On Sunday in the NYT, Gina Bellafonte reviewed Game of Thrones on HBO. She admitted she didn't read or watch this genre, but went ahead and reviewed it negatively. She critiqued HBO for spending so much money and time on such a small audience production. Her review said less about the quality of the production than her aversion toward such stories. I found it troubling that she would agree to review it at all given her negativity.
Should reviewers critique productions, books and movies if they have no respect for the genre. Or no knowledge of it. If you hate romances, why wouldn't you recuse yourself from reviewing one? How can you evaluate one fairly? Aren't you doing a disservice to the people who do like romances? Don't they deserve an unbiased review?
Most of the other newspaper reviews found much to like in this series. Was Ms. Bellafonte out of line in taking this assignment given her taste?
38 comments:
There's nothing I hate more than reading a review of something and it being obvious that the reviewer doesn't like the particular genre and so can't approach the subject with anything remotely like objectivity.
I would not trust (or even bother to read) a review written by someone who announces they do not like the genre they are reviewing--it's a waste of time. This is a constant problem in romance novel reviews. So many reviewers seem to think it's a badge of honor to dislike romance novels (although they've read none and know nothing of the conventions of the genre), and they proudly proclaim their dislike before launching into a (surprise!) negative review.
There are two women who generally do the NY Times television reviews. This is hardly the first time Bellafonte has done this, written a snarky review of something she probably should not have been reviewing in the first place.
But isn't the onus on the Times for hiring her in the first place and then not monitoring how she is doing her job?
Jeff M.
Yeah, the NYT does need to take some responsibility on this. Every reviewer probably has prejudices but this one was so blatant she should not have gone forward.
The Times used to assign the same reviewer to all of Ed McBain's books, and he hated them all. Given his outlier status, they might have wanted to reconsider.
I used to write a lot of reviews, and I confess to doing a little of this in my first years or so. I don't care for cozies or "cute" mysteries, and I was probably harder on them than I should have been at first. I learned not to review a book based on what I thought it should have been, and the editor learned which things I was more inclined to like, and things got much better.
No reviewer can set aside personal prejudice completely, but they owe it to their readers, and to the material, to be aware of those prejudices and bend over backward not to let them unduly influence the review.
Ignorance has never stopped people from airing their views.
I used to run into this a lot when I wrote a lot of record reviews. I only recused myself a couple times, otherwise I would try and look at it objectively, because most things I was familiar enough with to know what they were trying to do and could write about it.
As for this example, it's pretty lame. Her "small audience" complaint is very weak too, considering how many freakin' books Martin has sold in this series. It's savvy from HBOs perspective, in my opinion, considering all the people who need a little fix between the LOTR movies and The Hobbit coming out. That's no small crowd to go after.
The fact that her review spent so little time on the actual show and so much on her antipathy to the genre spoke volumes.
Reviewer bias is always a problem. Why someone who admits to disliking a genre agreeing to review a series in that genre is troubling. The outcome is predictable: a negative review. I prefer reviewers who are fair and open-minded.
At least she admitted her bias. Lots of reviewers don't. And how many reviewers are really objective? I know that I tend to read books I like, so I'm biased in their favor. Of course, I don't work for the the NYT.
I'm used to seeing this in the mystery field when a "regular" reviewer is slumming by doing a mystery review or series of reviews.
You'll see words like 'thrillers' or 'pulp' or 'potboiler' with no apparent knowledge of whether or not the term applies to the book at hand.
Sometimes I might start a review with "this is not the kind of book I generally read, but" and if it is really something I know I will hate I just won't read or review it. I like a good slam as much as the next guy (not all books are worth an "A" after all) but you need to be fair.
Jeff M.
Completely ridiculous. Unless you have a feel for something your review will be worthless to those who find the genre interesting.
And why an editor didn't come back to her these issues, I don't know.
Has anyone actually seen it?
As Bill said, she admitted her bias, and her view was probably informative to a lot of NYT readers who share her bias. Nothing wrong with it.
I'll take a different slant on this because it smacks of the same type of goading I've seen in tech punditry for years. Say something obviously outrageous (on rival a platform, device, etc.) and step back and watch the reaction of readers. It drives traffic to the web site. And since NYT has recently instituted a paywall on their website (with what I expect will cut into their readership), well... I think it was pretty purposeful. I noted yesterday that Ms. Bellafonte had a piece opening up a 'discussion' for all of this reaction. Hmm...
My 2¢ (likely, what it's worth). Thanks, patti.
Patti - What an interesting question (as ever). I don't have much respect at all for reviews that are written by reviewers who are already biased against what they are reviewing. I think there needs to be a lot more objectivity than that!
Wow-an interesting notion that it was meant to provoke discussion and people paying to get to the story and comments. Sounds like a story in there.
