Well, absolutely. But at the same time, if someone hasn't read any fantasy/crime/horror/science fiction/romance/19th century fiction/whatever, then they might have an interesting perspective but they're not really going to achieve a balanced one, no matter how smart they are.
That's not true. I haven't read much fiction set in India [3 books is all I've read], but that doesn't mean I can't give a balanced perspective on a book from the genre. All that means is that while reviewing _A God of Small Things_ , I can't compare it's technique, virtues and faults to Jhabhwala's or Naipaul's books. But that is hardly necessary to achieve balance in my review.
In general I'm not sure it's possible to separate; I can't think of many reviewers I really respect and think are intelligent who haven't read widely, nor can I think of any that I do respect who aren't perceptive but have read widely.
Hmm, I can certainly see that you are having a problem with the separation. Forget seeing the difference between intelligence and familiarity, you are adding new elements in the mix. When and how did the discussion get limited to reviewers you respect? Perhaps you respect intelligence... Or are you really saying that you have never met people who have read a lot in one genre and are not perceptive? And/or that you don't know anyone who is intelligent and perceptive but doesn't read fiction?
Also, when you say 'widely read', do you mean 'widely read in a particular genre'? Because that *was* your original point.
Also, are you saying that you find Michael Knight is neither perceptive, nor widely read? Because that was not the impression I got from his review.
Apologies for bombarding you with questions, but I am trying to understand your perspective.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2005-08-14 10:06 am (UTC)That's not true. I haven't read much fiction set in India [3 books is all I've read], but that doesn't mean I can't give a balanced perspective on a book from the genre. All that means is that while reviewing _A God of Small Things_ , I can't compare it's technique, virtues and faults to Jhabhwala's or Naipaul's books. But that is hardly necessary to achieve balance in my review.
In general I'm not sure it's possible to separate; I can't think of many reviewers I really respect and think are intelligent who haven't read widely, nor can I think of any that I do respect who aren't perceptive but have read widely.
Hmm, I can certainly see that you are having a problem with the separation. Forget seeing the difference between intelligence and familiarity, you are adding new elements in the mix. When and how did the discussion get limited to reviewers you respect? Perhaps you respect intelligence... Or are you really saying that you have never met people who have read a lot in one genre and are not perceptive? And/or that you don't know anyone who is intelligent and perceptive but doesn't read fiction?
Also, when you say 'widely read', do you mean 'widely read in a particular genre'? Because that *was* your original point.
Also, are you saying that you find Michael Knight is neither perceptive, nor widely read? Because that was not the impression I got from his review.
Apologies for bombarding you with questions, but I am trying to understand your perspective.