(from debut - June 2005 *)
My January column
My February column
My March column
My April column
My May column
My June column
* Co-authored Oct column
 What was begun as an online journal of the books I read evolved...or maybe it devolved...so that it also now features: Sharing part of my life with you is a two-way affair. All I ask from you is: Please do not violate my trust. Some AAR-related material is restricted, as are some personal postings. To access restricted entries, click here for instructions, then click here to apply - if unsuccessful, click here for an online form to fill out and submit (the form can be used to send me blog-related email as well). You must keep blogged material from the restricted section off AAR. Anyone violating this rule will lose access to protected entries. You only need to enter your password once (it's a cookies thing). Remember, this blog is not part of All About Romance. Comments or questions regarding sensitive blog content must not appear at AAR. |
Recently Finished
Reading Now...
My RSS Feeds
Blogging & Venom
Everyone has the right to publish whatever the hell they want on the Internet...that's the beauty of this wonderful technology. Some of it is intriguing, entertaining, or even simply rabble-rousing. But as I've mentioned before, sometimes the manner in which the blogger is revealed - or chooses to reveal him/herself - is not necessarily "a good thing."
Yes, I've blogged angrily before, with a definite tinge of bitterness, but I don't believe I've ever tried to mow down an entire occupation in the past. I mention this because today I read a blogging that quite frankly shocked me in its vehemence. I was also taken aback by part of the message in this blogging, which I interpreted as meaning the following: unless you've written one, you should not review books.
"Certainly you reviewers are entitled to your opinions, and free speech -- something I dearly love -- protects your right to air them. Air them. But expect me to read it? Think I'm going to learn something from you? Based on what? Have you written sixty-two novels? I have. How many of yours are published? My #27 and #28 will be out next month. Let's put some credentials on the table here.
"Right, forgot. You don't have any. You just have your opinion."
The last line of her blogging goes like this: "...as much hell as I've gone through, it can't be anything compared to where most of you burn."
As far as I know, Roger Ebert's sole screenwriting credit is for the soft-porn sequel of Valley of the Dolls, and he's got a Pulitzer Prize sitting on his mantle (or framed on his wall, whatever); if I'm not mistaken, his was the first (and perhaps only) Pulitzer Prize given to a reviewer. And I'm equally reminded of a quote of his, prominently displayed AAR's policy page: "Subjectivity is the only possible approach to reviewing. What is a review but an opinion? Those who call for you to be objective are revealing that they have not given the matter a moment's serious thought. Most times, those calling for objectivity are essentially saying they wish you had written a review that reflected their subjective opinion."
No reviewer I've ever heard of forces anybody - author, reader, editor, other reviewer - to read their reviews. Gena Hale, (aka Jessica Hall, Rebecca Kelly, Lynn Viehl, and S.L. Viehl) has certain gotten a whole variety of grades at AAR, although our review staff seems to like her pretty well as Jessica Hall - not so much as Gena Hale. Regardless, it's hard to imagine a reviewer - any reviewer - pulling out a knife and demanding they read a review "or else."
I think Gena Hale ought to let her books speak for themselves. Obviously she's been a successfuly author for a number of years. If her readers enjoy her books, what's the problem? According to a number of visitors to AAR, they don't read our reviews until after they've read the book, don't read reviews at all (which is tossed around with a sort of macho abandon, and surprises me given how prominent a role reviews play at the site), and far more importantly, according to anecdotal evidence, a good review has far, far more impact in terms of sales than a bad one.
Owen Gleiberman, one of Entertainment Weekly's senior reviewers, is also quoted on our policy page, and I think it speaks well for anyone who thinks there should be specific credentials for reviewing: "The best defense I can muster for what we critics do is really quite simple. Ideally, the thrust and urgency of any one of our opinions hinges less on the judgment than on the depth and passion with which it's expressed. My opinion, in short, has no more 'value' than yours. I can only hope that I give voice to it in a way that enriches the experience of the art form we both love."
I agree most strongly with Gleiberman. If somebody enjoys reading, writes and articulates their opinions well, I may want to read them. But I'll go Gleiberman further, to something Ty Burr, now senior movie reviewer at the Boston Globe - told me in an interview several years ago.
"But as I see my job it's to cover both the service angle (i.e., is the movie, book, CD worth your money and why?) and the larger pop-cultural angle (i.e., where does the movie, etc, fit in the larger picture - of the creators' work, the genre as a whole, the marketplace, etc etc). And to do it clearly, cleverly (but not too cleverly), and fairly. Since it is opinion, it has to reflect that this is, in fact, one writer's point of view - I have no use for those readers who think that a movie critic should 'be objective'. There's no such thing, really. What is important is being honest about your subjectivity - your likes and dislikes - and also being knowledgeable, so it's more than just a rant."
