SciFi and Fantasy Book Club discussion

I came across what I thought was a very interesting article about reviews. It's titled The Curious Case of Criticism. I include a small section of the article below.

"Any two reviewers can cite the same evidence to make opposite points. This doesn't mean that neither is valuable; it means that criticism is a curious kind of discourse. We're long past believing that critics are objective voices articulating timeless truths."

I think a criticism that may be given about critics is that, like writers, there are so many of them.
All readers are critics and one does wonder if every critique is worthwhile as well as wondering if every critic 'considered to be' high quality actually is. Given the incestuous nature of praise in the literary world and even in journalism and the mystique factor, I would suppose every readers should take a good or bad critique at face value and go read the book for themselves.

Ultimately, outside of any considerations of book sales automatically flowing from a good review in a high end publication, it is one's own critical faculty that matters.

Penny wrote: "I came across what I thought was a very interesting article about reviews. It's titled The Curious Case of Criticism. I include a small section of the article below.

"Any two reviewers can cite th..."

How often we authors have been puffing with pride as reviews of our book(s) came in with praise, only to get a solitary thrashy review that gave us the urge to bodily surf the Internet and go strangle that negative reviewer? As authors, listening to critics is often like alternating cold and hot showers, leaving us to wonder what we will get next.

In reading the article, I found it amusingly meta. Afterall, what is it but a criticism of criticism and, as such, all of the issues it raises about reviews are just as easily pointed back at it.

It also seems slightly contradictory. He has the line quoted above about how we know critics aren't objective voices, and yet seems to lay the oddity of reviews in their inherent subjectivity.

Anyway -

While, ultimately, the only sure way to know whether you would like something is to read it (or watch it, or whatever), the fact remains that there is so much out there to be consumed that there has to be a way to try and limit the inundation - and reviews are one of those ways.

One of the good things about places like goodreads or Netflix or rottentomatoes is that it as an aggregrate, so it's not just one person's opinion - it's many.

An even better thing is the ability to interact with people and link up with people who tend to share your tastes, thus allowing you to follow their reviews in particular. Afterall, the opinion of a stranger may be nigh worthless, but the opinion of someone with similar tastes can help point you in the right direction - whether that's towards or away from a thing.

Of course, I also think that reviews are mostly for other consumers, and that the artists are better served to avoid them. I know that if I'm doing a show (community theater - nothing big) I avoid reviews assiduously.

But, anyway - the whole article sort of comes down to the fact that people can't handle the fact that other people have different opinions than them.

"What I want to say... is that the whole enterprise of [someone having an opinion different than mine] is so strange."

One of the things I think people should do is find critics/reviewers who have similar tastes to them. Different people like different things, but I've always put more weight in the views of people that I know, from previous experience, enjoy the same things as I do when it comes to choosing reading material, movies, etc.

When we read a piece, we filter what we receive through our own set of preferences. That includes our own sense of what is appropriate, what is acceptable, and what is good.

When we find books that we love, things go easy. I think the problems appear when we find books we do not like.

Here there are several questions to ask. Are we just writing some lines about the book for us to remember what was it about and impressions? Are we reviewing for other people who have similar tastes? Are we reviewing for a general public?

This is important, because depending on the purpose I believe we need to "man up" (or "woman up" :D) to the challenge.

For example...

I´m not into YA--with exceptions, because it bores me to death. I met one author around here and bought his book. I found it a tad predictable.

Now, did it make it a bad book? No way! It was excellent for its market.

So... when the time to review came, I needed to make a choice. Was I reviewing for myself, for people with similar tastes or for everyone? If I was writing for myself, I would just put "YA", and avoided a star-valuation to not trash the writer--who is not responsible of my own "peculiarities". If I was writing for people with similar tastes, I would have probably avoided reviewing it, because they would not be interested, so why bother? I decided to review for everyone, and gave it four stars in Amazon.

Used some parameters like coherence, characters, pace and made my valuation from there. I wrote my review with the intent of closing the gap between the book and its own market, and tell those out of the market to be aware.

Every reviewer has the right to review and give the value they want to the books; of course everything we do as reviewers talk more about ourselves as of the book we are reviewing.

There are all kinds of people online, and anyone who sits to write about others has a reason to do it. It is important when reading reviews to know where people came from to write it.

Reviewers to avoid in my opinion:

All wonderful: If a reviewer only puts 5 stars to everything, there could be business behind. I read with care.

Toxic: If a reviewer has mostly low stars, is a very unlucky person or is using the system for something else. It could be business, witch hunt or who-knows. Anyway, I´m not interested.

I read 3 stars first when looking into a book. They are usually the most balanced.

L.G. wrote: "One of the things I think people should do is find critics/reviewers who have similar tastes to them. Different people like different things, but I've always put more weight in the views of people ..."

