Joe Queenan’s latest piece for the WSJ is a take on book reviews in the age of anyone-can-opine-on-any-subject-on-the-Internet. It’s not Queenan at his most acerbic, but it’s got its points.
(I have to say that most of the reviews I've seen on Amazon tend toward the five-star variety. Even people who say the book was so-so give it five stars. Makes you wonder if they understand the whole rating concept. Or maybe they're like classical music audiences in LA who'll give performers a standing ovation if they make it to the end of the piece.)
What I find interesting is the comments. Two points in particular:
The very fact that people feel obliged to go through the registration process in order to add their frequently quasi-illiterate comments proves my characterization of the age in the first graf, above.
For the most part they seem to have missed the point that Queenan is a satirist. Obviously the idea that you should get a grip on that which you’re commenting on is not a part of this equation.
Yes, those commenters. So earnest when it says right at the close of the column: "Mr. Queenan, a SATIRIST and writer..."
ReplyDelete• "The Canterbury Tales"—Average Reader's Rating: Four stars. This is great for reading on the subway - short stories easy to take in short bites. But what's up with Chaucer's spelling? Where are the editors and proofreaders? And they hold this up as pure English!