realthog

There's been some discussion around LJ concerning the notion of the jealousy supposedly expressed by mere readers and midlist writers towards megasuccessful authors, the idea seeming to be that, if we make hostile comments concerning the undoubted crapitude of some of our regularly blockbustering "literary" figures (an alarming number of whom no longer write their own books), we're just being jealous.

Instead, apparently, the role of reviewers confronted by arrant bollocks pressed between two hard covers and piled high in Barnes & Noble is either to lie through their teeth and say nice things about it -- "What a wonderful master of prose this Mr Gingrich is!" -- or at the very least just keep quiet.

My own feeling is that literary criticism/reviewing has, rightly, a very long and distinguished history and a very high status within literature as a whole, and that those who say book reviews should always look on the bright side are suggesting that this time-honored art be debased until the reviewer becomes nothing more than an adjunct of the publisher's publicity department. Next stop, "reviewers" hired by publishers to produce glowing puffs.

I've nothing at all -- obviously! -- against commercial fiction. I do, though, object to an industry structure designed by and large to prevent the best of the commercial fiction from floating to the top. Often it does, but very often it's suppressed because the conglomerate publishers and/or the bookselling chains see profit in promoting garbage. To take just one example, for how many years were any number of second-rate thriller writers promoted to the skies while (in this country) Ian Rankin lurked largely unnoticed in the midlist? You could say much the same of Terry Pratchett. In both instances it was really US readers, not US marketers, who insisted the author receive more notice. I'm sure you can think of plenty of examples of your own.

The reviewer unafraid to contradict the publicists and the marketers is, like the little boy who commented on the Emperor's new clothes, doing us all a favor. If good books are being ignored and bad ones promoted, the real sufferers are we, the readers.

Is it "jealous" for people to point out that an author is being massively promoted when long past her/his sell-by date, when past glories are being used to sell current bad books? I think not -- just as supermarket customers are justified in complaining if they're being sold stale goods. Consumer magazines warn you about gadgets that don't do what their manufacturers say they do; shouldn't reviewers warn you against novels that don't do what their publishers claim they do -- that don't enthrall, that don't thrill, that don't make you gasp with romantic ardor until the very last page?

Excuse the fact that these are just scattered thoughts. As indicated, this started out as a comment on someone else's LJ post, and then I realized it was getting a bit out of hand.

If you want to see an essay demolishing a vacuous but temporarily hugely successful writer, try Lord Macaulay on the highly popular poet of his day, Robert Montgomery. Out of interest, many years ago I got hold of a book of Montgomery's work and, phew, boy, was Macaulay right.