https://booksquare.com/failing-the-reviewers-test/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&%23038;utm_campaign=failing-the-reviewers-test Dissecting the publishing industry with love and skepticism Mon, 18 Apr 2005 20:59:32 +0000 hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=6.9.4 https://booksquare.com/failing-the-reviewers-test/#comment-63467 Mon, 18 Apr 2005 20:59:32 +0000 http://www.booksquare.com/archives/2005/04/18/1243/#comment-63467 Interesting comment — I think in the case of the review above, the reviewer came in with preconceived notions (based on his own comments), so careful reading wouldn’t have affected the outcome of the review. That being said, factual errors detract from a reviewer’s credibility.

]]> https://booksquare.com/failing-the-reviewers-test/#comment-63402 Mon, 18 Apr 2005 17:51:22 +0000 http://www.booksquare.com/archives/2005/04/18/1243/#comment-63402 This puzzles me: the factual errors in the reviews of this book. Updike, in The New Yorker claimed that Oscar has a dog, when he has a cat. (Which plays a fairly substantial role, including in the pictures.) Here, Siegel says there is a man who cannot write, only speak, when in fact it is the reverse.
What does this mean? I don’t know, except perhaps for a certain kind of blindness (or bad editing) on the part of the reviewer. It doesn’t make Foer’s book better, of course, but maybe there’s something to be said for reading closer than these reviewers seem to have.

]]>