Categories: Random Musings
Tags: This entry has not been tagged yet.
by Candy • Thursday, August 04, 2005 at 03:24 PM
Some pretty interesting discussions going on today about whether writers reviewing other writers constitutes conflict of interest. Another interesting bit of the discussion is whether reviewers who are slammed for their reviews should take it lying down, and whether honest reviews do anything for the credibility of the genre. Blame HelenKay for starting it all. Other pertinent discussions are going on at Monica Jackson’s blog, Lee Goldberg’s blog, Shannon Stacey’s blog, Alison Kent’s blog, Booksquare and Riemannia.
OK first things first: Writers reviewing writers, is this a conflict of interest?
I think it depends on lots of things. The genre of the book. Whether the reviewer has an axe to grind with that genre. Whether the reviewer has an axe to grind with the author he’s reviewing. Lots of things.
Do I think an author can review another author fairly? Absolutely. I think Tod Goldberg did so for Rainbow Party, for example, and I think Wendy and HelenKay have done so on their Paperback Reader website, even if they’re so damn wrong about The Real Deal. (Because in my world? I am always right, and therefore, the answer to “How badly did The Real Deal suck?” should always be “Massive, unwashed, hairy, sweaty donkey balls, my dear.” And yeah, I’m STILL the only person on the Internet that I know of who’s written a negative review of this book. It’s so hard to be the arbiter of all that is good and right and tasteful, but I do try.)
(By the way, if you can’t spot the sarcasm in the last parenthetical remark, I suggest you try harder.)
I mean, seriously, if I wrote a book, and it sucked massive donkey balls (or even smaller, more moderately-sized donkey balls), I could only DREAM of getting a negative review as polite and measured as what is dished out by Wendy and HelenKay. I’d probably cringe a lot more at the thought of being reviewed by someone like Mrs. Giggles, but if it’s funny… I forgive a lot if it makes me laugh.
Another excellent critique of an author’s work by another author? Those of you who have been with the site from the beginning can probably guess who and what I’m going to bring up now… Mark Twain’s “Fenimore Cooper’s Literary Offenses.” God, I love that essay.
Have other authors reviewed other authors unfairly? Hell fucking yeah. Curtis Sittenfeld’s NYT review of Melissa Banks’ The Wonder Spot, for example, struck me as unduly disdainful and rather suspect, given the squeamishness she displayed about chick lit. Jennifer Weiner rips Sittenfeld a new one in a very entertaining manner for that review.
But I’m not going to automatically write off all authors as reviewers simply because they’re authors. As with most things in life, I prefer to look at this on a case-by-case basis. Dismissing all authors as unreliable reviewers would be like dismissing Christian biologists simply because they believe in God.
And now, on to the other thing that interests me: should reviewers whose reviews are reviewed take it lying down?
That depends. If the reviewer did a shitty job in the first place, then yeah, she should take the lumps. (Again, ref. Sittenfeld, Curtis.) If the reviewer reviewed the book fairly, and the review of the reviewer’s job was also fair, then I would call that grounds for an excellent reasoned, passionate debate. But then I’m one of those freaks who enjoys a good debate.
But if the reviewer reviewed the book fairly, and the review of the reviewer’s job was NOT fair (like some of the e-mails David Kipen received regarding his review of Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, or some of the hate mail Mrs. Giggles receives), then shit, gloves are off baby. Let’s see some fucking BLOOD. Or at least some really, really good snarque.
As for whether honest reviews do anything for the credibility of the genre: I sincerely believe they do. Honest discussion--brutally honest discussion, even--can only do good. People who refuse to review any books except those they like are, in my opinion, lying by omission. Honest reviews and discussions are one step, and a small one of many, but it’s something.
By the way, just in case you’re wondering: I don’t particularly think Smart Bitches is doing anything for the credibility of romance one way or another. For one thing, it’s pretty hard to take a website with “Bitches” in the title seriously. For another thing, we’re way too potty-mouthed and irreverent for us to improve the image of romance for sticklers. For another other thing, Sarah and I set out to have fun and make some noise, not have some kind of impact or carry some kind of message, unless that message is “We like to use the words ‘balls,’ ‘ass’ and ‘fuck’ a lot.” Well, OK, we were pretty tired of how goddamn polite people in the romance community were, with the glorious, bawdy exception of Mrs. Giggles, and we were also tired of the misconception of how romance readers are teh stupdi. This is to clear things up for Shannon, who seems under the impression we’re doing this for the traffic. The traffic and the readership we currently have is a major, major bonus, mind you, and I’m not complaning. To this day, we’re mystified at how any of youse stumbled across us, ‘cause we sure as shit didn’t bother advertising our presence, just kept posting our snark and shaking our heads at the people who Googled “Dominican bitches” and kept finding us instead. We’re glad you’re here though, even if you initially came here for the Dominican babes.
That should be part of our slogan. “Smart Bitches: Come here for the Dominicans, Stay for the Man-Titty.”
I wonder this every time this discussion comes up: does this conversation happen in any other genre but romance (I also wonder if I could say ‘this’ anymore than I just did)?
I’m not asking disingenuously, I’m really curious. Because romance writers have this directive to play nice, and that includes reviews.
So does it happen elsewhere?
I don’t see why people would take a review less seriously because it was done by a writer; I’ll have to check out those links to see what the problem is. I can understand the questions if the writer is a friend of the author whose book is being reviewed, a relative or some such connection, but otherwise can’t imagine what’s the BFD.
Candy said on...I wonder this every time this discussion comes up: does this conversation happen in any other genre but romance (I also wonder if I could say ‘this’ anymore than I just did)?
Good point. I’m not sure I’ve seen it happen anywhere else. The SF community, from the little I’ve seen, seems pretty brutally honest with each other. If they want to rip another person a new one, they do it. And I, for one, don’t think Vox Day denigrated female SF writers because he’s threatened by the shelfspace and popularity they enjoy; I think he did it because he’s a grade-A misogynistic asshole.
I don’t know why so many people seem to assume that negative reviews of a romance novel from a romance author automatically mean the author was jealous or attempting to eliminate the competition. Unless the author has shown herself to have clear conflict of interest (author whose work she reviewed ran off with her husband 3 years ago, whatever), I tend to assume she spoke negatively of a book because she thought it, well, sucked.
I go with the “innocent till proven guilty” model, I guess.
Actually, and damn me for not saying this before to avoid double-posting (apologies!) in the publishing world, as far as I know, it’s incredibly common place for authors to review other books. Check the bottom of the review and there’s usually a little endnote in italics telling you which books the reviewer penned. It’s not only done in mainstream venues--newspapers, journals, magazines--but litblogs as well.
SB Sarah said on...“Smart Bitches: Come here for the Dominicans, Stay for the Man-Titty.”
If we don’t put that on a shirt, we should be beaten about the head and shoulders with a long wet noodle.
Also, I don’t know what it is about the romance genre that inspires such peculiar standards as to who can review whom. I think it’s a function of women’s society, as so very many of the writers of romance are women. Women, as a generalized statement, are not taught to compete fairly and leave the competition in the venue, whereas men are taught to compete in specific arenas, and then leave the battle on the field, so to speak.
