The subject of William Skidelsky's Critical Condition in the February edition of Prospect is the decline of the significance of book reviews. The argument is that the literary world is changing due to the shifting power relations within the literary landscape. This has mean the decline in the ‘authority of critics’. Skidelsky, who is deputy editor of Prospect, says:

Creative writers may have some vestigial authority, but in the domain of opinion, the old hierarchies no longer hold sway. Bloggers, booksellers, prize judges, critics: nowadays all inhabit the same, frighteningly level playing field..

First, the declining prestige of book reviewing is linked to the increasing commercialisation of publishing and the resulting reordering of power relations within the book world... Moreover, it is increasingly not just retailers who possess a disproportionate sway over literary fortunes. In recent years, other players have become similarly influential. Most significant among these is the Richard and Judy book club, which, since being created four years ago, has achieved an extraordinary dominance over British publishing, on a par with Oprah's book club in the US.

The idea that all opinions are equal, of course, pre-dates the internet. But the internet has given it a kind of tangible impetus. After all, before the internet existed, a measure of inequality was built into publishing. All opinions clearly weren't equal, because while everybody could express a view on any matter, only those who were paid to do so could publish them, and thereby reach a wide audience. But blogging has removed this barrier. Now anyone can publish their opinion on any subject, and that opinion can (theoretically at least) be read by everybody. That time-honoured refuge of the unnoticed — self-publishing — has been reinvented as a vehicle of self-empowerment.

The third reason for the diminishing importance of book reviews: the declining authority of academic criticism and journalists increasingly dominate the literary review pages of newspapers—and since an increasing number of books are written by journalists. But if literary journalism is increasingly feeding off itself, then that is largely because academic criticism has withdrawn from the field. In the last two decades, English literature has both tangled itself up in arcane and inaccessible debates about theory and emasculated itself by allowing itself to become a handmaiden to other disciplines, through its embrace of historicism and cultural studies.

All reasonable. He then ties this into the threat to print journalism:

One of the most disquieting things about the downgrading of book reviews is that it is happening at a time when serious print journalism generally is under threat: from other media (especially television and the internet), from diminished advertising revenues, from the growing number of free newspapers and trash magazines on the market. The old financial model of newspapers is looking increasingly unsustainable, and this makes it inevitable that editors and proprietors will start questioning—if they haven't done already—the worth of book reviews. What is their purpose? What value do they add? Such matters have clearly already been chewed over in the US—with, for literary journalism, deleterious consequences. In the long term, then, the prognosis for the book review—at least in its traditional form—doesn't look good.

One thought that should console the upholders of print journalism is that while blogs make a great deal of fuss about being where the action is, they contain little decent criticism. It is rare to encounter good critical writing on the internet that didn't start life in print form. Lively literary websites—or online magazines with literary sections—do exist, especially in the US: Salon, Slate, the Literary Saloon. But blogging is best suited to instant reaction; it thus has an edge when it comes to disseminating gossip and news. Good criticism requires lengthy reflection and slow maturation. The blogosphere does not provide the optimal conditions for its flourishing.

In the end, though, the squabbles between literary journalists and bloggers miss the point. While both parties have cast themselves as adversaries in a pressing contemporary drama, they really are (or should be) allies in a more important battle—for literature itself, and its right to be taken seriously. The significance of this struggle makes the differences between them trivial. All those who care about how books are talked about need to be vigilant. Otherwise, before any of us quite realise it, one of the flames that lights our enjoyment of literature may be snuffed out.

Comments

Posted by: Lyn | February 28, 2008 2:34 PM