Reviewing Reviews

I have no business writing a blog because I write only for my sanity. I write when stressed and when happy. I write not so much so anyone can read but so I can stop thinking. When I start to think about a thing, I can travel the world and back with it in a minute. I can also decide that I aint done and hold on to that thought for the rest of the day. If I let me, I would grow thoughts till they become an edifice requiring that passersby stop to gawk at its majesty. 

This is why I write, to take a break from thinking and since starting to blog, thinking has been (yeah, you guessed!)....well, let's just say hinged on the blog. I dont like this, it is the new problem. I miss thinking about stuff. I can remain in motion physically and perfectly still in my thoughts and I miss that. The frequent demands made on the intellect by social media makes one feel like thoughts are needless and makes it hard to settle down and make a real experience come to life when you would like, all of which were easy when I did not have to do this. 

Then there's the fact that the attention that one needs to draw to one's blog (in form of comments which are essentially reviews) must be solicited in the most uninhibited manner. I could probably do that also, but only in my thoughts, definitely not in words or in writing. Talking about reviews got me thinking about this and I recalled several brilliant articles I had recently read and some reviews also. These seem not to be sure about how it is reviews affect the writer but all agree that reviews are necessary. 

I remember one review I read of a book where the writer had been commissioned (blackmailed or duped, cant be sure which now), to write about another writer and how the book that was eventually written had been in such poor taste and I shudder at what the writer was thinking when he did such a shoddy job of it, considering he was paid to do the 'review' of a life.

A review is usually a work of scholarship (except you are my friend) and usually should be based on reading and sometimes, re-reading of the material to gain more than a cursory understanding of the material. Payment for a review in cash or kind, obfuscates the review as well as the reviewer. A review however does not preclude knowledge of the writer or friendship with the same.

In actual fact, a review by a friend stands the chance to be better written as this friend probably has better insight into the real reasons for some of the words and nuances utilised in writing. How is it different from what we do when we ask advice from our friends and listen to and re-adjust our doings based on the same? I daresay many could not get their swag on without the validation that friends provide masquerading as tips for life. 

I have been guilty of assuming when asked to look at a piece, that expertise and analytic gymnastics were required of me. I am wiser now. Reviews whether literary or non-literary are a way of reaching out to the one who wrote or spoke as much as for the one who will either read the review or the original work. It speaks to enlighten about the persona behind the work (in your opinion) as much as the work. I agree this may be a romanticized view of reviews but since when am I not allowed to be romantic in my view?

I will be reviewing a friend's work, every single thing written from here on out. you may read some of it, you may not. The issue is even though every thing this writer does is good by my estimation, some of it is difficult to read becos its so thoroughly done. Now this will be a review of reviews becos mostly they are reviews. Style and language, content and quality will have to be my only basis as I sure cant read those many books and frankly, some of them bore me. But not the idea of reviewing, no, that excites me no end!

Blogging, done! Next up, reviewing.......!