As a result, I think that there is some degree of inability to see past the reviewer’s gender to the contents of the review itself. If two male writers have a knock down drag out battle, it’s not such a big deal, is it? But if two women, say, if Candy and Lucy Monroe have words over Candy’s review, then it’s a damn shame that Candy was mean and attacked Monroe’s story. There is definitely a gendered aspect to this problem of “writers reviewing writers” that needs to be examined. I’m not sure I can articulate a fully-reasoned thought on that.
Actually, and damn me for not saying this before to avoid double-posting (apologies!) in the publishing world, as far as I know, it’s incredibly common place for authors to review other books.
Yes. Yes it is. Some people still think it’s bad practice and suspect, though--and they’re entitled to their opinion, of course.
Me? I still say, “It depends.”
Oh, and don’t apologize for double-posting, Arethusa. God knows I do it often enough.
And Sarah: Yes. I think there’s definitely a gender thing, a whole “But you’re a sister in romance, how can you say mean things about my book?” mindset. Girls are generally brought up to be nice, and when you get a very large community of women, you get this weird undercurrent of “Oh, we all have to be nice, but we’re about to explode because there are things we don’t like, so we’ll kind of whisperwhisperwhisper about the not-niceness instead.”
This is especially bad in some Chinese communities, where you fuck up, people get pissed off at you and refuse to tell you, and alla sudden you’re persona non grata but you have no friggin’ clue how you got there.
Ahem. Not that I’ve experienced anything like that, going to an all-girls’ school and all that. (Again, let’s play “spot the sarcasm!")
Anyway, I usually prefer for things to be up front. That way, if there’s nastiness ahoy, then I can take appropriate measures--grovel, fight back, whatever.
My opinion on it being (seemingly) Romance-specific: We’re all supposed to be proper and polite ladies, and supportive girlfriends, and nice to each other. Like a frikken Tupperware party, man. But we ALL KNOW that girls are far, far, faaaaaaaaaar more vicious than men could ever dream of being.
So you better be a good girl. Be nice. Because if you aren’t, we all just know you’re not being honest - you’re just being a mean little catty bitch.
Gads, I love girls. See how totally iron-clad self-protective that is? We’re artists!
Excerpt of what I responded on Shannon’s blog, since insinuating that we’re in it for the traffic is just bizarre:
[B]efore AAR, before SBTB, before PW, were there that many sites that reviewed romance novels fairly? Weren’t the majority of sources the types of reviews generated solely to provide a cover blurb, similar to fake or small-market movie reviews that exist solely to create a quotable excerpt? [W]ho was reviewing romance criticially, other than editors and agents? Who was saying, “I hate this plot device and find it insulting and denigrating to women to have the hero rape the heroine” for example.
It isn’t like you could crack open the NYT Book Review and find a discussion of Nora Roberts or Julia Quinn. Some newspapers might have offered reviews of romance novels, but even then, such as the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, would offer it in a tone that suggested disdain or obligation to satisfy the beach-reading needs of the women readers.
So in the end, it seems the role of critic fell on the readers and the fans of the genre. We know what we want and we know what we like, and we want to be able to say so.
Moreover, if this were any other genre, would this be a debate?
Candy - Yes. Yes it is. Some people still think it’s bad practice and suspect, though--and they’re entitled to their opinion, of course.
Me? I still say, “It depends.”
As to that I’ll just paste what I said in answer to someone else on Alison Kent’s blog:
There are certainly advantages and disadvantages to having authors review other authors, in the same way there are for non-authors who, for example, may not be able to provide the insight an author can. My view is that neither trumps the other, and the opinion that non-authors are “unbiased” is naive: all of us approach a book with our own biases, they’re merely different ones.
Don’t most ‘art worlds’ deal with this situation to varying degrees? The difference is that in writing, many go on penning books, or essays, or engaging in some sort of writerly pursuit well into old age, so there isn’t a huge resource of definitely retired writers one can mine from (unlike sports, dance, music etc.)
I was not implying you did this for traffic. What the hell do you need traffic for? Are you selling something I missed? I was saying that the success of your blog, with your frank and snarky treatment of romance novels, might inspire somebody else to attempt the same in order to achieve your level of traffic.
Shannon, I was responding specifically to this part of your post:
There’s a big difference between not liking a book and discussing certain aspects of unnamed problematic book, and dragging a fellow writer’s book through the mud publicly....
The motivation for doing such a thing? I’m a cynic, so my first reactions are always 1) traffic. Look how fast The Smart Bitches shot into the stratosphere of must visit blogs with their frank and honest dissection of romances, which spark controversy and discussion.
I thought you were saying that our decision to discuss controversial issues and write controversial reviews was for the attention it garnered, that we were only being frank and honest because it got us increasing pageviews.
Rinda said on...Interesting subject and I’m taking it slightly off topic, but this was unbelievable.
Did you guys ever see this? Review of a book followed by some well, see for yourselves. The last email is rough.
Rinda: holy mother. That is some harsh smack right there.
Thanks for the clarification, Shannon. From the way the sentences were juxtaposed, however, it certainly seemed as if you were implying that we were doing it for the traffic.
And commercial reasons aren’t the only reasons people want loads o’ traffic to their website. For a lot of people, it seems to be an ego issue. For all you know, we could be attention whores.
Which would make another great tagline, by the way. “Smart Bitches: For All You Know, We Could Be Attention Whores.”
Anyway, I’m genuinely sorry for the misinterpretation. I will strikeout the sentence from the article.
<<“Smart Bitches: Come here for the Dominicans, Stay for the Man-Titty.”
>>
Oh I don’t know. This tagline made me choke on my Baileys and coffee. I want the t-shirt. (Well, as soon as I figure out how to explain “man titty” to my eight year-old son.)
And yeah on that harsh smack. Didn’t believe it was real the first time I saw it.
I’m sure I’m showing my hormones by saying this, but I have been pondering the last few minutes about my previous bouts of worry that an author whose book I didn’t like would come out of the lurkdom and rip a strip off me. Do I worry that Emma Holly is going to pay us a visit, see that I didn’t like The Demon’s Daughter and be personally hurt? And then take Candy on an all-expenses-paid trip to the caribbean because she gave it a good review?
Heh. I’d be so excited for her and I’m approaching the time when I can’t travel anyway.
But I am aware that there is a real person behind these books, a person who wrote and revised at 4am while I was sleeping. So if I don’t like a book, it’s not like I’m going to say, “I didn’t like it because I could do it better.” And I’m not going to attribute it to the writer’s politics or the way she wears her hair or something like that. I spend more time pondering the reviews of books I didn’t like than I do the books I enjoyed because I ask myself, “Is this fair criticism? Or am I just being a wonky bitch?”
Because hey, I’m hormonal and growing larger by the minute. Wonky bitch it a total possibility.
However, bottom line, if I were a writer as well as a reader/reviewer (and I am a writer, just of nonfiction prose, not fiction) I’d ask myself the same questions. And isn’t that part of building a fair review?
