Review of a review of the reviewers

Risky business
Still, you never really know who will read your review. Once it flies into the world, it’s
outside your control and always to some extent a “risky business”, as one of the chapter
titles here puts it.
Uncertainty of various sorts is the structuring theoretical frame of Chong’s book, which is
divided into three parts, each about one sort of uncertainty.
4/6
“Epistemic uncertainty” refers to the absence of clear criteria on which one can base
aesthetic judgements. Reviewers evaluate characterization, plot and language, but
ultimately any assessment will have a subjective element that could potentially be at odds
with that of other critics.
“Social uncertainty” refers to the unpredictable way readers (and editors) will respond to
a review and how critics write to accommodate this unknown.
“Institutional uncertainty” refers to the overall purpose of newspaper reviewing, how it
fits into the cultural ecosystem, and how critics think about the future of criticism.
The arc of the book follows the review process, beginning with editors deciding what
books should be reviewed and by whom, then considering how reviewers go about the
process of evaluation, then concluding with their reflection on the value and impact of
reviewing as whole.
Yes, many broadsheets have cut back on review sections and others have replaced it with
the sort of feature articles or profile pieces which puff up celebrity at the expense of
critical discernment. Yes, the on-staff book critic has been outsourced to pay-per-gig
freelancers. Nonetheless, paid reviewers (albeit paid per review) are still with us, despite
predictions since the rise of the new media that they would go the way of the rag-andbone
man and the bus conductor.
One reason for that is because old-fashioned print media has found a way to move into
and work with the internet, rather than compete with it as a medium. If this shift has
entailed some vulgar chasing after clickbait, it has also enabled online review sections and
longer form writing.
Online only publications like the Los Angeles Review of Books and the Sydney Review of
Books have enriched reviewing culture immensely, while older publications like the
London Review of Books, the New York Review of Books and Australian Book Review,
have adapted to digital culture, and reached new audiences, without losing their quality or
altering their core identity.
Of course, the wider blogosphere means that all niche and minority interests can find
assessments and conversations online. Interested in reviews of those derided genre
novelists? You can glut yourself on your smartphone. Have a hankering for experimental
avant-garde poetry? Ditto.
The conversation about quality literature is more diffuse than a generation or two ago,
which is one reason that the social standing of a major newspaper reviewer has declined.
Yet the reviewers interviewed in Chong’s book still justify their work with appeals to a
wider good, as well as to an investment in their own professional standing.