What do you think?
Rate this book
Inside the Critics’ Circle: Book Reviewing in Uncertain Times
An inside look at the politics of book reviewing, from the assignment and writing of reviews to why critics think we should listen to what they have to say
Taking readers behind the scenes in the world of fiction reviewing, Inside the Critics’ Circle explores the ways that critics evaluate books despite the inherent subjectivity involved, and the uncertainties of reviewing when seemingly anyone can be a reviewer. Drawing on interviews with critics from such venues as the New York Times, Los Angeles Times, and Washington Post, Phillipa Chong delves into the complexities of the review-writing process, including the considerations, values, and cultural and personal anxieties that shape what critics do.
Chong explores how critics are paired with review assignments, why they accept these time-consuming projects, how they view their own qualifications for reviewing certain books, and the criteria they employ when making literary judgments. She discovers that while their readers are of concern to reviewers, they are especially worried about authors on the receiving end of reviews. As these are most likely peers who will be returning similar favors in the future, critics’ fears and frustrations factor into their willingness or reluctance to write negative reviews.
At a time when traditional review opportunities are dwindling while other forms of reviewing thrive, book reviewing as a professional practice is being brought into question. Inside the Critics’ Circle offers readers a revealing look into critics’ responses to these massive transitions and how, through their efforts, literary values get made.
178 pages, Kindle Edition
Published January 14, 2020
6 people are currently reading
175 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 13 of 13 reviews
July 19, 2022
A sociological take on the dying craft of professional book reviewing. How do the reviewers work? Where do they get their assignments from? What roles do they fulfil? What are the biggest concerns and uncertainties they face when reviewing a book? It is already a short study but I thought it could have been even shorter.
September 30, 2022
"Without books, indeed, without the news of such books -without literacy- the good society vanishes and barbarism triumphs". (Wasserman in Columbia Journalism Review, 2007)
After finishing reading The Slippery Art of Book Reviewing by Mayra Calvani and Anne K. Edwards, I did a bit of research to find more books on the same subject and stumbled upon Phillipa K. Chong's Inside the Critics’ Circle: Book Reviewing in Uncertain Times, a book that is a part of Princeton Studies in Cultural Sociology Series and one of the few scholarly inquiries in literary evaluation currently available. The author treads into the field of academic sociology, and more specifically sociology of valuation, conducting an interview-based study on the process of book reviewing as cultural production in relation to the contextual uncertainty inside which critics function nowadays. The primary method of the sociology evaluation (or valuation) is to interrogate "how people determine the value of worth of social entities and the process by which entities acquire worth and value". Chong adopts a purely phenomenological approach to the subject matter, allowing the 40 research subjects to relay their subjective experiences and perceptions regarding their work, the motivation that drives them, the desired goals they want to achieve and the criteria and interpretive frames the use in the process of literary evaluation. As the author states, her main objective is to "provide a phenomenological portrait of reviewing that details how critics experience and understand the process and work of being a reviewer".
One of the book's key concepts is that of uncertainty, which is ever-present, in various forms, in the field of aesthetic evaluation and arises from the complete lack of consensus regarding the establishment of fixed standards by which the critics should perform their work. The absence of objective tools for aesthetic judgement forces the reviewers to develop their own, personalized assessment method and this utterly subjective practice that may come across even as arbitrary and chaotic in its nature, is the only "truth" that matters when we are talking about art criticism in general, a part of which is the evaluation of works of literature. From the introduction, that provides a thorough picture of the book's contents and intentions, Chong is quick to draw a distinction between "traditional", or "professional" reviewing, referring to those critics who work for high-circulation newspapers and the "amateur", or "reader-reviewers", whose emergence coincided with the rise of social media in the digital age, a controversial phenomenon that, nonetheless, offered ample opportunity to virtually anyone to express his opinion on books that he relished. Chong observes that the traditional/professional reviewing is currently in a sharp decline and cites some examples of major media outlets that reduced their reviewing staff to the minimum during the last few years. The friction between these two types of criticism has become a subject of debate with many analysts speculating that the professional reviewing is slowly dying and the power of constructing and shaping the cultural meaning of books is left in the hands of the many online literature aficionados who thrive in websites such as Goodreads and Amazon.
