A “book critic” is different from a “literary critic.”

To quote Jessica on the difference between (what you would call) a book critic and a book blogger, “There are differences, but I think they are mainly stylistic, and of degree rather than kind. I also think they have more to do with the self-image and goals of the reviewer than content of the reviews.”

A “professional organization formed… to promote the art and science of reviewing” clearly holds a high opinion of itself and its work; in that context, and given the NBCC’s arguments as to the cultural importance of its members’ work, I don’t think the descriptor “literary” is inappropriate, even if it creates some confusion among academics.

“here’s this thing we all know about, and now I’m going to tell you Why It Matters/What It Means”

I’d express it more as “I’ve been taking yet another look at this thing we’ve all been studying and now I’m going to tell you about my slightly different interpretation of it, which builds on the work previously done by other colleagues. I think my interpretation is valid, but I’m sure I’ll find out soon enough if there are some glaring errors in what I’ve written.” When a new field opens up, or a new text is discovered or published (depending on whether the literary critic is studying older or more modern texts), then the situation is a bit different, but there will still be that sense that the current article/book is building on previous academic work and adding to the total volume of academic knowledge.

I would also suggest that the fact the National Book Critics Circle doesn’t call themselves the National Book Reviewers Circle is, in this context, significant.

Yes, it suggests to me that they were perhaps thinking of themselves as a national book equivalent of the New York Film Critics Circle, founded in 1935 and of the National Society of Film Critics, which is “a professional organization formed in 1966 to promote the art and science of reviewing motion pictures for general interest publications.” The National Book Critics Circle was founded in 1974, as was The American Theatre Critics Association.

A “book critic” is different from a “literary critic.” A literary critic’s work is often very narrowly focused (e.g. on a particular aspect of a single text) or very widely focused (e.g. on common themes/issues shared by a group of texts, or on literary theory), whereas a “book critic” writes reviews which offer an assessment of the whole of a book.

- Literary critic offers an in-depth assessment of contents with an intention to persuade readers to agree with their view of what it represents.
- Book/Literary reviewer offers an assessment of a performance with an intention to persuade readers to agree with their view of what it offers.

Basically, what differs a reviewer and a critic are the objectives of their reviews and types of their audiences. In my view, reviewers are part of the book marketing machine (because they tend to review new or current releases). Literary critics tend to focus on building or solidifying their academic specialities. Literary critics have little impact on current book sales and also have little or no influence on the mainstream audience, which is not the case for book reviewers in general.

I don’t think it’s uncommon for a person to have both roles, though.

@Laura

I’m sure newspaper and magazine editors do scrutinise book reviews.

I don’t know about book editors, but film review editors generally don’t bother checking input by their regular reviewers. No time. Often too busy fighting with the advertising department and people upstairs over circulation audits. Some do try, to be fair.
Editorial assistants, on the other hand, sometimes provide editorial feedback to reviewers, particularly the new ones. (Note to potential mag/newspaper reviewers: this is why you should always be nice to editorial assistants.)

Of course, it depends on titles and/or editors, though. Sight & Sound, for instance, takes their reviews seriously. They will reject a staff review if it’s not up to their standards. On the other hand, mags like Empire and Total Film are more interested in ensuring the quality of editorial articles than staff reviews (and news, damn their souls because some news items were published unverified. *still burning*).

Either way, I do think the review process of a literary critic’s work is stricter (and a lot slower) than it is for a general reviewer’s work. Actually, I think the review process – via their peers – is done before it’s published while the review process – via readers – is done after it’s published.

Having said all that, I think while editors are gatekeepers of reviewers’ professional conduct (in reviews), it’s readers who are ultimately the gatekeepers of these reviews. It’s them who determine whether reviews are appropriate or not, and it’s also them who determine whether a magazine’s current stable of reviewers (and editorial writers) is good enough for them to keep buying copies of the magazine via retail shelf or subscription.

This kind of mentality steeps into the review blogging scene, but it’s evolved enough to differ mag/newspaper reviews from blog reviews (and review bloggers).

Online readers tend to be drawn to bloggers’ code of ethics (and handling of readers’ responses) more than reviews in general. By this I mean, we all have our principles and boundaries but in blogging, our review blogs defined by our ability to ensure consistency of enforcing these principles and boundaries.

Example: If a review blogger is known to provide snarky reviews, regular readers will learn what principles and boundaries are and respond accordingly. Said review blogger will snark about books, but draw a line at taking pot shots at authors. This is her idea of professional conduct and blog visitors react accordingly by either visiting her blog regularly or stay away. Traffic statistics are basically a circulation audit.

