ESSAY
Reviewing the review page
Nazma Yeasmeen Haque goes into a spirited dissection of content
To review something is an intellectual pursuit which presupposes the idea that there is a complete work, be it a book, a film, a play, radio, TV or any other programme that is to be viewed again. Thus reviewing something is set in the context of an already expressed opinion or viewpoint of someone who produces the work. This brings the reviewer face to face with the writer. Reviewing definitely is a job that involves a critical process of thinking that need not necessarily be for the purpose of expressing disagreement or disapproval unless and until the book in question entails it. For example, the recently published book, Dead Reckoning: Memories of The 1971 Bangladesh War by Sarmila Bose, caused much furore among sensible people both at home and abroad, for obvious reasons.
This is the big risk that an author encounters in writing a book based on an historical fact yet intentionally made to suit one's whims and prejudices. This creates a situation where the reviewer is in an advantageous position to criticize the work justifiably. However, reviewing books on any genre enjoins measured responsibilities on the reviewer so that certain norms or principles are adhered to in order to make it an academic exercise. Therefore, doing justice to a book becomes a task of paramount importance. The fact that a reviewer is playing the role of a judge on a particular book, s/he must exercise her/his judgements very carefully to make them not only a balanced affair but are also completely pertinent to the book.
Although there always is scope for expressing one's opinion and personal comments in a review, the exercise neither allows unnecessary deviations from the subject matter that the book deals with nor will it allow all praise to be showered, making it "unputdownable" --- as this word more often than not appears in various syntactical ways in the Books Review page of this newspaper. In fact, this is one easy but not an elevated kind of thought applied to reviewing a book. Going back to the basic principles of reviewing a book, those that constitute a matrix within which to operate, reviewing entails reading a book thoroughly to make a reliable introduction of it; getting to know the plot and the theme to be presented to readers in a confident way as the second authority on the book next to the writer, albeit doing a different kind of job within a given purview; reflecting on the characters; style of writing applied by the writer; discovering the "....audience aimed at and intention behind the work...", and of course, one's own comments along with reasons for putting forth these thoughts linked as they are to the subject matter. It may be added here that it is preferable to write a review in a rather concise manner as much as possible, keeping an eye on the salient features unless required otherwise.
Against this backdrop, one can reasonably focus on the book review page that made its debut five years ago in this newspaper and has been going on uninterruptedly since then. Earlier, a review or two would appear in an unsystematic way that never got any prominence. This page once a week covers three to four reviews that certainly make it an attractive addition to the daily, particularly coming out on a less busy day to which one normally may look forward. Conversely, one may be quite put off if there is not the expected quality in terms of a variety of books, variety of reviewers and styles of writing. Compared to the frequency at which the page appears and the number of reviews that it needs to fill in the space, the number of reviewers seems scanty. Only a few names appear every now and then and since one cannot vary one's style of writing without putting much labour into it, more often than not many write-ups sound monotonous, however different the books might be. Therefore, one may not be wrong in surmising that in order to counter or at least curtail it, it is oftentimes seen that the editor of the page himself writes the maximum number of reviews which certainly brighten up the page as we breathe fresh air in terms of his choice of books some of which have been written by African writers, others are recent publications, yet others are on the less than usual experience of life and work.
My own observation makes me feel as if we are seeing a waterfall cascading sparkling pearl beads down into the stream. A reader naturally savours such a quality in a book review. An acute sense of analysis coupled with antecedents and facts that are concomitant make those reviews intellectually vibrant. Some other reviewers write very well too. But in contrast, some others produce reviews that are just run-of-the-mill. Many contain a mere narration of the story, particularly of books that are rather ordinary novels. However, while retelling the story, although it is needed, one should not tire readers out by doing it at length.
Quoting the author is a normal procedure that is included in a review. As Samuel Johnson said once, 'Quotation is the highest compliment you can pay to an author.' Nevertheless, when overused, it mars the quality of a review.
Choosing almost regularly 'best sellers' is not always the best policy when it comes to reviewing. In such cases, it is only the person reviewing it who derives much pleasure out of seeing it published. The word 'best' is much debatable these days when there is a constant depreciation of the real worth of things, as any judicious person would know. Moreover, a competent reviewer would anchor herself or himself to the contents of a book while navigating its various aspects, manifesting an ability to not only grasp the subject matter but also to be a critic to be reckoned with. Thus the writer and the critic can be on a par with each other in terms of their endeavours as both of them are dealing with the same book.
As a reviewer, one has to apply a critical approach in making an objective evaluation, obviously with an open mind. Book reviews are an art that calls for much care and certainly tenacity. The snippets on the books, in the form of 'New Books' or 'At A Glance', are like some trinkets which, however limited in space, enhance the look of the page. However, two things rather intrigue me. First, why is the page called Books Review rather than Book Review or Book Reviews? Second, why do the e-mail addresses of some reviewers, apparently unsolicited, go with their writing?
It was one experience when we did not come across book reviews in a daily newspaper. It is quite another when we see them every week. Now that we are used to it, we appreciate it and look forward to it. And of course, to a quality page. Traversing somewhat a bumpy path, the Books Review page has come a long way, which is most commendable. It promises to be a further journey forward as there cannot be any full stop to its continual refinement. As has been said, the sky is the limit.
For all latest news, follow The Daily Star's Google News channel.
Comments