Respectfully, I disagree that there is anything innocent or honest about this supposed non-review. What does that even mean? Simply as writing, completely apart from its subject, it is objectionable in nearly every aspect of good and reliable prose. I recently discovered Spatial Audio speakers and am in the throes of deciding whether to go X4 or X5. In researching the speakers, I came across this same piece. From the title of the piece on, there is a level of quasi-cleverness, disingenuousness, and self-congratulation that was off-putting to the point of rendering the piece completely dismissable. When, as a writer, you open an article claiming it isn't a review and then begin to pass judgement, however contritely or however qualified, you have essentially reviewed the product, regardless of your protestations to the contrary. Perhaps you've not judged thoroughly or well, but a judgement has been made, and that judgement has gone out to the readers, whether favorable or, in this case, particularly where speakers are concerned, damning. This writer then goes on to question the listening capabilities of two people, while congratulating himself on own sensitivity and sensibility. It is always obnoxious when one claims enlightenment for oneself and benightedness for others, even when, no, particularly when, it is couched in the false modesty of having once been among the legions of the benighted. I was blind but now I see, too bad you're still blind. There isn't one area of life in which that attitude isn't arrogant and offensive. He then goes on to list several rhetorical questions which are not questions at all but secret (though not very) declarative pronouncements on, as he perceives them, the Sapphires' shortcomings. That would be fine, or at least honest, if he'd been frank about, again, protestations aside, the fact that he was, as does any reviewer, passing judgement on the speakers. I don't care what his opinion of the speakers is - every reviewer will make his or her own assessment. What I object to is the attitude and quality of the prose. The contrived cleverness, the sham modesty, and the absurd premise (non-review - please - if you didn't want to write a review but wanted to deal with the supposed "bigger" subject, then write about the bigger subject and leave the speakers out of it - dress it up as you like, but one is irrelevant to the other), make for a species of dishonesty all too common in critical prose, so common that the writers who employ it are completely convinced they're being funny and fair and would be aghast that anyone could so construe their motives and abilities. And I haven't even touched on style. Pardon my French? Are you kidding me? And, please, if you're holding yourself up as a professional writer, it's center on, revolve around. I apologize if this is too unfriendly for the forum. I considered just leaving it alone, but reading the piece again got me incensed. Not on the speakers' behalf, about which I haven't enough experience to judge, but on behalf of honest prose and critics and criticism everywhere.