I’ve been following this discussion since I saw the posts starting popping up last night. I’m an aspiring romance writer, and most of publishing background as been in the form of reviews. I’ve recently added reviewing books to the list of items I review. So I was quite interested in all this discussion.
I feel honest reviews, even if they do share the bad of a book, are better than reviews that gloss over the bad and only praise the work. I see reviewing a part of journalism. A reviewer’s responsibility is to the public. Honesty doesn’t translate to harshness either. A review can be honest while still discussing the points of the book, or whatever is being reviewed, both negative and positive.
Rhinda - you made my day. No one ever told me to “enjoy my miserable life” so I must not be too nasty. Yet.
Candy - I continue to be concerned about your negative attitude toward THE REAL DEAL, anything by Linda Howard, your knocks on Jayne Ann Krentz - really, we are two seconds from “tak’n it outside” as the boys would say. Next you’ll say you don’t like Susan Elizabeth Phillips...oh, wait.
And, next time I will spell your name correctly, Rinda. My apologies. I’m sensitive to the name thing since people keep calling me Helen and IT’S NOT MY NAME. Yeah, Lee Goldberg, I mean you. For heaven’s sake, man, we’ve emailed back and forth. You got it right right half the time on your newest entry. What’s up with that?
Sorry...I’ve been fuming about that all day.
You know what I like best about you Smart Bitches? You aren’t fucktards. Thank god somebody online can find their ass with both hands.
No worries. It’s a weird name. Means giant in Norse. I’m five foot ten. Go figure.
Glad it made your day. That site should be given out to all new reviewers. Be prepared for scary people who say… what was it? “You’re so inconsequential that it is like you simply don’t exist.” And that’s not even the worst of it. Ouch.
At least your name means something. Mine means my parents couldn’t figure out whether to name me Helen or Kathleen. Gee, thanks guys. This has been a lifetime of fun.
At least your name means something.
HelenKay, be grateful your name doesn’t mean “beautiful duckweed.”
Chinese parents can be SO motherfucking cruel.
Don’t most ‘art worlds’ deal with this situation to varying degrees? The difference is that in writing, many go on penning books, or essays, or engaging in some sort of writerly pursuit well into old age, so there isn’t a huge resource of definitely retired writers one can mine from (unlike sports, dance, music etc.)
That’s a good point, Arethusa. Here’s another point on why I think sports analogies for reviewing and writing are flawed:
Bookselling isn’t a zero-sum game.
Look, if the Knicks are playing the Lakers, there can only be one winner. If the Knicks win, the Knicks win. There’s no half-winning, 79% winning, whatever in sports.
Not so with selling and buying books.
If Suzanne Brockmann’s sales decrease, that does not automatically mean more people are buying Nora Roberts or Merline Lovelace.
This is especially true of authors who review vastly different genres. If John Updike’s sales decrease, that doesn’t mean Stephen King’s sales will shoot through the roof.
So the whole competition thing? Not so sure I buy it. I’m not saying that authors can’t be jealous and/or feel competitive just because they’re competitive cusses and write catty, mean reviews because of this, but it does mean that I don’t discount an author’s opinion on another author’s work the way I would if, say, Shaq started dissing a basketball player from a rival team.
You aren’t fucktards. Thank god somebody online can find their ass with both hands.
Who are the fucktards then?
Shit, I have PMS, but I adore snarkiness, as much as I hate snottiness. I find it borne from insecurity. Snots are eager to put others down for being stupid. SB’s aren’t snotty and I think that’s what makes them cool.
I worry that a new romance critical review bandwagon could be based in snottery too. Honest reviews are useful for the readers and thus good, but what’s all this stuff about elevating a genre where some of the crappiest, cornballiest writing reigns supreme and is beloved by readers (and their $)?
It is starting to reek of snottery. Meljean’s latest post gives a link to SF snottery regarding fantasy. Do you want that sort of schism in romance?
Honest reviews are useful for the readers and thus good, but what’s all this stuff about elevating a genre where some of the crappiest, cornballiest writing reigns supreme and is beloved by readers (and their $)?
Well, that’s like saying “You’re bleeding to death and you have several broken bones. Sorry, we’re not going to try and patch the bleeding until your bones have healed.”
I can’t do shit about the crappy-ass writing that’s flooding the market (and this is true about EVERY genre, though because romance is the biggest genre, the raw amount of crap overwhelms). What I can do is provide honest discussion--honest discussion that’s still somewhat rare in the romance genre, though thank God it’s changing every day. You do what you can with what you got.
Meljean’s latest post gives a link to SF snottery regarding fantasy.
You talking about the quote by China Mieville?? That doesn’t sound snotty to me…
Ah, dammit, here’s a point I want to make that I wasn’t sure was very clear in my previous post: Providing honest reviews/discussion is a very IMMEDIATE step someone can take. Changing the face of a genre? That takes time. Look at how long it took before rapist heroes weren’t the norm any more in romance....
What is a review, and what is its function? Do readers really use review sites to decide what they want to read?
There are a few snarky sites that produce very entertaining opinions (you Smart Bitches and Mrs Giggles leap to mind) but I don’t really consider those reviews. They’re entertainment, pure and simple. Readers may peruse those reviews to see the latest on-dits about their favorite (or least favorite) authors, but I venture to say no one factors La Giggles’s diatribes into the decision to pick up a particular book.
Every book has its audience, however small. Doesn’t anyone but me look at reviewers as having a responsibility to readers, to steer those who will like the book toward it and others away?
Reviewers appear to feel their reviews must take the form of critical analysis. Maybe this is because it’s a lot more difficult to carefully word a review to attract the book’s audience than it is to pick the book apart. And I mean a LOT more difficult. It takes time, thought and talent. Most of the reviewers I see on the web don’t even try to help readers find appropriate books. Just how useful are their reviews?
Interesting topic. Gee, didn’t I say that before here? Must be a trend.
Keep up the good, snarky work!
Shit Monica, if you want to insult me you’ve got to do better than snotty. My family calls me snotty, for god’s sake.
While it’s entirely possible that I meant my statement as compliment to the Bitches without subtext, there’s no need to insult anyone’s intelligence and pretend otherwise.
So who are the fucktards? Well let’s start with the person who threatened HK and then anyone who laid out ill reasoned arguments for authors playing nice.
While I understand what you’re saying about dollars speaking loudly, the thing is, I am a reader. I plunk down a lot of money for romance novels. And I’m sick to death of the poorly written crap that’s passed off to me as something I’ll buy just because I buy romance.
And because of that I want to see things change.
Rinda, that link is amazing. The review itself seems harsh, but the logical fallacies in Sue’s responses are mind-boggling. She contradicts herself numerous times, too.
Who is saying that you need to do differently? Honest review sites should provide honest reviews of the books they choose to review. How can they do more?
I was referring to the article that China pointed out how hard SF writers were looking down on fantasy writers for not being as “good.”
It would be a shame if the schism widens between some romances considered “good” by certain critics and other romances, that many readers also love and buy in numbers, are considered stupid and less worthy--as fantasy is considered by some hard SF readers.
A lot of romance readers don’t think their romance is bleeding to death! They like it like that!
If folks start delving into romance snottery, they will start elevating themselves because they’re smart enough to know what’s “good” which by definition makes the other “bad” and stupid.
