Reviews, ugh

I enjoyed your thoughts on this topic. There’s really only one thing I want to comment on and that is the professional bit. I think there is a difference between “being professional” and “being A professional”.

Doctors and lawyers are professionals. There is a bar to which they must perform. There are schools, tests, and organizations. There are concrete rules. Reviewers don’t have that. So they are not “professionals” but they can behave in a professional manner.

I don’t like it when reviewers waffle either (and it happens too often sadly), but I also think they don’t want to sound like they are saying that their opinions are the be-all, end-all about a particular book.

IMO, what makes a reviewer a good reviewer is when they include impartial information about what the book is about, what issues it deals with, what type of characters it has, and then their own opinions as a reader. I can take what I want out of that, whether I agree with them or not.

“That’s one of my problems with some reviewers as well. I see it as a cop out. Make up your mind: are you a reader or are you a reviewer? They switch between those two role so oft that they usually lose cred. for me.”

Oh, amen, amen. (G) Of course, with me it’s not the credibility as much as the confusion that ticks me off. And it’s just downright irritating after a while.

“I think I disagree with you. In discussions with authors, some had said that they enjoy positive reviews, but more than not, they don’t know WHY these reviewers loved their books. It’s gush, gush and gush. It’s lovely, especially for new authors, but after a while, it begins to pall – espec. those who want to improve their writing. I think this is one of reasons why quite a few authors attach importance to non-romance review publications like Publishers’ Weekly than the majority of rom. review publications.”

Yes, but here again, it’s all about picking a stance and sticking to it as far as I can see anyway. This is another of the things that really ticks me off about this topic but for some reason I didn’t pick up on it earlier. Thank you for reminding me. (G) Are reviews for readers or authors? If they’re really and truly for readers then what the heck does it matter what the authors get out of them? PERIOD! OTOH, if we ARE looking at what authors want out of reviews, why are we then also concerned that review sites worry so much about author’s reactions? Wouldn’t that be expected? Am I the only that sees the contradiction there?

Of course, if reviews really are FOR the authors, then maybe what we need are some recommendation sites for readers. I can see it now – Romance Recs & Wrecks. (VBEG)

“But what you want isn’t about reviewing/reviews. You’re just asking for a list of “must-buys”.”

Uh, yeah. Go no argument there. See above. All the above. Oh, and some of the following stuff too. (G)

“A review – non-romance and romance – is a *review* of each book’s strengths, weaknesses and reviewer’s own reaction. It doesn’t matter if it contains only two paragraphs or a page long, just as long as it’s a reviewer has a stand on it. The fact that the majority of reviews are on the ‘gushing’ side gets me to rely on fellow readers’ feedback. Many don’t write detailed reviews, they state what they like and dislike about it, and that’s it.”

I do understand what you’re saying, Maili, partly because it makes sense and partly because I’ve heard it so many times before. But, and it’s a big but, I also believe that the problem is that we (the general we) are actually talking about more than one audience and focus. There are probably readers out there that don’t buy books without reading reviews but I’m not one of them and I don’t believe most romance readers are. Most of us are impulse buyers and only check reviews after the fact. What I need before purchase IS more along the lines of short recs. I just need to know what IS out there. Not just a list but a short summary of content so I can know if the book falls in my interest areas. If authors truly need more than that, i.e. reviews that are more critical, then we’re probably talking about another audience, possibly even a whole other audience than the readers who do read reviews as buying guides. So, here’s the six million dollar question, why ARE we expecting one thing to do it all and complaining when that one thing doesn’t do everything we expect?

I’m not even sure any of that made sense but there IS a nugget of logic in there that I think I need to think on some more. I’ll get back to it later. (G)

“Thank you so much for writing your entry as I love seeing from a different angle. Much appreciated. : )”

Well, it’s ALL your fault, Maili, for getting my juices going with such a thoughtful post in the first place. I just could not bring myself to ignore it no matter how hard I tried. (G)

“Are reviews for readers or authors?”

This, in my opinion, sets up a false dichotomy. Can’t an author pick up something constructive when they read a review, even one primarily geared towards teh reader? Can’t a reader pick up on what’s shit and what’s not when they read a review that veers more towards literary critique? Why just one or the other? Ultimately, who CARES whether the reviewer is targeting the author or the reader? I don’t. If I hear about a book that sounds interesting, I consult reviews, both positive and negative, and I put a lot more credence in reviews that are more than “OMG BEST BOOK EVAR A+++”. I also don’t trust ANY Harriet Klausner review, other than the fact that if she gives anything less than 5 stars, the book is probably going to be so bad that I’ll wonder how it ever got published.

