Well, I'm sure Gord takes this sort of thing (if he even gives it a moment's notice, which I doubt) with a bemused shrug.
There's nothing quite so SERIOUS as a professional reviewer or critic except when the aforesaid reviewer has some sort of university affiliation. S/he must feel some need to cast aspersion on "name your target" to think they'll be taken seriously by readers. After all, a simple music review is sort of slumming, hardly up there with peer-reviewed journal publication. A wholehearted affirmation would simply confuse readers and perhaps lead them to suspect the critic is really a flack for the artist, or, heaven forbid, a FAN. You can say something's not your cup of tea while acknowledging others may disagree, and if they do disagree, not insinuate that they're therefore morons.
Full disclosure: having been a (book) reviewer for a dozen years for "Library Journal", I know you can't help infusing your own reaction to what you're reviewing. You try to base a review on how well the author(s) accomplished what they stated as the purpose for writing the book, how it compares with similar titles, if there are any glaring factual errors, etc. Over the years I'd say I marked on a (bell) curve - most fell somewhere in the middle, with a handful of raves, and a couple of stinkers. But I never put down the effort that went into writing any particular book, even with the one I wanted to throw against a wall - I figured that author knew where the skeletons were hidden at the publishers for it to get past the editorial board. And it was a major house, too. Sheesh.
|