A Process of Translation

[coalescent]

Kelly Link's Magic For Beginners is reviewed in the New York Times by Michael Knight (yes, really). He seems a bit confused:

Take ''Some Zombie Contingency Plans.'' It's about a recently released convict who drives around the suburbs looking for parties to crash because he's lonely. There are zombies here, but are they real? The premise is fresh and the characters (the con, the girl whose party he crashes, her little brother who sleeps under the bed) are likable and Link puts a metafictional twist on the narrative voice (''This is a story about being lost in the woods,'' she says), but the story doesn't quite come together, and those zombies -- are they supposed to be a metaphor?

Scott Westerfeld explains:

Allow me to explain, Mr. Non-sf-Reading Reviewer Man. Sure, zombies can “be a metaphor.” They can represent the oppressed, as in Land of the Dead, or humanity’s feral nature, as in 28 Days. Or racial politics or fear of contagion or even the consumer unconscious (Night of the Living Dead, Resident Evil, Dawn of the Dead). We could play this game all night.

But really, zombies are not “supposed to be metaphors.” They’re supposed to be friggin’ zombies. They follow the Zombie Rules: they rise from death to eat the flesh of the living, they shuffle in slow pursuit (or should, anyway), and most important, they multiply exponentially. They bring civilization down, taking all but the most resourceful, lucky and well-armed among us, whom they save for last. They make us the hunted; all of us.

That’s the stuff zombies are supposed to do. Yes, they make excellent symbols, and metaphors, and have kick-ass mytho-poetic resonance to boot. But their main job is to follow genre conventions, to play with and expand the Zombie Rules, to make us begin to see the world as a place colored by our own zombie contingency plans.

EDIT: A relevant comment at Making Light:

I got into a rather heated argument a few months back with someone who was insisting that Tooth and Claw was good because "it isn't really about dragons." I said that it was too really about dragons, and that it would have been a much worse novel if it had not been really about dragons. "But I mean, really about dragons," said the other person. And I said yes, really about dragons. It didn't matter how many kinds of typographical emphasis she attempted to vocalize: Tooth and Claw is about dragons.

It also does other things, but if every little thing in it was a metaphor for man's inhumanity to radishes or some damn thing, it would suck.

Comments

[rparvaaz.livejournal.com]

The most important thing is to establish where the reviewer is coming from.

I thought the most important thing was the review itself! I mean, I don't care where a reviewer is coming from, whether they have had a grounding in English literature/particular genre or not. I read the review, and if the book sounds good, I read the book. Afterwords, if the review and the book match, I know if the reviewer can be trusted or not.

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.

But that just requires judgement and an ability to communicate, that doesn't mean that the reviewer has to do the academic's job. A reviewer reviews, an academic researches. And if a book requires research before making sense, then it isn't a terribly good book anyway.

[coalescent.livejournal.com]

I think we're talking about the same thing. The review should demonstrate that the reviewer knows his or her business, which can mean reviewing from a naive position or an experienced position; you can judge whether that's true by reading the book for yourself. But if you're not planning to read the book yourself any time soon but like reading reviews, you should be able to rely on the reviewer or where the review was published as some indication of quality and perspective.

[rparvaaz.livejournal.com]

you should be able to rely on the reviewer or where the review was published as some indication of quality and perspective.

Yes, but quality and perspective depend on the intelligence of the reviewer, not his/her familiarity with the genre.

Just because someone is not familiar with a particular genre doesn't mean that they lack perspective. They may lack one particular perspective, that of someone whose reading is more or less confined to that genre, but that doesn't mean that they have no perspective.

[coalescent.livejournal.com]

Yes, but quality and perspective depend on the intelligence of the reviewer, not his/her familiarity with the genre.

I think quality depends on the intelligence of the reviewer, I think perspective depends on, well, the reviewer's perspective. 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. Swings and roundabouts, perhaps.

[immortalradical.livejournal.com]

Because of course there is only one point and it is the SF point!

[rparvaaz.livejournal.com]

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.

[coalescent.livejournal.com]

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.

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. 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.

Naivete reflects on the intelligence of the reviewer, freshness on his experience.

I'm using 'naive' because that's what I use in my day-job: treatment-naive patients. It's not intended to be pejorative. Substitute 'fresh' if you like; I just don't like that word as much.

And like I said, swings and roundabouts. Naive and experienced readings both have their plus points, but in general I prefer the latter, particularly for places like the NYT.

[rparvaaz.livejournal.com]

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.