reviews, redux
I am a regular visitor over at Smart Bitches. Sarah and Candy have got a good thing going, one that was long overdue: place where people talk about the romance genre with serious intent, thoughtfully, and without apology. Strong voices, strong opinions, without lots of exclamation points, laughing out loud, or cutsey icons.
It's not that I'm always in agreement, but I do find it all interesting. Take this post (Why Evil Reviews Are So Much More Fun Than Nice Reviews) -- which I just read today. There are already fifty comments, so I'm going to write something here rather than pile on the heap over there.
Two things to start with: I haven't read all fifty of the comments, and, Candy makes it clear that she's talking about a certain kind of review:
Assume, for this article, that I’m talking in particular about well-written, entertaining reviews by people with a better-than-tenuous grasp on English and logic, and not poorly-written hack reviews, either positive or negative.
Candy likes evil reviews because she finds them funny. Here's the thing. No matter how you define 'fun' or 'funny' (and she goes to some trouble to do that before she gets going), a really evil review just doesn't make that cut for me. I might draw in a sharp breath at the clever tone or because of a particularly snide turn of phrase, but I don't get any enjoyment out of a review like that. Even if I hated the book, and even if I dislike the author. I will admit that I'm absolutely capable of schadenfreude (see the post a few days ago about envy) -- but if the reviewer goes overboard into the realm of the evil, I lose that tingle that goes along with the affirmation of my righteous indignation.
Also, I admit this: I write novels for a living, and by necessity, authors have a different relationship to reviews and reviewers than readers do.
I have been thinking about reviews a lot lately, which is partially why I picked up on this post of Candy's. Over at the RBA website I recently made an argument againt including ratings in reviews. No stars, no pluses or minuses or letter grades. Just the reviewer's take on the damn book. Why it worked, why it didn't work. Because really, what are reviews for?
That's the question I'm struggling with. Are reviews a way to pick books to read? To advance the discussion of narrative and characterization? To talk about the state of the world today? To show off the reviewer's education and clever mind? To stroke the author's ego?
I know what I want from a review. I want a clear idea of (1) what the story is about (without giving a lot away); (2) the reviewer's take on the strengths and weaknesses of the story. I don't want a diatribe on the author's background or political views. I don't want an essay on the inherent lack of value in genre X, or the sublime nature of first person narration. I want focused, straight forward information and opinions. I don't want funny, but I'll take it if doesn't get in the way.
So now I'm wondering if I'm alone in this boat. What do y'all want from a review?