The Sword and Laser discussion
Are you a 'Goodreads Bully'?
date
newest »
newest »
Rick wrote: "Because the point of a book review is to review the damn book. Too many people do what youre proposing and what the linked scalzi review above did - snark about issues or the author. I dont give a crap about your opinion of the author, etc.Review
The
Damn
Book."
That's your opinion, and it's nice and shiny and you're free to follow it. But here's the thing -- it's your opinion. Not everyone agrees with it. Many of us feel that the context of the book -- including the author being a nutcase -- is important to understanding it and should be discussed in reviews. Whinging about it is not going to change that -- short of libel, you do not get to dictate what should and shouldn't be in someone else's review.
Doc wrote: "I gotta agree with Rick here. If you want to editorialize the author based on facts (not conjecture), then feel free to do so, but please make it clear that you are writing an editorial. A review should be about the book, not about the author, or the publisher, or some rumor. You don't have to agree with everything an author says and does in order to enjoy their work. If you don't want to give the author money because of their beliefs, then encourage folks to check the book out from a library."
Have you ever read real literary criticism -- not the hackery in Entertainment Weekly, but the real stuff found in academic journals and literary supplements? Because that doesn't limit itself to whether the reviewer enjoyed the book. It does editorialize and discuss things that fall outside the scope of the book itself.
There isn't a need for an adversarial relationship between writers and reviewers. Both groups have the same end goal: making good writing available to the reading audience. Writers can't improve their skills without constructive feedback, even if that feedback says that *this* particular work is very, very bad.
No, when I review a book my goal is to express what I thought of it. I have never once written a review with any thought of whether the author would even see it, and I don't care either way.
Doc wrote: "In the scenario we're talking about, there are more options if the book turns out to be unreadable crap. Since the reviewer in this hypothetical case got the book directly from the author, they can contact the author personally and tell the author that they a) cannot continue reading the book b) cannot in good faith offer up a review, due to the poor quality of the writing. The reviewer can privately offer up constructive criticism about what they have read so far, which will hopefully allow the author to improve his craft and make later works review-worthy."
See, it's this sense of entitlement that give self-pubbed authors a bad reputation. Reviewers do not exist for you. They are not your publicist. They are not your critiquer. Unless you're paying them for a review, they do not owe you anything.
Oh please Sean.... OF COURSE it's my opinion. OF COURSE I can't dictate what others do. But reviews of books on GR (or anywhere) are properly reviews. Of the book. If someone is writing an essay on OSC's bigotry it's not a review of the book and thus it's not serving the purpose of hitting the Review button.People like you forget that the reason most of us read reviews of books is to find out about the book, especially here on GR. Reviewer who don't stay on topic but exercise their hobby horses in reviews just seem rather sad, attention-seekers to me.
And don't give me the 'oh, but lit crit!' BS - the reviews here aren't in the least literary criticism.
As for your last sentence... reviewers DO owe others something. They owe an honest opinion about the book to the people reading the review.
Rick wrote: "Oh please Sean.... OF COURSE it's my opinion. OF COURSE I can't dictate what others do. But reviews of books on GR (or anywhere) are properly reviews. Of the book. If someone is writing an essay on OSC's bigotry it's not a review of the book and thus it's not serving the purpose of hitting the Review button."But here's the thing -- a review of OSC's books should include a discussion of his bigotry because the author's worldview is relevant to his work. And it is perfectly acceptable for the reviewer to conclude by urging people not to read OSC's books due to the magnitude of his bigotry.
People like you forget that the reason most of us read reviews of books is to find out about the book, especially here on GR. Reviewer who don't stay on topic but exercise their hobby horses in reviews just seem rather sad, attention-seekers to me.
I don't read reviews to find out about the book -- that's what the back cover's for. I read reviews to find out what people think about the book. Joel's review of Redshirts is far more insightful than the dozens of people saying, "It made me giggle." I'd rather read Requires Only Hate exercising her hobby horse than someone who never questions the underlying assumptions of books and is happy to just report, "I enjoyed this quite a lot."
And don't give me the 'oh, but lit crit!' BS - the reviews here aren't in the least literary criticism.
So that means reviewers shouldn't aspire to anything more than glurge?
As for your last sentence... reviewers DO owe others something. They owe an honest opinion about the book to the people reading the review.
Non-sequitur. We're talking about what reviewers owe authors, which is exactly nothing.
"Non-sequitur. We're talking about what reviewers owe authors, which is exactly nothing. "No, you are. Or are you telling me what I can write here? Hmm... wouldn't that be ironic...
