This is a satirical piece I wrote a couple years ago. I posted it in the roundtable because I'm not looking for critique. I just like to share this with other writers to maybe spur some discussion about writing and reviewing. Enjoy. Or not. It still gives me a chuckle.
The Machiavellist’s Guide to Literary Review
Peer review has been listed as among the greatest tools for improving technique. The act of reviewing itself, albeit tedious, has been described by many writers as a useful practice bested only by writing itself. You must disregard these shameful lies if you are ever going to break away from this pack of bottom-feeders we call “colleagues.”
In order to become a skilled reviewer, one must be practiced in the art of sabotage. This being a literary digest, and we separated by great distances, physical sabotage like stealing the writer’s computer or breaking his hands is somewhat out of the question. The ambitious reviewer may certainly take these methods into consideration. The rest of us will need more practical tactics.
The most efficient weapon in a reviewer’s arsenal is the writer’s own insecurity. Let’s face facts; us writers are a pathetic lot. We are incredibly apprehensive, and we overcompensate by pretending to be intellectuals and artists. Outwardly, we are guarded, distant, and pretentious. Inwardly, we are scared, lonely folk with no real purpose. We write for no other reason than to attain recognition in order to build our confidence so we may one day be productive members of society. The skilled reviewer can utilize these shortcomings to his or her own advantage.
Contrary to popular belief, the reviewer’s purpose is to break down the writer’s confidence by writing misleading reviews and comments. Any line of text that is poorly written, contains grammatical errors, and/or spelling mistakes should be praised, or at the very least, overlooked. Conversely, each line of text that flows beautifully and appears to trump even your best work must be derided.
For instance, given the line “I was at the store and my foots falled off,” the reviewer will write, “Beautifully stated! The imagery of both of your feet falling off simultaneously moved me to tears. Pure Shakespeare!” On the other hand, if the reviewer was to read, “Before she could protest, I pressed my lips to hers, enveloping her perfect, supple body in my arms,” the reviewer must ignore the inherent beauty, meanwhile focusing on any clichés. It might help the reviewer to state that this passage comes off as pretentious and wordy. Do not be afraid to emphasize your extreme displeasure. The point here is to discourage the writer from trusting his God-given talent.
If you follow the preceding guidelines as you are reviewing your fellow writers’ works of mediocrity, remember that you are infinitely better than them. Do not let their inferiority stand in the way of your success. Instead, simply debase their works, thus eroding their tenacity to carry themselves forward.
The Machiavellist’s Guide to Literary Review
Peer review has been listed as among the greatest tools for improving technique. The act of reviewing itself, albeit tedious, has been described by many writers as a useful practice bested only by writing itself. You must disregard these shameful lies if you are ever going to break away from this pack of bottom-feeders we call “colleagues.”
In order to become a skilled reviewer, one must be practiced in the art of sabotage. This being a literary digest, and we separated by great distances, physical sabotage like stealing the writer’s computer or breaking his hands is somewhat out of the question. The ambitious reviewer may certainly take these methods into consideration. The rest of us will need more practical tactics.
The most efficient weapon in a reviewer’s arsenal is the writer’s own insecurity. Let’s face facts; us writers are a pathetic lot. We are incredibly apprehensive, and we overcompensate by pretending to be intellectuals and artists. Outwardly, we are guarded, distant, and pretentious. Inwardly, we are scared, lonely folk with no real purpose. We write for no other reason than to attain recognition in order to build our confidence so we may one day be productive members of society. The skilled reviewer can utilize these shortcomings to his or her own advantage.
Contrary to popular belief, the reviewer’s purpose is to break down the writer’s confidence by writing misleading reviews and comments. Any line of text that is poorly written, contains grammatical errors, and/or spelling mistakes should be praised, or at the very least, overlooked. Conversely, each line of text that flows beautifully and appears to trump even your best work must be derided.
For instance, given the line “I was at the store and my foots falled off,” the reviewer will write, “Beautifully stated! The imagery of both of your feet falling off simultaneously moved me to tears. Pure Shakespeare!” On the other hand, if the reviewer was to read, “Before she could protest, I pressed my lips to hers, enveloping her perfect, supple body in my arms,” the reviewer must ignore the inherent beauty, meanwhile focusing on any clichés. It might help the reviewer to state that this passage comes off as pretentious and wordy. Do not be afraid to emphasize your extreme displeasure. The point here is to discourage the writer from trusting his God-given talent.
If you follow the preceding guidelines as you are reviewing your fellow writers’ works of mediocrity, remember that you are infinitely better than them. Do not let their inferiority stand in the way of your success. Instead, simply debase their works, thus eroding their tenacity to carry themselves forward.