Chong is careful not to link the impact of book criticism with the commercial part, that is the sales, as she seems to hold the reviewers in higher esteem, considering them "cultural producers in their own right" while also mentioning that there are some scholars that even conceptualize reviewers as "cultural consecrators" adding a religious tone to their value judgement. The point is that book reviewers are more than mere PR agents whose main task is to promote the books as a commodity as they possess the power to confer artistic legitimacy to the texts, a mission that renders them an integral part of the literary process and culture. After clarifying that important point, Chong moves forward to the core of her study that explores the reviewer's perceptions of themselves always in relation to the omnipresent uncertainty that dominates the field of aesthetic evaluation. Inextricably associated with the concept of uncertainty is that of vulnerability, a feeling experienced by a major part of the study's research subjects. Chong writes: "the critics I interviewed experience a great deal of vulnerability while performing the work of reviewing". Those feelings can be interpreted as major stress and insecurity caused by a number of factors. In order to pinpoint the source of uncertainty and the subsequent feelings of vulnerability harbored by the critics, Chong makes a threefold division, discerning three separate branches of uncertainty: Epistemological, social, and institutional.
Each type of uncertainty is more consistently explored in the relevant chapters. Thus, the reader learns that epistemological uncertainty is a byproduct of the quality uncertainty, an inherent problem faced by those who criticize any work of art. In order to assess whether this type of uncertainty is high or low, we need to take a look at the degree of quality uncertainty related to a specific entity. Epistemological uncertainty is high "when we are dealing with entities whose quality is uncertain, but ultimately knowable" and low "when entities are characterized by radical quality uncertainty". The addition of the adjective "radical" is employed to illustrate those cases where it's impossible for the subject to obtain any kind of objective knowledge about an entity. Moving on, Chong explains social uncertainty as "the critics' inability to predict how relevant others will respond or react to their evaluation" while the only way to determine its degree is the possibility of being able to know and anticipate the consequences of the reviewer's work. A prime example of social uncertainty is the dominant tendency among book reviewers to write overly positive pieces, especially when they suspect that their work is going to be read by a significant other such as the author of the book at hand. Finally, institutional uncertainty "concerns the degree of clarity and consensus regarding rules and procedures for behavior and the broader significance of meaning of the work involved in reviewing". Institutional uncertainty skyrockets in "unsettled times", a time period during which the a priori cultural, symbolical, and ideological meanings are challenged and become subjects of open discussion.
Inside the Critics’ Circle is first-rate academic research on a demanding subject that itself imposes the use of certain methodological tools, something that the author seems to have grasped from the beginning. The compilation of the proper questionnaire meant to break the -natural- reservations of the interviewee and make him feel unfettered enough to answer with boldness and candor regarding his thoughts and feelings, is no small feat and constitutes a major victory for Phillipa K. Chong. While strictly academic in its origins, the book is not written exclusively for scholars and academics as the arguments are presented with patience and great care, grabbing the attention of the reader whose interest is piqued by the abundance of information gathered by the research subjects which is organized and introduced in an ideal manner by the author. The text is simple and austere, being adherent to the strict academic guidelines, but remains accessible to the layman, with the condition that they possess a minimum of educational background. I've greatly enjoyed this experience that brough back a lot of memories as my bachelor studies were on sociology and it's been long since I had the chance to sink my teeth in such a comprehensive study. The fact since the beginning of 2020, I write my own book and film reviews on this website was an additional reason that deemed the perusing of this title unavoidable. The fact that Chong's research was published by Princeton University Press, a fact that further reinforces the book's status and guarantees the highest quality level possible. Five stars with all my heart.