In short, while it’s my view that there is a code of ethics*** that all bloggers – reviewers, political commenters, personal bloggers, all sorts – are expected to follow, it’s a different story when come to having a code of ethics for each own blog. This code can be applied to commenting for visiting readers as well. This is why the editorial and commenting of reviews blogs can be so different from each other.

So, I do think there are two sets of codes for the review blogging scene as a whole. One for bloggers’ conduct as a whole and one for a blogger to adapt and use on own blog. Not all review bloggers feel they have to have their own codes of ethics, though, as it’s not necessary. It’s fine as long as they respect the overall code.

Review bloggers’ value lies with two major elements: consistency (of their customised code of ethics and the quality of their writing), and constant editorial input. It’s these elements that help readers to determine bloggers’ trustworthiness and/or credibility.

In my view, professionalism requires review bloggers to protect their credibility (including their blogs’ branding) and/or readers’ trust at all costs. Professionalism does not mean all review bloggers should or have to be held to a single person’s idea of professionalism.

Eep. I’m going to shut up. Sorry for being so long-winded. I’m operating on lack of sleep and a bad set of house move blues. Excuse the disorganised structure in my response, too.

***Examples: Don’t publish the contents of a private email without permission. Don’t pimp your blog through your comment (in the comments section) at someone else’s blog if it’s not related to a topic at hand. Don’t publish anyone’s personal/professional contact details without permission online. And so on.

“Peer review” in an academic context can be a rather lengthy process, and generally involves a piece being submitted for comments to at least two other academics. They may then make suggestions, as will the editor of the book/article.

I suspect the process involved in checking a book review prior to publication is somewhat different, although I’m sure newspaper and magazine editors do scrutinise book reviews.

Apologies if I seem to be labouring my points here and/or stating the obvious.

As my colleague Sarah Frantz has noted, reviewing is “a completely different skill from literary criticism.” First of all, literary critics tend to work on the assumption that their readers have already read the book under discussion. They therefore don’t worry about providing “spoilers” and don’t tend to include short summaries of the major plot developments and characters. Furthermore, literary criticism, while it probably doesn’t always end up being completely objective, involves much more objective criteria: “it’s not about personal taste, but about what I can say about the book’s _______ (construction, organization, historical context, images of gender/class/race, etc.).” Reviewers, on the other hand, frequently do mention their enjoyment (or lack of enjoyment) of the text under review.

As far as the issue of professionalism is concerned, people who are what I’d think of as “professional literary critics” tend to have a professional qualification, i.e. a PhD. Professional book reviewers, on the other hand, do not need a professional qualification of this sort, nor are their reviews subject to peer review prior to publication.

Per the comments above, in the context of the presentation, I use “literary critics” to refer primarily to those writing about books for non-academic publications, an equivalent term being “professional book critics” or “professional book reviewers,” as that is the class of people writing about literature who have acted most put upon by bloggers gaining an audience by writing about (somewhat different) books in (somewhat) different ways.

In response to Katiebab’s comment that there are no written rules, I note that we all still have common sense. Let’s appreciate this technological opportunity to build bridges, not dams, in celebrating books!

Three random thoughts about this subject:

(1) On Memorial Day, the Honolulu Star Bulletin (now the Star Advertiser) featured a editoral cartoon, “The Pen is Mighty Thankful to the Sword”, recognizing the military’s sacrifice for freedom of speech. As a military veteran and spouse, I ask bloggers to appreciate this our freedom of speech by respecting others’ freedoms and feelings, too.

(2) Barbara Vey’s blog featured Cub Report Andrew Shaffer from the BBC:

http://blogs.publishersweekly.com/blogs/beyondherbook/?p=1382

He quoted Maureen Johnson on several subjects, including “On authors who slam other authors’ books:
‘Saying something bad about another author’s book is like peeing in the swimming pool.’”

I believe her statement is funny and relevant!

(3) The Honolulu Star Advertiser published a recently column in the lifestyle section about romance books:

http://www.staradve rtiser.com/ features/ 20100618_ 5_Things_ We_Love.html

I noted the rules for commenting:

COMMENTING ETIQUETTE: To encourage open exchange of ideas in the starbulletin.com community, we ask that you post with aloha, follow our guidelines and respect your fellow posters. Don’t say anything you wouldn’t want your mother to read.

I think the last line says it all – just be courteous to each other, even if bloggers are agreeing to disagree.

@Sunita: Thanks for answering Laura’s question.

Agreed with all of your comments. The word “professional” is so fraught in this community. It’s fascinating to me at least.

@katiebabs: Well, the idea of a code of ethics is to articulate that. But But I agree with you that book bloggers are a diverse group. That’s why I *did* appreciate Hogan’s points about the differences between pros and amateurs, although I took issue with some of them.