Before this past class I had never even heard of the concept of the non-book review. I assumed it meant a concert review or something along those lines, and never conceived that anyone would be interested in reading a review of an object.
After reading many examples in The Believer, I am of two minds. One voice tells me that these are annoying, pretentious and self-consciously weird--a way for yuppie writers to show off their esoteric knowledge. But the other voice tells me that these reviews are an entertaining and creative invention of the ever-innovative McSweeney's crew. I also learned a great deal of random facts while reading these. I'm sure the anatomy of the star-nosed mole will make a great icebreaker at a party someday. In that way they tap the modern public's need for such factoids, the same need that drives bored internet surfers to wikipedia's open arms.
However, while the reviews of actual objects in The Believer--the antler chandelier and the poultry shears stand out--accomplish a close, stylized description paired with a splash of research and history, the "reviews" of people and places read more like classic profiles or interviews, which strays too far from the form (for me) to fit. I'm also uncomfortable with the idea of "reviewing" a person, especially a child, although I noticed that these pieces made sure not to use any judging language.
I plan on attempting to write one of these myself, and in looking around my room (mostly at my roommate's stuff so as not to pick something too familiar) I'm having a hard time choosing something that's not too boring and not too off-the-wall. I'm leaning towards the dinosaur shaped cookie cutter that I got my roommate for Christmas (his two passions in life are baking and archeology) or his talking C3PO Star Wars action figure. I guess such a piece would also be, in part, a review of my roommate and his funny habits. Here I go to experiment!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment