Thoughts on "The Self-Hating Book Critic"

Hello everyone! I hope everyone is staying healthy and sane while locked in the house. I volunteered to talk about the chapter in Literary Publishing in the 21^st Century, “The Self-hating Book Critic” by Jessa Crispin. Going into the chapter, I cannot say I have had a lot of experience with book Critics, or reading their work, unless it was assigned for a class. I thought reading this chapter might give me some insight.

            Overall, the chapter came across pretty pessimistic. It started with the removal of book review sections in newspapers. People picketed and protested against it, but Crispin goes on to explain that everyone doing that was relying on the book review sections for their jobs. It was authors and critics themselves, no one in the public was really concerned with it. The only reason people were angry was because they were losing money. She further goes on the explain the impact of newspaper book review sections. We talk a lot in this class about “Who decides what makes a book good or profitable”, to Crispin it seems to be the critics. She explains that the “The death of the newspaper review meant the end of the literary authority who would declare that books by straight, white men are always the best books”.  It can be true, that the people with the power to advertise their opinions get to make all of the decisions. They have the platform, the power, money and voice. And if they are published in a well-known newspaper, they have credibility. People will listen to them when they tell them what to read. So, the fact the industry was controlled by a specific group of people with very clear and isolating views would definitely play a role in what books become successes.

            At this point I thought the chapter was taking a turn for the positive, the corrupt newspaper reviewers no longer had their control and now the culture online took over. Reviewers could still post their reviews online, but now they had to be met with everyday citizens and the online culture that would keep them in check. Making sure they were including women, people of color and LGBTQ writers. You would think the widespread nature of the internet and people’s opportunities to share their voices on an equal level would keep the reviewing community even. But the popular book review websites are run by old, white men, that push the same ideals as they did when they were reviewing in newspapers. Crispin explains that the “the internet literary culture gave us all absolute freedom, so we basically recreated newspaper culture.”, with the freedom people were given to use their voice, they weren’t sure how to harness it, so they went back to something familiar. Or they became too scared of saying their ideas on the internet, that they decided to only post “positive reviews”. Now, I don’t normally read book critic reviews anyway, but I wouldn’t go to a website that only posted good reviews. When I look into reviews, it’s because I want to know the honest opinion on a book and not an advertisement. I think Crispin summed it up best with “But of course that is not criticism, it is enthusiasm”.

            Crispin finished out the essay with a description of what she thinks book critics should be. She struggles with her job title and what her purpose. I know I mostly use reviews if I’m really unsure if I should purchase a book or not. Crispin explains that she doesn’t want to simply be a thing to help people make decisions. She makes a really good point, books are meant to make us think, Critics say how a book has affected them and want to start a discussion. It was never about saying if a book has worth or not, but about using the book to its full potential. One quote I liked was “[Books are] not external objects, their function is to become internal. Sometimes the fit needs adjusting”. Though I haven’t had this experience with book reviews, I’ve had it in discussions. Talking about a book in class, or book club can completely change my feelings about a book. I remember reading Catcher in the Rye for my AP Lit class senior year of high school, I hated reading the book and so did most of my classmates. But it became one of the most heated and interesting discussions we had in that class. Now I always tell people they should read the book, not because it’s a good book but because it makes for great discussions. Crispin ends with saying a book Critics job is not to decide on books but to help people think their way through them. Book critics don’t always have a strong grasp on their purpose and write only because they think their opinions deserve to be listened to, but she is working on herself becoming a better critic and hopes for others to do so.

            Reading this chapter gave me a lot to think about. I might want to start reading book reviews, but maybe after I finish the book this time. I wonder what you guys think?

·      What are your opinions on “only positive reviewers”?

·      To what extent do you think book reviewers control if a book is good or not?

·      What do you think about the online book review culture?

·      Have you ever used a book review, to “think through a book” as Crispin says?