Here is my question about criticism. Do i have to read a whole book in order to criticize it?

[La Lioness Priyanka]

last year i tried to read a book by Chetan Bhagat. I got through one page before i declared it wholly unreadable etc. So what is the criteria for "being legitimate" in critiquing literature.

Do i have to read the entire book?

I have seen professional movie critics say that they couldn't finish a movie, it was that bad. Are they illegitimately criticizing?

12 votes, 1 pass | Time left: Unlimited
	You have to read every sentence
	3 (25%)
	No, bits and pieces will do
	5 (42%)
	Something else (explained below)
	4 (33%)
	1 DU member did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[PeaceNikki]

1. I think it's fair to say, "It was terrible, I couldn't get past x."

[nadinbrzezinski]

3. agreed, this one is terrible

it is a mystery to me how it became so much of a commercial success. I suspect all the negative press helped.

The only reason I got it, was the heat over it here.

[Louisiana1976]

81. That's how I felt about Twilight, which I understand 50 Shades of Grey is based on.

I started reading it, but couldn't finish it.

[Rex]

2. Depends on the book imo.

Depends on the movie, musical, video game, sport...really I think all it takes is what you believe is the right level. How many threads do I have to read on DU, before I can start criticizing threads?

[snooper2]

4. I couldn't get all the "begats" in the bible LOL

Talk about a ridiculous book...

They should have added that to 50 shades of crap-




"And he reached down and begat my vagina with his throbbing tongue"

[PeaceNikki]

7. The Bible is FAR more violent and misogynistic than 50 Shades. I've read both.

[flamin lib]

5. If it begins,"It was a dark and stormy night . . ."

that's all ya need. If it goes on that way for 20 pages . . .

[The Straight Story]

6. Depends

If reviewing it you should probably have read at least some of it.

If you just want to condemn the book for not meeting your religious/moral views and know what the book is about it seems to be fairly common to just tell people it is a bad influence and read something better. Of course, in doing so, you might offend/shame/etc people who did enjoy the book and don't think they need saving from sin, but everyone is entitled to their opinion.

[nadinbrzezinski]

8. You know what is funny?

I would not have bothered to read some of it. Damn, paper thin characters, bad description, a missing border checkpoint (Yes Vancouver is in Canada)... I am starting to wonder how this one became a success? Now time for some lunch, and get ready for some work, albeit remotely. I am sick as a dog, and as tempting as it is to share the bugs with a few of the esteemed members of the city council, I really need to be responsible and keep them to myself.

(And the City does run this live and you can stream it, but it is a critical vote)

[La Lioness Priyanka]

12. feel better soon nadin!

[Scootaloo]

23. There's a Vancouver, Washington, too

it's just north of Portland, Oregon. Somehow the main character drives through Portland to get to Seattle from Vancouver.

...Maybe she needed to refuel her VW and didn't want to do it self-serve?

[nadinbrzezinski]

25. Could be, given that I know the one in Canada

[pnwmom]

62. There is no border checkpoint in Vancouver, Washington.

And many people in Seattle sometimes go there.

But you're right that the writing is appallingly bad. And so is the plotting. And I doubt that the author ever set foot in Seattle.

[nadinbrzezinski]

69. Well, I knew only of the one in Canada

See, I learn something every day,

Now back to translating this

[Brother Buzz]

137. WSU does not have a campus in Canada

That might have been a clue you missed

http://www.vancouver.wsu.edu/fifty-shades-fact-and-fiction

[Ron Obvious]

107. But is that one ever referred to as plain "Vancouver"?

I suppose people could either say they're going "up to Vancouver", or "down to Vancouver" and the distinction would be clear to me, but I've never heard anybody here in Seattle refer to plain old "Vancouver" and mean the one next to Portland. It's always been Vancouver, Washington.

Disclaimer: I've never read 50SOG and may not know what I'm talking about.

[pnwmom]

112. Yes, among people who have reason to go there. I often have to ask people which Vancouver

they're referring to.

[el_bryanto]

9. I think you should feel free to have an opinion on whatever you like

You'll probably have to note where you opinion is coming from, and there will be people who will use your situation as an excuse to tell you to shut up (particularly on an internet forum). But - no sense getting worked up a bout that - and no sense reading something you find unreadable.

Of course if you are printing your literary criticism for profit than you should check with the publication to see what their standards are.

Bryant.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

10. A man(!) once told me the only things I *have* to do is die and pay taxes

and not necessarily in that order.

Honestly, might be the best adage I ever heard from a man.

Really has a way of putting things in perspective, I must say.

[Logical]

17. You don't have to pay taxes. Dying is about it. nt

[Tuesday Afternoon]

20. you go right ahead and let me know how that goes for you, okie dokie.

[LanternWaste]

27. Your relevance is superseded only by your depth...

Consistently, the relevance of what you add to DU is superseded only by your depth of knowledge...

[Logical]

31. Ahh, you are mad about something else I assume. Nt

[Zorra]

11. No, otherwise, reading Ayn Rand would have bored us all to tears and madness long ago. nt

[La Lioness Priyanka]

13. oh so very true. nt

[pnwmom]

65. Best answer!

[lumberjack_jeff]

14. It depends on your basis for criticism.

If your criticism is that the first chapter was so boring or stupid that you couldn't finish it, that's completely fair.

