A little bit about reviewing

[msagara]

peake makes an interesting point here about reviews (and the link in his post is also very good, if long). Like peake, I will read a review just to read the review itself; it's not so much about the book, in that case, but about the quality of thought and understanding that goes into the review. I actually agree with much of what he's said about reviews, the shrinking review market, and the lack of respect granted reviewers who are good at what they do.

But I am definitely in that class of reviewers or bloggers who write reviews that I am absolutely certain peake would have no interest in reading.


My reviews are the progeny not of the review as literature or critical theory, but of the bookstore review. The bookstore has always had little hand-written notes with the opinions of various staff members in front of books they've read and either liked or disliked. The advantage to that? Customers can figure out what each staff member likes (or dislikes), and can judge their own likes or dislikes against those; if I dislike a book, at least one of our customers will always buy it because he usually dislikes what I like. Or they can just ask; most do a bit of both.

The best part of the job, hands down, has always been matching books with readers, or readers with the books they will love. Really. Even if it's military SF, a genre in which I don't read. Or horror. It is more fun, I admit, if I adored a book that someone else reads on my recommendation and also adores – but only a smidgen more fun. There's just something deeply satisfying about finding a book for someone to love, and this is strangely independent of the book itself, although in the latter case, I'm usually recommending a book that another staff person loved (and that I didn't read).

Most of what I try to do in my print reviews is essentially the same thing: I want to couch a review in terms that the readers who (I think) will like the specific type of book I'm reviewing will recognize, without unduly pissing them off when I have too many spoilers in the review itself. I find it difficult to discuss a book in any depth if I have to avoid talking about what actually happens in the novel itself. I know that other people are more adept at this. I know it's a skill. But it's not one of mine.

I don't, in the end, care all that much whether or not the book I'm reviewing would generally be considered a novel with literary merit, possibly for that reason – It doesn't matter to me if they'll bear the weight of rigorous critical examination or not; it only matters that I think other readers will like them as much as, or more than, I did. I'm not really interested in making readers see existing text in a new light, although I'm not against it if it happens; I'm interested in encouraging them to read that text because I think they'll enjoy it. And, frankly, some of the books I do enjoy are not books which will bear up well under the weight of thoughtful, critical analysis. Some of the books I enjoy will. But that's not my criteria in selecting them.

(In some months my only criteria is: Did I like this enough to finish it?)

I'm aware that my mood and my state of mind do influence the way I perceive books; there are whole months when I cannot finish reading a single chapter of anything. While I could blame the books' authors for this, I've come to understand that it's usually just me. There are times when I can barely find two brain cells to rub together. And I will frequently start F&SF columns with exactly that information. Yes, it's personal – but I consider it useful information for people who are reading the review to have when the try to decide whether or not the book I'm discussing is something they want to take a chance on. I'd do the same if I were in the store and someone asked me my opinion on a book that I'd read. Only I'd probably use more words in person because, well, me.

Having said all of this, I think that the reviews I do write serve a purpose – but they're not the same purpose as the reviews that peake finds so vital or interesting as discourse in and of themselves, and I'm fine with that. It would probably help if they were called something other than 'reviews' (maybe 'buyers' guide'), because they're very different beasts.

Feel free to ask questions, or to tell me why you think this is wrong.

Comments

[msagara.livejournal.com]

Similarly, half the capsule reviews you get in most papers these days consist of nothing more than a plot summary. That's a blurb, it might as well be ripped off from the back cover of the book. It does nothing as a review.

Ah, okay; I actually seldom see capsule reviews here except as a mini-review that's essentially an excerpt of the longer review that ran earlier. But I have some sense of what a good review is, as a work in an of itself; I really admired your review of Ian McDonald's book -- I think it was River of Gods. I think in my tenure at F&SF I've written only 2 such reviews. One for Hannibal (which was somewhat accidental, but for which I read all of the Harris and also watched the movie, Silence of the Lambs, and one for Warchild by Karin Lowachee.

I will often read the weekend edition of the Globe, and all of the review section, frequently with no intent to read the actual books being reviewed, because there is something about a perceptive review that is entirely its own delight, and on occasion, there's something in the review itself that will make me go and pick up the book I had no interest in at all.

But I will say that in the store, if we could rate each book on 3 scales: Thoughtful & chewy, Requires Kleenex, and Fun, it's the books with hit the high end of Fun which would benefit most from reviews, and frequently all you can say about those is "I had a lot of fun with this" or even "This book was more fun than it had any right to be."