![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
[I changed my default icon -- it is the three-headed dragon that I drew last year, that I made hot pink. Because...I think dragons, particularly my dragons, should be hot pink. I mean, why not?]
In the past two years, I have read over a million book reviews, and written a scant 100 or so. I like reading reviews, always have, whether they be book, film or television.
There's an odd thrill to looking a work of art through the eyes of someone else. Used to read Publisher's Weekly, Library Journal, New York Review of Books, The Times Book Review, and various others cover to cover. And I remember picking up Premiere Magazine for the film reviews.
With the internet, I tend to read Amazon, Good Reads, Smartbitches.com, and various livejournal book review posts.
But here's the problem with reviews -- regardless of what they are for, they tend to tell you more about the reviewer than the product, book, film, television show, or item being reviewed. I know, I was recently scanning reviews of air conditioners in order to buy an air conditioner. Every product had about four or five reviews. And no matter what it was -- it had at least two horrible reviews from dissatisfied customers. One reviewer stated that the air conditioner was "too loud" and didn't cool things at all.
While five other reviewers said the exact opposite - that it was quiet, and cooled their entire apartment. Who to believe? Eeny-Meeny-Miney-Moe. I found myself critically analyzing the reviews. I decided if the review ratio was three positive reviews (ie. 4-5 stars) vs. one negative review. I'd ignore the negative review. Most likely a fluke or bad luck. And I think we can all agree that air conditioners aren't necessarily something you'd review subjectively. There's objective criteria. Facts. Figures. They either cool down the room or they don't. How loud they are -- now that might be a bit subjective.
Books, on the other hand - there's really no objective criteria available. You can't even use technique, writing style, or grammar. Mainly because - the English language is tricky. Not helped by slang, and in fiction - you can break certain rules for a more conversational style. (Like I'm doing now. It's deliberate. I'm breaking all sorts of rules by design. Probably annoying the beejesus out of the folks who have English as a second language and learned "text-book" English. I feel for you. I learned text-book French in high school and found myself in the middle of Bretagne, where they did not speak text-book French (actually does anyone outside of American high school students?), and was a bit lost.)
So when people write book reviews...they often tell you more about themselves as a reader than they may intend to. For example? "It was an amazing book. I read it in one sitting." Okay, they probably skimmed half of it. Not necessarily that amazing. And a page-turner. Didn't require too much attention. Or time. "It was a long book, beautifully written, but took too long to read." This reviewer prefers quick reads. They don't want to spend too much time on one book. "This book was overly detailed. Too many descriptions. Wordy. The writer is clearly a recluse and paid to type. I was bored." The reader struggled with the style, possibly dislikes long sentences and prefers short ones. Might be a fan of a more simplistic or minimalistic writing style. Does it tell you whether you want to read the book? Probably not. Because your idea of overly detailed or wordy, is not necessarily the same as mine.
Television is similar. A lot of people viewed Buffy the Vampire Slayer as a cheesy teenage gothic soap opera with little value outside of that. I'm not saying they are wrong or right for that matter, just that this is one perspective in a multitude of possibilities. Others, saw the series as a meaty meta-philosophical discourse on adolescence and growing up that subverted various gender and genre stereotypes.
What you brought into the series as a watcher, was in the end what you took out of it.
It wasn't going to be the same for everyone.
Below follows a series of book reviews that I randomly selected from Amazon and Good Reads from amateur reviewers. I post the negative or one star review above the five star review. In each review, we learn more about the reader's preferences, how they read, what intrigues them, than we learn about the book. Making book reviews in of themselves highly unreliable ways to choose what to read next.
1) ( The Ocean at the End of the Lane by Neil Gaiman )
Note - the first reader was alienated by the fairy tale aspect of the novel, and in particular the writing style and the lack of a clear tight plot. They felt it was cliche and lacked depth. A children's novel, little more. The second reader - was charmed by the fairy tale aspect, related to the characters, and adored the writing style. They felt it was an adult novel with deep meaning and gobbled it up.