I'm trying to find the rating button so I can 5-star and Like this post.

Every critic unavoidably bring all sorts of biases with them for every review. Like I tell my five year old... "Everybody is different."

We all realize that ratings and reviews reflect the reviewer's personal opinion.

However, some choose to apply their own definitions to the "star" system, either because they are not aware of the established definitions or choose to ignore them; thus rendering the rating standard totally usless.

The standard utilized by Goodreads is: 1 star = "didn't like"; 2 stars = "it was okay"; 3 stars = "it was good"; 4 stars = "very good"; 5 stars = "Amazing".

Another pet peeve of mine, regarding ratings and reviews, is when authors rate and review their own book. It's like having a proud new parent describe their baby.

CJ wrote: "Every critic unavoidably bring all sorts of biases with them for every review. Like I tell my five year old... "Everybody is different.""

Except twins.

Jim wrote: "Another pet peeve of mine, regarding ratings and reviews, is when authors rate and review their own book. It's like having a proud new parent describe their baby."

"This my new book. It took me six months to write. Meh. I can do better. 3 stars."

This is me hitting the like button for Trike's comments. Goodreads needs a like button!

Jim wrote: "Another pet peeve of mine, regarding ratings and reviews, is when authors rate and review their own book. It's like having a proud new parent describe their baby...."

I fully agree on that one, and in fact once commented about that in another discussion. One thing that really peeves me is getting bad reviews because the reviewer doesn't like something in my books because he disagrees with it for political or religious reasons. Examples of that are bible thumpers who object to anything that is not following the Bible, or racists who don't like to be reminded of the evils caused by racism. If someone should review a book, he or she should drop the ideological blinders and judge the book on its merits alone.

I'm not sure how close to the mainstream I get when I review works. First, when I read it, I try to remember that this could be close to being the author's baby, having been lovingly carried and babied for a long time. I try to remember the people involved first.

So, the first time I read it for fun, seeing if the story works, and if I like it, generally. Being able to 'scan', it takes only a short while. I don't usually stop there, but read again, more slowly, with a 'script', a list of major characters and main events.
That said, I tend to become 'teacherish', looking for spelling, punctuation and grammar, and will note same if glaring.

Then, I'll give you my review, probably also commenting on description, use of sensory data and plot flow (my bugs after grammar and spelling)

I tend to give a lot of 4s and 5s, because if it's really bad, I won't leave a review, but will write a strong note to the author.
If it's salvageable, I will suggest another addition or ask pointed questions and give a 3 or 'qualified' 2 1/2.

Leaving a 1 is cruel, and doesn't really help the author, in my opinion.

{sent from my iPod}

Sorry, auto-correct changed my sentence from 'edition' to 'addition' & I didn't catch it.

Art wrote: "I'm not sure how close to the mainstream I get when I review works. First, when I read it, I try to remember that this could be close to being the author's baby, having been lovingly carried and babied for a long time."

But then I remember I hate babies and so it's OUT WITH THE BATHWATER. And take your jam hands with you!

Jim wrote: "Another pet peeve of mine, regarding ratings and reviews, is when authors rate and review their own book. It's like having a proud new parent describe their baby. "

I do that. :D

But please... not the baby discussion here too. Using the analogy once earned me already a cohort of 1-start followers.

Thanks, Sandra. I'll re-evaluate my metaphors. 'Baby' IS rather simplistic. Merci.

We had our lone Congressional representative speak with all the new candidates last Monday.

He said you have to have a thick skin and a tender heart.

Most authors have neither when it comes to reader reviews.

Art wrote: "Thanks, Sandra. I'll re-evaluate my metaphors. 'Baby' IS rather simplistic. Merci."

I think it is a good one. The first stage of creative power when the images follow us around and don´t let go (1st trimester), the process of development when everything just flows to completion (second), and the time of revision where you just can´t stand it anymore (3rd).

Once it is published, comes the marketing and taking it to the right places and help it meet the right people, until it is able to fly solo.

Said that... there have been fights for a long time, personal information exposed, groups and websites just to feed the flames. And because of this mess, any mention of emotional attachment with a book can make people react violently just in case.

(I didn´t know anything of this, I just put my foot in an African bees honeycomb)

Greg wrote: "We had our lone Congressional representative speak with all the new candidates last Monday.

He said you have to have a thick skin and a tender heart.

Most authors have neither when it comes to re..."

I think it doesn´t really matter how the author feels. What matters is what he does with what he feels. Here is where the inner ethics and wisdom comes to play.

Sandra wrote: "Greg wrote: "We had our lone Congressional representative speak with all the new candidates last Monday.

He said you have to have a thick skin and a tender heart.

Most authors have neither when i..."

