Reviewers: what is YOUR approach to reviewing books?

[tinkerdan]

That is not only a fair review but it is effective.

Well, I think I can explain my position better on negative reviews by showing an example of one of mine. Here is a book that I didn't much care for. It shows how I see that a negative review should work.

Yes, why a reviewer hates or enjoys a book should be included. But as I said, if I can't find anything good in a book, then I can't review it. I don't want to dwell on the negative.

I saw there were some pluses but also that there were aspects that I might not like and probably will avoid it while at the same time I will be sufficiently warned if I do read it.

 

[Toby Frost]

The only place where I'd post reviews is here. I would do roughly the following (although I've never set it down before):

1) What book is about, including background of author/times/other relevant circumstances, if needed
2) Why book is of interest to the reader (usually, that it treats a particular idea particularly well or badly)
3) Whether book works.

If a book is rubbish, or completely not to my taste, I won't review it. I've not got much time for people who review books in order to slate them, in the same way that I think advice on how to write should be accurate instead of funny (you'd be surprised how often this happens). I don't have any particular social or political axes to grind, so I usually wouldn't comment on that sort of thing unless it's very clear from the book. I'm wary of interpreting things into a novel that aren't there or weren't meant to be. That said, I'm usually prompted to review something because of some unusual aspect that goes beyond the events of the story. I've read several crime novels centred around women recently, and thought that they might make an interesting article.

 

[Randy M.]

The only place where I'd post reviews is here. I would do roughly the following (although I've never set it down before):

1) What book is about, including background of author/times/other relevant circumstances, if needed
2) Why book is of interest to the reader (usually, that it treats a particular idea particularly well or badly)
3) Whether book works.

If a book is rubbish, or completely not to my taste, I won't review it.

I can sympathize with this. If all you're doing is trouncing a thing, it's not fun. On the other hand, we've all read works that are unaccountably popular and probably deserve having someone come along and say, whoa!, let's look at this more critically.

I've not got much time for people who review books in order to slate them, in the same way that I think advice on how to write should be accurate instead of funny (you'd be surprised how often this happens).

Argh. I think I know what you mean if what you mean is that a review should not be a display of the reviewer's cleverness. I want my reviewer to come to the work in good faith and show the writer good will even if the review comes down on the negative side. (I will make an exception for righteous indignation. Some works earn that reaction, even some I like and agree with.) But because some of the best reviews I've ever read were funny -- Mark Twain's "Literary Offenses of Fenimore Cooper," for instance -- I'm not sure I want to let this comment go by. There is a fine and porous line between review/criticism/critique and if you are writing for others to read, even in reviews and literary commentary, there is, I believe, an expectation for you to be interesting, even somewhat entertaining, (unless, apparently, you're writing for an academic audience in which case you have an implicit thumbs up for producing snores) as well as thoughtful and (if you're a bit lucky) insightful, and humor is a component of that. That said, there are extremes and it may be in poor taste to trash something by mocking it, and yet ... Mark Twain's "Literary Offenses of Fenimore Cooper."

I don't have any particular social or political axes to grind, so I usually wouldn't comment on that sort of thing unless it's very clear from the book. I'm wary of interpreting things into a novel that aren't there or weren't meant to be.

How do you know it isn't there? How do you know it wasn't meant to be? And even if the writer says it wasn't intentional, so what? Does the author have such control of the work that nothing creeps in unnoticed? Is the author, in other words, God? If you see something, why not defend your observation with the strongest argument (in the more academic sense, not the bickering-in-public sense) you can make and find out if others see it, too?

One of the things I'm wary of is seeing either a work or a review as an end point. Either can be that. Either can also be the start of a conversation or more probably a part of a conversation started long ago with other works/commentary. It kind of amazes me that so many readers speak as though a work, fiction or non-fiction, is an end in and of itself and not a point along a line of conversation. All literature is a discussion, sometimes with long dead folks, in which we are trying to figure out ourselves and the world/universe we live in.

