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

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

A whole new world.

I appear to have moved into the pub. Now, I don't wish to give the impression that this has come as a complete surprise to me, we'be been planning to do so since shortly after I bought it, but still, it's sort of snuck up on me and now I'm waking up and thinking what happened? How come I'm here? The reason for this discombobulation is that this move was initially a temporary measure. Mrs Coastalblog had some relatives coming to stay, and it made sense to put them up in our house while we decamped to the flat. It's still a work in progress, but a mad week of cleaning and carting stuff around made it habitable. I had a suspicion that once we were in we'd be back and forth for a few weeks. As with many of my hunches, I was completely and utterly wrong. As it turned out, once we were here, we were here. Things moved at pace and, now our kitchen appliances have been installed, there's no going back, the old house is unusable. It's left me with slightly mi
Post a Comment
Read more

Mad Dogs and Immigration Ministers

It is with no small degree of distress that I'm afraid to say I've been thinking about Robert Jenrick. I know, I know, in this beautiful world with its myriad of wonders, thetre are many other things about which I could think, the play of sunlight upon dappled water, the laughter of my children, the song thrush calling from the sycamore tree a few yards away from where I type this. Yet the shiny, faintly porcine features of the Minister for Immigration keep bubbling up into my consciousness. It's a pain in the arse, I tell you. A few years ago on here I wrote a piece entitled The cruelty is the point in which I argued that some policies are cruelty simply for the sake of it, pour decourager les autres . I was reminded of that recently when I listened to Jenrick defending his unpleasant, petty decision to order murals at a migrant children's centre to be painted over. You've probably heard the story already; deeming pictures of cartoon characters "too welcoming&
Post a Comment
Read more

20

Huh. It turns out that this blog is, as of, well, roughly about now-ish, 20 years old. 20. I've been doing this (very intermittently) for twenty bloody years. And, I cannot help but note, still am, for some reason. I've done posts in the past, when this whole thing was comparatively blemish free and dewy-skinned looking back on its history and how it's changed down the years, there's not really a lot of point in doing that again. It's reflected what concerns me at the time, is, I think, the most charitable way of phrasing it (a  polite way of saying that it's been self-absorbed and solipsistic, but then, it's a blog, this should not come as a shock), it's interesting for me to look back over the lists of posts, but not so much for you, I imagine. Likewise, pondering how I've changed in the intervening years is also fairly pointless. It's painfully obvious that I was a very different person at 25 to 45, my experience of jobs and kids and marriage
Post a Comment
Read more