[John Whitworth]

Yes, Brian, you're right. It was good. But the book is better. But that will always be true of any Dickens adaptation so I'm being curmudgeonly. Bad films from the classics abound. Charlotte Bronte (George C Scott as Rochester), Emily Bronte, Jane Austen (the naked D'arcy is something we could all do without). There was a Russian adaptation of 'War and Peace' in about 24 chunks that wasn't bad. Bladerunner's based on something by Philip K Dick, is it not? Philip K Dick is the greatest American writer since I don't know when.

'The Big Sleep' is a good film from a good book. Or did I say that?

[Curtis Gale Weeks]

I remember an English Lit class from my old school days in which we were supposed to read Ordinary People. Then we watched the movie in class. The teacher's opinion was that the movie surpassed the book. I don't know, because I never actually read the book, as assigned. But the movie was very, very good.

[Julie Steiner]

A timely good example of what I like in a poetry review.

Maryann makes clear how her reactions to the material are influenced by her own background and biases...AND she also acknowledges that other readers' responses may be different. She provides enough quotations and neutral observations to give each reader a chance to decide for him/herself whether that book is likely to be appealing.

What makes a good review is the same thing that makes a good poem, really. I.e., the writer doesn't tell you what to think or feel, but presents enough data to let you have your own response...which may or may not be the same as the writer's.

[Maryann Corbett]

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.

[Maryann Corbett]

Yet another article in the snark v. smarm debate, from the New Yorker. This one is anti-snark.

Being Nice Isn't Really So Awful.

[Don Jones]

Thank you, Mary Ann. I totally missed Kleinzahler's hatchet job of Keillor way, way back in 2005. It's belly laughter inducing! Snark indeed!

[Ann Drysdale]

I believe it has to do, under field conditions, with stones and glass houses.