2. 考研
  3. Is the professional book reviewer old-fashioned? In a recent Harvard Business School study of nonfiction reviews, assessments in

Is the professional book reviewer old-fashioned? In a recent Harvard Business School study of nonfiction reviews, assessments in

admin2013-09-16  49
问题     Is the professional book reviewer old-fashioned? In a recent Harvard Business School study of nonfiction reviews, assessments in mainstream media outlets and amateur ratings on Amazon largely converged. Assuming we can trust the questionable verdict of mere consensus, surely we could dump the Review section and decide what to read purely by consulting peers online?
    Nevertheless, traditional reviewers still serve a function. Few Amazon users will explore a book with the depth of an 800-word review. Supportive quotes are a virtual obligation of the form in print, since especially appraisals of style require substantiation, yet most Amazon reviewers applaud or deplore an author’s prose without providing examples, and you just have to take their word for it. Granted, critics are often scorned as clubby in-fighters either championing their friends or settling old scores.
    Yet many Amazon reviewers are just as snotty, overblown and acid as the worst of the "tits" in the Times Literary Supplement. A few small-minded pros may indeed be brown-nosing or out for revenge, but most critics with a shred of integrity refuse to review authors they know. Besides, Amazon suffers from corruption as well; friends-and-family boosters can inflate a listing with flattery; rivals and personal adversaries can pump it with poison. Some review sections may be suspected of assigning books whose publishers advertise in the paper, but Amazon’s emailed "recommendations" are paid for by publishers, no doubt.
    As for accuracy of assessment, Amazon reviews tend to gather populist momentum, mix together into a group-think that discourages dissenters. Able to check online for what’s already out there before filing, insecure professional critics are likewise prone to go safely with the popular tide. But the best reviewers will stick their necks out, sometimes defending a misunderstood book against a deluge of denunciation, or objecting that a fashionably crowned "masterpiece" isn’t all it’s cracked up to be.
    Still, when executed responsibly, reviewing requires many hours of reading that modest fees don’t begin to compensate. Reviewers are not all grinding an axe or scratching a back. They try to put an author’s work in context, to advance a more constructive argument than "I didn’t like it", and to make a few halfway amusing observations along the way. When they pan a work, hoping to save you time and money, they risk making an enemy of the author for life.
    Anyway, why not read the Review section and go online? Then, if both the pros and the amateurs turn out to be wrong, these days you’ve got multiple forums in which to say so. I might defend the reviewing trade, but a handful of haughty hired hands no longer having the last word on books is not a bad thing. According to that Harvard study, professional critics are influenced by awards and hype, while regular readers are less prone to being concealed and more open to new writers. So between the two sources, we should all find the ultimate Holy Grail.
It can be inferred from Paragraph 5 that best reviewers______.
选项 A、usually spend more money than they earn
B、know very well about the author
C、are very likely to cause offence to the author
D、provide readers with definite judgments
答案C
解析 [A]选项陷阱在于第五段首句提及“负责任的评论工作付出可能没有得到多”，但并不能由此推出“好评论者会人不敷出”，所以排除。[B]选项陷阱在于第四段第二句“最好的评论者会为了捍卫一本遭人误解的书免遭狂轰滥炸的谴责而挺身而出”以及第五段第三句“好评论者将作者作品置于大背景下去理解揣摩”可能令读者主观推出“好评论者对作者很了解”。但作者在此无意讲述“评论者与作者个人关系问题”，而是在具体讲述“好评论者的行为标准”，所以错误。[D]选项误将第五段第三句to advance a more constructive argument than“I didn’t like it”，错误理解为“他们给读者提供明确评论”，该选项实则和文意“好的评论者不在于对作品给出定论”相反。
转载请注明原文地址:https://kaotiyun.com/show/XBO4777K
0

考研英语一

相关试题推荐
随机试题
最新回复(0)