JonestheSpy
2011-03-05, 04:27 PM
So, I'm sure most folks here are familiar with the massive description of everything wrong with the Star wars prequels over on Reddit. It's far more entertaining and interesting than the movies themselves, in my opinion. Looking over the recent prequels thread reminded me of that particular schadenfreude-laced pleasure that comes from reading an utterly cutting, vicious, but well-written and intelligent review (as opposed to just some snarky blathering on a blog or, even worse, comments section).
So here's a thread dedicated to celebrating the bad review and the fun it is to read them. I suggest bringing up only professionally-written pieces as pieces that pass editorial review tend to be a bit better quality, and also that a thick skin is required - yes, someone might say unpleasant things about a book or movie you like. The point is that whether you like the work n question or not, the review is perceptive and intelligent enough that one can see the author's point even if you disagree AND find it entertaining.
So, to get the ball rolling, I highly recommend PZ Myers's review of the novel The Social Animal: The Hidden Sources of Love, Character, and Achievement by David Brooks (http://www.salon.com/news/david_brooks/index.html?story=/books/review/2011/03/04/pz_myers_on_david_brooks_the_social_animal). What makes this one particularly interesting is that the novel takes the unique approach of alternating between story and explanations of what's happening with all the brain chemicals in the protagonists' heads, and Myers happens to be a professor of biology.
Here's a couple of good bits:
there is a blissful moment of catharsis when you reach the last page and one of the characters does die, although it isn't in a tragic explosion involving a tennis racket, an overdose of organic fair-trade coffee, and an assassination squad of rogue economists at Davos, as I was hoping. That's not a spoiler, by the way; the book is supposed to be all about the happy, productive life histories of Harold and Erica, from birth to death, so it's no surprise that at least one dies. It is incomplete, in that the other one survives ... an unsatisfying ending that I could happily resolve with one more bloody page, and that represents the only case I can imagine in which I'd ever ask David Brooks to write another word.
and
Brooks drops the technical names of two brain regions and a couple of neurotransmitters, briefly mentions their association with learning and reward centers, and we hear nothing more about them for the rest of the book, and nothing in his abbreviated description helps us understand how or why or what. A proximate mechanical explanation is no explanation at all, especially if given to an audience that most likely has little awareness of what a brain nucleus represents, or what these chemicals do. They are polysyllabic magical incantations that allow shallow people to pretend to have knowledge.
So here's a thread dedicated to celebrating the bad review and the fun it is to read them. I suggest bringing up only professionally-written pieces as pieces that pass editorial review tend to be a bit better quality, and also that a thick skin is required - yes, someone might say unpleasant things about a book or movie you like. The point is that whether you like the work n question or not, the review is perceptive and intelligent enough that one can see the author's point even if you disagree AND find it entertaining.
So, to get the ball rolling, I highly recommend PZ Myers's review of the novel The Social Animal: The Hidden Sources of Love, Character, and Achievement by David Brooks (http://www.salon.com/news/david_brooks/index.html?story=/books/review/2011/03/04/pz_myers_on_david_brooks_the_social_animal). What makes this one particularly interesting is that the novel takes the unique approach of alternating between story and explanations of what's happening with all the brain chemicals in the protagonists' heads, and Myers happens to be a professor of biology.
Here's a couple of good bits:
there is a blissful moment of catharsis when you reach the last page and one of the characters does die, although it isn't in a tragic explosion involving a tennis racket, an overdose of organic fair-trade coffee, and an assassination squad of rogue economists at Davos, as I was hoping. That's not a spoiler, by the way; the book is supposed to be all about the happy, productive life histories of Harold and Erica, from birth to death, so it's no surprise that at least one dies. It is incomplete, in that the other one survives ... an unsatisfying ending that I could happily resolve with one more bloody page, and that represents the only case I can imagine in which I'd ever ask David Brooks to write another word.
and
Brooks drops the technical names of two brain regions and a couple of neurotransmitters, briefly mentions their association with learning and reward centers, and we hear nothing more about them for the rest of the book, and nothing in his abbreviated description helps us understand how or why or what. A proximate mechanical explanation is no explanation at all, especially if given to an audience that most likely has little awareness of what a brain nucleus represents, or what these chemicals do. They are polysyllabic magical incantations that allow shallow people to pretend to have knowledge.