" I read reviews to find out what people think about the book. "
Yes, which is why I initially said reviews of books should talk about the book. You were arguing that it's perfectly fine for a review to be a rant about the author or at least that's how I read your post.
Joel's review of Redshirts wasn't useful because it didn't talk about the book at all. It was a amateurish attempt at snarky humor, but a) if he doesn't like Scalzi's stuff outside of OMW and that series, why is he reading it? and b) it doesn't talk at all about why and how Redshirts specifically failed him. It's actually the kind of review that annoys me - it's a review meant to show off the reviewer's writing vs informing the reader on what the reviewer thought of the book.
"But here's the thing -- a review of OSC's books should include a discussion of his bigotry because the author's worldview is relevant to his work."
not in all cases though. If you read Ender's Game nothing of OSC's homophobia comes through there so a rant about it would be out of place. A small mention of it so that people who strongly object can decide whether or not to give him money? Not an issue. A multi-paragraph rant with supporting links etc? Out of place. I understand that some of his later books bring his bigotry to the fore much more obviously and in those cases a longer dissection of him may well be appropriate.
What I object to is when reviewers feel the need to get up on their hobby horse in every single thing that they write even if it's not relevant to the topic at hand. That's not being informative, it's just being a tiresome bore. To stick with the OSC example... if one doesn't like his opinions and doesn't want to supper them, don't. Don't buy his books and read them. If someone has bought one, found this out and found it in the book by all means, review that... but ranting on his other books in the form of a review if you've not read them is out of line and continuing to read the works of an author whom you dislike is just masochistic.
Rick wrote: "No, you are. Or are you telling me what I can write here? Hmm... wouldn't that be ironic..."I was responding to a claim about what reviewers owe to authors. My response addressed that issue. You then came in with a claim about what reviewers owe their readers, which is a non-sequitur. It's as relevant to what I said as, "pudding is good." You're perfectly free to post all the non-sequitur responses you want, but don't be surprised when people tell you your argument fails Logic 101.
Joel's review of Redshirts wasn't useful because it didn't talk about the book at all. It was a amateurish attempt at snarky humor
It wasn't useful to you. It's currently the highest rated review of the book with more than twice as many likes as the next most popular review. I thought it nicely summed up everything wrong with Scalzi's writing -- the shallow, easy humor from interchangeable characters who all sound like middle-aged bloggers trying too hard to be hip and memetastic. And yes, that does involve pointing out that Scalzi is a middle-aged blogger who tries too hard to sound hip and memetastic, and has an established fanbase who'll buy his books without him having to try too hard. Exactly what is wrong with that opinion?
but a) if he doesn't like Scalzi's stuff outside of OMW and that series, why is he reading it?
Because he liked OMW and felt like giving Scalzi a second chance? Someone recommended it to him? It's a book club pick? Who knows. Ultimately it doesn't matter -- "if you don't like it, don't read it," is deflection, not an actual refutation of his points. Whatever his motivation, he read it.
and b) it doesn't talk at all about why and how Redshirts specifically failed him.
Hmm?
The negatives: you won't be as funny as you think you are, the cleverness of your premise will be worn thin even at a three-hour reading length, and all of your characters will sound exactly the same as not only each other, but all of the characters in all of John Scalzi's novels (more specifically, they will sound like a blog post by John Scalzi). Oh, also on the downside, Wil Wheaton will narrate you as an audiobook, which is bad news not only because you don't work very well as an audiobook (unless your listeners like it when every single line of dialogue is attributed, even during long, quippy back-and-forths, though I guess you could argue it is necessary since everyone sounds the same), but because Wil Wheaton is kind of shockingly terrible as a reader of audiobooks (though he does make all the characters sound the same, so maybe that's intentionally meta).
not in all cases though. If you read Ender's Game nothing of OSC's homophobia comes through there so a rant about it would be out of place.
Ender's Game is full of ookie, pseudo-fascistic elements, and one can legitimately connect those to Card's real life views to show that it's not just a case of the author playing devil's advocate.
What I object to is when reviewers feel the need to get up on their hobby horse in every single thing that they write even if it's not relevant to the topic at hand. That's not being informative, it's just being a tiresome bore. To stick with the OSC example... if one doesn't like his opinions and doesn't want to supper them, don't. Don't buy his books and read them. If someone has bought one, found this out and found it in the book by all means, review that... but ranting on his other books in the form of a review if you've not read them is out of line and continuing to read the works of an author whom you dislike is just masochistic.