After finishing reading The Slippery Art of Book Reviewing by Mayra Calvani and Anne K. Edwards, I did a bit of research to find more books on the same subject and stumbled upon Phillipa K. Chong's Inside the Critics’ Circle: Book Reviewing in Uncertain Times, a book that is a part of Princeton Studies in Cultural Sociology Series and one of the few scholarly inquiries in literary evaluation currently available. The author treads into the field of academic sociology, and more specifically sociology of valuation, conducting an interview-based study on the process of book reviewing as cultural production in relation to the contextual uncertainty inside which critics function nowadays. The primary method of the sociology evaluation (or valuation) is to interrogate "how people determine the value of worth of social entities and the process by which entities acquire worth and value". Chong adopts a purely phenomenological approach to the subject matter, allowing the 40 research subjects to relay their subjective experiences and perceptions regarding their work, the motivation that drives them, the desired goals they want to achieve and the criteria and interpretive frames the use in the process of literary evaluation. As the author states, her main objective is to "provide a phenomenological portrait of reviewing that details how critics experience and understand the process and work of being a reviewer".
One of the book's key concepts is that of uncertainty, which is ever-present, in various forms, in the field of aesthetic evaluation and arises from the complete lack of consensus regarding the establishment of fixed standards by which the critics should perform their work. The absence of objective tools for aesthetic judgement forces the reviewers to develop their own, personalized assessment method and this utterly subjective practice that may come across even as arbitrary and chaotic in its nature, is the only "truth" that matters when we are talking about art criticism in general, a part of which is the evaluation of works of literature. From the introduction, that provides a thorough picture of the book's contents and intentions, Chong is quick to draw a distinction between "traditional", or "professional" reviewing, referring to those critics who work for high-circulation newspapers and the "amateur", or "reader-reviewers", whose emergence coincided with the rise of social media in the digital age, a controversial phenomenon that, nonetheless, offered ample opportunity to virtually anyone to express his opinion on books that he relished. Chong observes that the traditional/professional reviewing is currently in a sharp decline and cites some examples of major media outlets that reduced their reviewing staff to the minimum during the last few years. The friction between these two types of criticism has become a subject of debate with many analysts speculating that the professional reviewing is slowly dying and the power of constructing and shaping the cultural meaning of books is left in the hands of the many online literature aficionados who thrive in websites such as Goodreads and Amazon.
Chong is careful not to link the impact of book criticism with the commercial part, that is the sales, as she seems to hold the reviewers in higher esteem, considering them "cultural producers in their own right" while also mentioning that there are some scholars that even conceptualize reviewers as "cultural consecrators" adding a religious tone to their value judgement. The point is that book reviewers are more than mere PR agents whose main task is to promote the books as a commodity as they possess the power to confer artistic legitimacy to the texts, a mission that renders them an integral part of the literary process and culture. After clarifying that important point, Chong moves forward to the core of her study that explores the reviewer's perceptions of themselves always in relation to the omnipresent uncertainty that dominates the field of aesthetic evaluation. Inextricably associated with the concept of uncertainty is that of vulnerability, a feeling experienced by a major part of the study's research subjects. Chong writes: "the critics I interviewed experience a great deal of vulnerability while performing the work of reviewing". Those feelings can be interpreted as major stress and insecurity caused by a number of factors. In order to pinpoint the source of uncertainty and the subsequent feelings of vulnerability harbored by the critics, Chong makes a threefold division, discerning three separate branches of uncertainty: Epistemological, social, and institutional.
Each type of uncertainty is more consistently explored in the relevant chapters. Thus, the reader learns that epistemological uncertainty is a byproduct of the quality uncertainty, an inherent problem faced by those who criticize any work of art. In order to assess whether this type of uncertainty is high or low, we need to take a look at the degree of quality uncertainty related to a specific entity. Epistemological uncertainty is high "when we are dealing with entities whose quality is uncertain, but ultimately knowable" and low "when entities are characterized by radical quality uncertainty". The addition of the adjective "radical" is employed to illustrate those cases where it's impossible for the subject to obtain any kind of objective knowledge about an entity. Moving on, Chong explains social uncertainty as "the critics' inability to predict how relevant others will respond or react to their evaluation" while the only way to determine its degree is the possibility of being able to know and anticipate the consequences of the reviewer's work. A prime example of social uncertainty is the dominant tendency among book reviewers to write overly positive pieces, especially when they suspect that their work is going to be read by a significant other such as the author of the book at hand. Finally, institutional uncertainty "concerns the degree of clarity and consensus regarding rules and procedures for behavior and the broader significance of meaning of the work involved in reviewing". Institutional uncertainty skyrockets in "unsettled times", a time period during which the a priori cultural, symbolical, and ideological meanings are challenged and become subjects of open discussion.
