THE REAL MCCOYS reading scripts.
Should reviewers for newspapers, magazines and online zines and websites, decline requests to review books they know they will probably not like? In other words, should reviewers that prefer their crime hard-boiled agree to review a cozy? Should reviewers that hate noir take one on? Is it fair to writers to have an unreceptive audience for their work in these hard times?
27 comments:
I don't know if you can attach a "should" to it. But then I have issues with that word in general. That and "fair". I'm not sure we could apply such a broad question.
Just as different people will have different tastes there are also going to be different attitudes on that question. It's going to depend on personality, objectivity, professionalism. Or the lack of them.
Personally, I'd like to see enough open-mindedness from a reviewer that they'd be willing to set aside a preference and allow for the possibility of being surprised.
But then, I also don't make my living off my writing.
I think it's fair, but a critic has to honest and open about their own tastes and preferences. A good critic should be fair when evaluating a book (or movie or play or...) and give an accurate presentation of the material, without letting their own likes or dislikes get in the way. A writer who loves a particular genre should be equally careful not to go overboard and give readers the wrong impression.
The best reviewers also seem to be able to inspire you to see something even when they don't like it. I think of someone like Pauline Kael, whose bad reviews are so thoughtful and engaging, and try to connect the film to a larger political and artistic context. But she's also an example of someone who doesn't hide their tastes, so you can tell if you'd disagree with her or not.
Interesting question on this day when it was announced that North Korea had tested a nuclear weapon. Why did NK do that? They want notice. If it has to be negative notice, so be it.
Why is Miss California better known than whoever won the Miss USA contest? She got notice, both favorable and unfavorable.
Why are the Republicans so prone to scream even at unimportant things the President does? They feel unnoticed.
I do better reviewing books I've chosen. I enjoy it more. But from what I read, page hits, whether they are for negative or positive reasons, move up your rankings on Goggle. That's why authors might benefit from being even on very small blogs or blogs with negative reviews.
Writing is hard. When you write something you put it out there for people to like it or trash it as they will. Maybe the most hurtful thing you can do is to ignore a writer's work.
Kael is a good example but I don't think her strong dislikes arose from hatred of certain genres or subgenres. And every review she wrote was interesting--sometimes in what it told you about her.
I wonder if that's true, Joe. Any review is better than none.
I don't think I could fairly review chick lit, for instance. Unless you have a broad definition of what that is. Or sci-fi, because it would require more background than I have.
My policy is a compromise. I let publicists know up front that I will not sabotage them by writing a negative review; the corollary to that promise is that I will not write or publish a review of a book that deserves a negative review. This frees me to write positively about books that I feel strongly about--books that I would enthusiastically recommend to others.
A good policy and one a number of reviewers I respect use.
Patti, I don't think this happens much. Newspapers get so many books that reviewers either get to request the ones they're interested in, or are assigned the books in the genre/style that they handle. I think most online web-sites either farm out books to their reviewers based on preferences, or don't review the books.
You've hit on the reason why I very seldom do paid or requested reviews. I don't like to bash living writers who are no doubt doing their best, but I can't bring myself to lie. I typically only review stuff that I like because then it's easy to be enthusiastic about it.
I had another thought. The reader has some rights in all of this too. If reviewers don't give us a range of reviews, how can we decide what to read?
It's not sabotage to write a bad review of a bad book...it's doing one's job as a reviewer, a servant to the reading public (and to the art, to get even more pompous about it). Of course you have only your (educated) opinion to offer. That's the nature of the enterprise. Theodore Sturgeon is the only "all-positive" reviewer I've ever found worth reading, and you could see the strain in some cases where he would find what good he could in a book that was clearly bad...but he was honest about the straining.
And, frankly, anyone so narrowminded as to damn all hardboiled or all cozies shouldn't be reviewing crime fiction in any forum, without at least making this prejudice clear. I know at least one good editor/publisher (in another field of fiction) who grew quite upset that I suggested he was prejudiced (I didn't go as far as to say foolishly so, though it is foolishness) when he said he hated all westerns, and westerns as a form. This man should probably not review westerns, of course, though he's likely if he's got any integrity at all to come across a western (or several hundred) that he could like, and begin any theoretical review with "Although I tend to hate westerns..."
You seem to be assuming reviewers' primary audience or responsibility is to the(ir fellow) writers. I don't agree, nor certainly is it toward the publishers...but, again, to their readers, to give as honest and informed assessment as possible. The writers and certainly publishers have publicists, as Bob mentioned, if they want Only Positive statements. Coddling writers at readers' expense, in any times, has no benefits for the writing profession, as it encourages the readers of the reviews, such as their are, to suspect the reviewers are not looking out for them.
I guess what I am saying is that if you don't read or care for the genre the book is in, you probably shouldn't review it. Not that books should never get bad reviews.
