Book Review...

The Curse of the High IQ

Personally I give little credence to what reviewers or other readers have to declare about a given book. I would much rather enter into reading a book blindly or with only a brief preface as to the direction an author intends to lead their narrative. This allows me to read a book in a way that is akin to fitting a frame around a portrait rather than trying to fit a portrait into a given frame.

With that said, many people use reviews in order to inform them as to the merits of what they might be interested in reading. They use reviews as a sort of quality control for the books they are considering investing their valuable time and money. In doing so they may avoid investing in books that would prove to be unsatisfying, or they may choose not to read something that would actually prove elating had they gone against the reviews. Their results end up being dependent upon their interpretation of the reviewers. So what about the reviewers?

Many contemporary reviewers have backgrounds in Nazi-grammatical tactics, agenda-conforming assessment-criterion, and antiquated comparative consensus measures. They tend to praise books that resemble previous works they've been taught to appreciate, and demean the works that differ from these standardized methodologies for assessment. In doing so they place the emphasis not on the ideas presented or the style used to project them, but on adherence to conventional grammar and application of contemporary tropes and techniques.

The result of these reviewing methods in a marketplace driven by reviewer standards has been a homogenized and redundant collection of books that fail to stand out, fail to engage readers, and fail to advance the craft of writing. This in turn leads to a market that is increasingly diminished, antiquated, and inevitably doomed to become irrelevant. Judging by the ever declining number of readers and decreasing sales volumes of books it would appear that this or at least something has alienated the market.

In response to this negative trend I began to think of what other standards I would use or recommend for reviewing literary prospects. I soon thought of someone that had already proposed a method for assessments in a related field. When asked what he looked for in evaluating musicians Miles Davis named only two criteria. The criteria were that a guy's gotta have ideas and he's gotta project. This method of evaluation proved to be useful time and again as Miles successfully changed lineups, the course of social music, etc.

It would seem reasonable to consider using this method for evaluating other art forms as well. In using this method to evaluate a literary work I might choose any number of titles. Considering the books that I have read most recently and that might be especially poignant I proposed to review Aaron Clarey's The Curse of the High IQ.

Aaron has written and self-published a number of books, and I've enjoyed all of the selections I have read thus far. In full disclosure, it was for this reason I sent Aaron a copy of my own novel, which he has been graciously endorsing on his own accord. If you look to the right of this post you will see a section of links to Aaron's books that is featured purely out of appreciation and admiration.

While I have enjoyed Aaron's works critics have routinely discounted them for grammar/conventions, lack of conformity to their own ideas, &c. The same predictable critiques have been given for his latest The Curse of the High IQ. However when evaluating Aaron's latest book in terms of its ideas and projections it would appear to me that the prototypical critics are missing more than the grammatical errors their teachers would be proud to know they've found.

Aaron's works are marked by an informal/conversational use of prose to convey the author's perspective on topics that are predominantly expected to be treated with a technical/academic tone. The result of this method of writing in The Curse of the High IQ is perhaps more defiant of standard reviewer expectations than his previous works. Reviewers expecting an essay format to this book will find a more editorial tone, and those that presuppose an editorial format will discover a more organized and empirical presentation of ideas.

In this book Aaron addresses various aspects of how having a high IQ can be disparaging from the vantage of his own personal experiences with respect and reference to various studies, statistics, and other data. The book is not a mathematical proof to validate his claims beyond the point of scrutiny, nor is it a mere ranting of unsubstantiated opinions. What this book does do is present an interesting perspective that proposes what someone with a high IQ might experience, how it may impact their life, and what actions such a person might consider as a means of coping with these conditions.

Clarey's books do not merely demand readers conform to his vision, but challenge them instead to determine the validity of his claims, the personal relevance of his ideas, and how they will ultimately respond to his proposals. In this book Clarey challenges the reader to consider the nature of how their IQ may relate to society, and encourages them to make the most of their life despite any inherent difficulties they might experience. Because of Aaron's use of informal language the book is able to allow the reader to relate to the author in a way that is more autonomous than the autocratic dependency induced by textbook lexicon and less dismissively than typically associated with editorial styles.

If you find typical reviews to be consistent with your own personal taste, and would rather read grammatically/politically correct content then this book and method of review will not be of much use to you. However, if you can abide the occasional typo and are more interested in ideas of how having a high IQ may relate to various aspects of contemporary existence projected in personal/informal prose then you may find The Curse of the High IQ to be a bit of a blessing. In any case, I'd advise you make up your own mind- regardless of the standard or deviation it is consistent.