Reviewers (writers) are Killing Language
Read a review of a collection of short stories or poems sometime. Or, read a blurb. Reviewers, who are mainly just less-known writers trying to get noticed by better-known writers, throw about some of our best words, rendering them useless. Let's be honest, most of the writing that is happening right now in serious fiction, poetry, and non-fiction is pretty bland -- at least in the ideas that it tries to tackle. Oatmeal. We're making literary oatmeal, and we have no brown sugar or milk. It might be well "crafted" (a term I've come to hate), but most of it doesn't seem to be after anything very big, aside from publication.
Yet, to hear the reviewers and blurbests, you'd think we're in the golden age of literature. Everything is "stunning" or "awesome" or "incredible" or "fantastic".
Please.
At best, the quality of the writing (and by that I mean the quality of its ability to reflect anything that resembles the human condition) is mediocre at best. Why can't reviewers use words like "decent" or " not too bad" or "some interesting moments" or, God forbid, "banal" or "inauthentic" or "clearly this guy just knew somebody and that's the only reason he has a book"?
Why are reviewers afraid to be honest? The cynic in me says that they're just brown-nosing or trying not to offend anyone who might be a potential contact down the road. Another part of me wonders if the reviewers have any idea what is actually good. Or, can they only see as far as the style, form, and hyper-crafted sentences?
Whatever it is they're doing -- it's killing language. When it comes to reviews, words like "stunning" and "fantastic" mean nothing to me anymore. They are par for the course. I guess we'll have to make up all new words to mean that something is superlative. (Oops, just found nineteen reviews that used "superlative")
I think it comes down to this. Writers used to come to the page because they had a vision of the world, and writing was their medium. Now, most writers have put the medium first. Love the words, even if they say nothing because they are, after all, such pretty words.
Fah.
Yet, to hear the reviewers and blurbests, you'd think we're in the golden age of literature. Everything is "stunning" or "awesome" or "incredible" or "fantastic".
Please.
At best, the quality of the writing (and by that I mean the quality of its ability to reflect anything that resembles the human condition) is mediocre at best. Why can't reviewers use words like "decent" or " not too bad" or "some interesting moments" or, God forbid, "banal" or "inauthentic" or "clearly this guy just knew somebody and that's the only reason he has a book"?
Why are reviewers afraid to be honest? The cynic in me says that they're just brown-nosing or trying not to offend anyone who might be a potential contact down the road. Another part of me wonders if the reviewers have any idea what is actually good. Or, can they only see as far as the style, form, and hyper-crafted sentences?
Whatever it is they're doing -- it's killing language. When it comes to reviews, words like "stunning" and "fantastic" mean nothing to me anymore. They are par for the course. I guess we'll have to make up all new words to mean that something is superlative. (Oops, just found nineteen reviews that used "superlative")
I think it comes down to this. Writers used to come to the page because they had a vision of the world, and writing was their medium. Now, most writers have put the medium first. Love the words, even if they say nothing because they are, after all, such pretty words.
Fah.
posted by Jeff Vande Zande at 7:45 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home