We’ve recently had two of our novels reviewed, in the same newspaper, by the same reviewer, in a furiously negative fashion – one of them almost a tirade. I have to admit that this made me cross – not because the reviews were negative (no-one wants a bad review but if the criticisms are well-founded then you need to find a way as a writer – and a publisher – to take a kick in the backside every now and again) but because the reviewer had apparently made no attempt at all to understand what the authors were trying to do – or if she had then she didn’t get it – and was simply dismissive. In both cases the writers were trying to do something different from the norm – not wildly different, but they were taking chances that lots of writers don’t take. One was a well-established award-winning novelist who has won awards precisely for doing this ’something different’. Now, if the writers had failed in their attempts and the reviewer had pointed out why, then again it would have been fair enough. But there was no evidence at all in either of these cases that the reviewer had even understood it – and a lot of evidence to the contrary. These were not fair reviews, weighing the good and the bad and trying to reach a final conclusion - they were the reviews of someone who had decided right away that she didn’t like a book and was making the case for the book being bad. It does raise the question of what makes a good book review – and what the function of a book review should be. At Two Ravens we’ve had quite a bit of success in getting our books reviewed not just in the Scottish nationals but in the UK nationals too, and generally those reviews have been well-informed and fair. But every now and again …
There are three kinds of reviews I hate. One, the review that doesn’t get it and trashes the book anyway (though you have to wonder in these cases where the quality control is … ) Two, the entirely negative tirade against everything that a book and an author represents. I know a lot of reviewers who say if they dislike something that intensely then it’s not fair to review it because they can’t possibly be dispassionate – and that seems to me to be entirely right. I also hate the review that really isn’t a review but spends paragaraph after paragraph simply describing the plot and then says something like ‘and I quite enjoyed it’ at the end. To me that isn’t a review – it’s a synopsis. It doesn’t help me as a reader make any kind of informed decision about whether or not to read a book – which is what I want a review to do.
I’ve always loved to read reviews by professional critics, but more and more these days I wonder where they’re coming from. One of the things I like most about a good literary blog is that the reviewers are mostly readers. They have no particular axes to grind except maybe sometimes their own reading preferences, which they mostly state very honestly; they have no reason to be unfair to the author as they’re usually not in direct competition with them. The best of them give very informative, useful evaluations.
Would be interested in any of your comments on what you think makes a good review.
Sharon
