Ruth Franklin Q & A

       Prospect is running a series of 'Critical thinking'- Q & As "about the art of criticism", and in this month's installment David Wolf has An interview with the literary critic Ruth Franklin.
       Among the interesting observations, the difference between reviewing for The New Republic or The New York Review of Books, and The New Yorker ("more of a general circulation magazine") -- and her explanation:

When I first came to the magazine I remember reading one long piece that was ostensibly a review of a new edition of Coleridge. In fact it barely mentioned the book at hand. I asked James, why doesn't the book come up ? And he said, well it's not really about the book. At the time I was really puzzled by that -- I thought, how can we run a book review that isn't really about the book ? And of course a lot of people will say that's exactly what's wrong with the way magazines like the New Republic and the New York Review cover books. But it's simply another method of criticism. It's not about telling the reader what books to buy but rather telling him or her how to go about thinking about books. It's about the reader's education.

       Sorry, I don't buy that -- why the switch and bait ? If what you're presenting is "not really about the book", then why dress it up as "ostensibly a review" ? I have no problem with pieces telling me: "how to go about thinking about books" -- bring 'em on ! -- but don't dress them up as reviews, okay ? Thanks.