I´d say she shouldn´t, but as long as she makes it absolutely clear she doesn´t like the genre, it should not make any difference - as readers should never take such a review seriously. In Denmark it seems that the more ´serious´ reviewers are, the more scathing and nasty their reviews - which means that IF I read them, I tend to think books they dislike are probably very good.
Hardly a "small audience." That right away tells us she knows nothing about the popularity of Martin's series. I've read numerous anticipation blog posts about this movie for years when it was first announced.
There is an element of bad journalistic ethics in this. Roger Ebert has a lot to say about reviewers who do this sort of thing. I think it stinks. Plain and simple. Of course she should have turned down the assignment. There's already enough snarkiness and mean-spiritedness in the world without someone earning a living at it.
Leopard13's insight is right on target. Wouldn't surprise me at all if this is how Bellafonte operates.
Yes, as Dave said, it was informative for readers who share her bias. I'm one of them, I've never been able to get into these fantasy stories. So, her review tells me that she didn't feel this TV show, "transcended the genre," as we often hear.
Of course she was wrong to review it, but whoever hired her to review it must also take some blame. (If she was hired.) How can someone who, going in, doesn't like the sort of story she or he is going to review, possibly be fair? What a waste of time.
I thought her review was ridiculous. I thought the first installment was almost equal to the books, which I'm a great admirer of. She's especially whacked about the romance and sex angle. Has she ever read any history? She should be fired for being such an embarrassment.
1. There is no such thing as an objective review. Reviewing is all about subjectivity. Fairness is useful, coming to the work with an open mind is useful, objectivity is irrelevant, or more properly not applicable.
2. Nothing "transcends genre"...this similarly useless phrase means "I don't know anything about the kind of thing I'm looking at, so I assume that it's the only example, or one of the few, that's any good or could appeal to me. Because good examples of this kind of thing Can't Exist!"
3. Leopard is probably right, and the editors of the NYT, who for goodness's sake have proved nothing over the last decade (and, of course, before, but particularly in the last decade) that they are smug and self-important, are presumably more than willing to gain a little notoriety under the new money regime with an ignorant review. I mean, as I've noted elsewhere, George R. R. Martin's previously most widely-seen work was the romantic fantasy series on CBS, BEAUTY AND THE BEAST, with a primarily female fanbase and general viewership.
4. You've read the NYT Sunday books supplement...what about it makes you think the TIMES arts coverage is remotely interested in being responsible? Recalling the Vollmann cover piece alone should help correct that notion immediately. Again, comparable to the news folks actively collaborating with the Bush Admin.
The have proved nothing but that they are smug and self-important, that should read.
I think Todd's point #2 is the most relevamt one. It's not good enough to say "I don't like this genre" if you don't know anything about what you are reading or watching. I'd guess there is nothing that Ms. Bellafante would say "transcends the genre" (as offensive as that phrase may be) because from her worldview there is nothing worthwhile in said genre, if that makes any sense.
Jeff M.
I had a simple rule when I reviewed: If it's not something I'm into, don't send it to me.
Simple.
I not only don't like romance novels, I hardly am one to be judging them. Same with manga, most fantasy novels, and even hard SF (You have to trick into reading that one, but then you have to be a good writer, making the objection moot to begin with.)
It's disingenuous of a reviewer to pick up a book they already know they're going to hate and pretend they can be objective.
I've had remarkably friendly reviews all my life, especially from reviewers who dislike western fiction and say so. There's still gallantry among reviewers.
Jeff, you realize that you imply that my points are variously irrelevant. Certainly, "evilwinter" thinks so, as she/he continues to call for "objective reviewing"...I'll be in my closet urn.
I really have to wonder how many transgressions, large and small, the NYT has to commit before they lose their sainted status for entirely too many readers. Just because in a few ways it's the best paper in the US, doesn't make it actually good. CBS is the best US commercial television network. NPR is the best US radio network. QED.
Of course there are good and honest reviewers, Richard...it's the unearned significance that is invested in NYT reviewers specifically as well as the responsibilities of all reviewers which is under discussion here (tv industry columnist for the WASHINGTON POST Lisa de Moraes made a slighting aside to GAME in one of her recent columns; she, too, apparently has a rectal bug about televised fantasy, but at least hers was an aside, not actually a review).
Yours in irrelevance...
Read an early Dorothy Parker review of an Ethel and John Barrymore play today. She was lukewarm about it but noted that despite the bad reviews, there was still a line outside the theatre waiting to buy tickets. Her conclusion: two Barrymores trump all the critics in town.
Once a bastion of journalistic integrity, the New York Times, sadly, seems to be sinking deeper into the mire of mediocrity and mean-spiritedness, all too common among both print and broadcast media. Ironically, but not surprising, this kind of negative behavior only attracts more readers of the type the Times once didained and considered themselves above... undoubtedly, the editors intent when having Ms Bellafonte write the review... choosing the low (but easier) road in their attempt to bolster flagging readership.