If your criticism is that you've been told that chapter 8 includes a glorified rape scene and that everyone who buys the book or a ticket to the movie is (going to hell / perpetuating rape culture, pick one), then yes, I think it's incumbent upon you to read chapters one through 8.

[pnwmom]

66. Why wouldn't it be sufficient to read the glorified rape scene in chapter 8?

Why would you have to wade through the rest of the dreck?

[mythology]

77. Because if you only read the parts of Huck Finn

where the N word is used, you won't understand the importance later when it's not used. Context matters.

[pnwmom]

93. The Chapter would provide plenty of context. n/t

[TheKentuckian]

15. I think it goes with the territory, even in your example what you are critical of is based on what

you actually read which led you to give up before dealing with pages 2 through whatever.

This gives you some basis for legitimate but speculative and dubious complaints about the book at large (ie sucked so bad I could only make it through the first page) but still no basis for actual criticism of the rest of the material because you chose not to read it. Hell, it may have improved dramatically.

Of course you walk off even this precarious ledge completely when you haven't read at all.

[m-lekktor]

16. no. just don't claim to know more specific plot details than somebody who has read the whole thing.

style critique wouldn't require completion though.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

70. fair point

[alcibiades_mystery]

18. During my PhD study, I took a class on Victorian Literature

It was part of the "distribution requirement." We read a fairly lengthy Victorian novel every week: Sybil (short), Pendennis (longer), then... . So, during the seminar when we were supposed to discuss Middlemarch (Middlemarch, I tell you!), the class' resident Marxist launched into a 15 minute critique of naturalism and other ideological problems, a true rant. The professor (who was, let us just say, as old school as old school gets), after this long ass theoretical rant, asked "What about X?," something that happened later in the text, say, page 826 or the like. Our Marxist friend said, "Oh, I didn't read that far, but you don't need to get that far anyway. I read enough." On goes the critique. If you got paid for speed and depth of jaw-dropping, you'd be a millionaire. Everyone else in the class had struggled through all 1200 pages of Middlemarch, and some ancillary readings as well, and we were of course all working on seminar papers and reading for other classes, too. Didn't read that far? What in the motherfuck? I felt the rage swell within me. Pure, unalloyed rage.

Ah well. Even in graduate seminars on literary criticism some people will say "I didn't need to read it." Nobody respects them, but they will say it.

[MerryBlooms]

19. If reading something was required before jumping into a discussion on DU,

it would be pretty darn slow around here.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

34. so true. i posted an article just the other day and many people disagreed with it

but CLEARLY had not read it

[MerryBlooms]

39. Exactly. The part that makes me laugh the most,

are the ones who jump in to agree with the ones who haven't read the articles.

[Scootaloo]

21. No, it's entirely possible to judge a work's quality through some reading

I'm reminded of Jean Auel's "Earth's Children' series, starting with Clan of the Cave bear and ending with The Land of Painted Caves.

Clan of the Cave Bear was a good book
Valley of Horses was interesting, though mostly cave-porn
The Mammoth Hunters was more cave porn, but still had a strong cast of interesting characters, ending up nearly as good as Clan.
Plains of Passage was just interminable and silly.
Shelters of Stone was also interminable, but it didn't even have the entertainment value of silliness.
The Land of Painted Caves... is seven hundred and fifty pages of hate. Pure hate. My hate, the author's hate, the characters' hate.

I tried to read Painted Caves all the way through. I've read the full Tolkein. My shelves are full of hte Dune Universe, even the pulp stuff from Brian herbert. next to them is george R. R. Martin, it's not as if I have a problem with big books full of clunky dialogue or overwrought descriptions.

I couldn't read painted Caves. Like a mouthful of sawdust, it wouldn't go down and it wouldn't come out. it had cave-porn.. .but it was literal cave porn, like the author's travelogues through these caves, and it was ugh.

I didn't need to read the whole book. I skimmed. And just skimming made me drowsy and a little uncomfortable (one of hte main characters flattens another man's face because "HE'S MAKING MY BABY!" I shit you not.)

So no, you don't need to read the whole thing to know that it's garbage.

...Unless you're reading Stephen King, because everything he rights is good up intil the final act, where he turns it into garbage.

[bravenak]

29. I felt the same way about the Earth's children.

I waited years for Painted Caves to come out just to spend the entire book being pissed at everyone. Jondalar, his extra lady, Ayla, the only one i liked was Jonayla.

He's making my baby pissed me off. Duh? Like, she had already told him several times how babies were made. I would have left his ass and started my own cave. But then again, after that Ranec dude, what could she do but understand a little bit, I guess.

Now, for GRRM. I wanted to strangle every last "Where do whores go?" out of Tyrion's scrawny throat. He repeated the same crap over and over. And Daenerys with all of her stupid titles.

[Scootaloo]

32. Yeah...

After the indigestible brick that was 'Shelters" I should have known better than to drop $25 on "Painted Caves." Force of habit, i guess, 'cause I grew up reading this stuff.