Why not know what you like and don’t like and leave it at that? Some romance readers crave honest reviews. Make them available. But maybe the genre doesn’t really want or need to be elevated as a whole?
There are a few snarky sites that produce very entertaining opinions (you Smart Bitches and Mrs Giggles leap to mind) but I don’t really consider those reviews.
Y’know, I have to say that when it all boils down to it, I want to be entertaining. I don’t mean to say that I don’t want to have serious discussions as well, because I do. But you’re right, we’re not formal reviewers.
I do try to be useful as well as entertain, though. Like Sarah, writing a bad review--well, ripping into a bad book is fun, don’t get me wrong. But I always have concrete reasons why I think the way I do, and I hope I articulate those reasons well enough that, even if I don’t influence purchasing decisions, that I at least allow people to see my POV.
Wendy, I wasn’t insulting you! And shit, bring down the electronic wrath of that huge clan? You gotta be kidding.
I reacted to the statement and asked a question.
The snottery post, I feel is relevant and isn’t about you, but about an issue. I understand your desire to honestly evaluate the sort of romance you prefer--and as I said, I think the service PBR provides is needed and useful to readers.
The issue I’ve been posting is not what you’re doing, but the question , can romance be elevated and does it really want to be as a whole?
I was referring to the article that China pointed out how hard SF writers were looking down on fantasy writers for not being as “good.”
This is on Meljean’s site? I’m really not seeing it. I only see a very short quote from China Mieville and no link to an article.
A lot of romance readers don’t think their romance is bleeding to death! They like it like that!
If folks start delving into romance snottery, they will start elevating themselves because they’re smart enough to know what’s “good” which by definition makes the other “bad” and stupid.
OK, I’ve said this once, I’ll say this again:
I don’t think poorly of other people who enjoy books I think are crappily written.
At worst, I will their tastes are puzzling and, well, crappy. This does not, however, make any sort of judgment on their smarts.
It peeves me when the hoity-toity Laura Kinsale and Judith Ivory fans talk about how only SMART READERS appreciate Kinsale and Ivory. Gaaaaaaaaah. I mean, Christ on a cracker, get over your goddamn selves.
I will, however, call books good and bad as I see fit, as well as poke fun at what I deem to be stupid-ass genre conventions. If people enjoy them, hey, more power to them. I enjoy some stupid-ass books, too, and some truly mind-boggling genre conventions? I just lap. it. up.
But maybe the genre doesn’t really want or need to be elevated as a whole?
I’m not sure “elevated” is the right word here, sigh. Here’s the thing:
- I think romance, as a genre, can do better. There’s a lot of drek out there, and let’s face it, the bestselling drek makes up only a tiny portion of the total drek.
- I think honest and open discourse is one of several different things that can be done.
- And on a somewhat separate issue, romance has a terrible image problem. Some of it’s deserved, but a lot of it isn’t. And we’re not helping things by playing all nicey-nice and cheerleading relentlessly and no matter what.
If this makes me a snot--well I’m-a hawking out huge green chunks all over this place, then.
Candy, you are both (you both are both?)entertaining and spot-on! The best snark is grounded in reality. It has to be, or it has no soul. And we wouldn’t be nodding our heads and chortling-sometimes guffawing-along with you.
Never fear, you do articulate your reasons oh so well, with an engaging grasp of the classics and pop culture. Keeps me coming back! Sort of reminds me of MST3K at its best.
I really, really don’t think romance has an image problem because of what we do--it’s because of what we are.
You got all these people who love this crap, that buy umpteen books a week. So you got pubs needing to put out tons of books--compare Harlequin to say, Tor or a lit imprint editor. Which editor has shitloads of books to edit and authors to keep track of? Which authors have the tightest deadlines and the need to put out a lot of books to get and keep name recognition from those readers who buy a dozen books a week.
How can a few online reviewers fix the supply and demand economic realities?
And the ones making the money and buying the dozen books for their fantasy fix don’t think there’s that much of a problem.
Sigh. That’s what I’ve trying to say. Nobody ever gets my point. I guess I’m not clear.
Stop taking things so personally! I want to hit you on the head with a fish! (Okay, you can take that personally and cuss me out accordingly).
I don’t think you’re a romance snot--you said you liked pirate romance for chrissakes. I’m more of a romance snot reader than you.
Jesus fucking Christ. Thanks to crankyreader for pointing out that THE WHOLE BLOCK OF FUCKING TEXT IS A LINK on Meljean’s page.
I feel like a tard.
Anyway, China Mieville’s rant is very interesting. Monica, did you read what Mieville says about Tolkien while trying to defend Fantasy?
I mean, don’t get me wrong, I agree with much of what he says because I’m not the biggest Tolkien fangirl in the world. But HOT DAMN he sounds snotty. I mean, he’s defending fantasy--but only HIS kind of fantasy, which is good. Sword-n-sorcery fantasy a la David Eddings and Tolkien = bad.
He’s entitled to his opinion, of course. And I’ll be the first to admit that sword-n-sorcery fantasy is cheesy as all fuck.
Love it though. Gimme more of those elves and paladins and mages, please. Is there another Dragonlance book coming out? *shifty eyes*
Well, I don’t want to see romance be indistinguishable from literature, however, I’d like to get through 90% of what I read without rolling my eyes, without it being flawed in some major way. For example, the book I just finished lacked setting. Hello setting? And I don’t mean setting as another character, I mean is there a floor and walls surrounding the H/h, or are they just floating in a void? That’s an important element and the lack of it is inexcusable. So, while I don’t want to see the entire genre reach lofty heights, it would be great if the majority of what I read didn’t fail.
The tribe I married into doesn’t take directions from me. They skip around the internet, form their own opinions and do as they please. I’ve been trying to get my B.I.L. to get HelenKay’s name straight for four months now. But alas…
How can a few online reviewers fix the supply and demand economic realities?
We can’t. And I for one am not even close to trying to. But the point is the open and honest discourse, see? I see that as a worthy goal in and of itself.
It’s even worth getting smacked with a fish over.
Stop taking things so personally!
BUT IT’S ALL ABOUT ME! MEMEMEMEMEMEMEEEEE!
God, I hate fucking setting.
(oops, maybe I shouldn’t reveal all, but oh,well). I have to go back and put in all that description stuff. I even bought a book titled “Description.” It took a whole book to tell me to describe everything using my five senses. *facepalm*
So if I needed to put in a floor:
The olive shag carpet felt slimy on my bare feet and smelled of stale dog pee and cigarette ashes. As I walked across it, I heard the crunch, crunch that let me know I needed to vacumm. I bet that floor would taste like shit, so it was fortunate I wasn’t that hungry.
*facepalm*
I often leave out the fucking floor and say what happened on it instead. I guess I could do better, but shit.
I digressed, didn’t I?
You are helping the numbers of readers like yourself separate the drek from the real deal and not waste their money on poorly written books. I think that’s enough.
The ones who don’t care about literary quality so much--the fangirls who only you to give their author sterling reviews, screw them. The rest are over at RT, fanboards and eharlequin anyway.
