Old Site


Bookninja 2.0:



.

Hearsay:

November 17, 2008

One more, on reviewing

I felt this one might generate some discussion, so I thought it needed its own post. The real problem isn’t snarky negative reviews, the real problem is false positives. Have at it.

This brings us to the least-discussed subject in the world of belles-lettres: book reviews that any author worth his salt knows are unjustifiably enthusiastic. Authors are always complaining that reviewers missed the whole point of “Few Mourn the Caballero,” or took the quote about the merry leper ballerinas out of context, or overlooked the allusions to Octave Mirbeau, or didn’t mention that the author once jilted the critic after he kept begging her to go out on a double date dressed as one of the Boleyn sisters. Authors are always complaining that reviewers maliciously cited the least incandescent, least Pushkinian passages in the book, or have a grudge against them because of something that happened the night the Khmer Rouge or Joy Division broke up, or only said mean things because the author went to Exeter while the reviewer had to settle for Andover.

What makes this bellyaching so unseemly is that the vast majority of book reviews are favorable, even though the vast majority of books deserve little praise. Authors know that even if one reviewer hates a book, the next 10 will roll over like pooches and insist it’s not only incandescent but luminous, too. Reviewers tend to err on the side of caution, fearing reprisals down the road. Also, because they generally receive but a pittance for their efforts, they tend to view these assignments as a chore and write reviews that read like term papers or reworded press releases churned out by auxiliary sales reps. This is particularly true in the mystery genre, where the last negative review was written in 1943.

Share the 'Ninja with your 2.0 friends:
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • StumbleUpon
  • Reddit
  • del.icio.us
  • LinkedIn
  • Digg
  • RSS
  • Print
  • email

13 comments on “One more, on reviewing”

  1. John McFetridge says:

    It’s true, in the crime fiction genre we have recommendations, not reviews.

    Also, any review of a mystery novel accepts that one book is only part of a whole. In literature it’s called a “cycle” when more than one book has the same main character and in mysteries it’s called a “series.” So, it’s tough to speak to things like character development and themes within one book. All that can get reviewed then is plot, leading to the misunderstanding that mystery fiction is too plot oriented.

    Still, there have been plenty of articles that slam the whole genre of crime fiction since 1943.

    Though I guess that’s not the part of the article you were looking for comments on.

  2. brian palmu says:

    “Would That The Khedive Had Not Overslept”. Ha.

    A luminous article.

  3. Mark Benson says:

    Another explanation is that critics may tend to review books for which they have some inclination to like in the first place — a sort of self-fulfilling prophecy.

    Take James Wood, for instance. He states in an interview with Robert Birnbaum in The Morning News that once he meets someone in person, he’ll only review their work if he’s in love with it. [see link above]

    I suspect that if this attitude is common with other critics, it could partially explain the pervasiveness of unjustifiable and enthusiastic false positives.

  4. Andrew S says:

    The bigger question is whether the problem is evaluative reviews, period.

  5. Chris says:

    The problem is evaluative reviews, period.

  6. ZW says:

    Bullshit.

  7. Andrew S says:

    You make a compelling argument.

  8. sj says:

    Now, now Zach. That’s very evaluative of you.

  9. Mary Soderstrom says:

    “Authors know that even if one reviewer hates a book, the next 10 will roll over like pooches and insist it’s not only incandescent but luminous, too.”

    Given the declining number of places where books get reviewed, the idea that a book might give 11 reviews is laughable. One place in Canada which does dish out the occasional snarky review is Quill and Quire, BTW, perhaps because its mandate is review nearly everything that is published in Canada

    Mary

    who’s been both a giver and a receiver of bad reviews

  10. Rob in Victoria says:

    “Another explanation is that critics may tend to review books for which they have some inclination to like in the first place — a sort of self-fulfilling prophecy.”

    Mark – quoted for truth.

    Especially so in a system where the vast (vast!) majority of reviewers are freelancers, desperately pitching one books section after another. Am I going to agressively pitch a title that I’m not interested in reading? Hardly. Am I going to pitch a title from an author whose previous books I loathed? Not likely.

    It doesn’t, as you suggest, result in a false positive review, but in a higher percentage of positive reviews over a reviewer’s body of work than would likely be the case if reviews were assigned more than pitches agreed to. And even reviews of books of interest and pitched aren’t de facto positive — each book on its merits, regardless of my initial interest in it. There are certainly negative reviews of books that I was keen on reading/reviewing, as should be the case (it’s got to the point where I drink in corners and with my back to the wall at prize galas and the like, the better to avoid a punch to the back of the head — if the list of negatively reviewed authors gets much longer, I’m gonna have to start staying home).

  11. Nathan says:

    What are these “reviews” you speak of?

  12. Adventures in Reading says:

    There has been much on this topic around the blog-o-sphere of late and I agree that there are a lot of “false positives” going around. While I don’t follow any professional reviews, the internet is filled with book bloggers terrified that they may trample on someone’s toes or hurt someone’s feelings.

  13. cfg says:

    And then there’s a certain “women’s” paper that recently pledged to publish only positive book reviews. Yes, you read that correctly. If you can’t say anything nice…One more market gone, and the critical dilution continues.

Discuss

Latest comments:
B. Glen Rotchin on
Radio Noon -- words and phrases I hate
Dave on
Radio Noon -- words and phrases I hate
Dave on
Radio Noon -- words and phrases I hate
Brian Palmu on
Radio Noon -- words and phrases I hate
Peter on
Radio Noon -- words and phrases I hate
Berk Reynolds on
Radio Noon -- words and phrases I hate
The Storialist on
Radio Noon -- words and phrases I hate
Michael on
Radio Noon -- words and phrases I hate
fred on
Radio Noon -- words and phrases I hate
Terry Murray on
Radio Noon -- words and phrases I hate
Terry Murray on
Radio Noon -- words and phrases I hate
rr on
Radio Noon -- words and phrases I hate
Colleen on
Radio Noon -- words and phrases I hate
Teaching Poetry on
RIP: PK Page
Michael J on
Radio Noon -- words and phrases I hate
Brian on
Radio Noon -- words and phrases I hate
George on
Bill Watterson interview
Paul on
Bill Watterson interview
Art Norris on
Friggin snowday
zsuzsi on
Friggin snowday


Search blog:
Archives:
Old site archive:

January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003

Feeds: