Monday, March 31, 2008
Book reviewers
I've long held that since we're all human it is virtually impossible to be 100% objective at all times and this came to mind after reading two very divergent reviews of the new book out by Melody Peterson sarcastically entitled Our Daily Meds. OK, so her whole premise is the pharmaceutical industry is greedy and gets dubious drugs to market before proper and thorough studies are done and once on the market lobbyists for these corporations strongly ply doctors to dispense them more and more and yada yada yada and do we really have chemical imbalances in our brains and what about all these potentially serious side effects to the most popular drugs and...well you get the picture, hers is not an uncommon position on the drug industry. Now the first review I read was very positive and called it important work but the second one was just the opposite and pretty much dubbed her part of the anti-medical progress crowd which brings home the point our biases are brought to bear on everything, ditto for movie reviews of films dealing with controversial topics, think Michael Moore. The point of today's blog is not my own personal position on the meds situation though I do tilt towards her position that we are a vastly overmedicated society but how we review and critique things we may strongly disagree with (or even agree with for that matter) which kinda got me thinking are book and movie reviews worth reading and considering in the first place? In an artistic sense isn't a review of anything literary or cinematic that may be loaded with social and political themes simply a reflection of ourselves and our own moral certitudes and pieties?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Human nature I think is always at work and so you are probably right, it is impossible to be totally objective. I often think about this idea when it comes to judges, they are suppose to be impartial but they are humans afterall.
ReplyDeleteMy favorite though is the msm which still tenaciously clings to the position that they are the very exemplars of objectivity and neutrality in their day to day news reporting, it's as if they're saying they ain't human like the rest of us. Do I think FOX News has an ever so slight veering off to the Right? you betcha but with all the leftward bias of the rest of the msm I merely see it as a counterbalance and don't get all that upset about it like that lib Eric Alterman. Impartial judges, now there's a fantasy for ya but after reading those two reviews of that meds book I came away with the conclusion that the first reviewer simply agreed with her all along while the second one didn't and found things to nitpick about which begs the question "what does it all prove?"
ReplyDeleteI suppose it's like if we don't mention that there is bias, then we can all pretend there is none.
ReplyDeleteTo tell the truth, I don't read book reviews, but I have often read a book recommended by a friend.
ReplyDelete"I often think about this idea when it comes to judges, they are supposed to be impartial but they are humans after all."
ReplyDelete& that Circuit Court Judge down in Florida, George Greer, the one who presided over the bulk of the Terri Schiavo case, has been an avid advocate for euthanasia for years, even gave speeches to right-to-die groups after the case. How could such a judge even be allowed to preside over such a tragic and controversial case? instead of being a judge and being expected to render fair verdicts he'd be better off as a commentator pundit or lobbyist imo, but one example.
That is a perfect example!
ReplyDeleteNow people might accuse us of grinding that subject into the ground, how many years ago was it they will say, but judges who rule in cases like this are troubling to say the least, I mean how could Greer as a right-to-die advocate even remotely be considered to be impartial and even to rule in the Schindler's favor? Imagine if he were a RTLer all along, the libs who accuse us now of not letting the subject go would be all over this!
ReplyDeleteNo doubt they would be.
ReplyDeleteAnd they would say they have a point just like we say we have a point. They'd say things like do we want our judges going to Right to Life marches? Now if this is valid then our point is valid too which raises the point, how many other so-called right-to-die cases are already pre-decided?
ReplyDeleteYou know these thoughts would have been great to post over at Hannityland but you could say I'm no longer a member there.
ReplyDeleteDouble standards on the judge thing, and as for Hannityland, do you miss it?
ReplyDeleteI miss it in the sense that I still try to follow it from time to time but the tattle-tale forum makes the place virtually impossible to enjoy yourself and be yourself there. It'd be like if you were at a party and you told a slightly off-color joke or said something even mildly un-pc and the host (that's Lee) throws you out on the front lawn, I mean we're grownups, we're all mature a-dults here aren't we?
ReplyDeleteIt would be great if you did go back, you always did a great job at the Hannity forum.
ReplyDeleteWhat, does Lee have lifetime tenure there? can't we just vote on him or something? why don't the mods hand out surveys asking how they're doing? I'm a dreamer ain't I?
ReplyDeleteNothing wrong with being a dreamer, Z.
ReplyDeleteI was reading about the late William F. Buckley's memorial service the other day at St. Pat's and Henry Kissinger quoted from a letter he wrote him in which he said "we have to bang hammer blows against the bell jar of the dreamers to get them back to reality", aw come on, let us dream a little more.
ReplyDeleteEverything in moderation, right, Z?
ReplyDeleteExcept love, you can never have too much of that, or give too much of it.
This is what the rationalists don't get, as you just said love is an exception to our moderation credo. All the classic songs say the same thing, love is a drug:
ReplyDelete"you're the only shoe that fits/
I can't imagine I'll grow out of it"
"to dreams that never will come true/
am I strong enough to see it through?"
the fems certainly don't get it, only ask a woman at work out once and once only, that ain't living in z's book.
Any woman who has ever told you no, in my opinion, lost out big time.
ReplyDeleteEven Freud couldn't figure women out. They're far flirtier when they're young, get a bad marriage or two under their belts and you have the emotional baggage thing going. Supermodels always say they want an average sensitive guy so who do they go out with? Leo DiCapricio, I mean DiCaprio.
ReplyDeleteWell I'm not young, but I have been holding back the flirty comments.
ReplyDeleteWell you're an exception of course but I think these older women be in a rut.
ReplyDelete