That said, I'm usually prompted to review something because of some unusual aspect that goes beyond the events of the story. I've read several crime novels centred around women recently, and thought that they might make an interesting article.

Me, too, not intentionally but in conjunction with several horror/fantasy thrillers that primarily feature women. Since this time last year I've read Alexandra Sokoloff's The Harrowing, Marie Belloc Lowndes The Lodger, Gillian Flynn's Sharp Objects and Gone Girl, Elizabeth Hand's Generation Loss, Glen Hirshberg's Motherless Child and Karl Edward Wagner's "The River of Night's Dreaming" and "Beyond Any Measure," and watched movies like Stoker and Shadow of a Doubt. I'd really like to read that article.

Randy M.

 

[Lilmizflashythang]

To answer your question of if the author is God, Randy. Yeah, of his/her created work, the author is god. They say what is canon, who goes together, and who lives or dies. I'd say that qualifies.

 

[Vertigo]

I really only produce reviews for my own interest (apart from anything else it makes me stop and think about what I'm reading) and then keep them in my reading database. I also post these reviews on both Goodreads and here.

I don't generally write anything about the plot/content/characters of the book; I figure the book blurbs usually do that job perfectly well. I try to explain what I like and dislike about each book (usually not very well) and I sometimes, with more 'literary' works, try to talk a little about my interpretation of the book, though I have very little confidence in my proficiency at this it. However, again, this does make me think a bit more about what I'm reading.

Since I've started reviewing book in this way I think I have improved both my appreciation and enjoyment of good books but I think it has also increased my impatience and reaction to bad ones.

 

[Randy M.]

To answer your question of if the author is God, Randy. Yeah, of his/her created work, the author is god. They say what is canon, who goes together, and who lives or dies. I'd say that qualifies.

Given that I've written some stories -- nothing anyone here would have heard of; I'm not that good -- and what I saw in the process of writing, and what I've seen of the work of writers, I don't believe in God. There are too many lines of influence -- social, political, ideological, cultural, religious, ... -- for any one person to keep track of all the information and opinion they are absorbing, and too much reliance on subconscious problem-solving for any writer to be God.

So, who says it isn't there if someone sees it? Frankly, best, strongest argument, pro or con, should win that debate until a stronger argument comes along.


Randy M.

 

[HareBrain]

How do you know it isn't there? How do you know it wasn't meant to be? And even if the writer says it wasn't intentional, so what? Does the author have such control of the work that nothing creeps in unnoticed? Is the author, in other words, God? If you see something, why not defend your observation with the strongest argument (in the more academic sense, not the bickering-in-public sense) you can make and find out if others see it, too?

Yup. Looking back on some of my early stuff, I now see things in it that I wasn't aware of at the time. But an older and wiser reader might have seen it straight away. If that reader had pointed it out in a review, I, as the author, might have denied it, but that reader would have been right.

 

[The Judge]

Reminds me of Anthony Burgess when someone pointed out that the name of a character in one of his novels, R Ennis, was "sinner" spelled backwards. He'd wished he'd realised that when he was writing the novel, as he'd have changed it.

 

[hitmouse]

For interest and by way of contrast, I review scientific papers for a couple of academic journals. There are differences between what is described above and what I do.
Papers are submitted to the editor of the journal who then sends all submissions to a panel of expert reviewers. Each paper is reviewed independently by at least 2 peers who have some demonstrated expertise in the field. Each review has to be forensic and dispassionate, and is a closely referenced dissection of the paper. Bad papers get the same treatment as the good. Letting a shoddy paper through can badly affect the journal. The reviewers do the work for free and are generally anonymous, and the authors get no direct financial benefit from publication (though it enhances CV, career prospects etc.) Roughly, submissions are rated as Excellent, OK, Needs a Bit of Work but potentially publishable, and Irredemably Bad. Or the submission might be Good but Unsuitable for the particular journal.
The editor gets a very detailed review (and can decide whether to send for further independent critique) and the authors get a summary of the review by way of constructive criticism.

 

[tinkerdan]

Though this is very true I think it only remains so until the author chooses to share their work with others.

