An interesting thread, and thought-provoking right down to the comments. So thought-provoking, I'm afraid to add two cents, but here I am stumbling in with both feet first...
In a nutshell: Every right or privilege has its complementary responsibility. Many people relish the privilege or right (anonymous posting) without exercising the responsibility (to think before typing, and then to think again).
That said, y' know, this issue was battled out in print and pubs years and years ago when the Times Literary Supplement stopped publishing its reviews anonymously. Supporters of anonymity felt very strongly that, in the relatively world of writing, anonymous reviews allowed people to be more critical and demanding, as reviewers, of work by people they might well know professionally or socially and have good reason not to wish to offend. The argument arose again when the TLS made electronically available archived reviews, including those from the anonymous years. A surprisingly large number of people objected to de-masking anonymous reviewers. Yet, the printed, edited hatchet review was and remains uncommon. On Amazon, editing is done by user complaints, I guess. Yet even an attributed, edited review can generate a lot of flamage, as the relatively recent flap about Rachel Polonsky's review of Orlando Figes's Natasha's Dance. (If you're interested in review politics, try Googling those names, you should be able to find some of the post-facto discussions; here's one (http://education.guardian.co.uk/higher/books/story/0,10595,803580,00.html).) The argument also swirled, in a rather unattractive form, around McSweeney's Dave Eggers, The Believer, Heidi Julavits, and other personages of literary mind, very recently, and anonymous Amazon hatchet jobs were part of the brew. It all came out looking a bit childish.
I guess it's obvious that my stance is for signed, attributable reviews. But, am I naive? Have psycho authors been tracking down unfavorable reviewers and siccing lawyers or Rottweilers or whatever on them, in retribution? (If so, sigh---as ever, I'm missing out on the fun!) The Eggers incident left him looking small and mean. The The Anne Rice thing was just sad---embarrassing for all parties. But it was all fuelled by anonymity, wasn't it...
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
branchandroot
no subject
Date: 2004-10-25 12:02 pm (UTC)In a nutshell: Every right or privilege has its complementary responsibility. Many people relish the privilege or right (anonymous posting) without exercising the responsibility (to think before typing, and then to think again).
That said, y' know, this issue was battled out in print and pubs years and years ago when the Times Literary Supplement stopped publishing its reviews anonymously. Supporters of anonymity felt very strongly that, in the relatively world of writing, anonymous reviews allowed people to be more critical and demanding, as reviewers, of work by people they might well know professionally or socially and have good reason not to wish to offend. The argument arose again when the TLS made electronically available archived reviews, including those from the anonymous years. A surprisingly large number of people objected to de-masking anonymous reviewers. Yet, the printed, edited hatchet review was and remains uncommon. On Amazon, editing is done by user complaints, I guess. Yet even an attributed, edited review can generate a lot of flamage, as the relatively recent flap about Rachel Polonsky's review of Orlando Figes's Natasha's Dance. (If you're interested in review politics, try Googling those names, you should be able to find some of the post-facto discussions; here's one (http://education.guardian.co.uk/higher/books/story/0,10595,803580,00.html).) The argument also swirled, in a rather unattractive form, around McSweeney's Dave Eggers, The Believer, Heidi Julavits, and other personages of literary mind, very recently, and anonymous Amazon hatchet jobs were part of the brew. It all came out looking a bit childish.
I guess it's obvious that my stance is for signed, attributable reviews. But, am I naive? Have psycho authors been tracking down unfavorable reviewers and siccing lawyers or Rottweilers or whatever on them, in retribution? (If so, sigh---as ever, I'm missing out on the fun!) The Eggers incident left him looking small and mean. The The Anne Rice thing was just sad---embarrassing for all parties. But it was all fuelled by anonymity, wasn't it...