And you haven’t mentioned one major reason why many reviewers review: we like to hear our own voices. I just love to blab, blab, blab about a book I’ve read, and a review provides me with another form with which to do this. I like to share my impressions with other people and I love to chat with other people about what they think; it’s nice to have that opinion acknowledged, and whether or not the other people agree with my assessment doesn’t really matter because I enjoy the ensuing discussion as long as some civility is maintained.

In short: I review because I’m a bit of an attention whore, because I like to to share my opinions with other people, and because I like to entertain. On the other hand, I make no pretence at being “professional” or “unbiased” or any of that claptrap. I’m (quite freaking brutally) honest, I’m detailed about what works and what doesn’t work for me, I try to entertain, and that’s about it.

“Can’t an author pick up something constructive when they read a review, even one primarily geared towards teh reader? Can’t a reader pick up on what’s shit and what’s not when they read a review that veers more towards literary critique?”

Of course they can, both ways, but that isn’t my point at all. My point is why should I, who am basically am impulse buyer when it comes to books, have to wade through all those long versions prior to purchase when all I NEED is the skinny? I might even get to the longer reviews after I read the book. Notice I’m not saying there isn’t a place for those longer “constructive” or “critical” reviews, whatever you want to call them. Just don’t expect me to want to read them, at least not until after I’ve read the book. So, yeah, who or more precisely “what” the reviews are actually being written for makes a big difference. That’s NOT a bad thing. Seems like there should be room for both.

“Why just one or the other? Ultimately, who CARES whether the reviewer is targeting the author or the reader?”

Well, if the point actually is to help readers ultimately find books in the most expeditious manner possible, then I’d think someone SHOULD care. If, OTOH, the point is to show that we can do the critical analysis of the books and use all them fancy-smancy words in the process, then sure go for it. All I ask is for people to be clear about what they’re trying to accomplish either way so that I know where to go to get the information I need when I need it. That’s my bottom line.

What bothers me the most about this topic and generally why I avoid it is that I sometimes think there really is room for both types of “reviews” and we’re only hurting ourselves by not acknowledging that need. How can that be, you ask? Well, consider this. What’s the one thing that always comes up in this discussion, that’s already come up either in Maili’s original post or in a comment? Namely, the issue of respect for the genre and how the “fluff” reviews don’t help. Maybe they don’t, but then maybe that isn’t their purpose to begin with, either. Maybe if we accept that those light, short “recommendations” are primarily informative to get the word out and also accept that the longer “reviews” can be filled with more critical analysis, we could have our cake and eat it too. Why does one size have to fit all needs in the first place? That’s what I don’t get.

“No, not at all. In which case, won’t back-cover blurbs, excerpts on author websites and quickie PR releases at sites like Amazon.com basically work for what you’re looking for? Or perhaps even scanning the index for a large review website like AAR and just taking a cursory look at the grades.”

Oh, you’re absolutely right, Candy, but what do you think I use? Well, except for the index on AAR. Lists are really no help at all. Actually, the most helpful thing I’ve found besides the old RT is that Upcoming Books email list that someone started several years ago. I can scan it each month and quickly get an idea of what’s coming out that I might be interested in, then prioritize my shopping &/or research. The only problem is that even it doesn’t have blurbs for series books, just single titles, which is why I’m thinking of checking out the new RT format.

Of course, I would also point out that I’ve never considered what RT does as reviews in the first place, but as blurbs so I’ve also always been totally bemused by people calling their stuff fluff and getting irate about it. To me that was always a big “Uh, yeah.” (G)

”In any case, reviews don’t work for you. They do for other people. Some people use them as buying guides, but many people don’t. I often see reviews as being springboards for discussions.”

And seems to me, the fluff ones do generate plenty of discussions, so what’s the problem? Good, bad and all discussions in between. Ahem. Okay, I’ll be good. (VBEG)

”WHY does the ceaseless rah-rah cheerleading need to be a component of those “fluffy” reviews, though? You’ve admitted that all you look for is information; in that case, whether or not the reviewer liked the book is moot in your case, so I’m not really sure how short fluffy reviews would work better vs. short no-nonsense reviews vs. short bitchy reviews. The non-stop praise from all quarters harms the genre because it muddies standards; surely not every book can be a five-star, exquisite, deliciously sensual, irresistible, elegant, touching, page-turning, life-changing, richly-imagined story–but looking at the “fluff” reviews, the superlative overdose is so rampant that the words start to lose all meaning. As I noted in the RTB comments, this makes it that much easier for people outside the genre to dismiss all the books since drek and decent pieces of writing are elevated to A++++ status alike. No other genre does this. It seems deceptive, if nothing else, so why should we engage in this sort of behavior? By all means let us have short, blurby reviews, but having them be more balanced instead of overwhelmingly positive all the time can’t hurt.”