'Course with my better understanding of charactrization and development now, everything except Clan of the Cave Bear is unreadable... A character whose only change and development is to become increasingly more perfect just isn't interesting... and when she finally develops a flaw, it's out of the blue in the tail end of the last book and you're like 'dafuck'

...I hate that book so much.

[bravenak]

33. Well damn.

Now i have to do a reread. I guess i have plenty of time while waiting for Winds of Winter to get written.

[Scootaloo]

38. They don't call him "The Great Bearded Glacier" for nothing.

[bravenak]

45. That was great!!

https://m.

This one made me cry laughing.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

30. i had all but forgotten about clan of the cave bear, but i remember loving it as a a teenager

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

40. deja vu. That's how I feel about L Ron Hubbard's 'Mission Earth dekalogy'.

He wrote an entire set of ten giant ass space opera pulp cliffhangers about some alien planet with humanoids that was looking to invade and take over Earth, but had to send a tiny 'pre-invasion' to keep Earth from destroying itself via pollution before the real invasion was scheduled to take place. 1.2 million words, give or take, of pure, unadulterated schlock, each of which, according to the wiki entry on it, 'topped numerous bestseller lists'. I was bored, I waded through the entire thing.

But I could have critiqued the entire set based on about the first 20 pages or so. Nothing in the writing style or deus ex machina after deus ex machina changed, no matter how many pages I pushed through. Gratuitous sex, drugs, violence, swindles and double crosses.

[Iggo]

22. Nope.

You can read a few pages and go, "Oh, this is obviously shit" and then tell people you think it's shit.

[marions ghost]

24. NO

You can read the first chapter (or any chapter) and walk away forever. When I'm browsing in a bookstore whether online or not--I only have to read a few sentences to know it's not 1) good writing and/or 2) not even a good story which can sometimes save mediocre writing. Really bad writing can't save even a decent story.

This is true of movies, and other forms of art. You don't have to thoroughly immerse yourself in ANY cultural experience that does not meet your standard to be able to talk intelligently about it.

What this book (s) proves is--kinky sex can save anything.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

42. Go read the Anne Rice Beauty books.

Not even kinky sex could save those. The most boring erotica in existence.

[marions ghost]

53. I looked her books up, not familiar...

Wikipedia has a plot synopsis LOL...sounds like in the Beauty books you just go from sex act to sex act in a fantasy smorgasbord...yeah my idea of a yawn. I need more story, more appeal to the brain, not just the lower chakras. Sounds boring in the same way that porn movies are boring, even kind of sad (if you're past adolescence).

Definitely will give it a miss but thx for reply

[La Lioness Priyanka]

58. i enjoyed the Beauty books.

ofcourse i was 20 when i read them, and who knows if i would enjoy them now

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

61. We do change over time.

When I was in my teens and early 20s, I enjoyed Piers Anthony's works. When I tried to reread some a decade or so back, I had a hard time seeing why...

[Marrah_G]

94. I loved them :)

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

116. Different strokes for different folks, I guess.

Maybe they read differently across gender lines.

[SidDithers]

26. No, just like you don't have to eat the whole steak to know the meat is bad...nt

Sid

[bluestateguy]

28. Criticize all you want

But if you don't read a book and then proceed to criticize it, your opinion is irrelevant as far I am concerned.

[Warren Stupidity]

35. Only the dirty bits.

[conservaphobe]

36. I'd be overjoyed to write something that angers a lot of people.

I'd laugh all the way to the bank.

In August 2013, sales of the trilogy saw James top the Forbes' list of the highest-earning authors with earnings of $95m which included $5m for the film rights to Fifty Shades of Grey.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._L._James

I hate books like that, but I'd put anything on paper if I thought it'd enrich me.

[kiva]

37. Depends what you are criticizing.

I usually won't read or watch anything with cruelty to animals, and it's a flat no if it's particularly graphic or otherwise descriptive; I've posted reviews of books (with spoiler alerts) that something like this happened and that I stopped reading.

Poor writing? Can usually tell in a short time, and have no problem criticizing a book for that without reading the whole thing.

Criticizing a book because you've heard that something happens and insisting (despite many people who actually read the book saying otherwise) that the thing must have happened...well, priceless.

[redqueen]

41. Of course not and those claiming so now never have in the past, which is quite revealing.

No one ever said we had to have read Atlas Shrugged before criticizing it.

This song and dance by so many here is pathetic, and the fact that they think most don't see right through the BS act says all one needs to know.

[Iggo]

46. TH-TH-TH-THIS!!!!

[redqueen]

86. I'm seriously amazed at the number of people refusing to see that these particular emperors

are stark fucking naked.

Some have called them bullies, I think that shoe fits rather excellently well on them.

[Avalux]

43. I think a sampling will be good enough. Otherwise your head might explode.

I skimmed through 50SOG when the book came out because a co-worker gave it to me. After reading the first 10 pages or so, I couldn't stand how poorly it was written so I jumped through just to get the gist of it, then gave it back to her. Trust me when I say the prose is awful and stupid.