You can’t tell them what to do? Humph. That kills my fantasy of a big family.
The thing about Sue from Windstream is that she didn’t know when to quit. I mean, I get hinky vibes from people on the Internet all the time, but this was the first time I’d ever gotten them from a self-described publishing industry professional.
sherryfair said on...I’m raising my hand, as someone who’s been influenced by online reviews. Yes, some of them have brought books to my attention that I didn’t know about (I cannot keep track of them all, I see them as helping me winnow out what I’m gonna look through in the bookstore) and have affected how I spend my money.
(For instance, Monica’s comments made me put that “Fat Girl” book on the Post-It I carry with me into bookstores.)
And yeah, I am always looking for reviewers who I trust when they say “This was excellent.” The ones who I don’t have succumbed to grade inflation.
Because I can’t help it, I am thrilled by excellence. Now and then when I am reading something really good, written perfectly, or heartbreaking, or going in a direction I didn’t see three chapters back, I just lose my breath and I go back and re-read it over and over: “Did she just do that? Oh, man.”
Life is short. There are a lot of books that don’t give you that. I savor those moments. I want more of them. Anyone who helps me to get to them through their reviews, online comments, board postings, or even the stranger who says to me in the bookstore, “Oh, that book is great!” is my friend.
You Smart Bitches need to come up with a way for me to subscribe to the comments without having to pretend some sort of brilliance I don’t feel.
Commenting on here is a daunting task, dammit.
Someday, I will have a reason to be up at midnight EDT, but for right now, I go to bed and miss all the commenting fun. Dang it!
Readers may peruse
those reviews to see the latest on-dits about their favorite (or least
favorite) authors, but I venture to say no one factors La Giggles’s
diatribes into the decision to pick up a particular book.
I totally use Mrs. Giggles to pick out books or authors; I also used AAR and once called Hubby from a grocery store to ask what grade a book got from them. (It was an F! Thank God I checked!)
But are we trying to be a clearing house of reviews for all new releases? Heck no. We don’t have that kind of buying power, for one thing.
And AngieW, don’t be daunted by commenting - just jump in. Y’all are forced to put up with me in my uncaffeinated morning state responding to an entire night’s worth of comments.
How can a few online reviewers fix the supply and demand economic realities?
We can’t. And I for one am not even close to trying to. But the point is the open and honest discourse, see? I see that as a worthy goal in and of itself.
Agreed, Candy. We aren’t trying to fix anything about the economic reality of romantic fiction. Heh. Imagine if we had that kind of power!
While Candy and I certainly don’t have an articulated goal, at least, not one that we’ve written to each other aside from “Hey, wouldn’t this be cool? Let’s bring in both the noise AND the funk!” I do know that because of this site and sites like it, I and other readers who have started following SBTB have started looking much more critically at romance novels. Let’s face it: I read them for a lot of reasons but I don’t read them with my bitch hat on (it’s a nice hat, by the way) looking to affirm my own literary superiority. I read romance for entertainment. But I get dang pissed when I end up spending $8 on something that turns out to be dreck, and I get insulted when I have to wade through piles of dreck to find a good read. So if our bitchery catches the attention of one editor who agrees with us, maybe our concentrated writing on themes we love and traits we loathe will start to create a push in the right direction.
Or, we’ll create an entire community of rabid Crusie/Kinsale fans and they’ll retire to the tropics on SBTB royalties. Either way, I’m happy.
Interesting that you trust all of AAR’s ratings so implicitly. I’ve discovered there are particular reviewers I agree with pretty consistently, while others clearly have their heads up their asses and wouldn’t know quality if it flashed its guild hallmark.
I firmly believe, however, that one reader’s trash can be another reader’s treasure. What about the book that RT gave one star but made the PRISM finals this year? I think it was Mardi Ballou’s Young Vampires in Love. Having a panel of genre-savvy judges (Note to self: check to see if all the PRISM judges are published) rating it that highly calls into question the validity of the RT review.
Sarah, the wonder of the internet is such that we’ll be here whenever you drag your weary, caffeine-craving ass out of bed and log on. You need your sleep to keep the world aware of the dangers presented by ‘pumped-up gym monkeys sporting scary eyeliner’!
Crikeys, I love that line…
As for the comment about the overloading of romance editors versus the workload of those in other genres, it makes one wonder…
Why don’t romance publishers increase their editorial staffs?
Are margins that thin? Romance makes up a huge chunk of mass market sales, so where is all that money going? If more were spent on editing, we’d have less dreck flooding the shelves.
You are right that one can’t trust one site implicitly - while I never rely on RT because their blurbs sound too much like movie promo quotes from small-market tv stations that call “Underworld” The Feel-Good, Oscar-Worthy Film of the Year!, I can usually get a good gauge of how I’ll enjoy a book based on a curve of the grades that appear on other review sites.
Or, if Candy liked it, I’ll either adore it or think she’s been smoking something sticky again. Heh heh. That’s a much easier litmus test.
I firmly believe, however, that one reader’s trash can be another reader’s treasure.
This is absolutely true, imo. I can’t get past some premises, characterization or prose styles to enjoy what others might in a book. Whereas I can ignore other problematic premises, characterization, or prose styles and fully enjoy a book. Sherrilyn Kenyon, for example, doesn’t work for me—vampires plus instant combustion upon first meet are two things I don’t get past easily. But she is hugely popular, as are vampires and larger than life first meets.
Otoh, I can enjoy secret babies when the chararcterization is sound, the family dynamics interest me, and the reason for the secret is not too badly mangled. For example—oops, that’s a total spoiler—and I can’t remember the titles of the others—all category, btw.
Rinda --
The link to the Leah’s Way tennis match was amazing and horrifying.
I think authors are as equally qualified as anyone else to review a book, because every review is a report of the reader’s subjective experience. The exchange between reader and author is just too personal to be viewed any other way.
While I understand what you’re saying about dollars speaking loudly, the thing is, I am a reader. I plunk down a lot of money for romance novels. And I’m sick to death of the poorly written crap that’s passed off to me as something I’ll buy just because I buy romance.
The thing about this is that one reader may find the books to be poorly written crap, and from a craft standpoint they may certainly be.
That doesn’t mean there aren’t readers who don’t love the same ones to death. They don’t know for craft and it doesn’t play into their enjoyment.
There are readers posting to message boards constantly about how much they hate historical detail or descriptive settings and let’s not even talk about theme and metaphor, LOL! Do I believe those things strengthen a book? Of course, I do.
But there are readers who truly do not - and that’s obvious from the choices they make. They buy for the story of two people falling in love and don’t want what they consider “extras”. (I’ve had this conversation with several. This is verbatim.)
I’ve come to believe that readers are speaking with their money, and they are putting certain authors on the bestselling lists who may write fiction that could be ripped apart by those who concentrate on craft.
That doesn’t lessen those readers enjoyment - their money is the true reviewer of what works for them. Not for me. Not for you. But we’re only two readers in a huge pool!
Alison says:
The thing about this is that one reader may find the books to be poorly
written crap, and from a craft standpoint they may certainly be.
That doesn’t mean there aren’t readers who don’t love the same ones to
death. They don’t know for craft and it doesn’t play into their
enjoyment.