So, my definition of a book reviewer? A person who enjoys reading books, writes and articulates their opinions well (so that others like reading their work), and is knowledgeable in their field, which means they're well read. Seems to be good enough for the Chicago Sun-Times, Entertainment Weekly, and the Boston Globe, and it's good enough for me.
TTFN, Laurie Likes Books
Laurie,
I was pretty amazed at this blogging, which is why I pointed it out to AAR family.
Frankly, I can only wonder why this author is quite so threatened by reviewers. I'm also equally puzzled as to exactly who those desperate reviewers might be who keep begging her to read their reviews. Certainly not me or, I daresay, any colleagues of mine.
I don't know if you saw but another author who linked to this blog called her venting "insightful". I think that's almost as big a headline as the blog itself.
Sandy
I don't get this rant either. I mean, what reviewer writes reviews for the
author(s)? Reviewers should always be writing reviews for other readers!
I might write an e-mail to an author if I really loved his/her book, but I
never, ever point out to them that "Golly, I also wrote a review! You can
see it here! Learn something from my comments!"
Unless they go tip-toeing through Google, my e-mail is just another letter from another reader to them....
Wendy
Wendy -
You make a good point, and one I can't stress loudly enough. Reviews are not written like critiques and don't have to be constructive. A review is written to inform and entertain.
Sandy -
I just went back and added a snippet from the last line of her blog entry, which was, wow: "...as much hell as I've gone through, it can't be anything compared to where most of you burn."
I can't really add anything to that, now, can
I?
TTFN, LLB
Makes you wonder how she chooses which films to go and see.
I think it's
her perogative to find reviewer feedback unhelpful for her writing, but, as
Wendy said, reviews are written for readers, and I can't see the argument
that an experienced reader is unqualified to have an opinion on a book's
merits.
While authors might be in an odd position in that their work is also their product, I can't see where she gets the idea that discussing her product is iniquitous. I've never even tried to review anything, but I read a lot, and reviews sell me books. You'd imagine most people with a product to sell would be keen to make potential customers aware of their product.
MMcA
Re-reading Hale's entry, I think her purpose in writing it was to defend
her refusal to read reviews. However, she went a bit far in the last three
paragraphs, when she started maligning reviewers themselves.
I suspect that her blog entry was not written in reference to AAR, but in regard to Amazon.com and the like (perhaps inspired by an Anne Rice-ish experience?) -- "[ditzes] with internet access" being the clue. This makes Hale's distinction between readers and reviewers all the more mysterious: the Amazon.com reviews don't showcase professional reviewers' opinions; they showcase the reactions of READERS -- the people who pay for her books, the people with whom Hale claims she has an "unwritten contract." If she believes her contract with her publishing company gives the employees of that company the right to review her work with the expectation that she will read and pay attention to their suggestions ("I constantly beg my editors to rip apart the books I submit"), then it follows that this informal contract with her readers also gives them the same rights.
But pardon me -- she gives her editor the right of critique because her editor is an experienced industry hand. Similarly, she feels she can ignore "laymen" reviewers because they are not tried and tested novelists. But to say that the quality of a reviewer's opinion should be determined with regard to the number of books the reviewer has written is (IMO) to grossly misunderstand (hell yes, I'm splitting that infinitive!) the relationship between author and reader. Ultimately, when it comes to literature, the opinion of greatest importance is the READER'S -- unless the author is writing solely for herself. But if this is the case, the author shouldn't be publishing.
Frankly, and without grace, I opine: until so many authors of romance (and sci-fi) stop sucking, access to reliable, intelligent reviews will remain the key to my economic success as a poor but picky book-buyer. In other words -- I need to know if a book is good before I invest in it. I can't afford to make mistakes. So while Hale may not read the reviews of her books, I certainly will, and they will determine whether I buy her books or not. However, I'll admit I don't read or trust the Amazon reviews. I stick to AAR, occasionally (though less and less) TRR, and once in a blue moon, Giggles.
I do agree unequivocally with Hale on one count: it may not be possible for most authors to learn how to improve their writing by reading reviews of their books. The inadequacy of many authors' prose is staggering on so many levels that improvement would require comments on a far more detailed level than those provided in five short paragraphs. :)
Emma
Emma -
If I misread her intent than the only connection I see between her post and Anne Rice's melt-down is that it is guaranteed to be misinterpreted by a whole lot of people. And, more to the point, it goes to something I've written about for years - the difference between professionally written reviews that go through layers of editing and vetting and what are basically reader "letters to the editor" at venues such as Amazon.
We take what WE do at AAR quite seriously, and since I do review professionally and for pay at another venue and am a trained manager, I KNOW what structures need to be in place to produce professional, unbiased material. I absolutely can't speak for any other website, but I CAN speak for mine.
