The notion that a review should just be a sample of poems is a bloody silly one. I can't believe anyone really thinks it isn't. (Surely such a comment, from an intelligent person, is simply a quip aimed at suggesting that reviews aren't very helpful - not that I agree with that, either.) It would also be highly subjective, as rather than trying to discuss the various aspects of an author's work the 'reviewer' would be choosing a selection of poems and might do so very narrowly. Reductio ad absurdum: the best review of a book is the book.
Too many reviewers of poetry books forget that the reader isn't interested in them (at the time) but in the work. That's true, and should be guarded against, with a rottweiler if necessary.
Last edited by Rory Waterman; 08-20-2011 at 06:11 AM.
|