The Geneva School of Literary Criticism thought that all literature should be read with the frame of mind used by the writer. The problem with that is reviewers can't always successfully read something from the writer's frame of reference, though they can try. It all depends on the reader's experience in dealing with the content used by the writer. Obviously, some readers are better suited than others at critiquing certain subjects and genres.
However, I do agree this is the best way to approach a literary work. When reviewing, we must remember that the writer's life has been far different from our own. Something written in an abstract or poetic form would be difficult to understand for someone who doesn't typically think that way. Regardless, the reviewer of such work should keep an open mind about the content. Likewise, something written in concrete forms would appear boring or simplistic to those who typically think more abstractly. A reviewer of such content should take into consideration that the writer's mind has not been subject to the same consciousness that makes their thinking so abstract, rendering any judgment based on style unfair.
I haven't always done this when reviewing books in the past, but I'm going to try starting.
No comments:
Post a Comment