Reviews - Are they worth reading any more?

[Michelle]

I don't mind reading negative reviews, as long as the reviewer explains a little why. And I do expect to read a little politeness.

[Freewheeling Andy]

For me the critical point between giving a fair judgement and pointless attack, to use your nice terminology, is the arguments used. If you can argue your case, provide resoning for your opinion (even if it's just to say the long and winding text bored you so much you fell asleep), then it's a fair judgement. If you just slash out, then it's a pointless substanceless attack.

 

But, for example, I think that Ian McEwan writes tiresome, insufferable tosh. It's wet, effete, nothing happens, and it's written solely for hyper-literary book reviewers and has no value to real people.

 

Some people (hyper-literary types) might view that as a bit of an attack on them. But I think his writing style is entirely tailored for that tiresome, self-congratulatory, inner circle, where the writing is about writing, and is written in a way writers will get all excited about, and has no real value in telling us either anything about the world, or in providing any plot to be interested in.

 

That could seem to be an attack on the readership, and on people who like Ian McEwan (and, frankly, it is an attack...). But it's also a criticism, and one that I feel stands up. I think "robust" others will think "personal attack", and it's a bit of both. Where is the dividing line.

 

I mean, sometimes I want to write "People who enjoy reading this kind of useless verbiage should be sent to Karelia to eat nothing but moss" about some books, but it's patently not a worthwhile review, and is just a satisfying spleen-vent for me as reviewer.

[Guest ii]

While I cannot say if I agree or disagree with your view on McEwans work simply because I haven't familiarised myself with it, that review of shorts that you just gave me raised one question in my mind. "why? what in it makes you say so?" Maybe, had I read his works, I'd know, whether I like his style or not, that's irrelevant, I'öd still know. But, as someone who hasn't read anything by him yet, that's not helpful as it doesn't say "why". Do you get where I'm going? (I've done two accounting exams today, my brain is angry at me so I'm not overtly confident over my ability to make a point.)

[Freewheeling Andy]

Criticism without back-up is just a random attack.

 

If the criticism without back-up comes from someone whose tastes I trust and who is reliable, it may seem like a random attack to you, but may be useful information to me.

[Philip Stein]

But, for example, I think that Ian McEwan writes tiresome, insufferable tosh. It's wet, effete, nothing happens, and it's written solely for hyper-literary book reviewers and has no value to real people.

 

Some people (hyper-literary types) might view that as a bit of an attack on them. But I think his writing style is entirely tailored for that tiresome, self-congratulatory, inner circle, where the writing is about writing, and is written in a way writers will get all excited about, and has no real value in telling us either anything about the world, or in providing any plot to be interested in.

 

"The writing is about writing, and is written in a way writers will get all excited about" - and this from a man who's a big fan of The Debt to Pleasure!

 

That could seem to be an attack on the readership, and on people who like Ian McEwan (and, frankly, it is an attack...). But it's also a criticism, and one that I feel stands up. I think "robust" others will think "personal attack", and it's a bit of both. Where is the dividing line.

 

I agree it's both. As someone who 'quite likes' McEwan I don't mind though. Both he and I are big enough to take a bit of intelligent, if caustic, criticism. If I wanted to defend him I would say first that it if it is written "solely for hyper-literary book reviewers", then it magically appeals to a much wider range. On Chesil Beach sold over 100,000 copies in hardback, even before it was on the Booker list, which are sales most popular novelists would envy. As for having "no value to real people," well, I suppose it's possible that all 100,000 who bought it didn't like it, but even if that is the case, well, hyper-literary book reviewers are real people too!

 

As to my original comment, I wasn't aware of any tribal divisions here and didn't intend to stir up old anomisities (if that's what has happened). But I did mean to refer to this forum specifically. I can't cite examples (and wouldn't want to anyway) but it is an impression I gained when browsing here. Maybe it comes from the fact that, as Michelle has said in her sticky message the other day, most of the books discussed here are genre or popular fiction. Maybe fans of those books have a greater sensitivity to criticism than fans of Ian McEwan because they know that their favourite reads aren't typically respected by hyper-literary book reviewers and their nefarious offspring, and tend to have an inbuilt defensive response as a result? I'm just speculating.

 

And to whoever offered to buy me a drink: I'll have a Sex on the Beach please. With extra Chesil.

[Guest ii]

If the criticism without back-up comes from someone whose tastes I trust and who is reliable, it may seem like a random attack to you, but may be useful information to me.

 

Assuming we're still talking about reviews provided in public forums, such as Amazon or this forum, for example, that's not a very reliable method. Yes, for that one person you knows you you may be giving a useful review but noone else. And someone's review of that type is of no use to you, unless you, by chance, happen to know that person.