Yes, I agree very much, and I shake my head when I see a book on Amazon with a few poor reviews.

Not because of the reviews, but because of the comments under them.

Too often you'll see an argument 20 comments long between a reviewer and an author.

How is that going to turn readers on to that author? Yeah, maybe it's the reviewer's fault, but authors too often escalate petty things.

It's just a lose-lose any way you slice it, I think.

I didn´t know anything about this, until got caught in cross fire in the thread Anne Rice started in MOA.

The characters that appeared are picturesque.

Michel wrote: "If someone should review a book, he or she should drop the ideological blinders and judge the book on its merits alone. "

That's not going to happen unless your book is being read by a robot. All books are perceived through the lens of the reader, and that lens always changes the picture being painted - sometimes in large ways, sometimes in small ways.

Paul wrote: "Michel wrote: "If someone should review a book, he or she should drop the ideological blinders and judge the book on its merits alone. "

That's not going to happen unless your book is being read b..."

I do realize that readers read through their own personal lenses, but what I have problems with is when their 'lenses' are absolute and give no leaway from a rigid belief. One reader of mine said honestly that one of my books, while going against some of his personal beliefs, was still very entertaining and enjoyable. Having beliefs is one thing, but to not tolerate anything that do not follow such beliefs to the letter is another thing. Also, too often, those judging books according strictly to their beliefs do not even explain honestly why they give a bad review, instead giving deragotary one-liners about the author's character.

I personally love reading 1 star reviews when deciding whether to read a book. I like reading what is the worst that anyone can say about a book and look for repeated criticisms. There are some things I can't stand when reading so I usually don't even bother if the negative reviews have those because I know I'd probably dislike it anyway. The others I give a try (because at this point I am liking the blurb, the positive reviews, or have gotten the book recommended, etc.).

When it comes to biased views, I think all readers have thresholds at which there are some things they can't deal with. I can tolerate a lot but a book trying to shed a positive light on homophobia would piss me off enough to not be able to see the good qualities of the writing. I wouldn't read such books except by accident. But these things come out in the review and any reader of that review will realize that it was a personal issue and not a book issue.

Maybe its just me and the way I choose books but it seems that readers aren't given enough credit. I have read over and over again, especially from authors, that only 4 and 5 star reviews sell books. I think the readers who don't look past the number are those that only buy a handful of books a year and they will most likely only buy the most popular books (and on fancy reading lists like Oprah's book club so probably GR and amazon reviews wouldn't even factor in the choice). I think avid readers, like most on GR choose their books carefully by using a variety of resources to decide what to read next (although the occasional catchy cover or title may result in an impulse buy). One of my favorite books of all time has a 3.3 average rating on GR, yet over 10,000 rating and 600 reviews. Authors need to give readers more credit that they read past those stupid average numbers. Actually, that assumption is quite insulting.

Trike wrote: "L.G. wrote: "One of the things I think people should do is find critics/reviewers who have similar tastes to them. Different people like different things, but I've always put more weight in the vie..."

When I was a kid, my parents allowed me exactly 2 video games a year. I learned very, very quickly that I needed to look at not only what the rating for a video game was but also what the tastes of the reviewer were. When you can only get 2 games a year, you can't afford to make mistakes!

Sandra wrote: "I didn´t know anything about this, until got caught in cross fire in the thread Anne Rice started in MOA.

The characters that appeared are picturesque."

Anne Rice?? Why or why would you deal with her??

She's like...notorious for going batshit crazy on people! I'd never speak to her (and given up on her books) - she maybe talented but she comes chock full O'Drama:

http://www.dailydot.com/society/fando... <--See #5

http://www.themarysue.com/anne-rice-p... <--full article

http://satireknight.wikispaces.com/Au...

http://www.journalfen.net/community/f... <-- search for Anne Rice

MrsJoseph (taking back my data & giving GR the middle finger) wrote: "Sandra wrote: "I didn´t know anything about this, until got caught in cross fire in the thread Anne Rice started in MOA.

The characters that appeared are picturesque."

Anne Rice?? Why or why wou..."

Well, she was nice to me. Anyway... I have had more of this mess than my health allows.

And it is probably a very bad idea to bring that conversation here. :)

L.G. wrote: "Trike wrote: "L.G. wrote: "One of the things I think people should do is find critics/reviewers who have similar tastes to them. Different people like different things, but I've always put more wei..."

That was wise.

Sandra wrote: "MrsJoseph (taking back my data & giving GR the middle finger) wrote: "Sandra wrote: "I didn´t know anything about this, until got caught in cross fire in the thread Anne Rice started in MOA.

The c..."

I've not a clue as to the conversation that you took part in - those are randoms from online. But I'm sorry, I misunderstood you. I thought you said you & Rice got into a spat. I'm glad the experience was positive.