Toe in the Water

The Reviewing Rant

The Reviewing Rant

It’s a complex matter, reviewing. So difficult, in fact, that we all work out our own method to deal with it. In my case, I limit myself to reviewing only those pieces that I think pretty good. So of course the ratings I hand out are high on average.

There are a few around who will give an honest review wherever they land but I’m unsure how much good they do. Not everyone wants to be published, after all. And we’re not editors so can be expected to approach things differently from the purely commercial viewpoint. Our personal taste matters. You won’t find me reviewing Romance, for instance; it’s not an area I would claim any expertise on. Equally, I tend to disregard reviews from those who think poetry has to rhyme.

We need to face the fact that we’re all different and write from different motives. I don’t write for publication, although I’m prepared to state that I write better than some I’ve seen published. Others write as a hobby or because they can’t stop themselves. And yes, there are those who desire to be published but they’re thinner on the ground than you’d think.

Trumpeting a publishing record is no guarantee of a shoo-in to the position of perfect reviewer. To many of us, it’s irrelevant. We just want to know whether you enjoyed the piece or not.

I would even go so far as to say that professional grade reviewing is destructive to good art, whether it be painting, writing or any other. Consider the fool’s game the critics have made modern art, poetry and classical music, and you’ll see what I mean.

The best advice I can give to those wanting to review in WdC is go ahead, do it and work out your own special technique as you go. It’s like writing in that way; you learn what suits you best and then get on with it without bothering what the next reviewer’s up to.


Word count: 332