[Freewheeling Andy]

All reviews are inevitably subjective, though. And you can "prove" all kinds of things with a couple of judiciously chosen quotes, too. So I'm much happier to accept recommendations, and trust reviews, from people who have a previous good track record matching my tastes, whether or not there's a rigorous defence of position.

[Guest ii]

So basically for you a good review is a confirmation of your likes, no?

[Freewheeling Andy]

Assuming we're still talking about reviews provided in public forums, such as Amazon or this forum, for example, that's not a very reliable method. Yes, for that one person you knows you you may be giving a useful review but noone else. And someone's review of that type is of no use to you, unless you, by chance, happen to know that person.

 

Absolutely right. Which is why I generally find the democratisation of media and publishing that's come from the internet means that those kinds of book reviews are inevitably less reliable than ones from more traditional sources. A site like this is better because you become increasingly familiar with contributors and know who's likely to enjoy books that you, too, like.

 

(oddly, the McEwan is a counter-example, as people who are almost inevitably reliable also like McEwan for some unfathomable reason).

[Philip Stein]

I think I know what Andy means. Say for example he finds he agrees with you, ii, on most books you write about here. Then if you keep a book list as some on here do, and give a book a high rating without commenting on it, then he will maybe look into that book as one that he might like too: even though you haven't given reasons for your rating.

[Freewheeling Andy]

So basically for you a good review is a confirmation of your likes, no?

 

A good review, in the sense that we're generally describing here of the "should I buy this book or not", rather than the more literary sense, is one that informs me enough about the book. If the review is coming from someone who despises Murukami but loves Henry James and JRR Tolkien, I will treat the review with an awful lot more scepticism.

 

So, to an extent, yes. A useful review, in these terms, comes from someone who has similar tastes to me. Or, at least, someone whose tastes I know and can trust, and whose judgement I can trust.

[Guest ii]

Oh, I understand what he's saying, Philip. And I agree. I do that too! Both ways. I give books to my friends and say "you'll like this" or soemthing like that.

 

BUT that's not, in my view, a good review, is it?

[Freewheeling Andy]

"The writing is about writing, and is written in a way writers will get all excited about" - and this from a man who's a big fan of The Debt to Pleasure!

 

Er. Point to you. But, at least, that has plot, fun, humour, and playfulness. Rather than just dreary tiresomeness where the sole value is in the writing itself, and the turgid plot is almost completely redundant.

[Freewheeling Andy]

It's not necessarily a good review, I agree, ii. But I'm talking about the value of a review to me, rather than, necessarily, the quality of the review.

[Philip Stein]

A review is about the book, not solely the reader's opinion of the book.

 

Oh I don't know; is it possible to separate the two? My experience of reading a book is ultimately about me as much as it is about the book.

 

As well as forums there are a lot of book blogs out there. On the down side, they're really one-way traffic when it comes to book recommendations. On the plus side, you can really get to know a reviewer's tastes quite well so if you find a blogger who shares your tastes, you can keep an eye on what they read. Take dovegreyreader for example; her reviews are very personalised and not particularly rigorous in terms of analysis, but seem to be very effective as a recommendations tool, at least judging by the comments on her blog.

[KW]

When someone you know well recommends a book, ( if your tastes are similar ) perhaps THAT review carries more weight than the review by someone you don't know at all.

 

It's smart to read a handful ( or however many you need ) of reviews before making your decision to buy.

 

Even then, unless you read a sample ( like on amazon's INSIDE THE BOOK PROGRAM ) you may not get a taste or feel for the writing and if it clicks with you.

 

There is a reviewer here in the US: Harriet Klausner. She has her name on practically every book listed on amazon. Her reviews are all the same...synopsis followed by milk-toast and enough sun to create a nice, ambiguous review so to speak. So, I know when I go to a page seeking a review before I buy, I don't take her words into consideration.

[Maureen]

I agree wholeheartedly with this. I know for a fact there are people who read my (albeit, brief) reviews and if I rip into a plot device I dislike - usually coincidence, deus ex machina or a contrived romance - people who like the book or everything by this particular author take it personally and it's got to the point where they've even started b!tching about me!

 

 

 

Where, prospero?

[Echo]

I think one thing to always keep in mind is that book lovers often look upon their favorite books as friends or companions. We often have an emotional attachment to our books. I know how weirdly irrational that sounds, but it's true. I am one of those crazy bookworms who hates to see their favorite books get blasted by someone else, and if the person criticizing it is using strong language or even profanity, I feel like it's one of my friends being horribly insulted. I'm not saying this is a rational response, but emotions are rarely rational and it's always a good idea to see where someone else may be coming from.

 

I am trying to control myself in this regard, though. The last thing I want to do is pounce on someone for simply speaking their mind! But a little sensitivity is never a bad thing, either.