I can't imagine the movie is any better. And here I am, responding to a veiled 50SOG post after denigrating them, lol. Just wanted to let you know it's OK to not read the whole thing.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

51. LOL.

[unblock]

44. without reading it all, of course you can criticize it... poorly.

then again, i only read your title, not the body of your o.p.

so perhaps i don't know what i'm talking about.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

52. ..

[ecstatic]

47. Depends. One should at least have read up until the point of objectionable content

That point could be in the first few sentences of Chapter 1 or not until the last chapter. It's important to have read the context leading up to the objectionable content, IMO.

[JVS]

97. Of course that approach can lead to someone walking out of A Clockwork Orange because it's just...

a disgusting film about a gang of depraved rapists.

[Dreamer Tatum]

48. It depends on whom you are trying to impress

others, or yourself.

[BainsBane]

49. The every word crowd never went to grad school

I can tell you that much. No way you get through hundreds of books for comps by reading every damn word.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

50. SO TRUE. *or frankly any exam in grad school.

[msanthrope]

64. The grad school crowd knows to read enough so that we are conversant on

who the characters are, and who actually got raped, and who gave consent.

And we don't use blog posts to do that.

I get that you're still pissed at me for my reply on the other thread..... it's kind of funny that you're still making snide remarks 12 hours later.

[BainsBane]

67. Excuse me?

My comment had nothing to do with you. Why would you assume it did? Believe me, I don't keep you or anyone else from this site in my head for 12 hours.

[pintobean]

74. I'd be willing to bet

that it still stings. That was awesome.

[msanthrope]

80. I try. nt

[alcibiades_mystery]

68. I dunno

I went to grad school. I passed my comps with distinction. You're right that you don't read every word of every book on your comps list. But your comprehensive exams are different than, say, an article for a journal (or even a seminar paper).

If you're writing on a particular text, you should read not only that text, but most of the contemporary arguments related to that text, some editorial analysis, etc. If you have time, you should have a passing familiarity with other works by the author. I would never had dared to write a seminar paper on a book I hadn't read all the way through, and anyone who admitted to doing so would have been considered a slacker in graduate school. I'm not even talking about an essay you intend to submit for publication. I'm talking about a throwaway seminar paper.

I'm trying to imagine the grad student who would write a seminar paper on Moby-Dick, or Intruder in the Dust, or Blood and Guts in High School without having read the primary text. I can't even conceive of such a student - or maybe I just didn't associate with them.

I'm now a tenured professor. I'd be horrified to learn that any of my own students did something like that.

[BainsBane]

72. I'm sure fields vary

I was in history and couldn't have possibly read every word because there simply is not time. Even professors would say only an idiot reads every word. One learns how to read for the central argument and contributions of the book. I had to get through two historical monographs in Portuguese every night to pass my major exams. I must have known what I was doing because I got the highest marks possible.


I imagine literature is different because it doesn't follow the organizational structure of a monograph or article.

[msanthrope]

83. We are talking about a single primary source. If you were assigned

Mein Kampf would it be acceptable to use blog posts to explicate it?

[BainsBane]

104. If I were assigned schlock for my PhD orals?

One is not "assigned" books for a doctoral exam. You create your own reading lists based on the important books in the field. Give it up. The parallel doesn't work.

If someone is going to publish an article on a piece of fiction, obviously they must read the book very carefully. That does not mean one is not allowed to speak on a topic related to a book if you haven't read it. If I actually claimed first hand knowledge of the book, that would be another matter. I have not. I cited sources. Insisting I have no right to speak on this subject is no different from claiming that people cant voice an opinion on the Gaza conflict because they aren't' there witnessing it first.

Additionally, the complete hypocrisy of insisting only those who are concerned about rape are responsible for reading it is notable. This whole shit storm started because someone who had not read the book was pretending those who had concerns about the book were trying to control people's private sex life. The argument was laughable, but it got over 60 recs and not one of you complained about his not having read it. In fact, people patently refused to concede the discussion was about a work of fiction rather than real human beings. The "you didn't read it" mantra came about only after a couple of people dared to challenge those strawmen OPs.

So don't pretend for a second this is about anything other that getting people to shut up who have the nerve to hold different views than the all sex as the ultimate manifestation of liberty crowd, even if that "sex" is not entirely consensual. This is all about trying to assert control of the speech of those who have the nerve to challenge the precious patriarchy, something you doubtless don't believe exists.

Why people find is so unacceptable that some hold opinions that differ from theirs, i have no idea. I don't know why we should agree on this any more than any other issue. When people hold fundamentally different values, they see issues differently. You don't have to read a single post by me or anyone else that you don't want to. I don't need to read that book or anything else I don't want to, and I have every right to say whatever I damn well please, while you are free to disregard or ignore it as you see fit. End of story.

[nadinbrzezinski]

138. When I wrote my graduate thesis on Fray Servando

I read his memoirs, entertaining as hell, as well as the documents in the Holy Office, as well as contemporaries, and monographs on the person by other historians.

Here it is a single primary source. Buck up and read it.

