Scouting for a New Book

Posted by Tyler Feltmate Jun 29, 2007

With critics so often criticized as being over-opinionated and detached from the common readership, many of us look to our friends and family for insight on a book. Yet while we’ll tend to put more trust in the opinions of those we know, it remains that literary reviewers are professionals, and so when acting professionally, can draw attention to some of the finer points of plot, character and theme that your buddy may have glanced-over during his encapsulating review of “It’s great man, go buy it.”

Who then to trust? Or at least, who to trust more, when friend and featured review differ?

The synchronicity

Often enough, when you poll both the papers and the fellow reader, results will be more or less concurrent. Critics are people too, after all, and even if the author of your literary review column matches the cigarette-dangling, coffee house-haunting stereotype, chances are they’ll understand who the book’s intended audience is, and so long as it seems to hold appeal for that group, will keep their own strictly personal preferences out of the equation (though should the term ‘dreck’ appear anywhere in their review, fell free to file that column under ‘kindling’).

Chances are that the only real difference between an agreeing professional opinion and grapevine review will be the wording/level of detail involved. I once read a review for Erik Flint’s The Philosophical Strangler, a fantasy-satire and a book that now ranks highly among my personal favourites. In their description, the article’s author waxed eloquently about Flint’s unique cast of characters, descriptive wordplay and humour so wacky it may as well be British. Well, as it happened, I mentioned my intent to buy the book to a friend I met in a pub later that day, and received the following endorsement.

“Dude, you gotta read that one. At one point, [the hero] actually beats a guy to death with his own arm.”

Well, low-brow–beat me all you like, but this was the kind if thing I needed to look into, and never mind who’s advice I was acting on.

Opposing opinions

As you might guess however, the main consideration here is what happens (and who to go with) when it’s heads that are meeting, rather than minds. Your friend is a fiery supporter of the text in question, while the local critic is organizing a public book-burning later that day, for the good of the literary community (or vice versa).

Which to side with? Well for a number of reasons, my advice is to favour the friend. First-off, consider preference – while most critics have a specific genre/area that they specialize in, it’s not beyond the realm of possibility that in this particular case, they decided to try broadening their scope and found themselves reading something they wouldn’t deem worthy of propping their off-kilter table. Critics are paid to review after all, and such can occasionally mean reading something that you normally would not. In the case of your confidant, unless they’ve got one truly unorthodox relationship going with the local librarian, chances are they’ve no reason at all to read anything they’d prefer not to, and so you can at least trust that a negative review from them was not made so by a simple dislike for mystery, horror, fantasy or whatever the case may be.

Secondly, there is the matter of accessibility. While a critic’s column will normally prove long enough (and those of you giggling now can head right on back to the children’s section), what they’ve written is what you get, and any questions not tended to will be left to nag at you while you stand before the bookstore shelf. Here then, is where the friend wins points for obvious reason. You may ask of them whatever you like, and as long as you’re not doing so with a 100-watt bulb in their face and a Russian accent, they’ll likely be happy to provide as much detail as your wallet demands.

That all having been said, know that there is a reason that we have critics in this world (as with lawyers, politicians, auditors, etc.). Barring Paris Hilton’s bio-picture album, books are complex things, and whereas a negative critique of a work you yourself enjoyed may only bolster an anti-critic bias, a positive one can drive you to not only purchase a new soon-to-be favourite, but lead to a re-read of that dog-eared veteran, which reveals enjoyable nuances and themes that you missed during the first or even second pass.

I of course expect you to reach your own conclusions on this and take my words as naught friendly advice; I am being a bit critical, after all.