on reviewing

[ewein2412]

I’ve been thinking a lot about what makes a good review, and what makes a bad review - I mean, what makes the review itself good or bad, regardless of the reviewer’s opinion of the book. It’s kind of stopped me reviewing books myself this year because I’ve become so much more aware of the power of the reviewer and his or her effect on the author. And I’m not really sure I want or deserve that power. (I stopped giving star ratings on Goodreads a couple of years ago for exactly this reason.)

So here are a few observations I've saved up over the last few months which I’m planning to apply to my own reviews in the future, if I ever get brave enough to start writing them again:

1) I will never qualify my reaction based on other people’s. My reaction to a book is mine, not what my friends think. If I don’t like it, it may be the author’s fault; it may be my fault; but I can’t blame the ‘hype,’ which has nothing to do with the book itself. (‘Don’t believe the hype. Believe the hype.’ Taking sides on book hype??? Since when is ‘hype’ part of the review process?)

2) If I don’t finish a book, I’m not really qualified to assess its overall success or failure - I can only comment on my reaction to what I actually read.

3) Even if a book bores me out of my brain, I will never again use the B word in an online review. Not only is this a powerful turn-off to other readers who may not be bored by the things that bore me, it is also extremely damaging to writerly egos. Which leads me to number 4…

4) I am aware that the author WILL PROBABLY SEE MY ONLINE REVIEW. And I am also aware that there’s a good chance I will meet her someday, and we will have to be nice to each other. More than once I have had an author turn up unexpectedly on my blog and thank me for a review, or elaborate on something I didn’t understand. I’ve occasionally done it to other reviewers myself. Knowing that the author will read my review shouldn’t stop me from applying legitimate criticism or stating my own personal reaction to a book, but it should make me think carefully about framing my argument in a fair and diplomatic way.

5) I fact-check things I doubt in a book before I accuse the author of anachronisms or whatever. Because she probably knows more than I do, and if I falsely accuse her of errors, I’m just spreading ignorance around cyberspace.

6) I will never, ever apologize for liking a book.

7) Also, I am no longer ever going to say ‘I am surprised’ at how well-received a book is. ( I do this all the time.) I am not the ultimate arbiter of taste. If a book does not push my buttons (or pushes the wrong ones), I am not going to disparage the several thousand other people who enjoyed it by implying that they are tasteless morons less elegantly discerning than me.

There you go, my meta-review.

Comments

[j-cheney.livejournal.com]

All good points. I rarely review either, mostly because I'm not a good reviewer and I know it.

Publication Process: Choices...Long? Short?

[livejournal.livejournal.com]

User j_cheney referenced to your post from Publication Process: Choices...Long? Short? (http://j-cheney.livejournal.com/545189.html) saying: [...] __________________________ And here, BTW, is Elizabeth Wein's excellent commentary on Reviewing [...]

[eattheolives.livejournal.com]

Excellent points. I love love love interacting with authors (like you!) on goodreads/twitter/LJ but that has made me a lot more aware that - gasp - they probably see what I write about their books. It's been hard to decide how to be honest without hurting any more feelings than necessary.

I'm definitely guilty of the commenting on the hype/lack of and the whole "I'm surprised" thing. =P

[ewein2412]

*grin*

My last book was published in 2008 and it's really blown me away what a difference there is between then and now in the amount of interaction that goes on between authors and readers. The thing is, it's SO EASY to get in touch with people. It's doubly easy if you're an author yourself, because other authors take you that little bit more seriously when you approach them.

It's so much more rewarding than just sitting there wondering what people think, but you do have to be thick-skinned sometimes - and remain gracious.

That's a good word, gracious - *grace* is what I strive for.

[elvenjaneite.livejournal.com]

I totally agree with eattheolives (which is not surprising, as we are friends). It does make me even more aware that when I write a review, especially a negative/dubious one, I need to be very clear about how much my reactions are shaded by my own issues/concerns. Which isn't to say that what I'm seeing is necessarily invalid but, for instance, a fantasy version of Russia is going to have to work very hard to convince me that the author really understands the country.

Reading back over this, I think it's a slightly different point than you're making, but oh well. :)

[ewein2412]

well, I certainly haven't covered ALL the points you could make about reviewing, and after I'd amassed my collection I realized it wasn't even a good look at the process of reviewing - just a bunch of random observations. But yes, what you're saying is true too, and some books jar me because I know too much about the subject or whatever.

