Cheryl’s Comments (group member since Jul 30, 2011)

Cheryl’s comments from the More than Just a Rating group.

Some are objective - apparently trying to address the book as if it doesn't matter who is reading it, it has it's own independent reality.

Some are so subjective a potential reader can get no sense of how anyone except for the reviewer might react to the book.

A review of a romance novel, by a young woman:

http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/...

Just so you know, I don't really disagree with you. We certainly agree on the takeaway, that different readers have different kinds of writing that works for them.

But 'boring' is subjective. A book you and I might both be entranced by could *seem* boring to a less-experienced reader, for example. I'd be willing to bet the percentage of books, and bits of books, that are *intentionally* meant to be objectively boring, is miniscule.

Chambers isn't saying it's an advantage. He's saying - if a reader says a book, or a bit of a book, is 'boring,' the teacher should probe, to see if it's actually that the reader didn't understand what was actually happening. (And we auto-didacts can be both teacher and reader, in situations like that.)

You and I both enjoyed Jane Eyre. Other members have actually called it boring. I am confident that, if they wanted to, they could read your marvelously illuminating review, and realize that the novel is actually *not* boring.

Ok, I obviously didn't make myself clear.

What Chambers is pointing out is that the bit may *seem* boring. But if the reader slows down and thinks about why the pacing changed, or why the story is going away from the hero to a secondary character, or why the garden is being described in such detail, the reader will be able to explore the ideas (themes) of the story in more depth, or realize that the characters are richer than they seemed, or see metaphors in the language of the flowers.

Does that make any sense? If not, blame me, not Chambers.

I didn't much like these books as aids to help me read more perceptively, but there are some neat ideas for how to approach reviews in them.

How to Read Literature Like a Professor: A Lively and Entertaining Guide to Reading Between the Lines - yes, take the title literally - he does mean *L*iterature, especially the old stuff taught in college English classes, with symbolism etc.

Booktalk: Occasional Writing On Literature And Children is better, and applicable to all readers who read books aimed at any audience. I will advise that you read the essays in the order that you're comfortable doing so. The first is especially dense and scholarly. "Warm up" by reading a different one first, perhaps the one that answers the question of whether Children can be Critics.

Oh! Check out this review, by a member here, of Jane Eyre:
http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/...

She 'gets' it - and I bet if she taught the book to those of you who didn't like it, you'd have enjoyed and appreciated it much better yourself.

Reviving the thread, as I have developed another idea. I've been reading books about how to read, or how to teach the reading of, *L*iterature. I've not enjoyed them much, partly because the authors seem to think their way is The Way. But viewed from the perspective of a reviewer, rather than as a reader, this flaw can be seen as a strength. This is because each academician who writes this kind of book does have some clear ideas they're trying to promote.

What I mean to say is, I read a book like How to Read Literature Like a Professor: A Lively and Entertaining Guide to Reading Between the Lines or Booktalk: Occasional Writing On Literature And Children and I don't like it much, as it doesn't help me much in my quest to find a way to enjoy & appreciate the classics. But it does help me understand how some people who love books view them - what they see in them. And therefore in a review I can explore some of those aspects of the book.

For example, Aidan Chambers, in Booktalk, respects that sometimes children are 'bored' by books. He explains that when a reader feels bored, there could very will be intra-textual reasons for this. The author may have, for example, put a 'boring' bit in an otherwise jolly or exciting story to jar the reader out of complacency, slow her down, make her re-read the previous bit and then the 'boring' bit again, and then discover the actual depth and/or symbolism of the 'boring'/ jarring bit.

Well when I'm speaking of 'understanding' I'm speaking of more odirect things than theme or symbolism. I'm referring more to cultural & historical context. If one doesn't know what the hierarchy of the household staff is in a Victorian mansion, one might not realize what a gaffe in etiquette the governess or the scullery maid just committed, for example.

That's a good thing to include, I agree.

