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 suggests which of the following about book review readers?
They pay careful attention to reviewers’ biases as they read reviews.
They disapprove of book review editors who try to influence what their reviewers write.
They use book reviews in order to gauge whether a book is likely to endure.
They expect to see timely reviews of widely publicized books in the periodicals they read.
They are usually willing to search in several stores for a highly recommended book that is hard to find.
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 D。文章暗示读者期望看到大量宣传的书在他们阅读的期刊上得到及时的评论。文章指出,出版商将会特别努力推广这些书,它们将进行大力宣传,而且很可能成为许多书店大量订购的书籍。因此,读者期望在他们阅读的期刊上及时看到这些重要书籍的评论。
一定要记住,rc里面的句子都不是单独的,总是和上句或者下句产生一定的关联。
“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. ”这句是信息点,谈到了readers,但是它的作用要连着上一句和下一句看:”They will be heavily advertised and probably be among the books that most bookstores order in quantity. “”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.“上一句在说这些editors推的是畅销书,在大多数书店都能够找到,they指代的是其上一句的new releases;下一句则是对推荐popular&new releases的一个让步。
总体来说,意思就是editors选择去review的是before publication的new&popular releases→new对应的是timely。
错选了E,不是读者会去不辞辛劳地寻找,而是editors不能够冒让读者受累去各个店找的风险(要不然谁看?)。这里有一个先后顺序需要把握——reviews对读者的影响(噢这本书推荐我跑很多店也要去买书)?读者本身的特点(我本来就是从periodical看最新推荐畅销书)决定什么样的reviews被发出来?而且感觉文章的意思有点:商业化前景好(各个店都有卖)就highly recommended 不会hard to find?
纠结了C(虽然也是waste of time)但这一段完全没开始谈endure的问题……害。。。。。。
登录 或 注册 后可以参加讨论