Thanks for the good words, Julie. Having been sorta drawn into the discussion, I should try to add to it usefully, but my brain is pulled in several directions. As with poems, there may be matters of taste here.
I know of no fans of actual smarm. Should anybody present as a review a piece of writing that better fits the model of blurb? At first blush, I don't think so. But on reflection, I can recall (for example) a David Mason review of Bill Coyle (among other poets, and in Hudson Review) that was unreservedly positive--that made clear the reviewer's plain enjoyment of the book. I have trouble taking issue with that review, but that's a case in which I already trusted the reviewer and already shared the view that the book was excellent. So is smarm in the eye of the beholder? Maybe.
When it comes to snark, there absolutely are fans. Without question, readers love William Logan--or to be more accurate, love to hate him. If you praise what you admire in a poem, you risk sounding gushy, but if you flame-broil the features you hate (especially if you do it in clever language), you've got principles, dang it, and you'll gain a following. I think Michael Robbins may be gaining attention as a critic for just those reasons. And August Kleinzahler's takedown of Garrison Keillor was a thing of wonder, even though I disagreed.
There are lots of other topics one could tackle on a thread about reviewing--Whom can you safely review and who's too close? How much actual literary criticism, as contrasted with plain reader information, is appropriate?--but I'll leave it here and see if anybody else is interested in those topics.
|