So there was this little mention over at the Emerald City blog about my review of Amanda Hemingway in Bookslut this month. I really enjoyed Hemingway's first two books in her Sangreal Trilogy (third book due out next year) and so I raved about it a bit. And at Em City they thought I was a bit "gushy".

Hmmm.

It wasn't a mean post or anything, and I sent back a funny comment and even got a nice note from Cheryl via email this morning. So there's no ugliness here, just a difference of opinion on how to review. I could have just shrugged this all off and let it go, but I keep thinking about it....and thinking about it. The crux of the matter seems to be that if I write only positive reviews then eventually readers will think that my opinion does not matter since I always have something nice to say. In other words, I must not be honest if I'm always positive, or people won't believe me if I'm always positive. (They'll dismiss my comments as another "Colleen loves that book" kind of review.)

But the thing is, I only review books I like. Partly this is because I have no interest in reading a book I don't like, so if I start it and by page 50 or so just can't stand it then I give up and mark it as a book I "Did Not Revew". (I keep a spreadsheet so just in a case a publisher asks about a review copy I can tell them when the book was reviewed or that I did not like it and couldn't write a positive review.) Because I request most of the books I review (and I'm careful about what I request) I usually do like them, so they are easy to write about. But there have probably been a dozen or more in the last year that just didn't work for me. The thing is, I know that this job is purely opinion, they just didn't work for me. It doesn't seem fair to right bad things about a book that tons of other people might love. And why spend time writing about something I didn't like when I could spent the time better writing about books that I love?

Is it wrong that I only want to write about them?

Maybe that's just the way it is though. People complain about Dale Peck and Michiko and snarky anonymous reviews from Kirkus, but they still secretly want them to be mean on the outside chance that their book will be the book that is loved and thus they get to write something like "Kirkus is always mean but they recommend my book!!!" A good review from me might mean less, because everyone gets good reviews from me.

Maybe I need to be meaner if I want my opinion to be respected.

It's all very frustrating to have to think about reviewing this way. One of the reasons I really like reviewing for Booklist is that they are a recommendations magazine only. If you don't like a book you receive for review (and I have disliked two of them in a huge way) then you let your editor know why you think it can not be recommended and if they agree then you pass on it. (Which is what happened in both cases for me.) And it seems like the libraries are happy with how the Booklist editors do things, the reviews are still considered important and significant.

So how come I can't apply the same ideas to my little world?

I'm not trying to change the world here, but I do choose books carefully and I think about the things I write about them. When I compared Amanda Hemingway to Philip Pullman, it was not done lightly, nor was I just blowing smoke when I said that James Van Pelt is the "best sci fi writer you've never heard of."

And all the good things about Joe Hill and Jay Lake and Said Hyder Akbar and Robert Long and Cecil Castellucci and Justine Chen Headley and Geert Spillebeen and on and on and on were sincere. I am honest when I say that I love the books I review, when I say they are important or delightful or smart or witty. And I really would like to keep reviewing books in the future with the same positive outlook. I wonder now if anyone is listening though or if already I have become too easy to dismiss.

Who knew this would all be so complicated, when all I ever wanted to do was let other people know about some really great books.