Should Ms Bellafonte have accepted the assignment? Absolutely yet; at least not if she cared more about her chosen profession than the sound of her own voice. Given her admitted dislike / disdain for the genre, the chances of her giving a fair and balanced review of Game of Thrones were about as likely as a fire and brimstone preacher giving a Sunday sermon espousing the gay / lesbian lifestyle.
But, at the end of the day, the NYT did achieve what they wanted... not an unbiased, informative review of what I believe will be yet another "hit" for HBO, but a discussion of the NYT. What's the saying? "The only bad publicity is no publicity..."
Oops! My comment should have read "Absolutely not...", regarding the question of whether or not Gina Bellafonte should have accepted the assignment. Darn! where's my proofreader? Lol! :)
I've been thinking a lot about this overnight and trying to put into a list what I want in a book (or movie or play) review.
1. In some cases all I need to know (and I'm sure the average reader feels this way) is "There's a new book by (add your own name here) [Stephen King or John Grisham or Stephenie Meyer or Michael Connelly or James Patterson or...]. I'll check the library or bookstore (as the case may be)."
2. A variation might be "Well, I don't usually read [so-and-so] but this one sounds right up my alley so I'll check it out." (Also, "I've had it with his/her series but this stand alone might be different.")
3. A review by someone who knows what s/he is talking about that places the book in context ("If you only read one quilting cozy this year make it this one") is always preferable to a slumming snob who thinks Christie and Hammett are interchangeable because they Just Don't Care.
4. FFB reviews that make me think "I've wanted to read that ever since it first came out but the library didn't have it then. Let's see what they're asking on ABE." Latest example, last Friday's review of Tuska's THE DETECTIVE IN HOLLYWOOD, which I found for $1.49 and had in hand by Monday!
5. Reviews of new authors in mystery publications that get added to my list immediately. That's the only way I'd have heard of James R. Benn, Alan Bradley, Lori Armstrong or Jamie Freveletti to name four relatively recent additions.
6. "Other" reviews (George Kelley's blog has been particularly good here) of things that have passed under my radar previously that I definitely want to read.
Jeff M.
I've been thinking a lot about this overnight and trying to put into a list what I want in a book (or movie or play) review.
1. In some cases all I need to know (and I'm sure the average reader feels this way) is "There's a new book by (add your own name here) [Stephen King or John Grisham or Stephenie Meyer or Michael Connelly or James Patterson or...]. I'll check the library or bookstore (as the case may be)."
2. A variation might be "Well, I don't usually read [so-and-so] but this one sounds right up my alley so I'll check it out." (Also, "I've had it with his/her series but this stand alone might be different.")
3. A review by someone who knows what s/he is talking about that places the book in context ("If you only read one quilting cozy this year make it this one") is always preferable to a slumming snob who thinks Christie and Hammett are interchangeable because they Just Don't Care.
4. FFB reviews that make me think "I've wanted to read that ever since it first came out but the library didn't have it then. Let's see what they're asking on ABE." Latest example, last Friday's review of Tuska's THE DETECTIVE IN HOLLYWOOD, which I found for $1.49 and had in hand by Monday!
5. Reviews of new authors in mystery publications that get added to my list immediately. That's the only way I'd have heard of James R. Benn, Alan Bradley, Lori Armstrong or Jamie Freveletti to name four relatively recent additions.
6. "Other" reviews (George Kelley's blog has been particularly good here) of things that have passed under my radar previously that I definitely want to read.
Jeff M.
Phil never reads reviews because he can't stand knowing the plot ahead of time. Surprise is very important to him. I read a lot of reviews, and seldom remember enough detail to ruin something. I want a review to put a book into context sometimes. I like reviews that discuss other works by the author or similar works by other authors. I guess I like a review essay more than a review. I like Roger Ebert most as a reviewer. I am most likely to agree with his take. But most of all I like a consensus such as what rotten tomatoes or metacritic offers. If more than 70% like something, I will probably take a chance if I like that genre.
I guess Jackie is more like Phil in that she doesn't like to read reviews. I think you need to know a critic's taste and whether or not you agree with it. I used to like David Denby's reviews in New York a lot. I like Ebert's essays, which I think are just wonderful, but very often I disagree with his taste in movies.
Jeff M.
(PS - sorry for the double post on the previous one)
My own answer to your q. is Yes. It's better to avoid taking such an assignment -- for all involved.
As far as editors -- most of that good old editing is long gone. Seems a lot more do it yourself and cut every corner at the big houses now.
Time to cut through the crap and focus on what is important: Sean Bean is in a new HBO mini-series.
Post a Comment