Inside the Critics’ Circle is first-rate academic research on a demanding subject that itself imposes the use of certain methodological tools, something that the author seems to have grasped from the beginning. The compilation of the proper questionnaire meant to break the -natural- reservations of the interviewee and make him feel unfettered enough to answer with boldness and candor regarding his thoughts and feelings, is no small feat and constitutes a major victory for Phillipa K. Chong. While strictly academic in its origins, the book is not written exclusively for scholars and academics as the arguments are presented with patience and great care, grabbing the attention of the reader whose interest is piqued by the abundance of information gathered by the research subjects which is organized and introduced in an ideal manner by the author. The text is simple and austere, being adherent to the strict academic guidelines, but remains accessible to the layman, with the condition that they possess a minimum of educational background. I've greatly enjoyed this experience that brough back a lot of memories as my bachelor studies were on sociology and it's been long since I had the chance to sink my teeth in such a comprehensive study. The fact since the beginning of 2020, I write my own book and film reviews on this website was an additional reason that deemed the perusing of this title unavoidable. The fact that Chong's research was published by Princeton University Press, a fact that further reinforces the book's status and guarantees the highest quality level possible. Five stars with all my heart.
Read
August 30, 2021This book, I thought, would prove an interesting text to read. It was cited briefly in a N+1 article about the gradual decline of good, honest reviews in mainstream news outlets. Chong interviews an American/British cohort of reviewers, all of whom have written for established legacy outlets like the New York Times, Washington Post, The Guardian, amongst others. Her intention is to explore the process of reviewing from the moment a book is pitched to the point it is published. What are the concerns that reviewers have to deal with: What makes for a good match between a book and a reviewer? Is it okay to review a new writer with a kinder tone? How are reviewers dealing with the slow decline of spaces for longform criticism?
All interesting questions, no doubt. Chong highlights how the subjectivity of assessing a book as an aesthetic object (in economic terms, this is termed a singular good) is fraught with uncertainty. Reviewers, Chong finds, are aware of the amorphous nature of a book's worth, and they are also loosely aware of their "contemporaries", in that a critical consensus often forms around reviews and they sometimes run counter to this general viewpoint. But Chong's book, in only identifying trends and patterns, neglects to sustain a critical examination the value systems at play. How much power does a reviewer have in accepting or challenging an editor's changes to their piece? How are reviewers able to advocate for a greater diversity of books at major outlets? Chong notes that editors often solicit reviews on "newsworthy" books, and that reviewers are frustrated with having to review authors whose name sells hundreds of thousands of books. But these are just observations of the status quo, not insights into how the system is being changed, which would fall neatly under the remit of this book.
And there is a greater frustration yet. There is a persistent vagueness to the whole affair: much is said about the "general reader" that critics write for, of the "general reviewer" and their patterns of behaviour. But readers aren't really "general" at all in their tastes, and I must say that I don't often seek another reviewer's opinion on whether a book is good or bad, much less feel beholden to a critic's opinion on what is worth reading! Chong trades so much in broad categories that everything feels drained of personality. And so when I read this, I feel dissatisfied, as if Chong herself has is hiding behind an ostensibly "fair" viewpoint of observing, talking, and sharing another person's thoughts without giving many of her own.
Temerity is the sin that reviewers scold academic writers for committing. How apt their criticisms, given the way this book handles itself. Out of respect for this book and its subject, I won't ascribe a star rating, but I trust my opinions carry through.
All interesting questions, no doubt. Chong highlights how the subjectivity of assessing a book as an aesthetic object (in economic terms, this is termed a singular good) is fraught with uncertainty. Reviewers, Chong finds, are aware of the amorphous nature of a book's worth, and they are also loosely aware of their "contemporaries", in that a critical consensus often forms around reviews and they sometimes run counter to this general viewpoint. But Chong's book, in only identifying trends and patterns, neglects to sustain a critical examination the value systems at play. How much power does a reviewer have in accepting or challenging an editor's changes to their piece? How are reviewers able to advocate for a greater diversity of books at major outlets? Chong notes that editors often solicit reviews on "newsworthy" books, and that reviewers are frustrated with having to review authors whose name sells hundreds of thousands of books. But these are just observations of the status quo, not insights into how the system is being changed, which would fall neatly under the remit of this book.