Yes, that thesis was for a history degree

[alcibiades_mystery]

85. Monographs and articles are generally secondary sources

The equivalent in history would be writing a paper on (some archival material) without having read (that archival material). It would be a seriously half-assed thing to do.

[BainsBane]

95. Obviously. And one reads secondary sources for comprehensive exams

and does research for the dissertation.

No one can possibly read every word of every document related to a subject matter. Nothing would ever be published.

[alcibiades_mystery]

109. That's no doubt true

But it is miles away from the issue in the OP, which is about reading a single, solitary primary source, not "every word of every document related to a subject matter."

Any graduate (or undergraduate) student who proposed to write a seminar paper on Charlotte Perkins Gilman's The Yellow Wallpaper but also informed me that he or she would only be reading a few pages would be instructed otherwise, and directly. At least in my classroom. And I wouldn't pretend that I was instructing that student to read "every document ever written on" the text. At a minimum, you read the damn primary source you're discussing. There's not even a reasonable objection to doing so.

[BainsBane]

122. Yes, but we are not talking about a literature seminar

This discussion has been about the right to speak. Apparently one is entitled to praise the book and consider it infallible without having read it, but if one has read publications talking about its abusive and coercive themes, those rights to speak are stricken.

[alcibiades_mystery]

123. Also true

Your discussion might be about what you say. I was responding to the notion that people in graduate school don't read the texts they're critiquing, which is silly.

On the issue of whether somebody need read 50 Shades of Grey before saying anything at all about it, I'm ambivalent. In general, I think people should read primary sources that they're discussing, but obviously that's not a firm rule. One need not watch every (or even a few, or even, frankly, any) misogynistic porn videos to know they're terrible, for instance. Nor should one have to prove he or she has reviewed such dreck in order to speak on the matter. That's clear enough. At the same time, when it comes to a novel, I lean towards the idea that you know what you're talking about once you've read it. Not a firm rule, of course (I know The Turner Diaries is white supremacist bullshit even though I've never read it), but a clear lean.

In any case, my point was related to your claim regarding graduate school. Plenty of people doing cultural studies and history deal in material like Fifty Shades (or Buffy, or nineteenth century stage adaptations of Uncle Tom's Cabin, or whatever). The idea that you'd make an argument about such an object without having studied the primary source is simply not true. (On Edit: and I'm excepting methods like Moretti's "distant reading," which doesn't really apply in this case anyway).

[BainsBane]

124. I again think that relates to discipline

In the discipline of history, seminars are not built around a particular primary source. You might have a research seminar on a particular theme in which each student does their own research project, or more commonly a seminar in which secondary literature is assigned. So, for example, if one is reading about slavery on sugar plantations in a particular area, the minutiae of how many hectares of crops, the details of construction of the trapiche, and other similar details are not what is important to understanding the significance of the book and they are not what will be discussed in class. One quickly learns to skip over such parts to read for central ideas and the details of the reader's particular interest.

[alcibiades_mystery]

130. My own

research, both published and ongoing, is primarily historical. I spend a lot of time in archives. That's doing your work, and it function s similarly in any discipline.

It's certainly true that people read historical studies the way you describe, especially at a particular level and for particular purposes (in a graduate seminar - I took a few in history as well, given my research interests).

Anybody actually doing historical research that way, would, of course, be told that reviewing secondary sources for main arguments is simply insufficient. There's no disciplinary distinction in actually doing your work.

[BainsBane]

131. Then you read the portions pertinent to your research

and not others.

There is a difference between a cursory reading for main arguments and laboring over every detail. Unless your research relates to those details, there simply is no point. For example, a ten volume study from the 19th century on coffee plantations: Are you seriously going to read every last word? Whereas one would read very closely something that relates directly to one's particular subject of research.

[alcibiades_mystery]

133. Different schools of thought, I guess

Good luck.

[Hissyspit]

126. I went to grad school. Twice.

In order to have VALID critique, you need to read the whole thing.

[Warren DeMontague]

54. If everyone's a consenting adult, you can do pretty much whatever you want.

And if you ask me, that's what really has some peoples' shorts in a bunch.

[nolabear]

55. Difference between criticism and critique.

You can criticize and say "It was so bad I bailed" but a critique is far more nuanced.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

57. very true.

[stevenleser]

118. I agree and I think that is what I thought as I read some of these OPs/threads

You can pronounce a book or movie "bad" art after a few pages of reading or minutes of viewing.

If you are going to talk about various things that happen in a book or movie and speak about them intelligently enough to criticize them, you should have read or viewed those parts.

And a full on critique? As you noted, that just about requires reading/seeing all of it.

[arcane1]

56. I suppose this depends in large part on what is being criticized

And varies by book too, probably.

One needn't read an entire book to know if the writing is terrible, for example.

I skipped most of the endless radio broadcast in "Atlas Shrugged" but I think I got enough from the rest of it to give an informed criticism of the book's values and message.

[steve2470]

59. I think as long as you're upfront about the amount you read, you're good to go

Otherwise, people tend to assume that you did read the entire book.