Not only don't you get to tell people how to write reviews, you don't get to tell them what to read. They can read whatever they want for whatever reason they want. Requires Only Hate reads tons of books she's pretty sure she's going to hate, but she reads them because they are popular with the science fiction community and she wants to critique them to show how SF fans continue to embrace racism and misogyny even while pretending to be all progressive and open-minded. This is her hobbyhorse and it is her right to ride it whenever she wants.
You're objecting to people giving bad reviews to books for reasons you disagree with. Well, too bad. You are not the arbiter of what makes a legitimate review. Whinge about it all you want, but don't make definitive statements about what's acceptable in a review and expect anyone to take you seriously.
Reviews do not matter. To 99.9 % of potential customers it is the number of stars given.Most never read the actual review.
Sean - here's an example close to (your) home. You've been an arrogant dick to me in this thread and can't seem to deal with differing opinion or to discuss things in anything close to a reasonable tone.* Is it OK for me to go rant on your books and give them one star because of that? *Yes, irony. I know.
Rick wrote: "Sean - here's an example close to (your) home. You've been an arrogant dick to me in this thread and can't seem to deal with differing opinion or to discuss things in anything close to a reasonable..."No, dude, if I couldn't deal with differing opinions, I'd start a website, post your name, address and phone number and demand that people stalk you. Instead I've engaged you in debate, pointing out the silliness of your premise (that people who don't write reviews the way you want should shut up and go away) and not resorted to ad hominem attacks like calling you an "arrogant dick" while failing to address the substance of your argument.
If after all that you want to purchase my writing and review it, please feel free. My bank account welcomes your money.
*grabs popcorn*Goodreads have been so entertaining lately, with that Bryant guy, then that Steampunk lady who games lists....
Check out this thread which includes information from GR on new review guidelines - http://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/9...?
Aye, yai, yai. Now I'm thoroughly confused. I'll sleep on it.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NRIknr...
Aloha wrote: "http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NRIknr..."Margaret Mitchell was a Neo-Confederate racist who should rot in -- oh, wait, guess I can't say that since it's not about the book.
LOL! Now, I'm trying to understand this new policy. You can't talk about the author in your review, but what about in the comment of your review? Or does that make your review hidden, too?
From what Patrick said, to me it's not that you can't talk about the author in your review, just that your review can't be ONLY about the author, it must also be about the book.
That makes sense. For example, A Canticle for Leibowitz annoyed me in that it had the underlying theme that if you're not of the church, you're one of the cause of the apocalypse, or that the religion is the cure for the world's ails. I think that review would be fair enough. Now, if I were to say Walter M. Miller Jr. was a religious nut who ended up getting into conflict with his church that he devoted himself to and ended up shooting himself in the head, would my review get hidden?Also, would talking about the author in the comment portion of the review would get the review hidden? I saw something mentioned about a book with a shelf labeled "do not read" would also get hidden.
By reversal, what if I was effusive about the author, not really talking about the book? For example, like I said I met the author and the author was really gracious and kind, etc. By the same token, shouldn't that review also get hidden? Or if I had a shelf saying "great behaving author", shouldn't that be hidden if "do not read" makes it hidden?
Aloha wrote: "By reversal, what if I was effusive about the author, not really talking about the book?"These questions are being asked in the thread. They are posting the new guidelines in a couple days. Maybe sooner to stop that thread getting longer.
That reminds me, I forgot to click on the button that gives me notification when somebody posts on that thread. I'm curious and not worried about my reviews since I automatically review the content of the book. It makes sense to do that when there's an icon of the book right next to the review. If I don't like what the book is saying, it's because the book was saying it and I would point it out. The only reason it would make sense in mentioning about the author's personal life is if it came with the legend of the author. For example, you can't read a Yukio Mishima without thinking of how he stormed a Japanese government building, and ended up having to commit Sepukku.
When an author's body of work drastically change in quality, you can't help but mention why. What about when the author's mental state of mind or mental problems is reflected in the work? That is a huge indicator as to why the work is the way it is. Willem de Kooning was an artist, and he was a good example of how his work drastically changed. Toward the end of his life, he was afflicted with Alzheimer's. His last series were paintings of very simple color lines.
I am in the agreement, though, that it's best to keep the review about the book and not the author, because a mob scene can arise where an author's career is destroyed. I read differing opinions as to whether Lewis Carroll was a pedophile. From what I read, there was no strong evidence except that he was very interested in little girls and had some nude photographs of them. But then, I read that these were taken with the consent of the parents. In those days, people weren't thinking of pedophilia when they see nude children. There were no strong proof that he committed any inappropriate behavior. If there was a big furor over what look like pedophilia and his work was suppressed, we wouldn't have Alice in Wonderland.