[eattheolives.livejournal.com]

Having authors more accessible has made writing and writers less mysterious but much more appreciated, if that makes sense. When I get to see glimpses into an author's life and/or craft it's like, "authors are people too!" And realizing that "Author" isn't some high position full of wizardry and magic makes me appreciate all the more the hard work that goes into a book.

(Especially one like CNV what with all the historical detail, bendy plot twists, the unreliable narrator, etc. It looks like magic, okay?)

So this is me saying thank you for interacting with your readers. ♥

[ewein2412]

I love interacting with my readers! So you're WELCOME.

I quite like the idea that I am part of the demystification of authors movement, partly because I remember what it was like to meet, say, Susan Cooper or Alan Garner or Ursula LeGuin and go all stupid and shy. When really what you want to do is show them how wonderfully much you appreciate their work in a way that no one else can, so that they will be your best friend forever.

I am much better at being brazen with authors than I used to be.

[elvenjaneite.livejournal.com]

I met Sarah Rees Brennan awhile back and was literally so shy that I lurked behind a bookshelf before I got up the courage to say hello. And then she was totally sweet and welcoming, but...yeah. :)

[ewein2412]

so LAST NIGHT turned up a couple of tweets from Hilary McKay, who is absolutely my favorite contemporary writer, saying that she'd read CNV and loved it - the tweets were not addressed to me and I was too shy (and THRILLED) to "favorite" them! (though I am following her tweets now.)

Which is to say, things have not changed all that much.

[elswhere1.livejournal.com]

Oh! Oh! Oh! What a wonderful thing!

Yes I find I am just as shy and tongue-tied as before when I'm already starstruck by someone's writing before I know them online. But it is interesting and helpful to read about people's process and such.

[katranides.livejournal.com]

I think one of the perks of getting older is becoming more brazen.

[ewein2412]

actually I show a ton more of my decolletage now than I did when I was 20.

[3rdragon]

I agree with you on point 1 -- but I am also aware that my reaction to a book is often informed by what other people think. Not so much what people on the internet think, but what my close (and book-trusted) friends think, and how they communicate that to me, because I know that there have been times that I've been more inclined to react favorably to a book because a close friend has told me about it -- and there have also been times when I was disappointed in books that came highly recommended, because I was judging them not on their own merits, but against the TOTALLY AWESOME AND AMAZING imaginary book-construct that my friend's description led me to imagine. (I don't have any great examples off the top of my head, but I know that I did this to myself with the first Firebirds, because Sharyn November was putting it out and it had a great lineup of authors and just look at that cover (okay, I STILL really like the cover, have you noticed?), but the fact of the matter is that I rarely like short stories as well as novels, so short story collections are much more likely to disappoint me. And it was just . . . okay, not great. (I did like it much better on a re-read, when I was expecting okay-but-not-great.) And I liked Firebirds Rising much better because the precedent led me to have low expectations. (It may also me a better collection, or at least more suited to my tastes.) I was terrified that vorindi wasn't going to like CNV because I'd been talking it up for over a year by the time she finally read it, and I wasn't sure that ANY book could live up to the standard I was setting.)

I wonder if the predisposed-to-like-it effect is more common when my friends tell me the reasons they like the book ("It's space opera with lots of interesting alien cultures" or "The protagonist is a lady blacksmith who can throw you across the room as soon as look at you.") and the falls-short-of-expectations effect is more likely from generic gushing about how wonderful/incredible/awesome/amazing this book is and how much I will love it.


Which is not to say that book reviews ought to be written out of either of those headspaces.

[ewein2412]

What you say is all quite true, but I personally am TERRIBLY predisposed to be judgmental if the book is getting a lot of hype. I get all suspicious and nitpicking. I am trying really, really hard to let go of this and just read the damn book already (whatever it is).

[3rdragon]

Ah, yes. I don't do exactly that, but I've been known to leave off reading books for years because they were too popular. (Really, it's a good thing that I read Harry Potter before it got big (ditto Hunger Games), or I might STILL be holding out on it.)

[ewein2412]

I am also quite grudging about paying for new books that I know are already bestsellers. Which is both perverse AND mean. I am trying to squish that particular character flaw too.