Okay, here’s where you’re not convincing me to your side, not because the argument isn’t valid but for the same reason I more or less stated when I first responded to Maili’s RTB post – I don’t see the evidence of harm to the genre. Primarily because I don’t see all that many fluff reviews like what’s being described here on or in venues that are truly going to make the kind of impression everyone is claiming they have. Now, there could be a couple of big reasons for that. Maybe, since I don’t write reviews, I really don’t pay all that much attention to them, one way or another. But also, since I don’t use them as my primary source, I probably have missed the worse cases. I could believe that.

So, let me ask you, all of you, this: Where ARE all these fluff reviews ya’ll are all foaming at the mouth about? I say that quite honestly because discounting author/fan and store sites and anything like RT for reasons stated above, the “professional” sites online I know of don’t do “fluff” reviews, i.e. All About Romance or The Romance Reader. The Best Reviews, I’m not sure about because I haven’t used it in a while but I believe they are willing to give negative reviews and the ones I have read in the past were well-written. I’m assuming none of you gals do fluff reviews or you wouldn’t be so hot under the collar on this issue. (BG) I know I don’t because I don’t review. So, WHO does that counts?

This is extremely important because generalities are NOT going to convince people that this attitude is harming the genre otherwise. We need names and examples so we can go look for ourselves just like we need titles and authors when people start flinging around mutters and groans about bad elements in books being so bad for the genre, too. Give me examples and I’ll give you an honest assessment of what I think about them.

I think the easiest way to see from my angle: look at a collection of reviews at one place. The majority of review publications tends to have ALL reviews in the “five stars” group and nothing below. Sometimes they gave a very few novels fewer than five roses/stars/whatever, but doesn’t explain why. It’s just gush, gush, gush, making every book is a recommendation. This generates the ‘promotional’ feel.

Perhaps you have a different view from mine, but try these: review sites

You want specifics? OK, here is a sample: Affaire de Coeur, Rendezvous, Old Book Barn Gazette [which is quite crazy because it's, IIRC, a used book seller's newsletter, yet many of their 'reviews' are quoted on quite a few romance novels], Deborah MacGillivray [to be fair, she does make it clear that she's a good friend to those authors, but having read her reviews, I have an issue with her stand on reviewing], Harriet Klausner [she's a legend in her own right, though!], The Literary Times [in print and online, but it seems that they have removed all reviews now] and so on.

There is a number of online romance review sites that do not permit their reviewers to have any “negative” comments about romance novels they review. It’s their policies, their right.

It doesn’t mean I think it’s fair. On some reviewers, authors and readers, at least. I’d like a bit of balance. This, of course, doesn’t mean they have to listen to me! If that is what they want, so be it. I just don’t think it’s doing the genre any favours.

Those sites you mentioned – AAR and TRR – these are two of a very few good online publications on offer for readers.

I find the premise that reviews, of any kind, will affect the regard of the genre in the publishing world irrelevant because romance is seen as bad “fluff” for it’s very subject matter and I don’t think that that will ever change. I’m not concerned about that, I like what I like.

In general, despite the importance given to reviews, I’m pretty sure that most books in general, regardless of the genre, are sold by word of mouth.

That being said I still think that reviews hold enough sway and are an important tool. I mean very few books get any sort of “long” review outside of publications like the New Yorker, New York Book Reviews etc. and romance books aren’t being promo-ed there. They also aren’t held up to much “analysis” outside of the typical plot & character development, writing and the chemistry between the two protagonists. I also don’t see how passing reviews for reader recommendations would avoid the “quality” factor: isn’t the person going to say whether they think it’s a good book or not? And maybe sneak in a reason or two for his/her opinion?

I think reviews serve a useful purpose because I believe that most books out there really aren’t worth my time and I don’t have a money tree so I need all the screening I can get. They aren’t my only source but a part of the whole system. I’d love to live in a world where all reviews are good criticsms (yes that actually is one of the words meanings, even if you don’t see it that way ), and every thing else was properly deemed “reader recs” or whatever. I wouldn’t want “fluff” ie gushy ra ra don’t wanna hurt your feelings reviews simply because they lack thought and independence of opinion. I’m not sure why anyone would want to read that, whether they like reviews or not (especially if they don’t like reviews).

I’m pretty sure the RT site has what you’re looking for in terms of blurbs (I don’t know about the lists) and if you use Amazon they have that recommendation set up down pat, including a list of New Releases based on items you’ve rated. Also I’m equally not convinced of the demand for “Blurb Lists”: would they influence sales to any noticeable degree? Are they wanted more than reviews? I’m not saying they shouldn’t be done, I’m sure lots of people would like something like that but in weighing it against reviews the only advantage I see the former having is being cheaper for publishers.