However, I do think people should be informed about an author behaving badly since they want to know who they're supporting with their hard earned money, or who they're getting the message from to put into their minds. I think the place for it would be in a discussion, since I don't think freedom of speech should be squelched. Would Goodreads tolerate a link to a discussion about the author in the review?
Write about the books not the authors, eh?I wonder how that works when you're reviewing an autobiography?
Good point, Kate. How does Goodreads keep track of all the reviews, making sure it's not of the author? The attention would have to be from someone who opposes the content of the review.
For parents, you'd like to make informed choices about what is being fed into your children's minds. If you're religious, you might not want books by Philip Pullman, who is a staunch atheist and would have hidden anti-relgiion themes in his books. For people who are atheists, you might not want books by C.S. Lewis, who have strong hidden Christian themes in his book. You don't want to be blindsided when you find that your child is reading something that is against what you'd like to raise your child in. This is one of several cases why you would like to know about the author's beliefs and attitudes when choosing a book.
I hope you don't mind, S&L, but I'm going to copy my posts on this and continue the discussion in the Gooreads Feedback forum, since they are focusing on this topic, and the people who would be influenced by the input are there.
True but you can also talk about those themes while reviewing the book. For example: While the story is well written, readers should be aware that the author's a/thiest view points do shine through. There are many references to how bad/good adherence to dogma is and no one should be blindsided if they have a differing opinion.
It's about the book mostly but does reference his view points which themselves are ones he embraces and shares.
One thought about the free speech side is that this isn't a public internet. Goodreads is a privately owned website that we're using for free. At the end of the day they have every right to enforce whatever rules they want for use and we're free to not use the service. No one is ~obligated~ to give us a soap box to stand on.
If I had to guess, I'm wagering that the bad press (be it valid or not, not really relevant) that the StGRB website has generated has caused them to do ~something~ to deal with it. At the end of the day they have to watch the perception of the website becuase perception is 9/10ths of reality. They need eyes on page for ad sales.
I doubt they'd resort to hiding reviews (or more obviously enforcing their policies regarding hidden reviews) if they did not also believe that it was the best thing to maintain their website page hits.
That is a fine line, Rob. I have a Goodreads friend who is a staunch Republican and wrote a review ripping 11/22/63 apart with a 1 star rating. He saw Democratic messages everywhere in the book based on interviews with Stephen King. He had some support, but some of us thought that he was seeing what was not there. He is entitled to his point of view and people who agree with the review are entitled to their point of views. And you are entitled to your point of view either agreeing with him or not. http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/...
So, are there really crap Democratic messages, according to my friend, or not? It is a matter of personal point of view, isn't it?
Rob wrote: "True but you can also talk about those themes while reviewing the book. For example:
While the story is well written, readers should be aware that the author's a/thiest view points do shine thro..."
It is a fine line, but I think, over all, as long as you're focused on the work the review will stand.I think that this is mostly them just stepping up and reminding authors who want to behave badly that there are mechanisms for dealing with "personal attacks" and that they don't need to resort to Name and Shame websites. It's to get Good Reads some press for being proactive and reaffirm what I've thought is the only response to bullying from either side: Report the offender to the site management, and then ignore it.
When it comes to personal opinions, even if you don't like the author, I think readers should be able to express that. This allows other readers to see that reviewer's personal prejudices. We, as readers, are intelligent enough to discern whether to agree with an opinion or not. The problem with imposing a system for censorship is that it becomes an undiscerning sword, especially in the gray areas, such as the example of my GR friend's review. I think the best way for GR to save face is to stand firmly behind their readers and make a strong statement that the site is for readers, and that authors should be aware of that. Authors who know how to behave themselves usually do not encounter such problems.
Think of it this way. This is supposedly a site for readers. Readers have opinions as to what they like and don't like. They rely on reviewers to help them cull through the tons of books that comes in. They select reviewers who they feel like the same types of books they like, or choose a range of reviewers to help them make their choices. Some readers even want to know whether that author behaves badly or not. For example, some may not want to support a pedophile no matter how great the book is.What do authors want? Readers. Authors have a product to sell, their books. When you're selling your product, you need to conduct yourself as a salesman would. You present your company (yourself) and your product as stellar. If somebody doesn't like your product, you say "thank you for your time", then move on to the next door.
One problem with standing behind their readers to the point where the ~perception~ is that this is a hostile place for writers is that writers are some of those buying the advertising that keeps the site free to use.You're absolutely right that behaving well and respectfully is more or less all you need to do to have a positive experience on Goodreads, both as an author and a reader. And perhaps this will all blow over. Or the site will evolve a bit. There are a lot of writers coming here not just to self promote but just plain interface and interact with fans, friends, and other writers.