And there is a greater frustration yet. There is a persistent vagueness to the whole affair: much is said about the "general reader" that critics write for, of the "general reviewer" and their patterns of behaviour. But readers aren't really "general" at all in their tastes, and I must say that I don't often seek another reviewer's opinion on whether a book is good or bad, much less feel beholden to a critic's opinion on what is worth reading! Chong trades so much in broad categories that everything feels drained of personality. And so when I read this, I feel dissatisfied, as if Chong herself has is hiding behind an ostensibly "fair" viewpoint of observing, talking, and sharing another person's thoughts without giving many of her own.
Temerity is the sin that reviewers scold academic writers for committing. How apt their criticisms, given the way this book handles itself. Out of respect for this book and its subject, I won't ascribe a star rating, but I trust my opinions carry through.
August 24, 2024
Dry in the beginning, and in the last couple of chapters whatever proofreading was going on died a noticeable death. Published by Princeton University Press. It did come out in 2020, so maybe COVID-19 disrupted the normal process. The book is dated, as there's no mention of TikTok/BookTok or video bloggers. The focus is on reviews for newspapers. That is justified by Chong, but the resulting pool of reviewers is smaller than it could have been. I had hoped the reviewers she questions, roughly 40, would be identified, but everyone is anonymous. With no online review outlets consulted she's clearly going after an assumed echelon of tastemakers. What she comes up with is a lot of angst among her research group, and as a frequent reviewer I found a few of their worries somewhat foreign to my own experiences.
Read
August 31, 2024Will use this as proof that cowardice kills criticism and strengthens stagnation in the literary status hierarchy.
March 21, 2023
Watch this space, I think I might like to reach out to the author for a continued discussion about these ideas on my blog.
In short, really good. The bit about what makes a good review was punishingly self-explanatory but the middle and ending sections are extremely compelling, if pretty repetitive in what's already a short book.
This book confirms what I've felt about professional review circles for a few years: that negative/scathing reviews have gone the way of the dinosaur: totally extinct. There's simply too much for reviewers to lose by being bluntly honest if the book calls for such a reaction. Publishers are hurt and play dirty, it's mean spirited (as books are among the most personal a piece of art can be), other writers conspire against you (and most reviewers are writers themselves), and now because of the internet, stan/fans can come out of the woods to harass you online. There are simply no upsides to being negative, even if it's the truth. Speak nothing of the benefits gained from being positive, even *overly* positive.
That all strikes me as an extremely accurate survey of the reviewing landscape. The final third of the book was where things become divisive. It primarily concerns itself with the future of reviewing, what role the internet has played, and the nature of reviewing. I think Chong does a phenomenal job presenting both sides of the coin-- both the one that says that reviewing is an essential part of the art organism and should be done thoroughly and with respect, and the other that claims the first side sits in an ivory tower and that reviewing should be democratized and open to everyone's perspectives and methodology.
Just when I think I'd locked in how I felt, Chong would present the other side-- and rarely if ever did I think a viewpoint presented was too rediculous or anecdotal not to take seriously. This is a very compelling, ongoing conversation that has only mutated in the wake of Booktok.
I think I'm the mindset of the fence-sitter. It's a great, important trend that more people are able to review, and more importantly-- more books are being reviewed in general. The spotlight has grown wider, and the playing field feels much more even. The benefits to this development are immeasurable. However, I could easily be described as on the snootier, more academic side because I also firmly believe that the quality of reviews has gone down drastically across the board. The way some people approach literary criticism comes across as deranged and shallow to me-- but is that not the cost of a truly democratized review space? And is this just a defensive feeling for those of us that need to justify the time we've put into our craft? And if so, what do we do when newspapers and review circles are shrinking every day and the rewards vanish? These are not easy questions to answer.
