The genre blogosphere : tangible proof that dozens of monkeys at dozens of keyboards can't produce meaningful sentences.
When taken in context, it's just a mild, general complaint about the lacking quality of some reviewing. But then I see it led to this post over at Floor to Ceiling Books. Not going to say too much about the particulars of that post (you can read it and judge for yourselves), but I do have some tangential thoughts related to some of the comments there.
Yes, people have different reasons for blogging, just as certain people have different talents when it comes to expressing in written (or verbal) form just what it is about a work that moves them so. I must admit to being somewhat bemused at seeing my name mentioned in a response, apparently as a representative of a sort of "weighty" "essay" approach to reviewing. It is odd being viewed as this sort of super-erudite reviewer, to be honest. If anything, I probably "dumb down" several of my reviews, for a variety of reasons.
What I think should be a better discussion topic than whether or not one ought to take offense at a general comment about the uselessness of certain review styles for certain readers is whether or not reviewers ought to stop "monkeying around" and taking the easiest approach to reviewing a book. There is no prescriptive approach to reviewing, but there certainly is a world of difference between a reviewer putting his/her most into a review, regardless of the chosen format, and someone who half-asses it. As an occasional review reader, I know those who seem to disengage themselves from the story being reviewed tend to be those whose reviews I disregard in the future, if I bother reading those blogs in the future. So rather than fretting about what someone thinks about a particular review style, how about y'all just write to the best of your abilities within that chosen format?