Is it unreasonable to criticise a book without having read it?

[NumTumDeDum]

I have in mind 50 Shades of Grey as an example here but I suppose it could be any piece of writing - daily mail articles, political books.

I've read reviews of 50 shades, almost all those I read criticise the subject matter, the style of writing and several express a view that they wish they hadn't bothered to read it.

Can't remember why it came up but dp reckons you can't criticise something unless you've read it. Now normally I might be of that view, but in this case, I'm satisfied that particular book is a pile of shite. I refuse to read it. AIBU?

Depends on whether you trust reviewers and how your present your opinion.

Trusting reviewers because you find them insightful, helpful and have occasionally been able to test their view on something you have read or seen is fine.

Saying 'it is clearly a pile of poo' and supporting that by saying that it's been made clear to you as a number of reputable reviewers who you find generally reliable have said so, is fine.

Quoting bits of review as if your own opinion and pretending to have read something you haven't, which is not what you are talking about, is not ok.

I have not had to read 50 Shades or anything by Dan Brown to know they are poo, for different reasons. I did have the misfortune of reading somthing by Jodi Picoult, mega poo.

Of course you can criticise a book you haven't read - but it doesn't make you look very bright.

You can say that everything you have read leads you to believe it would be crap and therefore you aren't going to read it... but you can't actually say, with any authority, 'It is crap'.

Malenky, Lolita is one of the best books written in the English language - trust me, you are missing out not reading it, even if it is an unsettling read.

That's ok, I shall continue to miss out.

Agree, oxfordbags.

And most serious reviewers would agree.

This is a sad case of potential readers losing out on a fascinating read through hearsay.

It was the same with ^We Need to Talk About Kevin.*

Brilliant book, challenging subject. So many people say 'Ooooh bit I couldn't read THAT.'

Go on, I dare you. And if you hate it at least you've got an authentic argument against it.

There are quite a lot of brilliant books in the world though. Why not shrug and give up on the ones that have a premise you think is horrible?

YANBU

My friend was given the 'Shopaholic' books as a gift. She read them and said they were crap. I said, I could have told you they were crap. I've seen the cover, read the blurb, the basic premise etc. I haven't read them, because they are crap.

Of course there's loads of books we can criticise without reading. I own quite a few crap books that I happen to enjoy reading, but they are still crap.

I read Lolita for university, thought it was horrible. The writing made no impression on me at all.

I had to do close reading on the bit at the beginning where he talks about her name. My supervisor got us to look at how he makes you think about the sounds as if you are tasting her name in your mouth.

I'm sorry but it makes me feel a bit sick.

I can see it is great writing, but sod it, there are lots of books in the world and I'll read one where the plot doesn't make me feel ill. If other people want to read it for the great writing, fair play, but I suspect everyone, if pushed, has some plot or other that they'd just not be interested in reading, no matter how classy the writing.

Ah. I absolutely make an exception for foil-block or pink books.

Or indeed anything predictably formulaic.

And yes, with finite reading time, it makes sense to hedge your bets.

You still might miss a belter though.

I have not read Mein Kampf (sp sorry don't do German?) but I would criticise it as a book which is intended to incite hatred.

Mein Kampf would probably have been a better example for my op. It raise questions then about whether it is morally right to read it. I wouldn't want the contents widely disseminated precisely because I understand it does incite hatred but I can't categorically say it does unless I read it. Although, I am more likely to read that in order to better inform myself about the propaganda than I am to read 50 shades.

I have to conclude I would be unreasonable to criticise 50 shades without reading it, but the sheer volume of poor reviews leads me to believe I wouldn't enjoy it. Other things though, such as Mein Kampf I'm less decided on.

Mmm. I think it's fair enough to say MK incites hatred without reading it!

These days its cultural significance is so pronounced, even if you got a copy where the entire text was replaced with 'kittens are nice', carrying it around would probably stir up a fair few tensions.

I was about to say YABU because to criticise something you should be informed. However, I've just realised I've spent the last 12 months criticising 50 Shades (I wouldn't read that tripe if you paid me) which I've never read because I read an extract which was in a magazine which demonstrated the atrocious way it was written, I decided not to waste my time. It irritates me how, just because a million women jumped on the bandwagon (oooo it's about sex, how very taboo!), it became a 'must read'. So, I've changed my mind...

Hmm, generally unreasonable to criticize a book before you've read it, but I'm totally for criticizing the context that places this book as a must read for all women and guys if they're with it and grooving. Hip, hip hooray for Dacky stating the 'truth' about academic writing...what a freakin farce - it ain't true if it ain't published so where for any new ideas? But then if you actually follow through on the references of the published academics and read the original texts, which can often be merely a review of previously published texts, it allows for a great deal of 'mythology' to become a truth. Or the original text is carved up and placed in a context that suits the author. Prob different thread, but amazed that this academic process is so little questioned.

I get put off books with hype. Never read 50sog, Harry potter or the davinci code. I will judge them though!

YANBU I know Fifty Shades is shite because it is on sale in the supermarket and, with the exception of Marian Keyes, I would never read any books on sale in the supermarket. My mother told me not to read We Need to Talk About Kevin; Freud would have a field day with that one I'm sure . Since then I have read a couple of Lionel Shriver novels and I think she's great, so Kevin is now on my list. Sorry Mum!

I hate people who criticise something they haven't read/done/seen

At least give it a try if you care enough to criticise it!

Btw I have read all three 50 shades books and do think they're total crap, but I have drawn thAt conclusion through experience

Of reading the books that is, not bondage experience !!

I wouldn't really talk about books I hadn't read.

How can you judge something you haven't looked at yourself?! What a silly way to think/be.

If someone asked you to cut the beaks of ducks because it's fun, would you feel unqualified to say it's horrible until you'd given it a shot?

That's an entirely redundant counter-argument, Malenky. The intricacy and volume of information in any given text cannot be compared to something like maiming an animal, it's nonsensical.

I'd be uncomfortable about criticising a book in depth without having read it.
I could say why I thought that it wasn't a book for me, but if I said x was a pile of shit, what would my response be if they replied 'Why?'

I managed to get a whole degree out of criticising books I had not read so I think it is ok :)

I definitely think you can criticise and refuse to read a book on moral grounds.