I think the one area I will plant my flag is that the primary goal of a book is not to entertain. It very well can, and it can cause immense pleasure-- but entertainment should not be the masthead, and unfortunately, it has become the number one criteria in the age of choice in leisure time. Call me a pearl clutcher, tell me to jam the ivory tower up my ass, but this is a scary trend. I've often felt like the Boy Who Cried Media Literacy Epidemic. I would love to be wrong.
Really interesting and essential for writers and reviewers (but really, that's redundant, isn't it?)
In short, really good. The bit about what makes a good review was punishingly self-explanatory but the middle and ending sections are extremely compelling, if pretty repetitive in what's already a short book.
This book confirms what I've felt about professional review circles for a few years: that negative/scathing reviews have gone the way of the dinosaur: totally extinct. There's simply too much for reviewers to lose by being bluntly honest if the book calls for such a reaction. Publishers are hurt and play dirty, it's mean spirited (as books are among the most personal a piece of art can be), other writers conspire against you (and most reviewers are writers themselves), and now because of the internet, stan/fans can come out of the woods to harass you online. There are simply no upsides to being negative, even if it's the truth. Speak nothing of the benefits gained from being positive, even *overly* positive.
That all strikes me as an extremely accurate survey of the reviewing landscape. The final third of the book was where things become divisive. It primarily concerns itself with the future of reviewing, what role the internet has played, and the nature of reviewing. I think Chong does a phenomenal job presenting both sides of the coin-- both the one that says that reviewing is an essential part of the art organism and should be done thoroughly and with respect, and the other that claims the first side sits in an ivory tower and that reviewing should be democratized and open to everyone's perspectives and methodology.
Just when I think I'd locked in how I felt, Chong would present the other side-- and rarely if ever did I think a viewpoint presented was too rediculous or anecdotal not to take seriously. This is a very compelling, ongoing conversation that has only mutated in the wake of Booktok.
I think I'm the mindset of the fence-sitter. It's a great, important trend that more people are able to review, and more importantly-- more books are being reviewed in general. The spotlight has grown wider, and the playing field feels much more even. The benefits to this development are immeasurable. However, I could easily be described as on the snootier, more academic side because I also firmly believe that the quality of reviews has gone down drastically across the board. The way some people approach literary criticism comes across as deranged and shallow to me-- but is that not the cost of a truly democratized review space? And is this just a defensive feeling for those of us that need to justify the time we've put into our craft? And if so, what do we do when newspapers and review circles are shrinking every day and the rewards vanish? These are not easy questions to answer.
I think the one area I will plant my flag is that the primary goal of a book is not to entertain. It very well can, and it can cause immense pleasure-- but entertainment should not be the masthead, and unfortunately, it has become the number one criteria in the age of choice in leisure time. Call me a pearl clutcher, tell me to jam the ivory tower up my ass, but this is a scary trend. I've often felt like the Boy Who Cried Media Literacy Epidemic. I would love to be wrong.
Really interesting and essential for writers and reviewers (but really, that's redundant, isn't it?)
Read
August 1, 2020This was not as broad as I wanted it to be, as it focused only on reviewers for journalistic outlets, but I guess that’s good, because it means my dissertation will actually fill a gap in the research. It’s a good thing Chong’s interviewees were all anonymized, because they are all in need of a knuckle sandwich...then again, I don’t know how we could punch any of them in the face given how far up their own asses they are.
Anyway, when I wasn’t being bothered by how smug everybody was, I did thing Chong laid out some really well organized dilemmas in reviewing—what are the ethics? What makes a good match between reviewer and book? How do you avoid nepotism, cronyism, axe grinding, etc.? HOWEVER, it’s really just a study that tells you what’s happening and organizes it; there aren’t really any critiques made or any substantive acknowledgment or unpacking of how race, class, or other marginalizations might play into all this, and only the barest mention of gender. I’m not in this field, so maybe that’s outside the purview of a sociologist, but as a cultural scholar and literary scholar, I find that her data is ultimately not the most trustworthy or interesting BECAUSE it doesn’t engage with that stuff or formally discuss why it’s not going to, and because I don’t find “empirical,” qualitative studies all that worthwhile if they don’t engage in rhetoric and cultural theory, because then they are just defaulting to what people mistakenly think is objectivity and is really just the status quo. Chong says “status quo” and “maintaining the status quo” here and there, but she doesn’t spend much time defining it or problematizing it, and that’s no different from not mentioning it at all.
