Review Group discussion

Hi,

I'd like to hear your advice on a dilemma I have in reviewing a very Christian book (I'm an agnostic). The book is quoting biblical passages corresponding to a value set we had in Europe a hundred years ago, especially referring to the position of women in society (advocating that they should submit to their husbands (!) in all matters).

How would you handle this? Would you completely disregard the cultural/ideological difference, or should this be part of the review?

Kristian wrote: "Hi,

I'd like to hear your advice on a dilemma I have in reviewing a very Christian book (I'm an agnostic). The book is quoting biblical passages corresponding to a value set we had in Europe a hun..."

I would try to maintain the generally accepted stance of remaining honest and objective, without resorting to personal insult or criticism. There is no harm in my opinion in admitting one's personal views regarding one's own faith or lack of it or even ignorance of certain books, treatises or theology. You may not choose to buy such a book but, if given it and asked for your opinion, one cannot help but be aware of the mores of contemporary times when writing a review... Just a thought -

Kristian, even if you weren't agnostic this would still be a very relevant question because it deals with reconciling personal feelings and socio-political correctness with larger cultural sensitivity within the writing profession!

Think about the following and you'll reach some conclusion:

- sci-fi is baloney but almost everyone is a fan of Star Wars / Star Trek / Interstellar or some other 'gone where no man has gone before' type of fiction (I'm a huge fan myself!) - reading such a book (whether sci-fic or scientific exploration of Star Trek world), would you comment on your personal feelings towards sci-fi or physical theories of time travel or ludicrousness of having a space ship or that it's all man-made and doesn't make much sense?

Or would you just rate and review the book on a) whether the book effectively delivers the ideas that it is supposed to deliver? b) is fun or sombre? c) well-paced or a drag? c) has well-reasearched / well-thought-out concepts, deep characters etc. etc.?

- Here's George Orwell's review of Mein Kampf - (ironically this book was reviewed very differently in a short span of a year by people!):
http://www.openculture.com/2014/08/ge...

- is your personal opinion more important to you than objective review of a book?

- is the impression people form of you for reviewing such a book more important to you than objective review of the book?

- do you really believe that 'women are subservient to men' concept is exclusive to Christian or medieval thought of 100 years ago? Because it still exists! And has nothing to do with religion! Or Europe!

- the whole idea of review groups is opening up to the possibility of reading something that we normally wouldn't. Which opens the possibility of learning something new - for e.g. how to write a review of a book you find offensive without offending the author!

- I'm assuming you cannot get out of the review? I wold ask some friend to step in and review if you really don't want to! Religious themes and books are a time-bomb in any case - someone will always find something controversial about them!

A fascinating debate you've started Kristian, and I know exactly where you are coming from, I find belief systems of all kinds, past and present fascinating.

People believed in the Norse gods, the Roman, Greek and Egyptian gods but now they are relegated to 'mythology'. Faeries, vampires, sea monsters, angels, demons, spirits from beyond, mermaids, unicorns, astrology and the power of crystals have all been believed in over the centuries. I find it fascinating that perfectly rational people believe in some as undeniable fact, but dismiss others as baloney.

I'd treat a book that dealt with an ideology different to mine as a look into another person's mind and world, I don't have to share those views, to acknowledge their existence. I am a student of the human condition and reading about another ideology can be quite fascinating, and helps to understand why people do what they do.

This is pretty much the way I feel, Emma. I also had to review what I'm pretty sure is the book to which Kristian refers; I'm also an agnostic - and I also found some of the book's assumptions difficult.

I think sometimes you have to review something on its own terms, look at its internal logic and consistency, and state what you would think of the book if you did share its assumptions. I am not sure at what point this becomes impossible, and you have to criticize those assumptions as unsavoury in themselves. I think I'd probably cross that line with Mein Kampf.

I agree generally with what's been stated above about rating the book on its own merits, on writing style, and on the ability to get the message across.

BUT the message is also a central part of a non-fiction work, and so is the persuasiveness of the author if that author is trying to get you to agree with his point of view. I would say it's perfectly acceptable to review the idea as well as the writing and come to the conclusion that it's non-tenable (or otherwise, depending on the book.)

I would address the two parts separately, in different paragraphs, to make it easy for those reading your review.

Good points Mike and Kathy.