For years the NYT would give Stephen King books to the same reviewer. A reviewer who didn't like Stephen King. Always ensuring a negative review.
One person who it didn't hurt luckily.
It's up to the individual. When I was reviewing for a newspaper, I didn't shy away from negative reviews because I believe that just letting people know that a book exists helps its sales.
When someone who's read a review of a book runs across that book, they're more likely to simply remember that they've heard of it than to remember bad things said about it, and therefore be willing to give it a shot.
I'm not always sure a reviewer on a newspaper has actually read a book. Read the blurb and maybe the first 50 pages yes, but not the whole book.
Kerrie-I've seen that once of twice. Yes, negative reviews are part of life, I guess.
Not to mention that Stephen King's books, by most reasonable standards, and admittedly I've not tried the majority of them (becasue of the minority I have tried), tend toward the derivative and the prolix. So, I guess we'd need to lean toward those reviewers who haven't read much horror (or other fantastic fiction) and who don't prefer good, or at least careful or revised, prose.
Seems like special pleading to me.
Yes, bad reviews have their place, particularly if they're fair.
I have reviewed books for the Toronto Star as a freelancer - I won't read a book I know I won't like.
The same newspaper has a columnist on staff, Jack Batten, who only reviews crime fiction. It's the same with the Globe and Mail - most books are reviewed by freelancers, but a staff reviewer, Margaret Cannon reviews all crime fiction.
I'm not sure why crime fiction (actually both of those reviewers call it "mystery fiction") is different from other genres, but it usually is.
So, if you write a style of crime fiction that the staff reviewer doesn't like, you'll probably get a bad review or more likely, no review at all.
It's funny that you should bring this up, I got the feeling that a certain crime fiction reviewer for the most respected newspaper in America really didn't get Seth Harwood's "Jack Wakes Up."
I got the feeling from her terse review that this end of the genre didn't appeal to her, much like a movie reviewer that prefers foreign and indie films, to modern blockbusters. The San Francisco Chronicle decided almost twenty years ago just to keep at least another reviewer to avoid this type of a situation.
I've written quite a few reveiws for a web site, and I'm now careful to drop in some disclaimers if I'm less than flattering. For example, I don't care for many apocalyptic political thrillers, and I'll phrase my criticism so that reader knows that. I've even said to raise my rating a point or two if you'reminto that kind of stuff.
The flip side of that is when I a read a book that falls into a category I don't usually care for, but I really love that book. Those becme some of my most flattering reviews, because I'm still up front about the sub-genre, but this book was so good it won me over.
I also take care never to say I just don't like the book; I use examples whenever I can. I hope this gives the reader a chance to make up her own mind after reading the review if she doesn't really care about the thing I didn't like.
I also have a great editor at New Mystery Reader. Sje lets me write whatever I want, and doesn't post reviews she thinks are too harsh. Unless they're of established writers. (Robin Cook comes to mind.) They can afford it.
Steve,
The NYT used to do the same thing with Ed McBain. I went looking for old reviews of his when he died and found a steady stream of pans from the same guy. Makes you wonder if the person assigning the reviews had it in for McBain. Or for the reviewer, making him read all these books he'd hate.
Reviews need to up front about their personal views on preferences. I recall Roger Ebert reviews more than a few films and saying "this isn't my thing, but I can see that people who are the audience for his will like it" and I think that's the essence of what makes the ideal summation of a review, tell what the material is, say what you liked, say what you didn't like and would you recommend it? and if not for everyone then for whom.
Totally off the topic, but I don't know where else to put this -
In addition to the Real McCoys in the picture, I believe the man in the upper right is the great Hans Conreid, a fine actor and the voice of Dudley Do-Right.
When approached by one publisher I was offered a variety of books in different genres than what I write in. I selected choices in non-fiction and fiction, including literary fiction which I do not read that often. I wanted to read different genres to see how other writers developed their stories or information. So far I have enjoyed every one of the books, some better than I thought I would and a few that had areas that I was skeptical on but others might find more interesting than myself.
Yes, it is Hans Conreid who also played Uncle Tonoose on Danny Thomas. Or at least I remember it that way.
I'll echo what others have said: I won't accept an assignment to review a book that I know I won't like. There are certain genres that just turn me off (too-slick thrillers, in particular). And as an author I hate it when people criticize my books for their subgenre (yes, they are TRADITIONAL aka cozy mysteries. Deal with it). So, no, I don't think critics should request (or, more likely, accept assignments for) books they know they won't like. That said, it's good to try books outside your comfort zone. Just try to be a fair and open reader/reviewer. And, please, learn a little something about the genre before you post your review!
Such a sensible approach. We all can't like the same sort of books.
Post a Comment