Behind every book review there are two key figures: a book review editor and a reviewer. Editors decide whether a book is reviewed in their publication, when the review appears, how long it is, and who writes the review.
When many periodicals feature the same books, this does not prove that the editors of different periodicals have not made individual decisions. Before publication, editors receive news releases and printer’s proofs of certain books, signifying that the publishers will make special efforts to promote these books. They will be heavily advertised and probably be among the books that most bookstores order in quantity. Not having such books reviewed might give the impression that the editor was caught napping, whereas too many reviews of books that readers will have trouble finding in stores would be inappropriate. Editors can risk having a few of the less popular titles reviewed, but they must consider what will be newsworthy, advertised, and written about elsewhere.
If these were the only factors influencing editors, few books that stand little chance of selling well would ever be reviewed. But editors feel some concern about what might endure, and therefore listen to literary experts. A generation ago, a newspaper used a brilliant system of choosing which books to feature. The book review editor sent out a greater number of books than reviews he actually intended to publish. If a review was unenthusiastic, he reasoned that the book was not important enough to be discussed immediately, and if good reviews of enough other books came in, the unenthusiastic review might never be printed. The unenthusiastic reviewers were paid promptly anyway, but they learned that if they wanted their material to be printed, it was advisable to be kind.
Most editors print favorable and unfavorable reviews; however, the content of the review may be influenced by the editor. Some editors would actually feel that they had failed in their responsibility if they gave books by authors they admired to hostile critics or books by authors they disapproved of to critics who might favor them. Editors usually can predict who would review a book enthusiastically and who would tear it to shreds.
The passage provides information to answer which of the following questions?
Would most book review editors prefer to have books reviewed without regard to the probable commercial success of the books?
Are publishers’ efforts to persuade bookstores to order certain books generally effective?
On what basis do literary experts decide that a book is or is not important?
What criteria are used to determine the length of a particular book review?
Have book review practices in general changed significantly since a generation ago?
此讲解的内容由AI生成,还未经人工审阅,仅供参考。
正确答案是 E:Have book review practices in general changed significantly since a generation ago。
因为文章指出,在一代之前,一份报纸使用了一个精妙的系统来选择哪本书进行宣传:书评编辑发出了比打算出版书评多得多的书。如果书评不热情,书评编辑就认为这本书不够重要,不值得立即讨论,而如果其他书评写得好,那么这篇不热情的书评可能永远不会被出版。因此,书评家们学会了更好地写书评,以期获得出版的机会。这表明,从一代之前到现在,书评实践总体上发生了重大变化。
继续补充一些:定位句只是告诉我们“有一些商业上不太会成功的书籍也是会被编辑选中,加之以评论的。”这个行为存在,但编辑喜欢,还是不喜欢这个行为,文中并没有给出更多的信息
A一定是错的,整个第二段就在讲编辑为了好的商业效果,根据出版商的推广意愿决定是否要出版书评。
B在这里:They will be heavily advertised and probably be among the books that most bookstores order in quantity.
作者说了出版商的推广会让书店PROBABLY大量购买,及出版商的推广是generally effective。
国外的出版行业跟国内的完全不一样,利润高(在国内买外文书都贼贵),而且运营非常活泛,书籍更新快,市场化程度高。他们的编辑不只是修修改改,排版校正,做的好的编辑要能联络起作者和读者,即能找到有市场潜力的作者、跟他们保持好的关系,让他们在自己家出书,又需要了解读者喜好,了解市场,避免花成本出版一本没人买的书。感觉国外几乎是个名人就会出书,一是因为出书赚钱啊,总统退休了都说要靠出书来养活自己,二是名人本身就市场关注度高,他们的书天然地有更大的可能性卖座。我猜就算他们自己没有写书的习惯,也会被编辑盯上,游说他们出书。盯着作者,催稿也是编辑的必备技能之一。有部电影《假结婚》里的男女主的职业就是纽约的编辑,可以窥见一点编辑的日常工作内容。
至于评论家的评判对作品卖座程度的影响,可以看电影《鸟人》,主角为了让自己自导自演的话剧卖座,想方设法去给那个全纽约最尖刻的影评人说好话,争取留下好印象,让她给自己的作品一个正面的评价。
不,这个a选项的错误点在于 1.文中根本没有表明prefer那个 ,压根没有给出明确的态度 2. 选项中用了一个MOST editor,文中没有evidence来支持这个most(一般看到most all only 这种词我感觉都要注意)
登录 或 注册 后可以参加讨论