>info at pulpculture.org wrote:
> >
> > recently, both John Adams and Carrol Cox said that a good rule of thumb is
> > never to trash an author/artist. Do you mean, never write anything bad at
> > all or just never thoroughly trash something.
>
>Imprecise. The question is which books (of the thousands printed) does
>one review? Answer: Only the very good ones at length; brief reviews for
>the next level; ignore the existence of the rest. Look at it from the
>perspective of a book review editor. To get some idea of the magnitude,
>check the "Books of Interest" list at the back of each issue (quarterly)
>of Critical Inquiry.
>
>Carrol
Ahh. OK. So what if a book is really popular. e.g., I was invited to read Maureen Dowd's, Are Men Necessary?. It's really awful. I can't even find good writing to admire and the existence of a thesis or claim? Hard to find. I have only forced myself to read it b/c of the request.
The other is Levy's book, which isn't ripe for a total trashing, but has so many problems with it that, as a book that is substantially shaping the way people think about so-called "slut feminists" and whether the women's movement caused them or not, I feel compelled to give a decent review.
Don't we have an obligation to comment on what's popular, especially if those books are sending messages that are inaccurate and, possibly, dangerous.
With Levy, I'm not sure if it properly called a review, more a sustained reading of the book as an artifact of popular culture.
Thanks Carrol!
Bitch | Lab http://blog.pulpculture.org