[Bluenorthwest]

60. If you want to write a few thosand words about what the unreadable book means

you should in fact read it. If you just want to say 'this stinks' and be done with it, that's fine. The amount of criticism offered should be somewhat proportionate to the percentage of the product consumed.
In terms of getting on a public soapbox about something I have not seen or read, I'd not do that any more than I'd vote Republican. I consider that to be unethical. Very mush so.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

63. ok. i think that is fair. i too couldn't go on an on about something i have not read well

this is why i cant ever rant about ayn rand, because i cant get through more than a few pages of any of her books.

[redqueen]

71. Are you able to say that there's glorified, romanticized rape in Atlas Shrugged?

Would you say that, given that you haven't read the booked, you would be forced to take no position regarding said rape?

[La Lioness Priyanka]

73. in ayn rand?

[redqueen]

75. Yes, I just went back and added a link for context.

That's what kicked all this off. The fact that this ersatz writer (EL James) romanticized rape, just as Rand did.

At least Rand has the excuse that it was written long ago, when awareness wasn't what it is now.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

76. that arguments cites the paragraph that contains the rape, so yes, i would

[redqueen]

78. Thanks.

I and others have cited the rape(s) in EL James's dreck, to no avail.

In one of the books, the second one IIRC, she says, "No, please. I can’t do this, not now. I need some time, please."

His answer is "Oh, Ana, don’t overthink this" and he proceeds to do as he wants.

That's just one example.

[one_voice]

87. I didn't see the link and have read all three books...

do you happen to have the link? I would like to re-read that part.

[redqueen]

84. Then there's also the one in 50 Shades of Grey, which many have described,

in which the man breaks into her house and rapes her.

Of course many insist that because she consented later in the book, that this... magically makes his having broken into her house and raping her somehow not rape, or something. Or that since she reached orgasm and ends up enjoying the rape (and for sure that's not a tried and true sexual-violence normalizing, rape-culture propaganda-catapulting cliche or anything), that makes it magically not rape. I've lost track of the excuse-making at this point.

[newcriminal]

99. Did you read the book?

This is from the very scene that some of you are calling a rape.

Straight from my copy of the book:


"My inner goddess glows so bright she could light up Portland. He stops kissing me, and opening my eyes, I find him gazing down at me. "Trust me?" he breathes.
I nod, wide eyed, my heart bouncing off my ribs, my blood thundering though my body."......

"Oh, ...please.......Christian...Sir......Please." He's driving me insane. I hear him smile.......

I long to touch him.

"I want to touch you," I breathe. "I know." he murmurs.........

"Please." I beg, and he finally takes pity on me.
"How shall I fuck you, Anastasia?"
Oh...my body starts to quiver. He stills again.
"Please."
"What do you want, Anastasia?"
"You...now." I cry........

After they're done:

"That was really nice," I whisper, smiling coyly.



That is not, I repeat NOT a rape scene.

[DirkGently]

105. Holy carp (intended). Is that seriously it?

All this screaming of bloody murder, all of this invoking of "grad school" expertise, all this cursing and castigation and flinging of harsh aspersions upon the "real" motives" of anyone who doesn't instantenously respond with cheers and worshipful agreement to dire pronouncements of judgment of the horrific cultural impact of this minor work of pop culture whatever and THIS IS WHAT THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT? This is the part they refuse to actually read before interpreting, for the rest of the world, what this nothing book is about?

Jesus.

[Warren Stupidity]

114. Well it is awful.

That much. from the excerpts I have now been subjected to, seems indisputable.

[newcriminal]

117. I agree it's awful, but it isn't rape.

[NanceGreggs]

119. Yes, I've read these posts with great amusement ...

... the ones debating whether Ana signed a "contract" giving her permission to engage in certain acts before or after the "rape" chapter.

Do you have any idea how ridiculous it is to be looking for the "legal loophole" in the text to ascertain whether a rape was actually a rape, or consensual? Really? Would you totally change your mind on whether it was rape or not if the "contract" had been signed in one chapter as opposed to another? What about a "verbal contract", which can also be legally binding?

"50 Shades" is a bit of piss-poor erotica. It is not a legal case to be argued. Further, it is not "sexual-violence normalizing, rape-culture propaganda", or anything else of the kind.

It is a trashy bit of fluff marketed for the sole purpose of making money. End of story.

[newcriminal]

121. There was no rape. It has nothing to do with a contract.

Did you read the book?

[Capt. Obvious]

79. Maybe

I've never read Ayn Rand but I've read the Wiki entries and other synopsis of it.

My RW coworker was saying that America is already on the way to Atlas Shrugged. I howled with laughter. He was angry and asked if I read it. I said I hadn't and he responded that I can't have an opinion and that if I read it I may rethink my ways.

I then asked him if he had read Karl Marx to which he roared in laughter; and then I played the same game back at him.

[Maeve]

82. I was once asked to write a review of a book

I forced myself to read every.last.word. Even though I saw it was crap early on and it took great strength of will to force myself to the end....but I was asked to review it, so I read it all. When I told the publication how bad I thought it was, they agreed that I didn't have to write about it and they'd skip that one (and the editor thought it might be that bad).