Another point to consider is the intended audience for the book. You or I might not be the intended audience for a particular book , so we review it on the quality of the writing and the craft of the content.
I'm not a fan of raunchy fiction or even erotica, preferring not to read it, but I can discern the skill of the writer and whether or not a story is well told. Pace, character development, world building, editing, formatting, and other considerations come into play.
I have the right-- but not the responsibility-- to state my personal opinion of the subject matter, but that's about my attitudes and beliefs- not about the book.
I review books, not other people's beliefs or chosen subject matter.

Thanks for all the good feedback. I took your advice, and wrote an objective review.

OK, it was indeed the same book.

!

Throwing a wrench into this subject, I recently read a book where the author was clearly injecting his beliefs when it did nothing for the story. Sometimes it would occur as a tangent in dialog or as an forced correlation to an event in the book. It seemed to me like the author was really writing a novel as a platform to sneak in his personal agenda on unsuspecting readers.

I wonder if others have read books with such distracting details and how you rated/reviewed the book afterwards.

Michael wrote: "Throwing a wrench into this subject, I recently read a book where the author was clearly injecting his beliefs when it did nothing for the story. Sometimes it would occur as a tangent in dialog or ..."

Surely you don't include authors such as Charles Dickens, Elizabeth Gaskell, George Orwell, Tolstoy, George Elliot, H.G. Wells, John Steinbeck, Maya Angelou et al?

Fiction has always been a platform for writer's to express their particular political views, social perspective, emotional state, gender bias, sexual orientation, belief system, etc.
Some of our most beloved fiction is heavily tainted with those things. As a human being, I'm aware that even my own strongly held opinions could change. As a book reviewer, I have to set my own bias aside. and consider the quality of the writing.
It ain't always easy.
I've had to read some things I didn't see coming.
If I find a book horribly inappropriate for my taste, that's probably about me and my values. I probably shouldn't be the person to review that book.

I read a fantasy book right here in this group - the title of which I'm forgetting right now - that had a Christian bent, especially towards the end - but it was also readable as the Chivalric Code, so it didn't bother me much. The book was well-written and I enjoyed it quite a bit. I don't mind at all when there is religion or ideology incorporated into a book in a logical way (in fact, my first fantasy series has some of that itself, and has been tagged 'political fantasy'). After all, societies do have religion, politics, and varying ideologies, so in a realistic novel, those will likely be touched on in some way.

I think that's different than when the purpose of the book is to justify a particular worldview. Then, in my opinion, you are free to criticize that worldview and how it does/doesn't function.

Yes, that is an important distinction. A book that is clearly pushing a view is subject to argument. A novel or memoir that happens simply to have been written by (say) a committed Christian may not be fair game.

On the other hand the author's commitment might lower the quality of the book. George Orwell thought so. In his essay Inside the Whale, he praised Henry Miller’s Tropic of Cancer precisely because it was completely amoral and therefore flowed completely from experience, making it far more vivid. Books with an agenda, Orwell contended, did not communicate with the reader. He compared the literature of the First World War with that of the Spanish Civil War, which had just ended:

The immediately striking thing about the Spanish war books, at any rate those written in English, is their shocking dullness and badness. ...[They are] by cocksure partisans telling you what to think, whereas the books about the Great War were written by common soldiers or junior officers who did not even pretend to understand what the whole thing was about. Books like All Quiet on the Western Front, Le Feu, A Farewell to Arms... were written not by propagandists but by victims. They are saying in effect, “What the hell is all this about? God knows. All we can do is to endure.”

This has the ring of truth. Books written by people with very strong views are not necessarily bad books of course, and besides, the author's worldview's going to influence the plot; that's true of any of us. But you need to be subtle!

This puts me in mind of The Sea Wolf, by Jack London. Like many people, I thoroughly loved the first half of the book, where 'Hump', the (supposed) protagonist enters into philosophical disputes with Captain Wolf Larsen, the 'perfect' amoral man. Although I disagreed with the characterization, and at the same time identified more with Larsen than 'Hump', I thought it was an excellent send-up.

Of course, the second half of the book sucked. This is where it fell apart, where, made noble by selfless love, Hump proves the triumph of good over evil (or amorality) by defeating the Wolf (with help from his brother). It was much more interesting when they were bouncing ideas off of each other rather than moralizing!

Joining in with the discussion. I too have read books where I can see the writer's ideologies, but there are some books where I am not sure if they are really the writer's or if he put them in because they fit the story and the main hero.


