From: fondrie_at_gmail.com
Date: Mon, 09 Nov 2009 11:10:02 -0600

After reading a NYT review (Nov. 5) of Patricia McCormick's novel "Purple Heart" and then listening to the podcast interview with the reviewer, I was struck anew by the necessity of getting as much information about a book as possible, even from the same source. The author, Ryan Sutherland, who reviews the book from an veteran's perspective, reveals authenticity issues in the podcast that he never mentions in the original review, providing me with a much different reaction to the book. Although his written review is largely complimentary, his podcast interview shares a few accuracy points that I didn't pick up on.

I mention this in light of the recent posts regarding who might best review (and write) books by and about historically marginalized peoples. Is there value in a book review that looks only at the literary merits of a text and doesn't delve into accuracy and authenticity? The best reviews of such books, in my opinion, are by writers who either have cultural and/or insider experience or who seek out that information from colleagues who do. I have to admit (thanks to my semester with Ginny), that I'm automatically skeptical of reviews that don't consider a cultural standpoint.

It's very much a matter of white privilege. As a white writer or reviewer, I don't operate under the high-stakes system that writers and reviewers who identify with historically marginalized cultures do. If I make a mistake--in my white privilege existence--it won't hurt me much. If my research is faulty or shallow, it might damage my reputation as a writer, but it won't add to a cultural burden or history of oppression related to my marginalized group. Not so for other folks. Every review that overlooks stereotype, bias, hurtful images, or even honest research errors adds to the ongoing oppression, whether the author intends to or not.
Received on Mon 09 Nov 2009 11:10:02 AM CST