CCBC-Net Archives
reviews and reviewing, anonymous and otherwise
- Contemporary messages sorted: [ by date ] [ by subject ] [ by author ]
From: nancy reynolds <ntreynolds_at_comcast.net>
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2009 09:57:55 -0800
This is the most interesting discussion I've followed here, and I've lurked for a long time. As an author, I have received the full spectrum of reviews from magnificent to appalling. I also review books for, among other venues, Kirkus. I have mixed feelings about the anonymity issue. Does it free some reviewers to be more caustic than they otherwise might? I think the answer is yes. However, that reality has to be measured against the fact that there is increasing pressure on reviewers across genres and publications to tone down criticism, to be positive: If you can't say something nice, don't say it at all. Amazon.com has reportedly leaned on publications to soften critical reviews; after all, Amazon is in the business of selling books and if every professional review is glowing, that can only help. As an author, I feel the appeal of that reasoning. But I also think it stinks. Apart from anything else, it's dishonest.
If big players in publishing and bookselling are shaping the discussion of books, I'm grateful that Kirkus is bucking the trend. Some express concern that anonymity leads to harsh reviews. This works both ways. It's equally possible that some reviews are more positive than the reviewer privately believes warranted because the reviewer is aware that criticism can lead to retaliation or other negative consequences (such as being dropped as a reviewer from publications that want more glowing copy). Since many reviewers are also writers that get reviewed, I suspect that issue may lurk somewhere in their conscious or unconscious minds. I can set up Google alerts to tell me whenever my book is reviewed and read what even the most obscure publication or blog has to say about it. And then I can get even by posting reviews of my own.
As a reviewer, I try to keep in mind who the review is meant for. This gets harder all the time. The problem is compounded by the omnipresence of reviews that once were targeted to a particular group, such as professional librarians, tasked with making limited acquisitions budgets go as far as possible. Now these reviews appear on the book's Amazon page, where they are read by those seeking the right gift for grandchildren, by book groups looking for a great discussion choice, by mixed-race or deaf or adopted or nerdy or athletic kids looking for a story about people just like them. If there are only six YA books (and there may well be more or fewer) whose protagonist is a deaf adoptee, a review whose reviewer has at the top of her mind whether the book is a good choice for a small suburban library to purchase is not terribly useful. A mediocre novel that reflects my image back to me may be a much more satisfying literary experience than a brilliant Printz-winner about someone whose experience is worlds away
from mine.
I heartily agree with Norma Jean's rant about reviews that say "children will love" the item under discussion. This of course is advertising copy. Too many reviewers waste their precious word count on such useless comments-well, not entirely useless-I guess they help sales. But for readers, the more precise the review, the better.
And a last word on fact checking. I've been a freelance writer and editor since the late 1980s. My first book was published in 1993. Not much fact checking was done when I began writing, and less is done now. Rather, the author agrees to indemnify the publisher for errors that harm the latter, and everyone hopes for the best. Aside from peer-reviewed journal articles and books by and for academe and the scientific community, my guess is that fact checking is a thing of the past. Knowing this has made me very nervous as a reviewer. Fiction and nonfiction works, including for children, present "facts" that may or may not be true. Reviewers of children's books are generalists. This won't change; reviewer compensation is nonexistent or trifling. So how are we to judge the accuracy of a book whose facts weren't checked, reviewed by a generalist?
Very carefully. Here is where reviews on blogs by writers with expertise in the field could be helpful. But again, how can we judge the blogger's intent, even if expertise is demonstrated? The race to the bottom in awarding compensation for writing and books, means that to survive in the marketplace, writers are becoming each and every one of us marketers. If I review X's book positively on my blog, perhaps she'll review mine on hers. The cost of "free" may well be that inside every article and review lurks a hidden agenda. We must and are marketing everywhere, as if our livelihoods depend on it. Just look at our email signatures.
