HB Squad ALERT! . gossip + snippets
Saw this in this week’s 8days magazine:
Novelist Ian McEwan pooh-poohs blogs disguised as expert opinon:
“I don’t have much time for the kind of [web]site where readers do all the reviewing. Reviewing takes expertise, wisdom and judgement. I am not much fond of the notion that anyone’s view is as good as anyone else’s.”
By the power of Google and some nifty search skills (ok, fine… so it was a piece of cake), I discovered that this quote was from Time Magazine’s 10 Questions series. McEwan’s quote was in response to a reader’s question: “What’s your take on there being fewer literary reviews in newspapers and magazines?”
Though his view is probably an unpopular one in our wonderful world of web 2.0, ala Wikipedia, user-generated content and other social media hijinks, I do agree that we cannot dismiss the role of specialists or those with expert knowledge.
Have found this related Boing Boing entry to be quite thought provoking: Link
In particular (esp wrt to librarianship), this section from an essay entitled “Who Says We Know: On the New Politics of Knowledge” by Larry Sanger:
As it turns out, our many Web 2.0 revolutionaries have been so thoroughly seized with the successes of strong collaboration that they are resistant to recognizing some hard truths. As wonderful as it might be that the hegemony of professionals over knowledge is lessening, there is a downside: our grasp of and respect for reliable information suffers. With the rejection of professionalism has come a widespread rejection of expertise—of the proper role in society of people who make it their life’s work to know stuff. This, I maintain, is not a positive development; but it is also not a necessary one. We can imagine a Web 2.0 with experts. We can imagine an Internet that is still egalitarian, but which is more open and welcoming to specialists. The new politics of knowledge that I advocate would place experts at the head of the table, but—unlike the old order—gives the general public a place at the table as well.
So dear readers, what do U think?
What do you think? Know of any interesting book-related news? Want to join the Hb Squad?
Email us at HBeditor@nlb.gov.sg
5 comments
LeePing says:
Jun 21, 2007
I don’t think. heheh
willow tree says:
Jun 26, 2007
Yeah, i’m rather sceptical too…because by nature, the professional world is insular. People who have takens yonks to build up their knowledge are hardly going to have the patience to entertain an intruding civilian (pardon the mixed metaphors). Oh gee, I really am a cynic…someone throw a little light in the dungeon here.
J says:
Jun 26, 2007
haha, i guess they’ll hafta take notice sooner or later and try to descend from their ivory towers bcos of the fear of becoming irrelevant? same thing with print media… but then again, even if they do descend, the “civvies” may not accord them due respect bcos they already feel so empowered (whether or not they are telling tales “told by an idiot, full of sound and fury
Signifying nothing”)
Ivan Chew says:
Jun 30, 2007
Assuming McEwan’s quote hasn’t been taken out of context, I’m quite shocked at his statement. If writers dismiss reviews by “non-professionals”, who basically form a large part of their readership, then seems to me they are dismissing the fact that people buy or borrow books based on their friend’s “non-professional” recommendations.
J says:
Jun 30, 2007
Hi Ivan, the full context is in the TIME link. I think perhaps from his point of view, “reviews” esp “literary reviews” are defined in a certain way. Casual recommendations or comments perhaps do not fit this definition of it and he’s miffed that the “art” of reviewing is moving into this direction with the decline of mainstream print media. Anyway, McEwan is no stranger to controversy!