Literary Generosity

That's exactly what I'm looking for, David. Cheers. I don't plan to be dishonest, but I must be positive. "You could try humility." Like that's got anything to do with it. Don't be pompous, Tom.

Yes, Tom, you are the pompous one. Pompous in assuming that my personal opinion of myself has anything to do with this, and seeing fit to tell me that I should change it. There was no 'egotism' or 'self-satisfaction' evident in my initial post. My opinion on the writer in question is from the point of view of a frequent reader of poetry. I very much doubt you would be more lenient, but that's not really the issue, is it? It's my age that annoys you. It's the young man evaluating the old man. I think you're scared - unjustly so - that somewhere there's some young character sizing up your own work in the manner I am in this case. You don't think they - and by extension, me - are fit to lick your boots, and it irritates you that they seem to hold a kind of of judgement over you. It doesn't surprise me that you're oversensitive and insecure, because I'm exactly the same, and I know age doesn't mean squat when it's in your character. And you are, after all, a very talented writer who has not had his fair share of success, due in some ways to age discrimination. So I guess it makes sense that it rankles you. But please refrain from personal attacks when you don't know jack about the person you're attacking. "my opinion on this is that the only good reviews worth their salt are ones by people who actually think the work is good" Gotta disagree with you, Ferg. I intensely dislike rave reviews from people who are mad about the author, or the work. To my mind, they're preoccupied with promoting the book, and don't give you information with which to make your own mind up. Ruth Padel recently reviewed Carol Ann Duffy's collection, and pretty much all she said about it was "the poetry is, of course, wonderful," the rest of the review being devoted to aimless ruminations in response to Duffy's topics. I think a good review should give people enough info to decide whether or not a book would suit them, as well as being interesting in itself. So I think I need to be honest about the lack of advanced poetry technique, but also discuss what aspects of the book the author hopes will appeal to people. Some people *do* like this kind of stuff, I'm sure. It's just stretching my ability to empathise. I like the idea of comparing reading it to spending time in the company of an amiable and thoughtful companion.

"The Believer only allow reviews where the reviewer has something good to say about the book." Ah, but is that the same as them honestly thinking it's good? I agree with that approach. Slating books is too easy. I just don't think it has to be someone who is crazy about the book.

I think what David said is a great example of how to go about it. I was just genuinely a bit lost as to what positive aspects to pick up.

My flatmate used to get annoyed about them editing his film reviews in a similar way, especially when they mangled his sentences into unreadable guff (some kind of anti-editor at work?) Anyway, now he himself is the editor of the film section, so that's the way forward, Tim.