Jan 07 2008
My “review” policy
I have received a complaint that my “reviews” are biased because I have nothing but good things to say about every book I “review.”
You got me. I am Kaiser Sose Harriet Klausner.
It takes time, thought, effort, and usually a second read to write anything about a book. If I feel like the first read was a waste of time, I refuse to devote more time to the book in question. I won’t even do it for books I merely like, of which there are many. If I’m going to spend more time with a book beyond the last page, it’s because it was so exciting, I want to read it again right away.
If you want bad reviews, there are hundreds of sites in which the reviewers apparently have never read a book they liked. I want to make it perfectly clear right now that this is never going to become one of those sites. The worst trash talk you’re going to get from me is a Reader Peeve or a visit from The Editing Police, either of which may be provoked by a certain book, but since the infractions are rarely unique, I’m still not singling out that particular book or author for ridicule.
Most review sites are a lot like the news. The snapshot presented is that everything is terrible and the world is going to hell, except substitute “all books published today” and “the publishing industry” for the topics under fire. All the focus is on the negative, and it paints a very gloom-and-doom picture that I strongly feel is inaccurate. It’s fine if you’re a “misery loves company” kind of person, but I, for one, have outgrown that phase.
I know the world is full of bad people, tragic events, and lousy books. I’d rather hear about the good all of the above for a change. Instead of complaining about all the negativity (which only adds to the negativity being complained about, a cause-and-effect many people don’t seem to understand), I have made a conscious and deliberate decision to introduce a positive element by sharing my appreciation of books I enjoyed reading.
In conclusion, this blog isn’t a review site. It’s not my job or my hobby to discourage anyone from buying a book I don’t like. I am aware that a book I consider to be a waste of a good tree may be someone else’s favorite book ever, and I’m not interested in challenging that person’s opinion, to which he or she is entitled, by enumerating what I perceive to be its flaws. There is nothing to be gained by anyone if I say, “I hated this book.”
On the other hand, if I think a book is exceptionally good and describe why I think so, someone may say, “Hmm, the things she mentioned make me want to read that book.” Then the writer sells a book, the reader hopefully finds a great read, and everybody benefits.
It’s my tiny little contribution to making the world a more pleasant place in which to live.
Loading ...
9/30
11/4
11/4
11/25
January 7th, 2008 at 12:05 pm
I don’t talk about books I don’t like (but I don’t say good things about books I don’t like, either). And my reasons are pretty much the same as your “in conclusion” paragraph — there’s nothing to be gained by talking about the books I don’t like.
I don’t think every person who only talks about the books they like are Harriet Klausners. The problem with Harriet is that she obviously doesn’t really read them. Er, in other words — there’s a difference between only talking about books you like, and liking every book.
Also — as far as I’m concerned — your reader peeves are a great way of talking about books you don’t like without actually naming them.
January 7th, 2008 at 2:00 pm
You should have left in the part about the complainer’s book. Hell, you should give her what she wants and post a scathing review.
January 7th, 2008 at 3:09 pm
Trishmdear, I wiped that part because it was petty, and I am not going to be manipulated into behaving badly by someone who has nothing better to do than incite hostility. The temptation is there (I am a Scotch-Irish-German-Hungarian powder keg of destruction, after all), but again, there’s nothing in it for me, and the person in question has already received more of my attention than she deserves, so… done.
I will hold up Meljean as a shining example of how to earn my attention: write an amazing book, and I’ll love on it like a drunk prom date.
Why anyone would go to such great lengths to get my attention is what I don’t understand. This blog has a peak readership in the single digits, so my mention of a book doesn’t make for a marketing juggernaut. Have I become one of the cool kids that everybody wants to be noticed by?
Oh, no. It’s just my natural ability to attract weirdos, expanding its scope to include women now… :roll:
January 14th, 2008 at 8:17 pm
There’s an awful lot to be gained by talking about the books you don’t like, Meljean. If nothing else, you warn other readers. If you feel the book is bad, you don’t need to read it again, just express your disappointment and try to articulate the reasons. All-positive reviewers are always suspicious: they look like reviewing is their paid job and that they avoid scaring off their paying clientele. Instead it’s as if “Five stars, guaranteed!” were written on their resume. Your argument above is worse than silly: it’s disingenuous.
January 15th, 2008 at 5:36 am
I’m embarrassed to say I actually investigated Malleus’s blog to find from where the bile was spewing this time. “The Harryet Klousner Appreciashun Societee,” for fuck’s sake.
(Misspellings mine to practice what I preach about providing zero additional publicity for those whose agenda I don’t support)
January 16th, 2008 at 3:09 pm
“If you feel the book is bad, you don’t need to read it again, just express your disappointment and try to articulate the reasons.”
::scratching head:: But I’m not a reviewer, and I don’t write about books to warn other readers; I write about books because I like them and want to talk about them. I do it for my own pleasure. It doesn’t please me or serve me to talk about books I don’t like; and furthermore, it’s not my job to talk about books I don’t like. I don’t have an obligation or responsibility to do so. If I was a reviewer, I would.
I’ll say it again: there is a world of difference between a reader only discussing the books she likes (and being open about that) and a reviewer who says she likes every book she reads — THAT, in my opinion, is disingenuous. THAT, in my opinion, is bad and dishonest reviewing.
January 16th, 2008 at 8:47 pm
Not to mention the blowback you can get when you post negative reviews. Trust me, I know.
January 17th, 2008 at 7:01 am
While I was obsessing about this issue, before I decided I really don’t care, I determined the reason I find it so offensive is that it casts aspersions on one’s character based on a keyword search in Google.
“You’re a liar and a fraud because you don’t talk about books you dislike.”
That is perhaps the most patently nonsensical thing I’ve heard in months, which relieves the caster of any credibility. I can’t be bothered to be offended by that.
It also never ceases to amaze me how many people will get up in arms when an individual expresses personal intent to focus on the positive and will try to ascribe such a benign decision to some sinister ulterior motive (the incoming links, they are numerous–this is quite the controversial subject, apparently, at least among those who revel in bad reviews). Not only that, but people who have had nothing to do with that individual prior to expressing that intent and are in no way affected by it.
Is a lack of interest in dwelling on the negative really that difficult to understand, or is it just that they imagine anyone’s refusal to operate by their rules to be a slight that must be countered in kind? For the record, I never suggested anyone disposed to spotlighting the worst the world has to offer should stop doing so. I simply exercise my right not to read about it and invite them to do the same for those pesky positive people who are such an affront to their sensibilities.