on reviewing
I’ve been thinking a lot about what makes a good review, and what makes a bad review - I mean, what makes the review itself good or bad, regardless of the reviewer’s opinion of the book. It’s kind of stopped me reviewing books myself this year because I’ve become so much more aware of the power of the reviewer and his or her effect on the author. And I’m not really sure I want or deserve that power. (I stopped giving star ratings on Goodreads a couple of years ago for exactly this reason.)
So here are a few observations I've saved up over the last few months which I’m planning to apply to my own reviews in the future, if I ever get brave enough to start writing them again:
1) I will never qualify my reaction based on other people’s. My reaction to a book is mine, not what my friends think. If I don’t like it, it may be the author’s fault; it may be my fault; but I can’t blame the ‘hype,’ which has nothing to do with the book itself. (‘Don’t believe the hype. Believe the hype.’ Taking sides on book hype??? Since when is ‘hype’ part of the review process?)
2) If I don’t finish a book, I’m not really qualified to assess its overall success or failure - I can only comment on my reaction to what I actually read.
3) Even if a book bores me out of my brain, I will never again use the B word in an online review. Not only is this a powerful turn-off to other readers who may not be bored by the things that bore me, it is also extremely damaging to writerly egos. Which leads me to number 4…
4) I am aware that the author WILL PROBABLY SEE MY ONLINE REVIEW. And I am also aware that there’s a good chance I will meet her someday, and we will have to be nice to each other. More than once I have had an author turn up unexpectedly on my blog and thank me for a review, or elaborate on something I didn’t understand. I’ve occasionally done it to other reviewers myself. Knowing that the author will read my review shouldn’t stop me from applying legitimate criticism or stating my own personal reaction to a book, but it should make me think carefully about framing my argument in a fair and diplomatic way.
5) I fact-check things I doubt in a book before I accuse the author of anachronisms or whatever. Because she probably knows more than I do, and if I falsely accuse her of errors, I’m just spreading ignorance around cyberspace.
6) I will never, ever apologize for liking a book.
7) Also, I am no longer ever going to say ‘I am surprised’ at how well-received a book is. ( I do this all the time.) I am not the ultimate arbiter of taste. If a book does not push my buttons (or pushes the wrong ones), I am not going to disparage the several thousand other people who enjoyed it by implying that they are tasteless morons less elegantly discerning than me.
There you go, my meta-review.
So here are a few observations I've saved up over the last few months which I’m planning to apply to my own reviews in the future, if I ever get brave enough to start writing them again:
1) I will never qualify my reaction based on other people’s. My reaction to a book is mine, not what my friends think. If I don’t like it, it may be the author’s fault; it may be my fault; but I can’t blame the ‘hype,’ which has nothing to do with the book itself. (‘Don’t believe the hype. Believe the hype.’ Taking sides on book hype??? Since when is ‘hype’ part of the review process?)
2) If I don’t finish a book, I’m not really qualified to assess its overall success or failure - I can only comment on my reaction to what I actually read.
3) Even if a book bores me out of my brain, I will never again use the B word in an online review. Not only is this a powerful turn-off to other readers who may not be bored by the things that bore me, it is also extremely damaging to writerly egos. Which leads me to number 4…
4) I am aware that the author WILL PROBABLY SEE MY ONLINE REVIEW. And I am also aware that there’s a good chance I will meet her someday, and we will have to be nice to each other. More than once I have had an author turn up unexpectedly on my blog and thank me for a review, or elaborate on something I didn’t understand. I’ve occasionally done it to other reviewers myself. Knowing that the author will read my review shouldn’t stop me from applying legitimate criticism or stating my own personal reaction to a book, but it should make me think carefully about framing my argument in a fair and diplomatic way.
5) I fact-check things I doubt in a book before I accuse the author of anachronisms or whatever. Because she probably knows more than I do, and if I falsely accuse her of errors, I’m just spreading ignorance around cyberspace.
6) I will never, ever apologize for liking a book.
7) Also, I am no longer ever going to say ‘I am surprised’ at how well-received a book is. ( I do this all the time.) I am not the ultimate arbiter of taste. If a book does not push my buttons (or pushes the wrong ones), I am not going to disparage the several thousand other people who enjoyed it by implying that they are tasteless morons less elegantly discerning than me.
There you go, my meta-review.
No comments have been added yet.