[Guest ii]

That is a good point you're making, Echo, about the personal attachment. We have it to the oddest things. I have a gorgeous vintage Chanel skirt suit that used to be maman's and which I got altered to fit me. I love it. One of my friends hates all Chanel suits (I'm sure you know the kind I'm refering to, the classic one), and she launched once on this huge tirade over why their absolutely horrible, especially the old ones. Now, of course I was upset about that. I love Chanel suits and especially the vintage things from maman and grand-mère.

 

But, she made a well-argued points. She reasoned why she doesn't like them. So is the problem with her, or with me?

 

The way I see it, a good review (which, in a way this opinion of hers over Chanel suits was) is argued and reasoned. There's proof of why you're saing these things. I read a book some years back that I still remember, because it was so bad. It's was absolutely hideously terrible! Why? Because the language was clumsy and childish, the plot was weak and didn't hold, there was no substance in the characters or the story and the jokes didn't make me laugh. Now if someone gave a review like that and I took offence, I'd see it's my fault I'm getting upset.

 

Of course it's important to live with the stories we read, the fact that we feel so strongly about them is the very reason they're worth so much to us as human beings. But these strong emotions go both ways! Someone loves something, someone can't stand it. We need to remember to allow others the same freedom of emotional response to a story that we have, whether we like their response or not. As long as it's backed up with reasoning.

 

I'm rambling, I know. I'm still with my first cup of coffee. Sorry.

[Echo]

I guess it's just the attacks that don't seem reasonable that bother me. When I write a review of a book that I hated, I still don't blast the book and use foul language. I give very clear reasons why the book wasn't for me, but I don't get overly emotional about it. But the books that I love stay with me forever. I grew up kind of lonely, and I remember my favorite books as I would old friends...they were all I had. That attitude toward books has stayed with me, and I know I'm not alone there.

 

I guess I just don't see any reason to use such insulting language when reviewing a book. I don't use it when I review books I didn't enjoy...it just doesn't seem necessary and if feels disrespectful, like I'd be not only insulting the book, but its readers.

 

Well, I did write a review like that once because the reading experience was so horrendous for me...I was ANGRY when I finished the book, it was so bad! LOL! I still didn't use profanity, though.

[Guest ii]

But that again would lead into a long and wide discussion on how to define insulting language. Saying "the language was childish" is insulting to some, yet to me, for example, it's a positive statement, not normative.

 

(In case people get confused, I've adopted the use of terms 'positive' and 'normative' from economics, where positive is of stating a factual fact, like "the inflation is 2.3%", and normative has a judgement in is, like "the inflation is too high".)

[Echo]

Like everything then, including literature, it's up to the reader to determine what makes it worth reading. For me, one that is informative and gives an honest opinion, but without being insulting or too flowery, works best for me, and those are also the reviews I try to write. When I'm writing a review, I have the potential reader of it in mind, and I'm trying to help them in their choice of what to read by giving them my honest and respectful opinion.

[Guest Sedgewick]

There is a reviewer here in the US: Harriet Klausner. She has her name on practically every book listed on amazon. Her reviews are all the same...synopsis followed by milk-toast and enough sun to create a nice, ambiguous review so to speak. So, I know when I go to a page seeking a review before I buy, I don't take her words into consideration.

Oh, she's hilarious, isn't she? Three paragaphs standard that read almost as if just taken off the cover of the book. The others in her trail are just as bad. I did love that someone responded to Grady Harp with "Keep your pen hot, Grady!" as a comment on one of his gazillion billiion daily reviews.

 

But Amazon reviewing also has a darkside, and the example that springs to mind is that of Deborah Anne MacGillivray, a romance author who formed a clique of likeminded witches and went around review of their books reporting all reviews of their books that weren't five stars. It got to a point where she criticised an Amazon reviewer for not understanding her intention - as if it's the author's business once the book us public - and, on the mailing list she ran, going as far as to get details of the reviewer and her family. That's bad.

[Echo]

Wow. I guess that goes back to another point we were discussing...whether we need to be super-sensitive to the feelings of the author. But being a published author means dealing with bad reviews...I'm sure they ALL get them from time to time. As long as a review is respectful, insightful, and gives an honest and in-depth opinion, what's to complain about?

[Guest Sedgewick]

Wow. I guess that goes back to another point we were discussing...whether we need to be super-sensitive to the feelings of the author.

Not at all. They put their books out there. Everyone's approach to their book is different, therefore some will cry brilliant while others label it a stinker. No harm done. Bad publicity is still publicity.

 

But in the case of MacGillivray above, it's the sheer abuse of the Amazon Reviews system. Authors shouldn't be getting involved in that. It's the mistaken belief that anything other than a perfect five stars could harm sales.