From: WMMayes at aol.com <WMMayes>
Date: Fri, 25 Sep 1998 23:14:01 EDT

In a message dated 9/25/98 10:20:18 AM EST, 71460.1037 at compuserve.com writes:

<< Booklist is a recommended-only journal, so the only way we
 can run a negative review is by separating it out in a focus piece,
 as was also recently done in Hazel Rochman's review of Michael
 Roberts' The Jungle ABC. It is only done when a book we normally
 would have simply rejected has gotten positive critical attention
 elsewhere and is important enough to get wide purchase. If you
 think Ilene Cooper gleefully got out her hatchet and went after this
 book, you are mistaken. It was only after it got starred in PW and
 pointered in Kirkus that she reluctantly felt she had to go on the record
 with the opinions that we all shared.


Wow. That clears up some things, but it still seems to me to be a needlessly mean review. I don't think it is justifiable and there was nothing reluctant in the wording the reviewer chose and the editor allowed--the tone struck me as almost taunting. And, now that I know this about the review policy, it makes it even more targeted, as if to say "Look, ignore the stars and pointers in those other journals. We know an awful book when we see one, and this is a truly awful book." What is constructive about that?

I think Booklist's silence on books that do not meet their standards is a commendable policy of integrity. I cannot but be appaled at the boxed focus for a negative review, especially when the review goes beyond critical analysis and becomes pointedly mean-spirited. Not reviewing a book by a prestigious author is ample comment on the worth of it, especially in such a fine and respected publication as Booklist.

Walter the Giant Storyteller WMMayes at aol.com

co-author of VALERIE & WALTER'S BEST BOOKS FOR CHILDREN: A LIVELY, OPINIONATED GUIDE, published by Avon Books

"Love, Food, Shelter, Clothing...Books!"
Received on Fri 25 Sep 1998 10:14:01 PM CDT