Nancy Thalia Reynolds
Author, Mixed Heritage in Young Adult Literature (Scarecrow Press, 2009)
Received on Mon 16 Nov 2009 09:57:55 AM CST
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2009 09:57:55 -0800
This is the most interesting discussion I've followed here, and I've lurked for a long time. As an author, I have received the full spectrum of reviews from magnificent to appalling. I also review books for, among other venues, Kirkus. I have mixed feelings about the anonymity issue. Does it free some reviewers to be more caustic than they otherwise might? I think the answer is yes. However, that reality has to be measured against the fact that there is increasing pressure on reviewers across genres and publications to tone down criticism, to be positive: If you can't say something nice, don't say it at all. Amazon.com has reportedly leaned on publications to soften critical reviews; after all, Amazon is in the business of selling books and if every professional review is glowing, that can only help. As an author, I feel the appeal of that reasoning. But I also think it stinks. Apart from anything else, it's dishonest.
If big players in publishing and bookselling are shaping the discussion of books, I'm grateful that Kirkus is bucking the trend. Some express concern that anonymity leads to harsh reviews. This works both ways. It's equally possible that some reviews are more positive than the reviewer privately believes warranted because the reviewer is aware that criticism can lead to retaliation or other negative consequences (such as being dropped as a reviewer from publications that want more glowing copy). Since many reviewers are also writers that get reviewed, I suspect that issue may lurk somewhere in their conscious or unconscious minds. I can set up Google alerts to tell me whenever my book is reviewed and read what even the most obscure publication or blog has to say about it. And then I can get even by posting reviews of my own.
As a reviewer, I try to keep in mind who the review is meant for. This gets harder all the time. The problem is compounded by the omnipresence of reviews that once were targeted to a particular group, such as professional librarians, tasked with making limited acquisitions budgets go as far as possible. Now these reviews appear on the book's Amazon page, where they are read by those seeking the right gift for grandchildren, by book groups looking for a great discussion choice, by mixed-race or deaf or adopted or nerdy or athletic kids looking for a story about people just like them. If there are only six YA books (and there may well be more or fewer) whose protagonist is a deaf adoptee, a review whose reviewer has at the top of her mind whether the book is a good choice for a small suburban library to purchase is not terribly useful. A mediocre novel that reflects my image back to me may be a much more satisfying literary experience than a brilliant Printz-winner about someone whose experience is worlds away
from mine.
I heartily agree with Norma Jean's rant about reviews that say "children will love" the item under discussion. This of course is advertising copy. Too many reviewers waste their precious word count on such useless comments-well, not entirely useless-I guess they help sales. But for readers, the more precise the review, the better.
And a last word on fact checking. I've been a freelance writer and editor since the late 1980s. My first book was published in 1993. Not much fact checking was done when I began writing, and less is done now. Rather, the author agrees to indemnify the publisher for errors that harm the latter, and everyone hopes for the best. Aside from peer-reviewed journal articles and books by and for academe and the scientific community, my guess is that fact checking is a thing of the past. Knowing this has made me very nervous as a reviewer. Fiction and nonfiction works, including for children, present "facts" that may or may not be true. Reviewers of children's books are generalists. This won't change; reviewer compensation is nonexistent or trifling. So how are we to judge the accuracy of a book whose facts weren't checked, reviewed by a generalist?
Very carefully. Here is where reviews on blogs by writers with expertise in the field could be helpful. But again, how can we judge the blogger's intent, even if expertise is demonstrated? The race to the bottom in awarding compensation for writing and books, means that to survive in the marketplace, writers are becoming each and every one of us marketers. If I review X's book positively on my blog, perhaps she'll review mine on hers. The cost of "free" may well be that inside every article and review lurks a hidden agenda. We must and are marketing everywhere, as if our livelihoods depend on it. Just look at our email signatures.
Nancy Thalia Reynolds
Author, Mixed Heritage in Young Adult Literature (Scarecrow Press, 2009)
Received on Mon 16 Nov 2009 09:57:55 AM CST