Oh heck yeah. I don’t pretend to understand it, but hey. I got two words: Cassie Edwards. Someone is lovin’ the Sweet Savage Wonder and that someone has a lot of someone’s who love that savage wonder just as much.
anu439 said on...What is WRONG with people?! Does nobody understand just how awful Lucy Monroe’s Real Deal is? People, the book is Shitty McShit with a shitty shititude.
And that last sentence I just wrote? Yeah, I don’t know what it means either, but it describes the Real Deal to a T.
Oh yeah, topic.
In the lit world, I am a bit wary of authors reviewing other authors. I’ll read the reviews as a curiosity, just to see how the reviewer’s mind works--particularly if the reviewer is someone I’ve read.
In the two genres I read, fantasy and romance--but most especially in romance--I’m not just wary, I’m downright suspicious of motives. The romance world is so incestuous, so intent on presenting a Stepford-wife nicey-niceness that I need to see some bad reviews before I will accept the raves. And even then, I don’t know that I can bring myself to take it seriously. Is the good review because so-and-so is BFF with so-and-so? Is it because they blog together or always post cute smileys in each other’s comments sections? Did one enter the other’s contest and hence the gushing? And god knows what the motives are for the bad reviews.
These other questions overwhelm the possible value that the reviews COULD provide. So it would take a long while before I could regard the author reviews without cynicism. And I don’t see myself hanging around that long.
I realize that my line in the sand b/w lit reviews and genre reviews is totally arbitrary, as the lit world certainly has its share of jealousies and quid pro quos. And hell, Joe Blow reviewers certainly arent’ pristine either. But I guess it’s because I watch romance and fantasy more closely, and I feel more in tune with them, maybe more invested.
Bottomline: I don’t trust authors to be real. There’s too much politics involved in your motivations and allegiances. So I may fork over $$$ for you to tell me a good story, but I’m not gonna regard your literary opinions as anything but a curiosity--at least, not if its about the genre in which you write.
So I’m gonna stick with my reader-reviewers if I need a rec. And I’ll go to authors for their books and for the occasional fix of drama.
Here are some random thoughts that have been percolating in my head, some inspired by the comments, some not.
The thing about Sue from Windstream is that she didn’t know when to quit.
I saw that review/fallout from the review a couple months ago--and yeah, I’m still slack-jawed from horror. That woman, she is INSANE. The fact that she stalked not only the reviewer, but people who dared to talk about the review just proves that she’s quote a few fries short of a Happy Meal.
Some people thought the reviewer lost credibility by posting the exchange on her review site. Me? I applaud her. That kind of fucktardedness deserves to be highlighted, pointed at and then laughed at, long and loud.
But as we’ve established, I’m an asshole that way.
Why don’t romance publishers increase their editorial staffs?
Are margins that thin? Romance makes up a huge chunk of mass market sales, so where is all that money going?
Someone with more expertise in the business should speak up because hello, here cometh more Rampant Speculation!
So yeah, romance is a tremendously popular genre. Most popular in America, in fact. However, a lot of romances are published every month. And most don’t make all that much money. Most publishers seem to treat romance as a dispensable cash cow; some publishing houses *koff*Dorchester*koff*Kensington* can’t even seem to hire decent copyeditors for some of their imprints to catch typos and continuity errors. The attitude seems to be: pump them out as fast as we can. If we throw enough of them out there, a decent enough percentage will stick.
That’s the impression I, as a complete outsider of the industry, have received.
I do know that because of this site and sites like it, I and other readers who have started following SBTB have started looking much more critically at romance novels.
I think I’ve been a really critical reader from a very young age. I remember reading Enid Blyton books at a pretty young age(I’m talking 8, 9 years old) and thinking “Wow, she doesn’t like Americans very much. And what’s with her cheesy endings? Her endings are crap. Can’t she think of another way to end a book than to say goodbye to all the characters one by one?”
This critical tendency has only become worse with age, I’m afraid. I know a book is good when it shuts up my internal critic. And I know a book is a guilty pleasure when my internal critic is yammering away in horror, but I don’t give a rip.
Which addresses Alison Kent’s point, I think, about how oftentimes readers don’t care about craft. I care about craft, but sometimes, the story is so damn engaging I don’t give a shit.
So jumping away to another thought:
It peeves me so when indignant authors say that reviewers have no right to put out their opinion because it’s soooo difficult to write a book. “Write a book first, see what it feels like!”
Look, buddy, engineering and building a crane is hard, hard work too. But when a machine literally breaks in half while being tested, I think it’s safe to say that someone, somewhere, fucked up royally.
Does that mean my opinion of this machine was invalid because I don’t have an engineering degree and really had fuck-all to do with building it? THE THING BROKE IN HALF.
Please, the whole “It’s so harrrrd, you can’t judge ‘cause you don’t know how harrrrd it is” battlecry makes me want to hurt people. Lots of things are hard. I’ll even venture that there are lots of things harder than writing a novel. The fact that I’m not a past expert on everything does not automatically invalidate my opinion. Yeah, lots of people talk out of their ass when it comes to books, but we need to separate “talks out of their ass” from “I don’t agree with them, but they may have a point.” People confuse the two way too often.
Shit, if putting out an informed opinion requires having years and years of hands-on expertise in a particular field, then we should fire pretty much all political commentators and talk radio hosts on the spot.
Hang on, THERE’s an idea....
a.a.johnston said on...I’ve wandered in here via a variety of sources and found this discussion highly interesting. (Even entertaining!)
Having done some reviewing in the past (for theatre) I think what gets missed in the reviewer/author(creator) debate is that reviews are, by and large, not for the author. If they can point out some weakness or some glossed over area of exposition or style, that’s great, but they are (and I’m not the only one to point this out) meant for readers, primarily.
The movie critic in my local paper is at the exact opposite of me about most films. What she often finds intolerable, I frequently find engaging. I read her still, not because I agree, but because in our disagreement, I can frequently find exactly what I’m looking for. Movies she loves, I’m likely to loathe. It’s a difference of opinion and aesthetic. I find the same thing true of most book reviewers. I don’t have to agree with them as a reader, to gain something new for my reading list—I do need to understand where we differ though.
Reviews are like any other tool, including the opinions of our friends: they help us find more of what we want, and help us avoid what we might not like. Especially in a genre with as many monthly offerings as romance provides, as a reader I’m pretty much in favor of anything (or anyone) that can help me narrow the field, no matter who’s doing the reviewing.
Reader only, writer too, it makes no difference. My “relationship” as such, with a reviewer, is very different than my relationship with the authors of my favorite books.
====
(P.S. I love the site and have spent the last couple of days just exploring. Nicely done, ladies. I’ll be visiting often.)
Which addresses Alison Kent’s point, I think, about how oftentimes readers don’t care about craft. I care about craft, but sometimes, the story is so damn engaging I don’t give a shit.
Yeah, but is it too much to ask to have a damn engaging story PLUS well-crafted story-telling?
:exclaim:
It’s a difference of opinion and aesthetic.
Ding ding ding. Nail, hit on head.
