a million times a trillion more (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
dolorosa_12) wrote2009-07-10 10:27 pm
dolorosa_12) wrote2009-07-10 10:27 pm
Further thoughts on reviewing
When I was a fairly young book-reviewer (I think around 2004, when I was 20), I reviewed the first YA book of a supposedly up-and-coming Australian writer called Justine Larbalestier. I could see good things in her book, Magic or Madness, but I also noticed flaws - or at least things which irritated me as a fairly subjective reader. I gave her book a pretty mixed review, but a review which summed up my feelings on her book accurately, while transmitting those feelings to readers in a way I felt would help them decide whether or not to buy the book. That was my job as a reviewer, as far as I understand it.
Over the sevenish years I've been a book-reviewer, I've probably written 200 or 300 reviews. (Many were incorporated into articles reviewing five or six books.) Over that time, I have, of course, matured as a reviewer (my writing certainly improved!) but my basic understanding of what it is to be a reviewer remained unchanged:
Do not pretend to be objective. Everyone's tastes are so idiosyncratic, and reviewers are not immune to this. I might like one author's whiny unlikely hero and detest another's. I might object to one author's interpretation of 'great power has consequences' and approve of another's. And that is my right as a reviewer. But it is my responsibility to explain this to my readers. It is my responsibility to locate a book in a context: it's like the Tomorrow series but its heroine is like Bella Swan from Twilight, it's a vampire novel set in boganish rural Australia, it is like this and unlike that.
It is my right to dislike a book for the most trivial of reasons, as long as I make it clear what those reasons are. And authors have to put up with this.
Remember Justine Larbalestier, the up-and-coming Australian author? Well, she's got another four books under her belt now. These days, however, I value her more for her absolutely excellent blog. Recently, she laid down the law about the author-reviewer relationship. She was responding to this bizarre (and troubling) story of Alice Hoffman's Twitter revenge against a negative reviewer. Hoffman's behaviour is appalling.
To be perfectly honest, most reviews don't have the slightest effect on book sales. What they do (and what I keep in mind whenever I review books) is set off a spark in the reader's mind. With certain key words, and certain plot descriptions, a reviewer can tap into the interests or tastes of particular readers, prompting them to investigate the book further to decide if it's something they'd like to read. Aside from a few highly influential book-reviewers, that is all our work does. And with that in mind, wealthy, successful authors launching Twitter attacks on reviewers (attacks which involve publicising the reviewer's phone number) look petty and bullying.
I don't retract my mixed review of Justine Larbalestier's first YA novel. But I have a profound respect for her as an extremely knowledgeable writer whose blog is an invaluable source for all involved with the written word. Her refusal to comment on negative reviews is incredibly gracious. I wish all authors took such a sensible approach.
Over the sevenish years I've been a book-reviewer, I've probably written 200 or 300 reviews. (Many were incorporated into articles reviewing five or six books.) Over that time, I have, of course, matured as a reviewer (my writing certainly improved!) but my basic understanding of what it is to be a reviewer remained unchanged:
Do not pretend to be objective. Everyone's tastes are so idiosyncratic, and reviewers are not immune to this. I might like one author's whiny unlikely hero and detest another's. I might object to one author's interpretation of 'great power has consequences' and approve of another's. And that is my right as a reviewer. But it is my responsibility to explain this to my readers. It is my responsibility to locate a book in a context: it's like the Tomorrow series but its heroine is like Bella Swan from Twilight, it's a vampire novel set in boganish rural Australia, it is like this and unlike that.
It is my right to dislike a book for the most trivial of reasons, as long as I make it clear what those reasons are. And authors have to put up with this.
Remember Justine Larbalestier, the up-and-coming Australian author? Well, she's got another four books under her belt now. These days, however, I value her more for her absolutely excellent blog. Recently, she laid down the law about the author-reviewer relationship. She was responding to this bizarre (and troubling) story of Alice Hoffman's Twitter revenge against a negative reviewer. Hoffman's behaviour is appalling.
To be perfectly honest, most reviews don't have the slightest effect on book sales. What they do (and what I keep in mind whenever I review books) is set off a spark in the reader's mind. With certain key words, and certain plot descriptions, a reviewer can tap into the interests or tastes of particular readers, prompting them to investigate the book further to decide if it's something they'd like to read. Aside from a few highly influential book-reviewers, that is all our work does. And with that in mind, wealthy, successful authors launching Twitter attacks on reviewers (attacks which involve publicising the reviewer's phone number) look petty and bullying.
I don't retract my mixed review of Justine Larbalestier's first YA novel. But I have a profound respect for her as an extremely knowledgeable writer whose blog is an invaluable source for all involved with the written word. Her refusal to comment on negative reviews is incredibly gracious. I wish all authors took such a sensible approach.