Anyway, when I wasn’t being bothered by how smug everybody was, I did thing Chong laid out some really well organized dilemmas in reviewing—what are the ethics? What makes a good match between reviewer and book? How do you avoid nepotism, cronyism, axe grinding, etc.? HOWEVER, it’s really just a study that tells you what’s happening and organizes it; there aren’t really any critiques made or any substantive acknowledgment or unpacking of how race, class, or other marginalizations might play into all this, and only the barest mention of gender. I’m not in this field, so maybe that’s outside the purview of a sociologist, but as a cultural scholar and literary scholar, I find that her data is ultimately not the most trustworthy or interesting BECAUSE it doesn’t engage with that stuff or formally discuss why it’s not going to, and because I don’t find “empirical,” qualitative studies all that worthwhile if they don’t engage in rhetoric and cultural theory, because then they are just defaulting to what people mistakenly think is objectivity and is really just the status quo. Chong says “status quo” and “maintaining the status quo” here and there, but she doesn’t spend much time defining it or problematizing it, and that’s no different from not mentioning it at all.
January 1, 2022
Leerzaam. Boek ziet zichzelf als een studie in de sociologie van de evaluatie. Is gebaseerd op gesprekken met critici bij belangrijke Amerikaanse kranten. Analyseert de werkzaamheden van de criticus vanuit het oogpunt van onzekerheid: epistemische onzekerheid (hoe weet je eigenlijk wat een ged boek is), sociale onzekerheid (doordat critici vaak ook schrijver zijn, moeten ze rekening houden met gevolgen van negative reviews) en institutionele onzekerheid (zijn book reviews eigenlijk (nog) nodig?).
Positioneren zichzelf op het grensvlak van journalistiek (moet nuttig zijn) en kunstkritiek (de macht van consacratie). Maar echt machtig voelen ze zich niet, gezien de diverse vormen van onzekerheid. Komt ook doordat er geen duidelijke grenzen zijn tussen wie dit vak wel of niet mogen uitoefenen.
Over de online book reviewers hebben veel van deze critici vrij simpele meningen: 'just a bunch of moms', 'writing in their pajamas'.
Positioneren zichzelf op het grensvlak van journalistiek (moet nuttig zijn) en kunstkritiek (de macht van consacratie). Maar echt machtig voelen ze zich niet, gezien de diverse vormen van onzekerheid. Komt ook doordat er geen duidelijke grenzen zijn tussen wie dit vak wel of niet mogen uitoefenen.
Over de online book reviewers hebben veel van deze critici vrij simpele meningen: 'just a bunch of moms', 'writing in their pajamas'.
March 31, 2020
It feels weirdly meta and somewhat intimidating to write a review of this book on Goodreads.
The book is organized in three parts that examine how levels of epistemic, social, and institutional uncertainty influence and determine how book reviewers make literary judgements. Chong gives an in depth, nuanced view of the practice of professional book reviewers that provides a fascinating look into the small world of critics.
The book is organized in three parts that examine how levels of epistemic, social, and institutional uncertainty influence and determine how book reviewers make literary judgements. Chong gives an in depth, nuanced view of the practice of professional book reviewers that provides a fascinating look into the small world of critics.
April 4, 2020
A sociologist's academic take on this thing of ours. If you're a paid reviewer (or wanna be), a book pro, or a sociologist, it's worth a read for the overview of how journalistic reviewing works, the issues reviewers face, and the author's insights.
September 7, 2020
Doesn’t say much.
February 21, 2022
Reviewing Chong’s Inside the Critics’ Circle is about as meta as it gets.
For anyone writing and reading reviews regularly, this is a must read as it gives a sense of context to an act we are participating in - consciously or not.
YOU, person reading this review, might be interested in just why you are reading my review and how I come to my conclusions.
For more reviews check me out @stephaniesbookclub on Instagram.
For anyone writing and reading reviews regularly, this is a must read as it gives a sense of context to an act we are participating in - consciously or not.
YOU, person reading this review, might be interested in just why you are reading my review and how I come to my conclusions.
For more reviews check me out @stephaniesbookclub on Instagram.