2)( The controversial 50 Shades of Grey by El James )
The first reader was put-off by the writing style and repetition. They also were a bit offended by the romantic coupling. Finding it silly juvenile and well, offensive. And could not understand how anyone could possibly like the book. The erotica aspect did not bother them, they just found the style atrocious. The second reader was charmed by the writing style and romantic coupling. The saving of a tortured soul aspect appealed to them. And while they found the sex scenes a bit off-putting, they were ultimately easy to overlook - because of the romance which hooked them from the start.
What we learn from both - is well, it depends on what you want in writing style. The second reader, somewhat defensively points out that this isn't literary -- if you want Bronte or Austen -- go read them. (Actually it's not even on par with Nora Roberts, Anne Rice, Sylvia Day, Courtney Milan and Danielle Steele...but let's not get nit-picky.) What's interesting about the 50 Shades reviews is a lot of reviewers assume that writing styles need to be uniform. That there is actually an objective criteria regarding a writing style that makes it good or bad. This is simply not true. (Forget what your stodgy English Lit teachers taught you. There are multiple writing styles, folks.] I learned this a long time ago - having read multiple writing styles and having written in multiple styles. My online style is nothing like my style at work, etc. Also, we all have our preferences - often, it is what we were taught or conditioned to prefer. The only objective criteria in regards to style - is: is it consistent, and does it fit the story, genre, and characters. Would the characters think and talk like this? For example a gritty urban character is not going to talk like Henry James, any more than a character in the 19th Century is going to talk and think like Nick Hornby or Helen Fielding or Stephen King.
50 Shades has a deliberate style. The writer is consistent throughout. It's so deliberate that I often found it to be satirical in character - as if she was deliberately poking fun at various romance novels and tropes. (I don't know if that's true. I think it may be -- the writer has a snarky wit in interviews.) But it is admittedly horrid and jarring, and insanely repetitious. Also the romance at the center of the book - is offensive if you look at it from a certain perspective. I found it offensive from that perspective. But if you look at it from another angle, it is touching, tragic, and moving. Which I also found. I've read worse and seen worse -- so from my perspective this was a relatively tame and somewhat funny book -- but again I'd read books that I couldn't finish. (The infamous "Story of O" (which was written in the 1960s or 70s) comes to mind - couldn't get past the first twenty pages.) Both reviewers are honest and correct in their perspective. The first reviewer is angry and condemns the second reviewer's taste, while the second reviewer is defensive, and almost apologetic, feeling the need to justify why she enjoyed the book.
If 50 Shades still offends you, particularly its success, due to the questionable and offensive content, instead of taking out your rage on the people who enjoyed the book -- please contribute to a domestic violence charity in your area or volunteer at a shelter, or contribute funds to victims of intimate violence. You'll achieve your goal far quicker. Blasting 50 Shades --- is a bit like beating a brick wall with jello.
3) ( finally two polar opposite reviews for the controversial and Pulitizer Prize winning, The Goldfinch by Donna Tartt )
The first reviewer enjoyed the book to start, but gave up halfway through. And felt the Dickens references were inappropriate. This reviewer also had issues with the lack of humor in the novel and unrelenting bleakness. They felt it dragged, and was a waste.
While they loved The Secret History, Tartt's prior novel, they couldn't finish this one.
The second reviewer is the polar opposite. While they enjoyed the Secret History, they felt it lacked something -- while this novel contained everything they wanted. They felt the Dickens references were "exciting" and " amusing". That Tartt had Dickens down. And while the story was almost unbearably bleak at times -- the Dickens bits made them smile.
It's important to note that both reviewers were fans of the writer's style, and fans of Dickens. But they had completely different reactions to the plot, characters, and how Dickens was referenced. A reader who is not a fan of Dickens, may or may not based on these reviews like the book. I read the reviews -- and thought, okay, I loved the Secret History, but I hate Dickens writing style -- so, this may not be the book for me.
How they related to the book -- had more to do with their personal preferences, experience, mood, etc than it had to do with the book.
If I were teach someone to write a review - I'd advise them to write a constructive critique, that provides the reader with just enough information to determine if they should read it, and the writer, should they happen to stumble across it, just enough information to know if the book worked for the reader or didn't and why. I would also advise not to be cruel, to handle the critique the way you might critique your own child's work. Or someone you loved. To be kind. Which is hard -- I think. It's something I'm working on. And do not always succeed in. But I can't go backwards and fix what happened yesterday, all I can do is work on today, this moment. And let tomorrow bring what it will.
