ON REVIEWING A TEXT
Prof. Hazara Singh
Critical
appreciation or evaluation of a text is popularly called its review or
appraisal. A crop of such exercises is
found these days in print media.
Analysis of facts presented in a publication, manner of their
communication, authenticity of that matter and the contribution it is likely to
make to existing knowledge constitute a review. It may be objective or subjective. The former is appreciated, while the latter often gets decried.
A reviewer
should possess proficiency in his branch of knowledge. He has a four-fold obligation as well; to
the author, to the editor or publisher who seeks appraisal, to the reader and
above all to himself. Gone are the days
when the writers resorted to display their scholarship through verbosity or
obscurity without caring whether they were communicating their ideas with
clarity or not. It was left to the
imagination of readers or to be explored by critics. Such exercises taken by different persons at various times lead
the reader nowhere. An editor may
contrive to project his favorite despite the latter’s merit and a publisher is
normally led by a craze for profit. A
reviewer should not fall a prey to such manoeuvers. A reader has the right to know correctly and variedly. A reviewer ought not to take this obligation
lightly.
Just as a
judge is enjoined to be impartial, likewise a reviewer is expected to be
objective. His liking or disliking for
the author to be appraised and lack of sincerity towards the reader may not only
create an unhappy situation but harm his credibility too.
In
literature, a reviewer will be comprehensive as well as effective, if he is
proficient in more than one language.
Communication channels have vanquished lingual barriers and replaced
narrow considerations emanating from native affinities by broad-based
humanism. A writer is expected to
communicate with humanity at large and a reviewer is obliged to evaluate that
contribution for global audience. Many
societies are getting multilingual and like to read the texts in languages
other than their mother tongue. The
reviewer is expected to find out important events about writer’s life and the
influences on him. This helps in
assessing what he seeks to state.
A reviewer
in the fields of humanities and sciences should have interdisciplinary
knowledge. Otherwise he would appear to
be the proverbial frog in a well.
Before
reviewing the biography of a political person, it is desirable to find out
whether its writer is his admirer, detractor or an objective researcher. The villain for a section may be a hero for
another.
A creative
writer should not indulge in the gruelling task of evaluating the works of his
contemporaries. In the long run he
would find his exercise unpleasant as well as erosive for his natural
talent. L.S. Sisson, a well-known
American poet, who got prevailed upon
to become a literary critic echoed similar sentiments. He makes a few constructive suggestions in
this respect.
Sission
observes that a reviewer should not evaluate the book; written by a friend or
an adversary; he has not read thoroughly or understood well; and that which
does not belong to his field.
He may not
base his review on what is printed in the jacket of a book or stated in its
preliminaries i.e. preface, foreword, introduction etc. Thus, he will be either assisting
unconsciously selling tricks of the publisher or endorsing unwittingly the
views already expressed. He should also
not read any previous review of that book because he is likely to be induced either
to concur or dissent with the earlier exercises, thus diverting his attention
from the writer.
A reviewer
should not interpret the views of a writer according to his own leanings. Such an approach deprecates constructive
difference of opinion and ends often in an unproductive exercise. If a writer has already been extensively
reviewed, one should not accept to appraise that work unless something new is
to be stated.
A reviewer
is enjoined to give clear judgement about the substance of a book instead of
indulging in verbose jargon or merely summarising its contents. An editor should not accept a review
arranged by the writer himself. He will
be eroding the credibility of his paper by becoming a party to an underhand
attempt for self-projection. Such a
writer dwarfs himself too.
An
enlightened reader has a corresponding onus or obligation. He should not be influenced by rumours but
form his own opinion. So often, governments play destructive role by
proscribing a book to appease a bigoted populace or suppress disagreement with
their unpopular policies. Glory of mankind emanates from continual exploratory
thinking. A writer, and editor, the
reviewer and avid reader have a collective obligation to uphold that human
distinction.