I think quality depends on the intelligence of the reviewer, I think perspective depends on, well, the reviewer's perspective.
*sighs*
And the reviewer's perspective is dependant on his intelligence. Because if the guy is dumb he will *never* gain any perspective. At least not an interesting, balanced perspective. Now you may disagree, but I'd really rather read the reactions and thoughts of an intelligent person, regardless of the extent of his familiarity with the genre, than the thoughts of an idiot who might tell me what the book resembles but can't say whether it was any good.
And as I said to Dan, a naive perspective can have useful things to say, but it can also miss the point spectacularly in a way that a more familiar perspective is unlikely to.
First of all, I think the word should be 'fresh' instead of 'naive' - this goes back to my previous point that just because you don't have the perspective of a genre-follower doesn't mean that you lack perspective. Naivete reflects on the intelligence of the reviewer, freshness on his experience. It is possible to read a hundred books in a genre and still be naive simply because you lack the critical skills or because you don't see the need for a wider perspective.
Second, again depending on the intelligence of the reviewer, an experienced reviewer can assume a point [because of his familiarity with the genre]which a fresh reviewer wouldn't. Makes for more critical appraisal simply because the author isn't given 'get out of jail free' cards.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2005-08-13 04:07 pm (UTC)*sighs*
And the reviewer's perspective is dependant on his intelligence. Because if the guy is dumb he will *never* gain any perspective. At least not an interesting, balanced perspective.
Now you may disagree, but I'd really rather read the reactions and thoughts of an intelligent person, regardless of the extent of his familiarity with the genre, than the thoughts of an idiot who might tell me what the book resembles but can't say whether it was any good.
And as I said to Dan, a naive perspective can have useful things to say, but it can also miss the point spectacularly in a way that a more familiar perspective is unlikely to.
First of all, I think the word should be 'fresh' instead of 'naive' - this goes back to my previous point that just because you don't have the perspective of a genre-follower doesn't mean that you lack perspective. Naivete reflects on the intelligence of the reviewer, freshness on his experience. It is possible to read a hundred books in a genre and still be naive simply because you lack the critical skills or because you don't see the need for a wider perspective.
Second, again depending on the intelligence of the reviewer, an experienced reviewer can assume a point [because of his familiarity with the genre]which a fresh reviewer wouldn't. Makes for more critical appraisal simply because the author isn't given 'get out of jail free' cards.