I wish more parents put more of their children's words in the reviews of books they've read together. Sometimes it's done well (though I don't know anyone who is taking it to the extent you are), but too often if there's anything it's "J liked it but A didn't" and that's not really helpful, especially as we don't even know how old the kids are.

I'm following your/her reviews and can't wait to see the next one!

I've been thinking about this issue in a bit more depth lately. One sure thing I've realized is that the kinds of reviews that most of us do here, the Personal Reactions, are well-suited to picture-books.

A professional reviewer might focus just on how well-written a book is, or how artistic the pictures are. But if there's a lesson I don't like in the story, or if the pictures are downright ugly, I'm going to share that information in my review. And I always appreciate it when other people do, too.

I'm not really saying anything new here - I'm just emphasizing that I'm glad we have this forum that welcomes a variety of styles of reviews.

Sure, there are exceptions, if you're confident enough that you know your rating wouldn't be different if you had indeed finished. I'm almost never that confident - but thanks for reminding us that it can happen! :)

Fair enough. :)

Thanks Kat. :)

Definitely interesting and valid points in your blog post, a.g. I absolutely agree with what you said.

I'm still thinking you're misunderstanding where some readers are coming from, though - so your equation is missing an element. Classics *are* different. To be able to read them with any chance of full appreciation, a reader *must* have some understandings of things that one doesn't necessarily need for popular fiction.

We need to know stuff like the history & culture of the time period in which it takes place, and/or the period in which it was written, and maybe other works the writer references, vocabulary words like archaic slang, and all that stuff that professors and Cliff's Notes talk about. Without context, without some support so we *understand* what we're reading, we've not a prayer of enjoying it. And therefore the bad things we say in our review are just not actually relevant.

To use a very simple analogy, it'd be like saying "Oh, the classic aspirin doesn't work on my headache so I'm going to use the new ibuprofen," when the problem is that the sufferer has been taking one baby aspirin, not having the contextual support to tell her to take 4-5 times that dose.

Thank you for sharing your thoughts and enriching this discussion!

Fair enough, Erin. Tx for sharing.

Please don't shut up. I'm just not accustomed to reading long posts, and have to take time to think about them, that's all.

The neat thing about goodreads is that we can get a sense of taste by comparing books & running the 'compatibility test' on potential friends' profiles. Then we can befriend them, and focus on their reviews, rather than trying to sort through the reviews of the community as a whole.

Ok, I don't think I've managed to fully process those two long posts. Lots of good ideas. I think I do get the gist of what you both say, and what you disagree with each other about.

Here's my main takeaway, though. Both of you do seem to be more focused on professional critiques than most members of this group, especially me. That's cool, and I'm sincerely grateful you took the time to share your perspective.

On the other hand, reviews on goodreads are subjective. We're a community of readers, and most of us are pretty casual readers. I do think "did it move me" is a *great* starting point for a review. I want to see the reviewer explain, of course; I want to know *why* and *how* it moved her.

But any review that is 'more than just a rating' is a Good Thing here. And with time, some of us are reading 'better' books and writing 'better' reviews. So that's good too.

I really like looking at books for what they are, too. Literature that's full of classical symbolism etc. is certainly different from genre or children's fiction, or non-fiction - but actually I don't consider it 'better.' 'Heavier' I might say, except that implies that Where the Wild Things Are and Stranger in a Strange Land are 'lighter' and calling a book 'light' implies insult....

Erin, that's exactly what I do with my 'did not finish' books. Sometimes the 'reviews' for them are longer than reviews for books I did finish, because I want to explain why a book might have been better for me when I was younger, or better for people who aren't troubled by Yuck Factor, or whatever.

Thank you for taking the time to help potential readers decide whether to get the book or not!

Nope. "I so decree" that it doesn't count, because I don't blog, and seldom click on links. (Though I must admit that I did do so this time.) Oh, and besides which, the blog entry was for the blog, not fresh for that comment.

Anyway, I guess we're drifting again. Sorry.