Also, glad you’re enjoying the site, A.A.
Yeah, but is it too much to ask to have a damn engaging story PLUS well-crafted story-telling?
Yes. Yes it is, you demanding, ornery bitch.
My personal take on this is that writer reviews of books are really great—for other writers. For readers, maybe, but there should probably be a disclaimer or something stating, “You may learn more than you want to know.”
Jenny Crusie calls this dissecting the kitty, and I think she’s right. Kitties are so cute and cuddly and we all like to play with them. There’s a lot to be learned from opening them up and seeing how they work, but . . . well, not everyone is into that dissecting thing.
I will say that when I was primarily a reader I liked a lot more books than I do now. It’s a rare, rare day that I read a book and don’t do a writer’s critique in my mind, and you know? Some days I miss the old days.
My ten cents.
I have to say: I look at people who enjoy most of what they read with great envy. I’ve NEVER been that way. I’ve always read a lot more books that I thought were either mediocre or downright awful than really good books, or even passably entertaining books. A few years ago I finally made myself stop reading a book if I thought it was bad, unless I had to review it.
Gonna drop about fifty of my cents here.
First off, as a publisher, we try to limit reviewer incest. If someone writes or edits for eXtasy, they can’t review our books, ANY of them. It’s not perfect, but it does help keep our noses clean.
Another point: If we get a bad one, it happens. I read it. If it makes a valid point, I go fix what’s wrong. If it doesn’t, oh, well. That’s one opinion. To me, that’s what eviews are for--to learn as well as rejoice.
I have asked reviews be pulled because I felt they were completely off-base, but that’s exactly what I did--ASKED.
They said no, I went about my business.
I didn’t rage and fuss, and make snarky comments.
Sometimes I didn’t even have to ask--the site caught it and pulled it without my request.
As a publisher, you need to stay professional. Sue overstepped her bounds. You ask for a review, you take what you get.
Reviews are arbitrary. One may rave, another snark. You deal.
As to the legitmacy...well, I have heard that some publishers have told review sites they must give a positive review to their books or they’ll stop sending them ARCs. I have heard it enough by many different people, so I fear it’s true.
Another notable is that I’ve seen a reviewer join a publisher, and suddenly that publisher gets nothing but raves, though previously they didn’t do as well.
I’ve also noted that in many cases, the reviews on Amazon are made by other authors or editors with the same company as the listed book, or when you check “Other reviews by this person”, They only reviewed that one book, or only books by that publisher. Kinda raises a warning bell. I understand supporting your fellow author, but that’s a bit much.
I think there are a lot of hardworking folks who try to give a good, professional review. Jaynie R. earned my kudos when she reviewed one of ours. The content literally made her ill, yet it got a positive and professional review because content aside, it was a well-written story. She put her personal taste aside and wrote a true review. I know of many others, but that stands out to me. So they are out there...you just have to keep an eye out.
A professional review,IMO, doesn’t just say, I hate it, it sucks donkey balls. It says specifically WHY the balls were sucked, and how many times. I see this here, and I like it. You explain why it sucks, not just say it does.
I was shouted down on another list because I said that. They insisted that all a reviewer had to do was give their opinion, and backing it up with facts wasn’t necessary, because a review was just an opinion.
I responded that no, that’s an opinion, not a review, but was flamed off. I stand by my definition. You can say it sucks, but you need to say why to be a professional. Otherwise, you’re just giving an opinion.
Candy said:
I have to say: I look at people who enjoy most of what they read with great envy. I’ve NEVER been that way.
Do you have any idea why? This is purely curiosity. I know I used to just get caught up in “the story” or “the characters,” but now I’m hypersensitive to pacing, plot, point-of-view, and a host of other things, most of which I’m trying to improve in my own writing.
Do you think you’re looking for something specific?
Also, still laughing about the Man-Titty.
Once again you’ve made me confront some of my own inconsistencies - curse you smart bitches!
My original thought was that I see the logic in an author doing a review because they see it from the point of view of experience in the craft, thus their thoughts might be richer somehow than the average reviewer. Then I saw Candy’s comment about how she treats reviews in the literary world with a hint of suspicion as to motive and realized I do the same thing: somehow I don’t trust them, and that’s even before I read them. It’s a conundrum to me: if there’s an author I like it seems only logical that odds are good I’d like what that author likes. On the other hand, when an author writes a review, somehow it doesn’t seem like it’s going to be as objective.
Plus I’ve had a recent experience - as in, this happened this very week - where I purchased a book by an author I’d never heard of solely because Diana Gabaldon had something nice to say about it that was plastered all over the cover. I mean, I’d pretty much marry the Outlander books if that were legal and, er, sane, so you’d think that’d mean I might have similar taste as la Gabaldon - but alas, that was most definitely NOT the case in this instance.
I suppose this means my final opinion on the subject is that it really depends - and it depends on a wider variety of factors than I had ever thought much about before.
[One last thought: there’s long been a debate in the world of acting about how much the public needs to/should know about an actor’s personal life and how that knowledge affects the public’s ability to accept their performances as performances, and accept their performances on their own merit. I wonder if the same thing applies in a tangental way in the writing world. Meaning, maybe there’s something to be said for writers restraining themselves from revealing too much of their thoughts and opinions so that the public won’t approach their work with the “taint” of knowing certain things about their thoughts and opinions.]
Do you have any idea why?
Nope. I wish I did. Like I said earlier, I’ve always had an internal critic who almost never shuts the fuck up, and she has very definite ideas of what’s good and what isn’t. Part of the pleasure of reading a very, very good book is to have her be quiet for once.
Does that sound insane?
I’m one of those people whose inner voice never shuts up. I’m always composing inner letters to myself and other people. I’m writing bits of stories. I’m composing bits of columns that I’m planning to post on Smart Bitches. When I’m reading a book, even if I’m not reviewing it, I’m re-writing sentences and analyzing it to a fare-thee-well. “Well that’s an awkward sentence! Oooh, but that part was nicely said, never though about it that way before. Is this a comma splice? I don’t know. Was cocaine usage anachronistic for this era? Must look it up.” You get the picture.
Do you think you’re looking for something specific?
I think I am, but I’m not sure I can articulate it, because just when I come up with a rule, there’s an exception that comes along and buggers the merry hell out of it. F’rinstance: I like books that don’t insult my intelligence, unless they’re books by Dara Joy or cheesy fantasy novels, in which case they can call my intelligence all sorts of nasty names and I’ll happily put up with it.
See how it goes?
Then I saw Candy’s comment about how she treats reviews in the literary world with a hint of suspicion as to motive (...)
I wrote that? Really? *tries to remember what she’s written so far*
OK, I’ll admit that I feel suspicious of an author’s motive if I know:
- She’s reviewing an author from the same publishing house
- She’s reviewing a book by a person she’s been openly very pally-wally with
- She used to be an author’s critique partner/editor/whatever
- She’s displayed contempt for the genre in the past
Stef’s rule about not allowing her editors or writers to review books published by her company is an excellent one. Because THAT presents a pretty clear conflict of interest. Which, come to think of it, fits the three FOUR (why can’t I count? grrrrr) reasons I gave for why I’d view an author’s review with suspicion.
