OnBadReviews

by Candy Monday, May 09, 2005 at 04:14 PM

I’ll admit I’m a big snotty-ass snot when it comes to reviewing books I don’t like--hell, I’m even snotty when I’m reviewing books I enjoy. What can I say? I have a surfeit of of this particular humor. Probably bile too. Or is it choler I’m thinking about? But this latest entry by Mrs. Giggles about reviews reminded me of some reviews I’ve read that have irritated me, not because--or at least not ONLY because--I disagreed with the number of stars they handed out, but mostly because the reviewers’ prejudices were made evident during the review and those prejudices just make my hair stand on end. Factual errors in reviews also bug me. Small ones can be credited to bad memory or honest mistakes, but when there are one or two big whoppers--GAH.

The examples I’m going to present are from Amazon.com, all reviews of The Ghost Road by Pat Barker, which is the last book of the Regeneration trilogy. Pat Barker is a woman writing about WWI (oh the horror, the horror, how dare she poach on such masculine territory) and all three books contain homosexual/bisexual characters, and apparently these factors together are enough to send some reviewers into a tizzy.

More,more,more!>
Picture of {name}
8 commentsTrackback Bookmark to del.icio.us Add to Technorati favorites Digg this post on digg.com RSS
Categories: Ranty McRant

Tags: This entry has not been tagged yet.

Comments

Picture of Megan Megan said on...
05.09.05 at 05:36 PM |

Oh, I feel your pain! I wish the people who felt they just had to have something to say would email a friend. Or get a life. Or something. People bringing their own barely-veiled prejudices to reviews, or comments, or whatever, are just there to hear themselves jabber. It’s not a review, it’s an ill-informed, highly subjective opinion. Of course, no review is objective, but reviewers can bring a semblance of objectivity if they truly want to help others decide if something is for them. Grrr.

Picture of Sarah Sarah said on...
05.09.05 at 05:38 PM |

First, how much must it suck to be the author and have these people dishing vitriol over her book and knowing how horribly wrong they are factually?

Second, us smart bitchypoos are not only never wrong, but we’re marvelously perfect.

Picture of AngieW AngieW said on...
05.09.05 at 06:06 PM |

Wow, I can only imagine being this author and the kind of helpless rage she must feel at the reviewers for getting THEIR facts wrong. I enjoy a good, snarky review much more than I enjoy a nice review that takes the author’s feelings into account (but I’m kind of evil that way) but I would hope that a reviewer who’s going to be snarky or just outright trash a book can at least have their facts straight.

If I was an author, I’d never read reviews, because I’d want to email every person who wrote a negative review- and especially those who got it wrong. I’d never leave my house because I’d be doing that all day. And then ruminating on how to exact my revenge. Again, did I mention I’m evil?

Picture of Maili Maili said on...
05.09.05 at 07:18 PM |

*amused* I can understand why they poo-pooed at the idea of having air raids on London during WWI. It’s one of those ‘Everybody knows that!’ assumptions. 

[I don’t understand why they would think that Pat Barker [love her trilogy, btw] wouldn’t know. She’s old enough to hear WWI stories and anecdotes from those who experienced first-hand. I’m at least 30 years younger than her and *I* heard those anecdotes myself. It’s still a living legacy, for f.’s sake.]

Anyway—here is another thing that drives me nuts:

Reviewers that praise authors’ “superb research” when *both* are terribly wrong. :D

Picture of KarenS KarenS said on...
05.10.05 at 12:30 AM |

The subject of reviews always manage to raise my hackles.  I’ve read some truly awful reviews in the past, and continue to do so.  Inaccurate accounting of a book in a public forum is unbelievably gauche, and for me personally, is completely unforgiveable.

There are two review sites in particular, where the reviewer comments always manage to make me hiss and spit like an alley cat.  The reviewers on this site constantly get their facts wrong, and let their prejudices shine through. Truly awful they are, yech!

Picture of Sarah Sarah said on...
05.10.05 at 05:39 AM |

You know, this thread gets me thinking about the reviews where Candy and I have unleashed the hounds of bad reviewdom, and I always spare a thought for the author and think, “If I’d written this book in between feedings and car pooling, or in between cooking and cleaning and working full time, and someone savaged it like this, I’d cry.”

But I also have to say that there is a lot of dreck that passes for romance out there, and one of Candy’s and my pet peeves is the idea that a publisher can slap any old flowery clinch cover on a paperback with whatever mishmash of words inside, and it won’t matter because all us romance authors are stupid illiterate cows anyway.

We write bad reviews on bad novels because they never should have passed the editors desk without revision in the first place.

Picture of Candy Candy said on...
05.10.05 at 10:35 AM |

I think it’s all right when a reviewer says something like “I HATE secret baby plots, and this book contains a secret baby plot, and it drove me completely bonkers so I bestow upon thee, secret baby book, a big old honkin’ F.” This at least displays prejudices in an informative manner, and people who adore secret baby books might pick it up and love the it.

But when a reviewer says “Women shouldn’t to write about WWI/the male psyche/male sex drives because their poor little brains just can’t handle such rigorous subject matter"--now that’s different. This isn’t helpful to the reader at all, for one, and it definitely isn’t helpful to the author--in fact, it’s basically an ad hominem attack of the worst kind. What does gender have to do with ANYTHING? It certainly doesn’t help when the attack contains factual errors on top of everything else.

Ditto “don’t read this book because it contains homosexual characters, and homosexuals are abominations.” OK, it might warn away certain types of people who can’t stand the idea of non-villainized homos in fiction, so I guess it’s an effective reader advisory that way, but really: how helpful is this particular prejudice in evaluating a book? It’s like saying “Chinese people are an abomination, so don’t read Joy Luck Club.”

Picture of Stef Stef said on...
05.11.05 at 05:42 PM |

The reviews on Amazon seem to be used for everything but actually reviewing the book.

A case in point: one of our books got a nasty review with a detailed listing by page number and line of all the errors the editor missed. Now, considering the author was also the head of the company, she immediately leapt to fix it, surprised she had missed so many.

She couldn’t find most of them. She spotted two, and neither were so glaring as to affect readability, as the reviewer stated.

So she turned it over to a proofer. She didn’t find them either.

The reviewer just wanted to trash the book, and apparently thought with a list like that, it would look more official. That said it all to me.

Name:

Email:

Location:

URL:

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Please enter the word you see in the image below: