From Critical Mass - the blog of the National Book Critics Circle Board of Directors, earlier this week:
What will the book reviews of the future look like? How have blogs affected that design? How can the print and online worlds work together to broaden the scope of titles talked about in the media, and what's worth reading today?
What bothers me about this is the last part, "what's worth reading today". It smacks a bit of elitism and even if that's not what was intended it still clearly means that some books are worthy of notice (and review) while others are not.
And who decides is what I want to know - who decides what books are the ones we need to hear about?
I have seen this idea all over the place on the internet, from the whole dust-up over YA books read by adults at TEV a few weeks ago to this more recent essay-like entry (be forewarned - it's a long sucker) on what makes a good review, or worthy review. And of course - the whole chick lit is the death of female empowerment thing.
But really, I don't need to link to that again do I?
As a reader I honestly have to tell you right now that I never thought about reviews and genres and who reads what. I have always read reviews not for literary criticism (I got enough of that in grad school) but just to see if the book interested me enough to want to read it on my own. That's all that mattered. I never worried that if I didn't like the review it meant I was too stupid to understand it or that if someone else liked the book and I didn't then they were better than me.
I just wanted to know a bit about the book, honest to God.
Once I started reviewing I wrote like I think and tried to give readers enough information on the plot so they have an idea about the story and an opinion about the writing style so they can decide if it's to their liking. I have developed different ways to review for the different magazines I write for. It's impossible to compare Booklist and Bookslut - there is no room for anything other than direct anaylis in a 175-196 word review for the ALA and over there they do like comparisons - they want comparisons. (Think about how often a librarian must be asked "I like blah blah blah who else is like him/her?") At Bookslut I write a certain way for my column because I'm thinking of YA readers (and hoping they read my recommendations) and also because I'm writing about 5-6 books at once - not a lot of space for a lot of criticism there. When I write a straight review of one book though, when it's just me and a single title then I tend to write about why I like it because....here's the thing....
I only review books I like.
I've said it before and I'll say it again, I just don't see the point in spending time reading a book I don't like for the purposes of expressing why I didn't like it. I don't have time for that, or interest in doing that or any desire to do that. I don't even want to read those reviews - again, a waste of my time. So I read what I like and if I don't like a book then I don't review it. And if a PR rep emails me and asks about a book I don't plan to review then I let them know that I won't and give them a short sentence or two as to why. They've all been fine with that, largely because it rarely happens I imagine, but also because they like what I have to say when I do review a book.
I never thought that made me easy or in the quasi-employ of publishers. I just thought I was telling the world about books I liked in the hopes that they might like them too. And if I liked a book that maybe a lot of people had not heard of, if it's not the latest thing or the biggest thing or the quirkiest new literary thing then, well, that's okay.
I'm sure there are plenty of other folks who will review those books and that's okay.
I think lots of people write about books and some of them are good at it and some of them are not. I write to the standard I set when I was strictly a reader and it works for me. I just don't see reviewing books as a big deal I guess - a deal that should be done professionally and carefully, yes, but not as big of a deal as writing a book or master's thesis. It's an opinion, always and forever, first and foremost, it's someone's opinion.
And if you don't like it, then just don't read it. (Or write a book called "these are not the book reviews everyone else is writing" - that might make you feel better.)
EDITED TO ADD: In reponse to this entry getting linked to all over and sparking multiple other conversations, I have now written a new entry further clarifying my whole position on this positive vs negative reviewing discussion. Please read it and comment over there.
September 23
2006
07:39 AM
"(Or write a book called "these are not the book reviews everyone else is writing" - that might make you feel better.)" - Heh. You *are* funny.
I used to review for Publishers Weekly (292 reviews, in case we're counting) and was called upon to review many books I disliked. Now that I'm free, and older, I find I'm not interested in speaking negatively of other people's life's work if I can avoid it. Naturally, I'll give an honest answer if asked specifically, "What did you think of Book X?" But I get no pleasure out of dissing if I don't have to. Perhaps because, like you, I get that it's all subjective. Regarding the Literary v Commercial debate, the loudest voices on the Lit side always shout that Lit is *always* better and yet anyone with halfway decent vision can see that even among the critics, they rareyly agree on which Lit book is worth reading or not. Sometimes the NYTimes' own reviewers' can't even agree! "The daily Times loved it." "The Sunday Times hated it." And so it goes.