Skip to main content

Bring me the heads of the book reviewers.

Now, I have no objection to Haruki Murakami, in fact what I've read of his I've liked a great deal, which, as I came to the books determined to dislike them (when approval is so unanimous...come on, you used to be an indie kid, you know what I mean) came as a pleasant surprise. But I nearly didn't read the books at all.

Now, I don't know about you, but when I walk into a bookshop I am in one of two modes. I either know already what I'm looking to buy or I'm browsing. Generally it's the former, our bookshop here tries manfully but factors of space discount the more arcane of my tastes, but on those occasions of the latter then I'm being subconsciously spurred on by a number of things; friend's half-remembered recommendations, aged reviews, my own vague recollections of the author or sometimes just plain curiosity.

The one thing which does not spur me on, which in fact repulses me (as was the case with the Murakami), are the edited higlights of reviews that publishers see fit to plaster otherwise perfectly attractive with. Now, don't get me wrong, I have nothing against book reviews, more than once a favourable notice from a trusted source has propelled me towards something I otherwise wouldn't have picked up. If a book I was planning to buy gets slated however meh, I'll take my chances anyway, thanks. The reviews themselves often make for entertaining reading.

IN THEIR ENTIRETY

The fifteen or so words of gushing hyperbole that the publishers extract, on the other hand make the reviewers sound like excitable simpletons, incapable of any insight beyond the following: "haunting" "wise" "dream-like" "sensual" "poetic". Morons words, words which lay themselves open to ridicule. Hyperbole makes fools of us all, it leaves no room for interpretation. An example from The New York Times

"This wise and beautiful book is full of hidden truths"

How the hell do you know if they're hidden? Unless you, the reviewer, and by implication you, the purchaser and reader are just as wise, able to tease out the meaning. I'm all in favour of engaging with the text, and, by extension, the author, what I object to is being told. What I object to is the publishers shouting at me from the book's back. I'm a reasonably intelligent guy, and call me contrary but I like to make my own mind up about things. So Vintage books, be warned, the next time I see "an intimate, dream-like evocation" I'm torching the fucking shop.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The last day of the county season

 Look, I never claimed to be cool. As a a cliched middle aged male, I have a number of interests which, if not exactly niche, are perhaps not freighted with glamour. Not exactly ones to set the heart racing. I yearn not for wakeboarding, my cocaine with minor celebrities days are well and truly behind me, you are unlikely to catch me writing graffiti under a motorway bridge. I do cycle, but only as a way of getting from point A to point B, you are unlikely, you will be relieved to hear, to see me purchasing lycra and or/doing triathlons. I like going for a nice walk. I'm fond of a good book. I have a deep attachment to county cricket. Yes, that's right, county, not even the international stuff which briefly captures the nation's fleeting attention once in a blue moon. County cricket. Somerset CCC to be precise, though I'll watch / listen to any of it. The unpopular part of an unpopular sport. Well, that's the public perception, the much maligned two men and a dog. N...

D-Day Dos and Don'ts for Dunces

Oh Rishi. Lad.  You have, by now, almost certainly become aware of the Prime Minister(for the time being)'s latest gaffe, as he returned home early from D-Day commemoration events in France, in order to "concentrate on an interview" which, as it turns out was already pre-recorded. There's been a fair bit of outrage, the word "disrespectful" is being bandied about a lot.  The word I'd use is "stupid". It is often said of the Brits that we have no religion but that the NHS is the closest thing we have to one. This, I think, is incorrect, because the fetishisation of WWII is to my mind, far closer to being our object of national veneration.  I understand why, last time we were relevant, fairly straightforwardly evil oppo, quite nice to be the good guys for a change, I absolutely get why the British public worship at the altar of a conflict which, I note, was a very long time ago. I think it's a bit daft, personally, but I understand it. So you...

The three most tedious food debates on the internet.

 I very much only have myself to blame. One of the less heralded aspects of running a business is that one is, regrettably, obliged to maintain a social media presence, it's just expected. And, if I have to do it, I'm going to do it very much in my own voice, as I don't tend to have time to stop and think when I'm bunging something on Insta. It seems to have worked okay so far. But, as a man better versed on the online world than he would prefer, I should have known better than to stick up a picture of our bread rolls, fresh out of the oven. In my defence, I did preface said picture by saying "one of the most tedious debates on the internet is what these are called...". Doubtless you've seen the argument somewhere, it's one of the workaday tropes that shithouse FB pages use to drive engagement. Need a few thousand clicks to raise the profile of your godawful local radio station/page about how everything was better in the past/shelter for confused cats?...