Honest Reviews

Indianapolis Canal Bridge

Somewhere back in recent history, Maggie Stiefvater said she was only going to review books that she liked*.  While she's entirely free to do that, I felt a bit cheated by her decision.  I'm not looking for dirt, but I would like to read something other than just roses and sunshine about a subject that I am interested in.

Much more recently, Elana Johnson wrote a blog  post entitled "Thoughts About How We Talk About Books."  In the posting she writes:

"I think it's dangerous to tell people not to buy a book because you, personally, don't think it's good. I think there's a better way to talk about books, either online or in person, perhaps by saying what you didn't like, specifically, about the book. Then the reader considering a particular title can decide for themselves if those things turn them off too. "

In the comments to the post I wrote

"If I'm not the target audience, I'm more than willing to hold back on my opinion if someone asks. In fact, I usually ask tell them I'd really like to discuss the book with them after they read it to get their take on it.
However, if a book is just badly written or makes me angry at how poorly the subject matter was handled (and, yes, I feel that passionately about books) I will tell someone exactly how I feel about the book.
I am, of course, equally as passionate about books that have impressed the bejeebers out of me. 
I'm all for encouraging reading, but why shouldn't we be honest about our negative feelings about some books if we're being honest about the positives?"

I want to be clear about this: IMHO, some books are a waste of paper, a waste of shelf space, and a waste of time.  Not all books, but some.  This "waste of space and time" idea extends to all areas of life and consumer goods.  Books are a commodity, published not for The Good of Art but for profit.  Someone at some publisher thought, for whatever reason, that they could simply make money off of the manuscript.  And the Emperor's new book is filled with rubbish, someone should be saying so.

I haven't read the book, but I love this note.

For instance, I wish someone had told me not to waste my time reading Gibson's "The Difference Engine" or that the ending of Barnes' "The Somnambulist" would be so awful that I would feel betrayed by the author, or that Angleberger's "Fake Mustache" would be even more dreadful than his Origami StarWarsCharacter books were wonderful.  (And don't get me started again on the ending to Keplinger's "The DUFF"where the author dissed her main character and the reader by not trusting either one)

Would I still have read those books if someone told me that?  Maybe.  If nothing else, I'd thumb through them to see if they're really as bad as someone had said they were.  If I had wanted to read them, I would have gone to the library and checked them out.

Will I recommend that not to buy them?  Yes, in fact, I will.  Find them at your local library and buy copies for your friends if you think I'm way of base with my take on them.  Otherwise, there are plenty of really good books, books that have the power to instantly become your new favorite book, books that you will physically hand to your friends and insist that they read RIGHT NOW because you want them to share in the transformational experience that book gave you.

Sure books deserve a chance.  Sure my taste isn't your taste (and vice versa).  But in a world where the gatekeepers have the bottom line in mind more than artistic quality, I think we deserve to tell each other where the cow pats are in the field.  Not to be spiteful, and not in hack and slash way, but with respect for the craft and art of writing.  And for God's sake, just tell us why you feel the way you do about the book.  (Edit: Apparently, I'm not the only one)

What about you?  Do you tell people when you read a book that's awful?  Do you leave negative review on Goodreads or Amazon?  Do you think negative reviews are helpful at all?



--Tom

============================================
*Maggie wrote this either on her blog or at Goodreads after my wife and I had the opportunity to spend part of a day with Maggie and her wonderful husband, Ed.  If she had written it before we met I would have asked her why she decided to do this.  I suspect she's trying to be professionally nice to her fellow authors.  And while that's admirable, I have more Rat than Goat in me on this issue to follow suit.

Honesty Is Still the Best Policy

Honesty helps, too.

I've had an account over at Goodreads for a while now.  I started it as a way to keep track of what I've read and what I want to read.  At first, I wasn't doing much with writing reviews of books.  Slowly I've started including reviews, particularly if the book is good or bad or useful in my Writing Path to Publication.

After reading Violet Haberdasher's "Knightley Academy" I had to think about writing a review.  The book has a blurb on the cover that labels it as a Steampunk book, but the book isn't, really.  Not only that, but I felt it was a poorly executed Harry Potter rip-off.  I finished it, but I felt I'd been misled by the blurb and wanted the time back that I'd spent reading it.

If I'm trying to get published with a Steampunkish book of my own, I wondered, am I potentially playing with dynamite if I write a negative review of a book in my genre?

After about a minute of that sort of questioning I realized I was trying to inject unnecessary politics into the situation.  I would much rather be honest with my reviews than be fearful of offending some anonymous person Out There.  Besides, my reviews are MY reviews.  They are how I felt about the book, they are not Grand Pronouncements Unto the World that This Is the Final Take on This Book.  I am not feeding the book nor the author to the lions, I'm simply saying "This book didn't work for me."

Granted, sometimes I manage to say that in slightly stronger language (*, †, ∆)  but these are still only my opinions.

On Friday, YA Highway had a great guest post by Phoebe North titled "In Praise of Harsh Words."  North's point was, essentially, that as writers it's okay to express negative comments about our colleagues' work.  In fact, it's even healthy in that constructive criticism can help a writer become an even better writer.

It seems like such an obvious point, but North acknowledged her nervousness about putting herself out there as a potential lightning rod of controversy.  Apparently telling the truth isn't always appreciated.

(Really, it's a great article and I highly recommend reading it)

So, here's my guarantee to you: I will give you my honest opinion about the books I read, the web sites I visit, the people I meet and whatever I happen to be writing about.  I won't be all snark all the time (although some of that will, undoubtedly creep out from time to time) but you will never need to wonder if I really feel what I'm writing or if I'm just trying to be nice.

Deal?

Deal.


-- Tom

__________________________________________________
And since my first question when reading that kind of line would be, "Yeah, I'll bet.  Why not post some of them if you're being so honest?" here are three of the Most Slightly Stronger Languaged reviews I have posted to Goodreads:

* "there is only so much self-aggrandized navel-gazing self-pitying i can manage to read without throwing up my hands and saying, "next!"" [link]

† "when it came time to actually do something with that world he decided to cop out and fill it with cliché after cliché (borrowing heavily from Rowling's Harry Potter series) and making an absolute mess of the story." [link]

∆ "this is one of those books that deserve Minus Stars. giving it one star seems, to me, to indicate some sort of approval. don't let it fool you"  [link]