In the past two years, I have read over a million book reviews, and written a scant 100 or so. I like reading reviews, always have, whether they be book, film or television.
There's an odd thrill to looking a work of art through the eyes of someone else. Used to read Publisher's Weekly, Library Journal, New York Review of Books, The Times Book Review, and various others cover to cover. And I remember picking up Premiere Magazine for the film reviews.
With the internet, I tend to read Amazon, Good Reads, Smartbitches.com, and various livejournal book review posts.
But here's the problem with reviews -- regardless of what they are for, they tend to tell you more about the reviewer than the product, book, film, television show, or item being reviewed. I know, I was recently scanning reviews of air conditioners in order to buy an air conditioner. Every product had about four or five reviews. And no matter what it was -- it had at least two horrible reviews from dissatisfied customers. One reviewer stated that the air conditioner was "too loud" and didn't cool things at all.
While five other reviewers said the exact opposite - that it was quiet, and cooled their entire apartment. Who to believe? Eeny-Meeny-Miney-Moe. I found myself critically analyzing the reviews. I decided if the review ratio was three positive reviews (ie. 4-5 stars) vs. one negative review. I'd ignore the negative review. Most likely a fluke or bad luck. And I think we can all agree that air conditioners aren't necessarily something you'd review subjectively. There's objective criteria. Facts. Figures. They either cool down the room or they don't. How loud they are -- now that might be a bit subjective.
Books, on the other hand - there's really no objective criteria available. You can't even use technique, writing style, or grammar. Mainly because - the English language is tricky. Not helped by slang, and in fiction - you can break certain rules for a more conversational style. (Like I'm doing now. It's deliberate. I'm breaking all sorts of rules by design. Probably annoying the beejesus out of the folks who have English as a second language and learned "text-book" English. I feel for you. I learned text-book French in high school and found myself in the middle of Bretagne, where they did not speak text-book French (actually does anyone outside of American high school students?), and was a bit lost.)
So when people write book reviews...they often tell you more about themselves as a reader than they may intend to. For example? "It was an amazing book. I read it in one sitting." Okay, they probably skimmed half of it. Not necessarily that amazing. And a page-turner. Didn't require too much attention. Or time. "It was a long book, beautifully written, but took too long to read." This reviewer prefers quick reads. They don't want to spend too much time on one book. "This book was overly detailed. Too many descriptions. Wordy. The writer is clearly a recluse and paid to type. I was bored." The reader struggled with the style, possibly dislikes long sentences and prefers short ones. Might be a fan of a more simplistic or minimalistic writing style. Does it tell you whether you want to read the book? Probably not. Because your idea of overly detailed or wordy, is not necessarily the same as mine.
Television is similar. A lot of people viewed Buffy the Vampire Slayer as a cheesy teenage gothic soap opera with little value outside of that. I'm not saying they are wrong or right for that matter, just that this is one perspective in a multitude of possibilities. Others, saw the series as a meaty meta-philosophical discourse on adolescence and growing up that subverted various gender and genre stereotypes.
What you brought into the series as a watcher, was in the end what you took out of it.
It wasn't going to be the same for everyone.
Below follows a series of book reviews that I randomly selected from Amazon and Good Reads from amateur reviewers. I post the negative or one star review above the five star review. In each review, we learn more about the reader's preferences, how they read, what intrigues them, than we learn about the book. Making book reviews in of themselves highly unreliable ways to choose what to read next.
1) ( The Ocean at the End of the Lane by Neil Gaiman )
Note - the first reader was alienated by the fairy tale aspect of the novel, and in particular the writing style and the lack of a clear tight plot. They felt it was cliche and lacked depth. A children's novel, little more. The second reader - was charmed by the fairy tale aspect, related to the characters, and adored the writing style. They felt it was an adult novel with deep meaning and gobbled it up.
2)( The controversial 50 Shades of Grey by El James )
The first reader was put-off by the writing style and repetition. They also were a bit offended by the romantic coupling. Finding it silly juvenile and well, offensive. And could not understand how anyone could possibly like the book. The erotica aspect did not bother them, they just found the style atrocious. The second reader was charmed by the writing style and romantic coupling. The saving of a tortured soul aspect appealed to them. And while they found the sex scenes a bit off-putting, they were ultimately easy to overlook - because of the romance which hooked them from the start.