But generally, I give authors the benefit of the doubt, unless they prove themselves to be morons in the review.
Oh, and about the reliability of cover blurbage: I have to say that Jo Beverley (who wrote only one book I really, really liked, the rest of her books were kinda eh) was one of the most reliable cover blurbers for me. If Jo blurbed it, I picked it up, and I was rarely disappointed. It’s why I picked up Barbara Samuel initially.
I wrote that? Really? *tries to remember what she’s written so far*
Oh crap, I’d make a terrible journalist. What you actually said was ”In the lit world, I am a bit wary of authors reviewing other authors.” You were speaking of sci fi and romance when the word “suspicious” came up. Sorry ‘bout that.
Is it time for the cocktails to start yet? I’ll take my Bloody Mary with a touch of extra spice and olives and no celery, thank you.
‘Stef’s rule about not allowing her editors or writers to review books published by her company is an excellent one. Because THAT presents a pretty clear conflict of interest. Which, come to think of it, fits the three FOUR (why can’t I count? grrrrr) reasons I gave for why I’d view an author’s review with suspicion.’
Right. What funny is for the longest time, we were the only pub with that rule. I think more do it now...but that’s fairly recent, and many still don’t think it’s an issue.
Michelle, the Diva said on...Maybe I’m not nice, but I think crap should be called crap, whoever you are and whoever you’re reviewing.
But you must give good reason WHY it’s crap. And “I didn’t like the cover” just ain’t gonna get ‘er done. YOu need to suck up your personal perferences for a sec and read the friggin’ book objectively. Sometimes you’ll find winners and sometimes you’ll find weiners. Sometimes you’ll even find winning weiners. But you’ve got to define why it = crap if you label it crap.
I’ve read very few books that made me jump up and screech “Woo-damn-skippity hoo! Gimme more!” Most fall into the “eh, it was good” category. Some make me think “HOLY HELL! What kinda crack was she smokin’ whilst doing her plotline chart and where can I get some in a happy take-home container?”
It just takes all kinds, but if it SMELLS like crap and LOOKS like crap, let’s not say “Ooooh, look! Chocolate!”
As a writer who reviews, I almost feel obligated to share when I find a poorly constructed or badly researched novel. I’m not going to hold back if someone makes an egregious error (my favorite still being the Eiffel Tower visit in a Regency), because I’m also a reader. I’d want to know before I put down my cash if the story’s going to entertain, if it’s well written, what I’d like or not like about the characters, and if there are any flaws that are going to yank me right out of my reading.
Having said all that, let me just add that I only review under my real name, not my pen name, because I believe you have to stand behind what you write if you’re going to review. So maybe that’s kind of cheating. I don’t know, but I’d be interested in hearing how others feel about this.
Oh, and I never review books from my publisher, and she’s never asked me to. Too incestuous and self-serving, in my opinion.
This post is old, but it’s appropriate lately.
Have other authors reviewed other authors unfairly? Hell fucking yeah. Curtis Sittenfeld’s NYT review of Melissa Banks’ The Wonder Spot, for example, struck me as unduly disdainful and rather suspect, given the squeamishness she displayed about chick lit. Jennifer Weiner rips Sittenfeld a new one in a very entertaining manner for that review.
Here’s the thing though, Candy. You’re reviewing the reviewer’s style, and the reviewer’s tastes for not agreeing with yours; not the content. Style and courtesy matter a lot, but they don’t necessarily help you gauge the truth of the review.
I had a rather different reaction than you--I thought the Jennifer Weiner blog was appalling. I hadn’t read Sittenfeld’s review of Bank’s book at the time, but it hardly matters: Weiner trashed her in a manner that went WAY beyond professional. Nevertheless, Weiner was convincing in her arguments.
So I read all 3 books.
Know what? For my money, Sittenfeld nailed that review. Every quibble she has, I would have said (and maybe did) times ten. The Bank book just isn’t very good. I wouldn’t have included that swipe at Bank, or chick lit, or Bank and chick lit, or whatever that was. But the fact remains, Sittenfeld did her job well as a reviewer.
OTOH, it looks to me like Weiner did her best to paint Sittenfeld’s book in a false light in order to make her point. It’s quite a lesson in the deceptive power of plot summary. Bank’s book and Sittenfeld’s are remarkably dissimilar, though both are about young women.
Weiner didn’t claim to be reviewing Sittenfeld’s book, but she certainly worked pretty hard at making it sound derivative--and at creating a very unappealing persona for Sittenfeld herself. Sittenfeld’s book is in a very different league from Bank’s book. (In fact, Weiner and Sittenfeld are much more on a par.)
I know which of these authors I would rather see reviewing: the one who saw the book’s strengths and weaknesses clearly, but let some attitude creep into her review. Not the one who trashed a book and an author because of a review of a third party’s book.
Here’s the thing though, Candy. You’re reviewing the reviewer’s style, and the reviewer’s tastes for not agreeing with yours; not the content.
Uh? You yourself acknowledged that Sittenfeld made swipes at the chick lit in general. That’s what I was addressing, I thought--though given how I write these rants in the heat of the moment and have no editor to speak of, I probably didn’t word things as precisely as I should’ve.
For what it’s worth, I think Sittenfeld is a better writer than Banks, though I didn’t read The Wonder Spot--but given what I remember of Banks’ other work, Sittenfeld’s criticisms likely were accurate. Regardless, the disdain she displays for the genre makes her review kind of suspect. If I hadn’t read Banks’ previous work, I’d be hard-pressed to detect if the criticisms were based solely on the book, or on a deep-seated disdain for the genre--which kind of cripples its effectiveness as a potential guide for people who might want to read the book, and muddies WHY she said what she did. Just because you agreed with her doesn’t mean her motives were kosher, just as the fact that I disagree with her doesn’t mean her motives weren’t kosher. (Crapping damn, I hope I got all those negatives correct.)
Sorry if I sounded aggressive about your take on the Weinfeldbank bloodbath. I shouldn’t post in the wee small hours. I always sound like I have blood in my eye and a tooth-sharpener in my pocket.
Just because you agreed with her doesn’t mean her motives were kosher, just as the fact that I disagree with her doesn’t mean her motives weren’t kosher.
Absolutely. But there’s always motive; what I’m saying is, some reviewers get past motive and still do an honest job of reviewing. I think Weiner was dishonest about Sittenfeld’s book.
Basically, I’m OK with Sittenfeld’s review in the same way I’m OK with your snarky reviews here. Attitude is OK with me (it’s a lot better than pretending neutrality and boring the shit out of the reader). The key is not letting the attitude cause you to mislead the reader. That’s where I think Weiner crosses the line.
I agree, Sittenfeld expresses ”deep-seated disdain for the genre”. But she also explains why she thinks that, so in my mind it doesn’t ”muddy WHY she said what she did”--it actually gave me a few things to think about vis-a-vis chick lit, lit lit, and characterization. Her review “added value” for me, even though I didn’t really like where she was coming from.
Robin said on...It was a tad ironic that Weiner started off her rant with this:
In between unloading my
08.04.05 at 04:24 PM |