But as I mentioned in the blog, I'm sorry...it reads to me as though unless you've written a book you shouldn't be allowed to review them, and further, that most of us who review should burn in hell. I may have focused on that, but since 1996 I've been writing about reviewing itself, and trying to educate readers and authors alike that a review is not meant with the author in mind - it's not meant to be constructive criticism.
That's why, way back when, I interviewed Ty Burr, why I seek out comments from influential reviewers on the nature of reviews. I'm STILL trying to educate.
I'd like to think I'm not going to burn in hell for the service I provide - for free.
TTFN, LLB
Eek, did I come off as defending her in my first post???? I thought I had
written a strongly negative critique of the piece. Re-reading it, I still
don't see much that contradicts what you are saying yourself. Anyway, re:
her original intention, I was just commenting on the fact that it seems as
if the piece begins as a defense of her decision not to read reviews.
Then, about halfway through, it goes WAY off track. I don't think this
means you're misinterpreting it. She moved into new territory in the
second half of the article when she started bashing reviewers, and it's
that new territory to which you take exception -- as do I. (Though I think
her belief that readers are not qualified to comment critically unless
they're novelists too is problematic on many, many levels.)
Emma
Emma -
I didn't really think you were "defending" her...I was simply trying to clarify my position and make additional points rather than adding to my original blogging or blogging again.
TTFN, LLB
If reviewers aren't writing reviews for authors, then I don't get the
constant begging for ARCs (which I get constantly) and the gushing reviews
on books that suck. Or the emails that say, "Look! I've reviewed your
book! Come see!" This is the only site I trust for reviews.
Author
Author -
If you mean AAR, than thanks on behalf of all of us. If you mean my small essays here on the blog about books I've read, than thanks personally.
No "real" reviewer writes reviews for authors - reviews are meant to be consumer guides in a sense. What you're talking about is the sort of "review" that, unfortunately, is more of a p.r. plug than anything else. I think we have publications such as RT, The Literary Times, and Affair de Coeur (sp?) to thank for that.
Way back when, when RT got its start, it DID have its place, but according to most experts, it's really more a fanzine than anything else. Unfortunately, since it's been the pre-eminent venue for romance reviews for so long, it's fanzine-type reviews are considered standard, and for a long time were expected by authors and publishers.
TTFN, LLB
"...if I'm not mistaken, [Ebert's] was the first (and perhaps only)
Pulitzer Prize given to a reviewer."
For what it's worth, Stephen Hunter (of the *Washington Post*) won for his film reviews and criticism in 2003.
Dwight Brown [stainles@mac.com]
Dwight -
Thanks so much for sharing that with me. I sort of hedged my bets, not knowing for sure whether Ebert was still "one and only." Now I'll have another piece of information to tuck into my brain.
TTFN, LLB
I review SF and fantasy (with a small sideline into paranormal and
futuristic romance reviewing) and have been doing so since 1997.
I've never seen an SF author that irritated at a review in public. I've heard some gripes about reviewers getting details of books wrong, and assuming personal things about an author that aren't true, but nothing at this scale. And a lot of them blog, too.
I buy every book that I review that doesn't come from a library. (And my taxes pay for those.) I am never going to buy or borrow anything by that blogger, much less review it. If bad publicity is better than no publicity, she's nailed it, but she's getting no more publicity for actual profitable objects out of me.
Oh, and she's also attacked John Scalzi for being excessively self-promoting on his blog. Pot, meet kettle.
Here I am a day late and a dollar short. I read the blog in question quite
and bit and have actually corresponded with the author (although I can't
claim any close friendship).
I *think* possibly what she was ranting against were the less than professional reviewers out there. It's one thing to write a review, it's another to hound an author to read it.
And you know,there are reviews out there that are less than kind. They aren't always about the book or about the writing so much as a character assasination shredding, not just the work itself, but the author's reputation as well.
Michelle
Michelle [vancisin3122@email.msn.com]
Nicole -
Until a couple of years ago, I continued to buy authors whose reading I liked, regardless of their behavior. I still do, but with one major caveat...if they are vocal in their dislike of AAR, I no longer buy or read them. It's been hard to give up a couple of these authors, but some of these people were actively trying to shut us down. As for Hale/Hall/Viehl, I'd never read her before, and even though she wasn't talking about AAR specifically, I don't know what I'd do if a book came my way by her that I wanted to read. I can say that one AAR reviewer who liked her writing under her non-romance name no longer cares to read her.
Michelle -
I can't imagine any reviewer "hounding" anyone to read a review. Who are these people? If an e-zine is professionally managed, than the people writing for it also behave in a professional manner. These, frankly, are the only sites I will read from. I think you take what you get when you do otherwise.
TTFN, LLB