To answer your question of if the author is God, Randy. Yeah, of his/her created work, the author is god. They say what is canon, who goes together, and who lives or dies. I'd say that qualifies.

When they share the work it's like gifting the reader your work and depending on your interpretation of what a gift truly is you can model the disposition of the work or gift.

What I mean by that is when I give someone a gift I am giving them something of mine that is mine only until they accept it as a gift. It then becomes theirs. What they do with it is no longer under my control so that gift is no longer mine. They can throw it away; destroy it; sell it; re-gift it; keep it; place it under a large stone or put it out in the rain. It's theirs and though I might be able to take it back; as long as they have it they can do as they please.

I'm not sure if that makes them the god of it but it does allot to them a certain amount of license that, when they stay within legal limits, is out of our control.

I have seen some pretty scathing reviews and I thankfully do not let those dissuade me as much as use them as a warning. Usually upon finishing the work I have to wonder if those people were trolls or had issues that were valid to them; but it's quite clear that we read two different novels. [This might be the difference between someone who reads the novel and someone who scans looking for trouble.] The bottom line is that there is little we can do to control those types of people except to ignore them and recognize that they are exercising their rights with the piece of this experience that belongs to them.

 

[Toby Frost]

Deciding what a book is about is tricky: I’d be wary of inferring things into a story unless they’re really obvious. To give a minor example, I once read a review of The Thing that described the hero as a Vietnam veteran. Well, he’s the right age, and he knows about helicopters, guns and explosives, but I don’t think that justifies the conclusion that he definitely is. I wouldn’t have said that unless he either said he was or did something that made it absolutely clear that he was. On the other hand, The Handmaid’s Tale has to be “about” feminism, because it discusses so many issues concerned with the subject.

Personally, I think that an author is justified in saying “Right, that’s it, here’s a book, make of it what you will” (and doesn’t have to say it out loud. It seems to me to be a default position). I don’t think the writer is in a “dialogue” with the world (unless he wants to answer his critics, which may not be wise), any more than a musician expects to receive comments from the audience after he finishes playing. The readers can make of it what they like, but the author isn’t under any real obligation to talk to them at any point (beyond needing to write something that people will want to buy in order to make ends meet). In that way, I think that the book is the start and finish of itself, so to speak.

 

[Randy M.]

Deciding what a book is about is tricky: I’d be wary of inferring things into a story unless they’re really obvious. To give a minor example, I once read a review of The Thing that described the hero as a Vietnam veteran. Well, he’s the right age, and he knows about helicopters, guns and explosives, but I don’t think that justifies the conclusion that he definitely is. I wouldn’t have said that unless he either said he was or did something that made it absolutely clear that he was. On the other hand, The Handmaid’s Tale has to be “about” feminism, because it discusses so many issues concerned with the subject.

If you mean John Carpenter's The Thing, I'd say the movie has a post-Vietnam feel to the way it views the military just as the Howard Hawks/Christian Nyby The Thing (From Another World) has a post-WWII feel to its view of the military. But I don't recall anyone in Carpenter's movie stating he was in Vietnam, which is a different thing altogether.

Personally, I think that an author is justified in saying “Right, that’s it, here’s a book, make of it what you will” (and doesn’t have to say it out loud. It seems to me to be a default position). I don’t think the writer is in a “dialogue” with the world (unless he wants to answer his critics, which may not be wise), any more than a musician expects to receive comments from the audience after he finishes playing. The readers can make of it what they like, but the author isn’t under any real obligation to talk to them at any point (beyond needing to write something that people will want to buy in order to make ends meet). In that way, I think that the book is the start and finish of itself, so to speak.

I agree with this, although it can be illuminating about an author's view of their own work or even about the process the author uses. But once a work is published, it's out there on its own. What readers make of it is no longer dependent on the writer. And often enough the writer stepping back and letting it loose is probably self-protection.

That aside, I do like hearing writers talk about the work of other writers. It gives further indication of what they value and sometimes offers insights into the work and thinking behind their writing.


Randy M.