I would NEVER look at another book by that author and probably never touch the genre. ("Christian" historical fiction of a known character, badly butchered and unrecognizable)

[HuckleB]

88. If you're doing a full critique, yes, you must read it all. If...

it's by an author you know is FOS, like Limbaugh or and of the scumbags of that ilk, you don't have to read one word. If you can't get started, you can point that out, of course.

[LWolf]

89. I think so.

Even the dreck...how can you legitimately discuss it, in whatever terms, if you didn't read it all?

A criticism can't be valid without complete information, imo. At least, not a literary criticism.

To say, "I didn't like it, couldn't get through it, it wasn't for me," etc. is more of a personal opinion than an academic/literary criticism.

There are some great books that my students would never read if they didn't have to, but they end up being glad they did. Of course, they aren't adults, and the attention span of middle school students for reading anything that doesn't keep the action racing ahead on every page is low. That's what they'll often say when they're done: "a slow start, but then I really got into it."

That said, I think that we should all make critical decisions about what to spend our valuable time reading, and if we have the choice, it's fine to give poorly written books, or books that don't engage us as individual readers for whatever reason, a pass.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

90. How much of any of Dinesh D'Souza's books or Ann Coulter's books do we need to read

in order to dismiss them as right-wing garbage?

Unless, somebody says that they are genuinely "fair and balanced", I can pretty much predict that they will blame Obama and Democrats for all of society's ills and praise Republicans and Tea Partiers for trying to save the country from the "evil" of President Obama's burgeoning Socialist tyranny.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

91. read one of ann coulter's book halfway through at a b&n. swore to myself to never be so mean

to me ever again.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

96. I want to try to be "open minded" and listen to opposing viewpoints

but how can I when the "opposing viewpoints" are so vile and venomous towards anybody like myself and claim (essentially) that we:

1. Want to kill granny (and the economy) with health care reform
2. Want to force Americans into Michelle Obama's healthy eating programs
3. Want to use the "hoax" of climate change to call for regulations that will surely cripple and strangle American business and, ultimately, the economy
4. Want to force people to renounce heterosexual marriages and gay marry under the guise of "equality" and "tolerance"
5. Want to take people's money for no reason other than to give it all to a bunch of big-government "takers" whom want to suck at government's teat for their whole lives
6. Want to allow the wanton killing of babies so that women (s***s) can keep partying and won't be tied down with a kid to be responsible for

Among other things............

[Warren Stupidity]

115. None, but I wouldn't claim that they are examples of poor writing.

Rather, having heard way too much of both, I would simply assert that they have nothing of interest to say.

[edbermac]

92. You only read one page? What book was that?

I definitely have to read that first page!

[La Lioness Priyanka]

101. not sure but i think it is The 3 Mistakes of My Life

[edbermac]

103. Maybe one of his mistakes was writing that book!

I mean if it's that bad!

[rug]

98. Yes, if you want your opinion valued.

[DirkGently]

100. Not to "criticize." To critique.

Two different things. If you're going to presume to, for example, lecture everyone on the social ills caused by a piece of writing, if you haven't read it you are not "criticizing" so much as "making things up."

I recently witnessed someone here on DU harshly lecturing another poster about the function of consent and a supposed rape in a particular book, after admitting to not having read it, and arguing that a "summary from the Internet" proved the actual reader wrong.

That's pretty hard to support.

Whereas, saying, "Wow, couldn't get any further in Atlas Shrugged than all the snotty moaning about 'parasites' " or what have you would make a certain amount of sense.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

102. i am not sure i agree on your elaboration

it seems that the person was criticizing a very specific incident in the text, which i think can be done without reading the whole text, unless you think s/he was missing some giant context clue

so for instance in a book about b/d/s/m, if a participant wants a re-enactment of a rape scenario and the lover plays out that scenario, then it is not rape. it is a consensual bdsm act.

so unless you think this person did not get some giant context clue, then they have a right to criticize the impact of passing something non-consensual as consensual.

[DirkGently]

106. But it's way more than "criticizing" the idea of the thing.

This is using Internet Snippets to scream in neck-throbbing rage that your interpretation is superior to the interpretation of someone who read the whole work.

Then, glibly equating this facile seat-of-the-pants snap judgment with careful literary analysis, THEN flat-out attacking anyone who doesn't instantly agree with the specific judgment, all while implying no one might question this without some sinister motive.

For that, yeah, read it. Read it all. Read most of it. Skim the major chapters. Don't just google a bit, pronounce your judgment and then angrily declare it unquestionable and expect nothing but agreement.

Maybe we all need to just read this piece of sh*t. Together. A post a few up from this one posits that the "scene" in question is this:

"My inner goddess glows so bright she could light up Portland. He stops kissing me, and opening my eyes, I find him gazing down at me. "Trust me?" he breathes.
I nod, wide eyed, my heart bouncing off my ribs, my blood thundering though my body."......

"Oh, ...please.......Christian...Sir......Please." He's driving me insane. I hear him smile.......

I long to touch him.

"I want to touch you," I breathe. "I know." he murmurs.........

