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  22
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.
Which of the following is true according to the first two paragraphs?
选项 A、Professional assessments have been outnumbered by amateur ratings.
B、Professional reviews are abundant in supportive quotes.
C、Amateur reviewers provide concise information in their appraisals.
D、Amateur critics are often criticized of being emotional.
答案B
解析 [A]选项陷阱在于第一段提及“主流媒体的评论以及亚马逊网站中的业余评论趋同。由此引发了专业评论是否可以摒弃的舆论”，但由此并无法推出“业余评论数多于专业评论数”，故错误。[C]选项陷阱在于第二段第三句末尾提及“业余评论者很少提供实例就对作品加以评价”，但并不能由此推出“业余评沦提供的是简要信息”，故排除。[D]选项陷阱在于第二段末句提及“评论者常被鄙视为排外的内讧者，会为朋友两肋插刀，或算陈年老账”，但由下文(第三段)可知，这是有些人对“专业评论者”的偏见之谈，故本选项错误。
转载请注明原文地址:https://kaotiyun.com/show/JBO4777K
0

考研英语一

相关试题推荐
随机试题
最新回复(0)