One of my favorite writers is Russell Banks. Continental Drift and Affliction both reflect blue-collar male malaise in the late 20th century better than almost any other books I can think of. They are scary, real and sad.
Today his new book The Reserve was reviewed in the New York Times. I am not going to repeat any of the review here. It's possible that this book does not live up to his earlier work. Clearly, Banks is writing about a different sort of person than the blue-collar guys in his earlier work; the book is set in a different stratum of society.
What I want to pursue here is this? Should a reviewer feel he/she owes the public the same sort of critique a newspaper editorialist owes the public when he/she finds out a politician is corrupt. Because I feel this is the sort of review I read today. Should words like cheesy be used? Is this civil language?
How far is going too far for a reviewer?