Closely reasoned, but insufficient, adulation

[supergee]

Someone on Feministing wrote a review of Octavia E. Butler's Parable of the Talents, praising the book for many of its strengths and encouraging people to pick it up as both a story of family relations and "a must-read for feminist visionaries." Elsewhere, that review is excoriated for not "discussing, in depth, her contribution to feminism in general and black feminism specifically" not to mention class, gender, and sexuality (which the second writer certainly does). I conjecture that the original review would do a far better job of getting the book to people who would be entertained, instructed, and illuminated by it.

Thanx to Geek Feminism.

Comments

[supergee]

I don't see why every review needs to adequately discuss why the book is question is so awesome. It is good to have reviews that do so, but why should there not also be reviews like the first one, incomplete but accurate and encouraging as far as they go?

[the_future_modernes]

Because missing those elements might actually miss an audience who might want to read the books but didn't realize that this stuff was right up their alley? And you stilll haven't answered my question. Who is the audience that would be put off by the things brought up in the second review?

[supergee]

I did not postulate such an audience. I cannot imagine a review, particularly of a writer as good as Butler, that would include everything good about the work.

[the_future_modernes]

The second reviewer is not requesting that the first one include everything good about the work. Thats a strawman. She is requesting that the first one put in the main themes in the work in order to properly contextualize its awesomeness.


And while you may not have meant it to come across that way, this I conjecture that the original review would do a far better job of getting the book to people who would be entertained, instructed, and illuminated by it. certainly gives the impression that you think there is an audience that would be put off by the second review, since you consider it so inferior to the first.