There is one book however that had a comment, by the Main Character, at the very end that sounded like the writer not the character because there hadn't been any previous comments by her that were similar. Obviously I could be wrong since I don't know the writer but that comment offended me more than the rest of the book.

came back to say that in my reviews other places I usually ignore the ideological differences, except for that one case. If they are bad enough I won't review the book or I might put in one comment about it but usually as I said I ignore them.

It sounds to me as if the writer "outed" themselves in that case!

Interesting that K.A. raised The Sea-Wolf, It's many years since I read that, but I've just been re-reading his The Mutiny of the Elsinore and was reminded that London had a slightly dodgy relationship with what we would now call fascism. What did London really think about Larsen?

Supposedly London identified two different types of 'supermen': the one he embodied in Larsen, which he considered an indictment of the Nietzscheian (sp?) idea, and a second type, redeemed by love, cooperation, and/or socialism. But who knows - perhaps he secretly wished to be like the man he created. I suppose this isn't the place to discuss London's philosophy - but I bet there's a Goodreads group somewhere that does, and probably in a great deal more depth than I've ever delved!

I expect so. Actually Orwell had something to say about London's fascist tendencies as well (Orwell gets everywhere); I reviewed The Mutiny of the Elsinore some months ago and went into that in some detail.

London does raise the same question as this thread: To what extent do you judge a book on its own terms, or criticize its underlying assumptions as well? It's something that comes up when you're reading (say) a wonderful prewar detective novel, and then the hero comes up with a racist or bigoted statement that, to a modern reader, might seem quite revolting.

This is a little off topic, and I'm not sure if there is a better place to talk about it (feel free to delete this post if so) but I have a similar concern, sort of.
My books are gay romance. So, not any religion but I guess still a point of view that some people don't share.
In the past I've had reviewers (in similar read-to-review groups) who were unable to review my book because they so strongly disagreed with the same-sex pairings.

Is it reasonable for me to assume most people would be open to reviewing my books? What would you do if you read a book where the main plot was something you personally thought was wrong, or even 'disgusting'? Would you be able to offer a fair review?

I reckon that if someone agreed to enter one of the review rounds, and your book was in it, then they should have been willing to read the book - that's assuming it was an "anything goes" round. If there is explicit sex, maybe it should be in an 18+ round, but that is different.

You know the old saying about assuming. Even in today's world where political correctness might prevent someone from stating they are completely "put off" by graphic descriptions of homo erotica or even gay romance, I suspect it would be more common than we might expect. The same would be true for politics and religion.
In a review group, we're expected to lay aside our preferences and individual bias to objectively review the writing. While it can be argued there are positive aspects to this, (greater enlightenment and so on) it's also the weakest point in the process. It puts people in the position of having to read a book they would never choose. It could create an automatic resistance and pre-conceived bias. That's more of a challenge for a reviewer to overcome.
As writer's, when we submit books specifically for review, we subject ourselves to being reviewed by people who are not our target audience.
Still, I believe it's better to have reviews, (even if the reviewer struggles with the content) than not having reviews.
As a reviewer, I do the best I can with what I'm sent.

I think that's true, Daniel; it is a weakness in the system - people end up reviewing books they would not normally want to read.

I suppose it is good for the soul!

I'd suggest submitting to an 18+ round rather than a general or 'clean' one.
One of the criteria of those rounds is that they are happy to read explicit material, and we've had erotica, horror and explicit murder mysteries as well as all sorts of romance.

PS I've just taken your survey, and I'd be very interested in the results.

Emma wrote: "I'd suggest submitting to an 18+ round rather than a general or 'clean' one.
One of the criteria of those rounds is that they are happy to read explicit material, and we've had erotica, horror and ..."

I'm in the 18+ round, so I'm hoping everyone is okay with my content. If not, I'm sure the people in this group are professional enough to handle it properly. And honestly, saying "there was too much gay sex for my tastes" isn't exactly a bad thing, review wise. LOL
I guess I was just wondering more about how difficult it would be for someone who was strongly opposed to homosexuality to read and review a book containing multiple explicit gay sex scenes. And if that is even a fair thing to ask.

I am going to compile those survey results and post them on my blog tomorrow, Emma! ( www.amiebea.com )

I took your survey, too.

In all honesty, I'm waiting on the next Epic round to jump in, because I'm leery of getting assigned 4 erotica books or something. My own work contains sex but nothing explicit, but it does have some fairly graphic violence, so I have to go with either 18+ or Epic, I believe.

Why not a general, Joe?

Wasn't sure they would fit, but I'll keep my eyes open for the next rounds.