ComicBooks.com Register / Loginit's free!

Life, 1921-02-03 · page 19 of 46

Life — February 3, 1921 — page 19: what you’re looking at

📖 Open the full issue in the page-flip reader →
Life — February 3, 1921 — page 19: Life, 1921-02-03

What you’re looking at

This satirical article defends book reviewers against long-standing criticism—particularly the accusation that they don't actually read the books they review. The author argues reviewers need only skim enough to form an opinion, since their job is to hang their own thoughts on a book as a "peg," not summarize its contents. The accompanying cartoon, drawn by Boardman Robinson, shows three men in conversation labeled "THE AVERAGE MIND." One asks about favoring "the Soviet form of government"; another replies "Why, yes, I guess so," while a third objects that Bolsheviks are "something terrible." **The satire's point:** The cartoon illustrates the article's deeper critique—that average people (and by extension, book reviewers) form opinions without genuine understanding, simply adopting fashionable positions. The joke targets intellectual laziness: reviewers and ordinary citizens alike parrot views without real knowledge, making snap judgments about complex matters they haven't thoroughly examined.

📄 Transcribed text from this page (OCR, searchable)

Machine-transcribed from the original scan — historical spelling and the odd misread are preserved.

How to Know the Mild Book Reviewers @,OR so many generations the almost invariably in- offensive book reviewer has been held up to so scorn, that it is time somebody lam now quite pos- itive that book reviewers as a class are wholly misunderstood. Their nice sense of honor prevents them from associating with authors whose books they review, their relationships being with people of a lower order, such as publishers and edi- tors. Their only knowledge of authors is of necessity derived from the past, con- much high came to his defense. cerning itself with those who have gone beyond. And when one reads that Aris- was vulgar, that Goethe was undomestic in his habits, that Shakespeare deserted his wife, that Sam- uel Johnson gorged himself and that Shel- ley was excessively irreligious, it is quite natural that book reviewers should view all authors with distrust. The simple fact that any man writes a book is indeed quite Jikely to prejudice the book reviewer against him. Another complaint against these long- suffering creatures is that they do not read the books they review, and irreverent peo- ple are continually making jests about this alleged propensity, The fact is, of course, that reading the books is not necessary. It is not the province of book reviewers to tell what is in a book. If they did this there would be no use in reading it. It ss only necessary to give their opinion, tophanes extremely and to form a correct opinion cither abc a book or a person, it is almost fatal to _ know too much. Shakespeare now for years, yet no two people agree about him. In reviewing a book the reviewer's real We have been reading several hundred concern is to use it as a peg to hang his thoughts on, and not to tell what it is, or what he thinks it is. There are some books, which are mostly the dullest ones, that must be read through, such as his- tories, philosophies and almanacs. But novels are occasionally so interesting that one cannot wait to read them through—it would take too much time to get to the end. When a novel is not so much a story as a delineation of character it is casily possible to get enough out of it in a few pages to make a creditable text. When in addition it is a real story, the trained reviewer rapidly learns by experi- ence what parts to skip. It would be wr wv Drawn by I n Rol Basten ene Ve eere THE AVERAGE MIND “po You 1 GUESS SO. FAVOR THE $ “WHY, YES. much more useful if a book reviewer in cach instance, instead of giving his cri- tique of a book, would record his exact experience when to read it, reading—or attempting If he told what pages of the book he read and what he skipped, at gave his reasons, this in itself would be informative. The great majority of pco ple who read book reviews undoubtedly believe that they are written as a guide, in order to give some id book itself really is. This being so, the book reviewer himself ought to be better known, a of what th What manner of man is he, and what are his circumstances? Is he mar- ried or single? If he is a gentleman re- cently engaged in matrimony, with off- If a book on child culture is spring JET FORM OF GOVERN MENT?” BUT, SAY, AKEN'T THOSE BOLSHEVIKS § METHING TERRIBLE.” brought to him for review, will he be fair to it? Doubtless not, as every young par- ent is very likely to scorn all advice. That is not the most that can be said for book reviewers, however, as the ma- jority of them are not only very much alive, but extremely conscientious, within their lights. But if at the time of review- ing a book, they are suffering from dys- pepsia or an income-tax report, it is bound to color their views whether they realize it or not. For this reason, the condition of the book reviewer at the time of read- ing should be duly recorded. Even when a reviewer is using a book only as a text for general observations, the fact that he has been inspired to write about it at all gives it a certain standing with the great comicbooks.com