I seem to have become a reviewer, even, dare I say it a critic. I can't quite figure out how it happened, but looking over my output for the last while a great deal of it has been in the form of either book or CD reviews, with the occasional DVD thrown in for good measure.
I have to admit that part of it can be laid at the feet of the kid in the candy store syndrome; all of a sudden being presented with so many goodies that you grab a little of each. Not only does Blogcritics.org make available to its writers a whole slew of material for review, I have started receiving requests from publicists to review their people, and I have developed the audacity to approach major publishing houses for review copies of books in which I am interested. In any give week that means I could have as many as five posts being review material only.
At first this became a bit of cause for alarm in my head; how will writing so many similar articles affect me stylistically, creatively, and etc. etc. ad nausea - the usual insecure writer stuff that distinguishes the unpublished from those with bylines and titles to their credit and that fuels late night, lying awake in bed, worry sessions. It's nights like those when you start to remember all the nasty things you've ever heard said, or have said yourself, about reviewers and critics. "Those who can't do, teach. Those who can't teach, review". Thoughts like that are not what I'd call conducive to feeling positive about my abilities.
I feed myself the standard argument that writing is writing, and anything you do is good practice. But, I rebut, there's only so much you can learn from doing the same type of thing over and over again until it becomes formulaic and stifling. But, I reply, isn't it the sign of a good writer that he or she can do things to make the familiar fresh? That's not the point, I argue back, it's the way it begins to shape your thinking process, which will confine your brain to thinking in terms of analysis only. What's that got to do with being a creative artist?
So now the truth comes out, it's the old argument of it's not art if it's not a work of literary fiction, or a work of pure, virgin inspiration. That's it isn't it? Idiot. Weren't you the one talking about how inspiring it was watching and listening to that Willy DeVille DVD, Live In The Lowlands. Aren't you the same guy who's written reviews praising people for making you want to pick up pen and paper and producing work?
I can keep this argument going indefinitely in my head, always finding a way to diminish the validity of critical analysis as a form of expression. When I'm in that sort of mood there's just no arguing with me. I just have to hope I'll come to my senses in a while, and listen to reason. You know what these folk with artistic pretensions can be like though; sometimes they can't see the damned woods for the trees.
Article comments
1 - micki
I don't much like reviews or critiques.
My humble opinion is that it is boring, boring, boring to read what a paid-someone thinks of said work of art. Communication yes, but creativity? Get real!
Methinks the real payoff for the writing of essays and reviews is the use of an author's creativity and ideas. Who said that "The use of one's ideas/work is plagiarism, the use of more than one is called research"?
Yet, I guess someone has to write those things so we, the stupid consumers, will know what is good or bad. Some of us, however, do not judge a book by its cover....we actually peek inside the book for a preview/taste of the real thing!
If you spend too much time answering the call of that almighty dollar, will you ever have time for your own great works and ideas?
Food for thought: There are authors, there are teachers, there are critics. Perhaps you are only a critic.
Micki
2 - Snarkattack
I don't entirely agree with micki's comments in regards to reviewing being considered less creative.
What about the actual choice involved in review material? Is the act of choosing not creative to a degree? I personally think so.
As for answering the call of the mighty dollar, well, ironically, we sometimes need to in order to be able to do those fully creative things you mention like buy that insanely expensive early music instrument that no one else makes in your country and so forth, so you can play in concerts and do recordings of works that wouldn't see the light of day, for example.
A writer should, in my opinion, seek to write in as many forms as they can manage. Is this not a measure of one's skill as a writer, generally speaking, such versatility?
And should one not be able to review and critique work or output from their creative fields? If anything, I think this could stimulate their own creativity - new thoughts, new ways of looking at old things.
Just some musings from a hack and most likely very bad poet. I like reviews, and I like critiques, but only ones that really engage the reader, and make you want to find out more about said reviewed/critiqued work, or even revisit it. That's where their power lies.
3 - -E
Congrats, this article was picked for one of this week's Ed Picks. Keep up the good work.
4 - Aaron Fleming
Excellent piece! It's an area of regular pondering, just how to write a review interestingly and creatively, avoiding those pitfalls of banality. It's a battle everytime. I would say don't feel confined to particular structures and proceedures, if you want try something a little mad then go for it.