Written today by me on the Dreamcatcher / Gestalt Real-Time site – contextualised here in the ‘Reviewing Controversies’ comment stream:
Yesterday above, I mentioned “my own evolution of a reviewing philosophy”, mustering, as I have over the last decade*, the evidence (shown publicly) of what I consider to be the optimum from actual examples and argued rationalization – yes, a rationalization together with a parallel synchronicity, rather than a cause-and-effect, derived from my personal ‘spiritualisation’ as evoked by the preternatural nature of literature itself. (I consciously use the word ‘preternatural’ rather than ‘supernatural’).
Some of the best examples of this personal approach of mine, I feel, are in my many reviews of the fiction in Theaker’s Quarterly Fiction publications themselves.
But as Stephen says or implies above, everyone must choose, within whatever strictures exist, their own way, what to adopt and what not to adopt. And, for me, this process involves us as reader and as writer and as reviewer and as publisher because, often, each of us acts in some or all of those roles concurrently within this internet-incubated hothouse we call literature or fiction or ‘genre’.
We must try to differentiate from within that unity of roles? Or we must try to unify from within those differentiations? While bearing in mind that we cannot help acting as one mind: a single, singular, if ever-evolving, belief-system?
*Longer, if you take into account my stated philosophy behind the nine ‘Nemonymous’ anthologies.
I have just posted this blog as I watch a recording of the Pixies from yesterday’s Glastonbury Festival.