not comparing a horror novel in front of me to WAR AND PEACE. Why would I? That is not the space where the horror novel lives. When I love a horror novel, I love it because it is a great example of the genre. When I don’t like a horror novel, it is because I don’t think it is a good example of the best of the genre.
There is a huge area between being an “enthusiast” or fan and a critic. Although from the quotes above I don’t think NYTBR thinks so.
Hey NYTBR, I know the difference between a fan and a critic. I am both. And you are dismissing the criticism of your column by telling you readers we aren’t able to make this distinction. Nope. I for one will not take your chastising. You are wrong. We can make the distinction. It is you who do not understand how to critically review genre titles.
A column which looked at the state of Romance today could have been done much better. A less judgmental discussion of the highs and lows of the genre today would have helped more readers. It would have made the fans happy and it would have been more interesting for the readers who thought romance was beneath you. A better article would not have forced you to deal with so much criticism from both sides of the issue.
Tomorrow I hope to talk about something else here on the blog. In the meantime, I also had this post on where to find some good reviews of romance novels. Go read a romance in protest.
No comments:
Post a Comment