What we learn from both - is well, it depends on what you want in writing style. The second reader, somewhat defensively points out that this isn't literary -- if you want Bronte or Austen -- go read them. (Actually it's not even on par with Nora Roberts, Anne Rice, Sylvia Day, Courtney Milan and Danielle Steele...but let's not get nit-picky.) What's interesting about the 50 Shades reviews is a lot of reviewers assume that writing styles need to be uniform. That there is actually an objective criteria regarding a writing style that makes it good or bad. This is simply not true. (Forget what your stodgy English Lit teachers taught you. There are multiple writing styles, folks.] I learned this a long time ago - having read multiple writing styles and having written in multiple styles. My online style is nothing like my style at work, etc. Also, we all have our preferences - often, it is what we were taught or conditioned to prefer. The only objective criteria in regards to style - is: is it consistent, and does it fit the story, genre, and characters. Would the characters think and talk like this? For example a gritty urban character is not going to talk like Henry James, any more than a character in the 19th Century is going to talk and think like Nick Hornby or Helen Fielding or Stephen King.
50 Shades has a deliberate style. The writer is consistent throughout. It's so deliberate that I often found it to be satirical in character - as if she was deliberately poking fun at various romance novels and tropes. (I don't know if that's true. I think it may be -- the writer has a snarky wit in interviews.) But it is admittedly horrid and jarring, and insanely repetitious. Also the romance at the center of the book - is offensive if you look at it from a certain perspective. I found it offensive from that perspective. But if you look at it from another angle, it is touching, tragic, and moving. Which I also found. I've read worse and seen worse -- so from my perspective this was a relatively tame and somewhat funny book -- but again I'd read books that I couldn't finish. (The infamous "Story of O" (which was written in the 1960s or 70s) comes to mind - couldn't get past the first twenty pages.) Both reviewers are honest and correct in their perspective. The first reviewer is angry and condemns the second reviewer's taste, while the second reviewer is defensive, and almost apologetic, feeling the need to justify why she enjoyed the book.
If 50 Shades still offends you, particularly its success, due to the questionable and offensive content, instead of taking out your rage on the people who enjoyed the book -- please contribute to a domestic violence charity in your area or volunteer at a shelter, or contribute funds to victims of intimate violence. You'll achieve your goal far quicker. Blasting 50 Shades --- is a bit like beating a brick wall with jello.
3) ( finally two polar opposite reviews for the controversial and Pulitizer Prize winning, The Goldfinch by Donna Tartt )
The first reviewer enjoyed the book to start, but gave up halfway through. And felt the Dickens references were inappropriate. This reviewer also had issues with the lack of humor in the novel and unrelenting bleakness. They felt it dragged, and was a waste.
While they loved The Secret History, Tartt's prior novel, they couldn't finish this one.
The second reviewer is the polar opposite. While they enjoyed the Secret History, they felt it lacked something -- while this novel contained everything they wanted. They felt the Dickens references were "exciting" and " amusing". That Tartt had Dickens down. And while the story was almost unbearably bleak at times -- the Dickens bits made them smile.
It's important to note that both reviewers were fans of the writer's style, and fans of Dickens. But they had completely different reactions to the plot, characters, and how Dickens was referenced. A reader who is not a fan of Dickens, may or may not based on these reviews like the book. I read the reviews -- and thought, okay, I loved the Secret History, but I hate Dickens writing style -- so, this may not be the book for me.
How they related to the book -- had more to do with their personal preferences, experience, mood, etc than it had to do with the book.
If I were teach someone to write a review - I'd advise them to write a constructive critique, that provides the reader with just enough information to determine if they should read it, and the writer, should they happen to stumble across it, just enough information to know if the book worked for the reader or didn't and why. I would also advise not to be cruel, to handle the critique the way you might critique your own child's work. Or someone you loved. To be kind. Which is hard -- I think. It's something I'm working on. And do not always succeed in. But I can't go backwards and fix what happened yesterday, all I can do is work on today, this moment. And let tomorrow bring what it will.