It isn't particularly a reviewer's job to go off and read umpteen other books before actually reviewing the one he's been asked to read (that's an academic's job). Indeed, it could be said that a review without previous knowledge is fresher and more immediate.
Well, we disagree, at least partly. The most important thing is to establish where the reviewer is coming from. If it's a reviewer I trust then yes, I'll read what they have to say whether they say they know the context or whether they say they don't, because a fresh perspective can be interesting. But in general, I don't think that's what we expect from reviews in places like the NYT. We expect the reviewers to know what they're reading, to know what they're saying, and to know how to communicate those things to us.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2005-08-13 02:12 pm (UTC)Well, we disagree, at least partly. The most important thing is to establish where the reviewer is coming from. If it's a reviewer I trust then yes, I'll read what they have to say whether they say they know the context or whether they say they don't, because a fresh perspective can be interesting. But in general, I don't think that's what we expect from reviews in places like the NYT. We expect the reviewers to know what they're reading, to know what they're saying, and to know how to communicate those things to us.