As I have noted, several people in the current debate about blog reviewing have stated that they write only positive reviews, as there is too much castigation in the world already, and that if they don't like a book they don't mention it. However, as a writer I feel very strongly that a bad review of my work is far better than nothing at all. A bad review at least lets people know about a book and gives them the chance to make up their own minds, whereas not to be mentioned is in effect to be silenced, the worst fate a writer can face.
Much has been made by both Sutherland and bloggers of the need to be able to 'trust' a reviewer's opinion, but I find this stance pretty suspect, if not elitist. One should never assume that a reader will 'trust' your opinion as a reviewer; in my opinion one should always review with the acknowledgement that one could be wrong. As a reader too, I feel the same: I want to be given the chance to make up my own mind, and I can't if a book is never even mentioned (and I don't happen to know about it). What's most important is the airing of opinions - debate, discussion. In my reading group people often change their minds about a book after an evening's discussion, or even about the question of what books are for. (For an example of this see our latest discussion.)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
It's a tricky one, isn't it? I have always been outspoken about books I have/haven't liked before until recently. I was all set to post a scathing review of a book I'd just read for book group, when I thought about the author, and how she might feel if she read it. Then I changed my mind. I felt too much of a bitch! Besides she might slag off MY novel when it comes out next spring - or worse still, I might MEET her one day, and she'd biff me one for it.
So I'm only writing positive things in blog posts now. Call it karma, if you like - or cowardice, maybe! - but if I don't like something, I'm going to keep my mouth shut.
Well. I'll try, anyway. Having said that, I did give Shadow of the Wind a severe slagging just yesterday. (I'm a hypocrite, as well as a sensitive flower!)
Well, yes, I'll agree, it's tricky, especially when you know authors, and in spite of what I've written above, I've declined reviewing in the past because I've known the author I've been asked to review and haven't liked the book (though I did know it would go to someone elase instead and wouldn't be passed over). And once a writing acquaintance reviewed a book of mine pretty critically, and I admit I did feel pretty awful, just because I knew her, even though I knew it was irrational. At one point I even gave up reviewing, feeling that maybe authors shouldn't be reviewers. But then that goes and leaves authors out of the debate about books, which is another thing I've been banging on about.
It's very hard...
It is hard. Once again (I know I'm repeating myself) I think it's about integrity.
I agree that a critical review can be better than being ignored but I think that depends on where it is and what else is out there to provide a balance. (For example, if it's the ONLY review in a national paper and it slates a book which may have been reviewed very favourably elsewhere but with far smaller readership.)
I'm very hesitant about writing anything negative that someone has poured their life blood into. The exception might be if it was a big seller and mine was only one small voice. So I'm with Alias LD on that.
On the other hand, I wouldn't lavish praise on something I had genuine reservations about - even if I knew the author. I'd prefer to keep quiet ...
I know a musician who also became a concert and record reviewer and then called the distinction between making and appraising music 'bogus'. How very convenient I thought. Poachers turned gamekeepers minimise the chances of being caught poaching. Let's not forget that there is an objective framework to arts criticism which, although not infallible, is ultimately fair if used fairly. Of course writers would prefer not to get a bad review. I worry that if criticism becomes entirely subjective, it will become less fair, less useful to readers and no academic use at all.
I think that's so pants raises an interesting issue: it's easy to conflate opinions and thought. The word "critical" doesn't have to mean "negative" - it can also mean "expressing or involving an analysis of the merits and faults of a work of literature, music, or art". I think "I like it" or "I don't like it" can be of some use, but if a reader discusses a book in terms of what the author was trying to achieve - whether the book succeeded in that project, how its various elements operated - it might never be necessary to say "I hated this!" Also, many's the time I've read a relatively negative review and been sparked by it to want to read the book in question.
Of course, one could always do a hatchet job - if you as a reviewer were offended by a book, if it seemed to break the code of trust, if you thought it was just egregious, best maybe to say so. But of course there is always something good about a piece of work, if you want there to be.
Elixabeth, I agree with your point about the importance of authors being "part of the debate about books"though I can see the poacher/gamekeeper thing too.In poetry,m though, it's harder to be taken seriously as a critic (unless, I suppose, high academic) if one isn't a poet too.
It's a tricky one, this. Opinions on books vary so much and you don't know whether the person who hates your book hates it simply because it's not their sort of thing. I stop reading books I don't like, so it would be unfair to review it....one can't exactly say: didn't get to the end of this one. I also reckon I'd rather be passed over in silence than torn to pieces in public by someone who just might not like the kind of book mine was!
Some books, the big ones from the big authors, can survive the odd negative review, because they will get enough over-all attention that these will be balanced by some positive ones. If you ever read those critical round-ups in the papers (Guardian, for example) it's obvious that books quite often divide the critics.
But if you're a new author and you only get one press review and the reviewer takes against your book (maybe they're right, maybe they're wrong) then that could be the end of it.
Maybe.
From my own experience, I have to say I heart online reviewers! My own novel got sneering attention in the broadsheets (maybe they were right, maybe they were wrong). It was very upsetting but in all honesty, I had to wonder if some of the reviewers had even read it because they seemed to have completely gone off at a tangent. Newspaper reviewers are busy people. I don't know, but I imagine they do not feel themselves to be adequately remunerated for their services and expertise, which may occasionally put them in a grumpy frame of mind. I wouldn't be surprise if once or twice they turn in a review based on a partial reading, and an impression formed from the blurb. (Have I just said something very self-destructive??????)
Getting bad reviews in the national papers is a very nasty experience. But only a writer who has never been ignored by the national papers can say that being ignored would be better.
To add to that last comment: I know there are people who say that newspaper reviews don't affect sales anyway, but I am pretty sure that the number of people put off by a bad review is fewer than the number prevented from even hearing about a book when it's not reviewed.
Post a Comment