If nothing else it should put to rest the perception that this is a wild west where everything is fair game. Goodreads is becoming blogged about a lot, and not in good ways. I admit I'm a little nervous saying anything remotely controversial on my blog right now because of the perception that it will get turned into reviews that say little more than "he's a fascist!" I'm not sure that's a good thing over all.
It's really a war of perception. Maybe the solution is to let the market self correct, and trust everyone will review and rate up/down appropraite without intervention from the community mods. It's not my site so I don't make those calls.
Rob wrote: "If nothing else it should put to rest the perception that this is a wild west where everything is fair game. Goodreads is becoming blogged about a lot, and not in good ways. I admit I'm a little nervous saying anything remotely controversial on my blog right now because of the perception that it will get turned into reviews that say little more than 'he's a fascist!' I'm not sure that's a good thing over all...."Doesn't that very anxiety prove that this *isn't* a place where you can say whatever you want without consequences?
I think the new policy is a miserable idea. Again, it comes down to whether or not you trust that readers can tell the difference between a justified review and an unjustified personal attack.
I guess, well, see now I'm nervous to even comment. I guess I would ask if you've ever had something taken out of context, twisted, or used against you in a discussion.I agree that every action has consequences. And I do think that censorship is something that is, well, pretty bad. I also see where the Goodreads people are coming from. For my part I don't feel comfortable saying much else.
Rob wrote: "One problem with standing behind their readers to the point where the ~perception~ is that this is a hostile place for writers is that writers are some of those buying the advertising that keeps the site free to use.""Let's see, there's this website with millions of users, all of whom love books. But a handful of them called me a stupid doodie head in a review. Guess I won't advertise there."
Well, lots of authors are idiots, so I suppose some might think that.
We should also note that there has not, historically, been much distinction in literary criticism between the consideration of the work and consideration of the author. Byron's work was decried by the Edinburgh Review, amongst others, because the author was considered decadent. Perceived waknesses in Percy Shelley's poetry were attributed to his failure to live up to the conservative standards of his father. Inversely, many authors historically published anonymously or pseudonymously for fear that any perceived immorality in their literary output would be ascribed to their personal moral characters (and this did, in fact, happen quite a bit, notably to Bram Stoker and R.L. Stevenson). So any suggestion that the consideration of the author should be somehow "off limits" in a book review has no historic basis. Sure, the 'New Criticism' movement of the 1920s-40s advocated the consideration of the literary work 'in isolation,' but they were pretty thoroughly debunked by the New Historicists in the 60s. Turns out they were just too lazy to read any author biographies.
If every author, musician, or artist has to pass some sort of morality test before you consider their work, you're going to miss out on a lot of great stuff.I disagree with pretty much all of Frank Miller's politics, but I love some of his work.
Roman Polanski is a reprehensible human being, but he's an exceptionally talented filmmaker.
Dickens was a less than admirable person to say the least. It doesn't make his books any less genius.
We have this kind of author in tabletop gaming circles, we call them munchkins. they want to min/max their stats and anything that goes against them is the GM's fault and they are being bullied. We like to pin murders on their characters and make them flip the gaming table when they leave.
The Sword and Laser
Books mentioned in this topic
11/22/63 (other topics)Alice in Wonderland (other topics)
A Canticle for Leibowitz (other topics)
The Road (other topics)
The Golden Compass (other topics)
Authors mentioned in this topic
Philip Pullman (other topics)C.S. Lewis (other topics)
Yukio Mishima (other topics)
Lewis Carroll (other topics)
Walter M. Miller Jr. (other topics)
More...
You seem to be asking why something you write, which purports to be a review of a book, should base actually contain any reference to that book. The answer is that this is a review of the book not the person.
I don't think it's right to disguise a critique of what soneone believes behind slamming their book, with no reference to that work.
You can for example, say Book X is bad because:
- it encourages homophobia, as evidenced here...
- it contains sexist charcters who are not challegned eg...
- it contains racist remarks that are presented as acceptable for example..
These are all evidence based reasons and good reasons to criticise a book, as well as of course plot, strature, style, typos, etc etc
I think it's also reasonable in the context of a book review to decalre an interest and tell people what you think of an author, and why.
Otherwise you are simply ignoring the purpose of writng a review, and showing a level of disregard and disrespect to the reviewing environment because you happen to think that the cause you are campaigning for is more important than the environment you are using to make yout point.
I assume you would be offended if someone who disagreed with you slated one of your books, without any reference to the book itself, simply because they their opinion was that somehow you are a 'bad person'.
If you think you have a fair point to make, whatever it is, argue it fairly.