So many important things to discuss in this world, from pressing topics such as the Copenhaagen climate change convention thing that didn’t have any result to very very very important matters like that Tiger Woods cheated on his wife (please…), but really, those things don’t get me to write for simple reasons. The first one is simply depressing, how our leaders can’t come to a consensus that well, we’re killing our planet and still can’t find a resolution to make it better. The second one is depressing just for its coverage and the importance that it has been given. So I’ll talk instead about something I said today to a friend.
Today I realised something I’ve always believed, which is that even though you pick your friends, you can never really explain why you really get along with them. You can always say “I love Dalí’s paintings because of its confusing nature combined with its precise touch. You recognize and understand all the forms, but when it comes to the whole you’re not so sure.”. But you can’t really say that you love a friend because they are this, this and that. Normally it’s because of a “click”, and really when it comes to your friends that “click” is the most important thing, because if it doesn’t really click, more often than not it can only go “boom”. So really, this is the part where i get stuck and move on to a different topic.
Another thing that has been on my mind lately has been the preface to “The Golden Notebook” by Doris Lessing. Not only is the start of the story really well written, this preface underlines a lot of different topics. Even so it mostly comments on the school system that creates a caste for the kids that pop out of it and the fact that the perfect reviewer in the eyes of a writer compared to a reviewer always show big contrasts.
Basically, what Doris Lessing states, is that while the writer wishes for someone to give a creative review analysing the work that is put in front of him in a subjective manner, yet concentrating on only that work. Giving an opinion not in an awestruck veneering way and neither in a patronizingly bitter way. No comparisons are needed to the masters of the past or the best-sellers of the present. No need for stars, stripes, marks or anything. The perfect review comes wrapped with words only and shows that someone really understood what the writer wrote and meant. He doesn’t really exist.
On the other hand there is the caste of the perfect reviewer as given by society, who compares, forecasts, patronizes (sometimes), tells how the writer will be accepted by the public and doesn’t really give any personal opinion, just expresses a public opinion with quotes from the authorities in the field, gathers information and exposes it. This one exists in a hundred-fold.
Well…a random post with a comment on something that has been written, this sounds like a blog post, finally. If I employed any of the frowned upon methods of reviewing in my reviews…I’m sorry, I never meant to.
I’ll be reviewing Markus Zusak as a writer soon, a writer I truly enjoy reading, and who I want to express my opinion on in a more ‘formal’ way.