"Please." I beg, and he finally takes pity on me.
"How shall I fuck you, Anastasia?"
Oh...my body starts to quiver. He stills again.
"Please."
"What do you want, Anastasia?"
"You...now." I cry........

After they're done:

"That was really nice," I whisper, smiling coyly.

I don't know if this is the "glorified rape" or not. If it is, it's a big fat fail. Now it wouldn't surprise if this book did glorify men subjugating women, or women subjugating themselves, or any manner of idiotic things. But I don't know, because I haven't read it. My "criticism" is that the entire premise sounds like something I would never in a million years be interested in reading.

But if you're going to explode at everyone about the horrors of something, you need more than a hint or a notion or an impression about what the hell you are talking about, no?

[Squinch]

128. "to scream in neck-throbbing rage that your interpretation is superior to the interpretation of

someone who read the whole work."

I am quite certain I never saw a post that came close to that. Could you link to the neck-throbbing rage?

[fishwax]

108. I think it depends on what kind of criticism/critique you're talking about

If you're talking an evaluative critique, I think it's fair to say that you read a certain amount and thought it was horrible and was not worth finishing. But if you're talking about an analysis, I think it's difficult to do without consuming the whole thing, because missing certain parts of it may have you missing crucial parts that would undermine your argument. That said, though, people engage in such discussions all the time, based on the work of critics/readers that they trust, and so on. So it's not that one should never engage in such a discussion if one hasn't read every page of the book--as long as it's understood that one's position is based on the expertise of others rather than personal knowledge of the whole.

That's my take, anyway.

[Liberal_in_LA]

110. hell yes, but it's ok to bail out of bad one. You just don't have info to critique it.

[surrealAmerican]

111. You can criticize all you want, but ...

... your criticism will be less informed, and less useful than that of someone who read the whole book.

[DonCoquixote]

113. mostly no, but

There are times we need to read a book rather than taste it. However, fictional works are not Thomas Pikeetty's treatise, they are not supposed to need that much initial analysis before you read them once. Potboilers should be even less in need of it...point being, if you go to amazon dot.com, and see low low low refiews of a book, chances are you will not need to duigest much. and the book that need not be named got LOW marks, when Amazon is usually kind.

[treestar]

120. No, you don't have to read every word

And the subject raised may be something else.

The subjects of BDSM would still exist without that book.

There's a scene in the book in which some say it's rape and other say it's not. Maybe reading that scene would be needed to join in that debate.

But recognizing it's about a certain thing and discussing that issue is possible to do without reading it.

Also its reviews on DU are so bad, I wouldn't read it for that reason alone. Doesn't mean I don't have an opinion on the subjects it is about.

[LittleBlue]

125. No. But your opinion wouldn't carry the same weight as someone who

had read the entire book. And if you criticize a book without reading most or all of it, you leave your opinion open to criticism from those who read it.

[Squinch]

127. Two followup questions: Do you have to read the book before you can have an opinion on

whether someone else's critique of it is valid?

Second question: If someone comments on what you "have to" do before you voice an opinion, aren't they indulging in what many here erroneously like to call censorship just before they set their hair on fire and shout about the First Amendment?

[NaturalHigh]

129. Of course not.

There have been some books where I tried and tried to keep reading but just couldn't make myself finish. I don't think it's unfair for me to say "the book was awful. I couldn't get all the way through it."

[NCTraveler]

132. "I got through one page before i declared it wholly unreadable "

That is a completely legitimate critique. Not sure why people would think you have to read every sentence. If I knew you well, knew your reading habits and I myself possess similar habits, your critique would be more than enough for me.

[IronLionZion]

134. It really depends on your purpose and what exactly you are criticizing

along the lines of post #60. Some folks have written more words than they've read, others only read someone else's analysis of the book. A lot of folks have very strong opinions.

I haven't read any of it, but am curious what exactly people are trying to accomplish? It seems like some folks are outraged by something about the book and are really outraged that others don't seem to share their outrage. Others seem to be outraged that someone is trying to get them to feel outraged. It all seems very outrageous to me.

I'm mostly an observer in this issue, mainly for the social psychology side of this discussion.

[alp227]

135. Basing an opinion on a particular work based on hearsay

isn't as strong as one based on firsthand knowledge.

[Javaman]

136. depends...

if you are going to criticize it on content or ability to write.

if it's for content, then yes the whole thing.

for a writers ability, no. one can tell usually by the first chapter if the writer is competent.

[Douglas Carpenter]

139. I have never personally read even one page of Mein Kampf - but I have a feeling its is bad

Perhaps the reputation of the author leads me to assume that? Am I being unfair?

[La Lioness Priyanka]

141. write not right and ann rice does not write horror per se. nt

[redqueen]

142. Frankenstein - enjoy your stay. nt

[dilby]

143. Tried this in High School Lit.

My teacher did not buy that I could form a position on a book without actually reading the book. You can always say, "I tried to read the book but found it to be garbage and thus did not finish it." but you can't say, "That book is pure trash, the thing is nothing but garbage and should be thrown in the literary trash bin."

[Jim__]

144. If you haven't read much of the book, you should state that in your criticism.

You owe that much to the people reading your criticism.