Much of the superficial, often banal content ravenously consumed on social media confirms to me the low bar set by the masses. It’s why poorly written chick lit romantasy novels, for example, sell well, in addition to tell all books by celebrities. Alternatively, relying on “informed” critics and literary experts means accepting their political persuasions and artistic biases. And of course, the celebrity book club purveyors (like Oprah) and other influencers (not sure what their literary qualifications are) reflect the power of yesteryear’s literary critics in influencing book sales. What is a reader to do? I try to find reviewers whose recommendations prove useful (Sam Sacks at the Wall Street Journal comes to mind). In the end, I mostly tune out the noise. I browse bookstores and libraries, pick up books, examine them, read the first chapter, and frequently that’s enough to guide my selections. And I realize, everyone’s tastes vary. Read what pleases you.
These are all good points. I especially like that you describe wanting reviewers who are 'useful', as that implies something different than agreement. Often the critics that I learn the most from are those who I disagree with but who have clear and reasoned perspectives. Thank you for the comment, John.
Great point. Agreement is not a prerequisite. I’m reading a book by a young Vietnamese author, Ocean Vuong, that I might have passed by in a bookstore-but because of a critic’s review, I bought Vuong’s novel and am learning things from his eloquent prose.
If you are referring to 'On Earth We're Briefly Gorgeous', I have not read it, but thank you for mentioning it. Eloquent prose is a good recommendation for me.
Your piece illuminates the fragile architecture of authority—how cultural legitimacy is never simply inherited or distributed, but constructed, deconstructed, and reimagined over time. The decline of the critic-as-gatekeeper is not just a media shift; it’s a structural reshuffling of how we produce and receive value, especially in literature.
It is interesting to think about how much we're influenced by our environment, and I do think that attempting, as best you can, to cultivate that environment is worthwhile. But it will, in the end, be mostly accidental and out of your control. Thank you for the comment, Kim.
Yes, absolutely. I don't mind having an ever-growing, endless pile of books to read, with some waiting years before I get to them, because they seem to call out to me at the right time.
There was never a time when trust wasn't important, although I do think the value of trust is even higher today. I think without explicitly naming it as a desired trait—it is one that readers look for today. Thank you for the comment, Paul.
Oh, damn, that last sentence. So true.
Thank you for the comment, Sherman.
Much of the superficial, often banal content ravenously consumed on social media confirms to me the low bar set by the masses. It’s why poorly written chick lit romantasy novels, for example, sell well, in addition to tell all books by celebrities. Alternatively, relying on “informed” critics and literary experts means accepting their political persuasions and artistic biases. And of course, the celebrity book club purveyors (like Oprah) and other influencers (not sure what their literary qualifications are) reflect the power of yesteryear’s literary critics in influencing book sales. What is a reader to do? I try to find reviewers whose recommendations prove useful (Sam Sacks at the Wall Street Journal comes to mind). In the end, I mostly tune out the noise. I browse bookstores and libraries, pick up books, examine them, read the first chapter, and frequently that’s enough to guide my selections. And I realize, everyone’s tastes vary. Read what pleases you.
These are all good points. I especially like that you describe wanting reviewers who are 'useful', as that implies something different than agreement. Often the critics that I learn the most from are those who I disagree with but who have clear and reasoned perspectives. Thank you for the comment, John.
Great point. Agreement is not a prerequisite. I’m reading a book by a young Vietnamese author, Ocean Vuong, that I might have passed by in a bookstore-but because of a critic’s review, I bought Vuong’s novel and am learning things from his eloquent prose.
If you are referring to 'On Earth We're Briefly Gorgeous', I have not read it, but thank you for mentioning it. Eloquent prose is a good recommendation for me.
Your piece illuminates the fragile architecture of authority—how cultural legitimacy is never simply inherited or distributed, but constructed, deconstructed, and reimagined over time. The decline of the critic-as-gatekeeper is not just a media shift; it’s a structural reshuffling of how we produce and receive value, especially in literature.
Thank you for the comment and for adding your thoughts.
As mentioned before, and I have to repeat it, your last sentence was perfect.
That last sentence is oh so choice, pith and power..
Thank you, Trilety.
So we should find our next book to read by osmosis?
It is interesting to think about how much we're influenced by our environment, and I do think that attempting, as best you can, to cultivate that environment is worthwhile. But it will, in the end, be mostly accidental and out of your control. Thank you for the comment, Kim.
I’ve found that to be very true. When you open your heart, the books you need to read show up out of the blue and knock your socks off.
Yes, absolutely. I don't mind having an ever-growing, endless pile of books to read, with some waiting years before I get to them, because they seem to call out to me at the right time.
So, it is the BOOKS that speak! That actually makes perfect sense to me.
Perhaps, if you are absorbing critical views from one whose opinions you trust.
There was never a time when trust wasn't important, although I do think the value of trust is even higher today. I think without explicitly naming it as a desired trait—it is one that readers look for today. Thank you for the comment, Paul.