November 14, 2020
读完了 - Phillipa K. Chong。
在图书馆随意挑选的一本书，想着是从未了解过的领域就好奇拿来读读。前几章还耐着性子一字一句地读，读完大半本却觉得脑袋空空仿佛什么也没读到似的。然后越读越快，从读个前几段，变成只读开头段，最后变成读几个小标题就速速浏览而过。
书的内容是关于评论圈的各种事。比如Journal的评论圈，小说的评论圈。话题关于评论者如何看待自己的评论身份；关于他们有不同的习惯接近故事，比如看看同话题的其它作品表现，或者看看同作者的其它书籍，又或者仅仅从这一本书的角度出发作评论；关于评论的过程中会不会因为自身学识背景兴趣从而产生评价的偏见；关于对于有名或无名的作者是否会有不同的评论压力；又或者评论分配者如何选择将何本书分配给哪个人。等等。
这样一段段描述起来好像觉得书的内容很丰富很有趣，但回想起来又实在不记得读到了任何有新意令人深刻的哪怕是一个段落。不知道是我对这个话题实在也太过遥远，无法触动同感心从而进行更深层的思考，又或是仅仅因为这本书的写法实在提不起我的兴趣。只觉得干巴巴把所有可以聊的话题分成了大纲，但内容又毫无新意全是些不用聊就都是常识般的反应。比如其中一段说评论者（reviewer)对自己有不同的理解，有些人认为自己并不是评论家，仅仅只是很偶尔（一年五次我其实觉得已经挺多）评论而已，有些人更愿意称自己是小说家因为自己主攻小说，也有人直接说自己既是评论家又是记者（journalist），然后把这些人大段大段的原话摆上来作为论据，再配上一大堆注解。花这么多文字讲这一大堆，最后其实不就是简单的“世上有人想法不一样”，这样的结论真的有必要这么麻烦的论述么？只能说我的性格也是太不与此书相合了吧。
中间看到一半的时候无聊翻到最后一页，突然觉得作者竟然生得有点像外国人版的周笔畅，可能这就是唯一留了点印象的事了。
在图书馆随意挑选的一本书，想着是从未了解过的领域就好奇拿来读读。前几章还耐着性子一字一句地读，读完大半本却觉得脑袋空空仿佛什么也没读到似的。然后越读越快，从读个前几段，变成只读开头段，最后变成读几个小标题就速速浏览而过。
书的内容是关于评论圈的各种事。比如Journal的评论圈，小说的评论圈。话题关于评论者如何看待自己的评论身份；关于他们有不同的习惯接近故事，比如看看同话题的其它作品表现，或者看看同作者的其它书籍，又或者仅仅从这一本书的角度出发作评论；关于评论的过程中会不会因为自身学识背景兴趣从而产生评价的偏见；关于对于有名或无名的作者是否会有不同的评论压力；又或者评论分配者如何选择将何本书分配给哪个人。等等。
这样一段段描述起来好像觉得书的内容很丰富很有趣，但回想起来又实在不记得读到了任何有新意令人深刻的哪怕是一个段落。不知道是我对这个话题实在也太过遥远，无法触动同感心从而进行更深层的思考，又或是仅仅因为这本书的写法实在提不起我的兴趣。只觉得干巴巴把所有可以聊的话题分成了大纲，但内容又毫无新意全是些不用聊就都是常识般的反应。比如其中一段说评论者（reviewer)对自己有不同的理解，有些人认为自己并不是评论家，仅仅只是很偶尔（一年五次我其实觉得已经挺多）评论而已，有些人更愿意称自己是小说家因为自己主攻小说，也有人直接说自己既是评论家又是记者（journalist），然后把这些人大段大段的原话摆上来作为论据，再配上一大堆注解。花这么多文字讲这一大堆，最后其实不就是简单的“世上有人想法不一样”，这样的结论真的有必要这么麻烦的论述么？只能说我的性格也是太不与此书相合了吧。
中间看到一半的时候无聊翻到最后一页，突然觉得作者竟然生得有点像外国人版的周笔畅，可能这就是唯一留了点印象的事了。
Displaying 1 - 13 of 13 reviews