[3rdragon]

Well, I'm grudging about paying for books at all (not that authors shouldn't be able to make a living off their work, but I still don't have a job. That's what taxpayer money is for, right? Schools and libraries? (And maybe also things like garbage collection and fire departments and repaving the roads)), so I can't exactly talk.

[ewein2412]

That is absolutely what libraries are for!

[ewein2412]

which reminds me that I need to go download a couple of books to my Kindle because I really HAVE to read them before I meet the authors in about three weeks!

[katranides.livejournal.com]

You might think of sharing this with Linda Holmes. She talks about reviewing and all that jazz.
I like sharing my opinion, but I know I don't have as informed an opinion as others. Plus I'm too lazy to write it beautifully (I'd much rather just edit someone else's writing), so I just do the stars thing. Like I said, I'm lazy.
Elizabeth, would you rather get nothing from a reader than stars?

[ewein2412]

hmm, well, I think I'd rather get nothing than one star out of 5. So if you're not going to give me a whole handful of stars, and I have to choose between some or none at all, I guess I'd rather get none.

Of course that doesn't help other readers much!

Sometimes, when a person reams my book but doesn't rate it, I feel so grateful - and am always impressed with the maturity of person.

[ewein2412]

the thing is, as a reader I don't trust other people's star ratings anyway. If a book's a runaway hit or someone's friends have all come along and loved it up or someone's having a bad day, the ratings on amazon or goodreads go all pointless. I read the reviews to see what people are actually SAYING about it.

[resoundingjoy.wordpress.com (from livejournal.com)]

Hmm, I have lots of thoughts in response to this.

I try not to read Goodreads reviews of books until I've finished the book. I do read the summaries, and I may read what a friend has said about the book, but I usually avoid the "popular" reviews of a book until I've read the book and at least started my review.

I also post reviews on a Wordpress blog, and I have had two encounters with authors through that format. The first was regarding a book that I found shaky in its premise at best and misleading at the worst, and I said as much in the review. I received an angry comment by the author, who defended her statements and choice of title for the book, and implied that my professionalism was at stake for having criticized her choices. I thought that her defensive reaction only proved my critique of her work, but I politely responded, saying that this was my opinion on my blog, and while I appreciated her response, I stood by my review.

The second was the author of a book that I really enjoyed and found to be very well-written; she found my review praising the book, and thanked me for my comments.

So I think that the way that authors respond to reviews, both praising and critiquing their work, is pretty telling. I've seen other social media debacles where authors get into comment wars or review battles on Goodreads, Twitter, etc. Taking the high ground with these almost always leaves a better impression than degenerating into argument in the comments a la Youtube, or trying to combat poor reviews by recruiting friends/agents to boost reviews.

All that said, I do try to write at least a short explanation of why I've given a certain number of stars on Goodreads. I feel lazy adding books but not reviewing or rating them. I do tend to qualify my reviews by saying that this is my personal opinion, and the fact that I didn't like a book does not mean that the book was poorly written or that other people wouldn't like it.

[ewein2412]

the angry responses from authors seem like they can ONLY be damaging. I have, a couple of times, LONGED to correct reviewers who have accused me of getting things wrong when I've specifically checked - but I have refrained from engaging, and often another reader will provide the correction (I love it when that happens). Once on Goodreads I was so incensed I told myself I'd just TYPE a visceral response into the comment box and not send it - I'd just let myself have the satisfaction of TYPING it. And a little Goodreads flag popped up advising me that it was a bad idea for an author to respond to a negative review! Wow. Good for Goodreads.

[rachelmanija.livejournal.com]

I know a lot of people who have stopped writing book reviews because they're afraid of hurting the author's feelings or of having authors get mad at them, and they feel dishonest if they can only write 100% positive reviews. I find this saddening.

All else aside, if people stop reviewing, then it becomes even harder for the books without a large publicity budget to find an audience.

I'm glad you do still plan to keep discussing books.

[ewein2412]

Well, I find that saddening too. And of course, I really ENJOY reading negative reviews of books that I didn't like - or, conversely, defending books I DID like.

I sure am not advocating people to stop reviewing. I just feel sort of frozen about doing my own (I am sitting on a MINEFIELD of books by people I know... and I just can't talk about them. heh.)