What is a good review?

.
I read a lot of reviews preparing to teach a class about a particular book, and I enjoyed the experience of trying to reconcile all the reviews to that actual book.  They painted an odd picture, indeed.  I found myself thinking about reviews, in general, so I'm probably going to be posting bits for the next few posts.  :)

"My definition of a “good review”, along those lines, would be one where I can tell whether or not I’ll like the book, regardless of what the reviewer thought." - from comment 16

What do you think about that idea?  What's your definition of a good review (if you read them at all)?
.

Just once more

Since I still don't have The Wise Man's Fear (my pre-order is on backorder), I'll just obsess over The Name of the Wind.  Again.

Here's a quick and sort of funny summary of the first book to prepare readers who didn't have time to reread (you had three years) for the second book. 

And here is another author I like (John Scalzi) talking about NotW at Tor, where they had that poll about the best sci-fi/fantasy books of the decade.  (They're posting pieces in praise of the top ten.)

I love writers. :)

Thinking with Fire

I adored Graceling (along with a lot of other people including critics), but I have to say I was afraid that the next book would be too similar, so I held off buying and reading it.  Unfortunate repetition happens to a lot of YA authors.  In Fire's favor was the fact that it was not a sequel, always a good sign.  Also in its favor was the fact that it took place in the same world as Graceling but in another part of it where the rules were different.  (Echoes of Tamora  Pierce, hooray!)  I found the world fascinating and was all for more exploration of it.

In Fire, the situation the heroine was in was sort of vaguely similar, and it was destined to be a romance from the beginning, so there was a certain amount of predictability there, but there was also a lot of court intrigue and reversals and hard decisions and bad things happening to lots of people and misunderstandings and nuanced characters and other bits to keep one reading and guessing.  I enjoyed Fire. 

I must admit that, at first, while I was reading it, I wondered if it sold very well.  Lots of people are sort of Method Readers: they have to find something they can identify with in the main character to keep them reading.  I wonder how many teenaged girls struggle with being so effortlessly, ridiculously beautiful that they literally have to fight off men attracted to them.  The answer is probably not many.  So what would make this book appealing and relevant to them?

I actually found my answer in the responses of those around this main character.  Many wanted her dead because she was by her very nature a temptress (even though she didn't consciously use her powers, especially not for evil) who caused strife, and they were afraid of her potential if she chose to be evil.  They were scared of their weakness and her power over them, so they hated her and tried to confine her or even kill her. 

I found myself remembering that in many places in our real, modern world, women are forced to cover themselves completely and hide away because the men around them believe that their existence and visibility leads men to sin.  Of course, the men can't be expected to control themselves; that would be too hard, so let's blame the women.  It's their nature to tempt men to sin simply by existing, right?  The way the story raised and handled these issues was great.  There wasn't any preaching; no one made speeches they wouldn't have made if they really existed, and I still walked away thoughtful.

I like the conclusions Fire comes to by the end of the novel.  I really do.  She wrestles with her demons and her nature, and she comes to a peace with them.  If only other women in captivity to the weak men around them could have such a hard-fought, hard-won happy ending.  If only all teen girls could successfully fight their way to peace with themselves about their bodies and their responsibility to the people around them.  I hope some of them can.  Maybe reading this book will make them think about it. If not, it's still a great read full of adventure and romance and sacrifice and redemption and good and evil and other things that make a story worth hearing.  I'm looking forward to Cashore's next book.  It's coming out . . . soon, I hope.

Are you more of a "Method Reader" or a total omnivore (omnibibliovore)?

Reviews that look beyond the surface

"Nothing really makes sense, mind, but one of the themes of the story is a commentary on the limited nature of science and what humans can see, so it’s not setting out to make sense, it’s trying to do something different."

I read this comment in a review, and I really liked it.  I like when a reviewer doesn't simply dismiss and hate on a book but actually tries to understand the purpose of the story, which may not be to be a perfect, traditional book. 

Another review I read here told me something about the structure of the work that blew my mind.  The story involved someone training to become a professional opera singer, and apparently, the plot was structured in such a way as to mirror classical opera plots.  What a great review, much better than the ones I've read that complain about how the plot isn't in any standard structure (and thus sucks).  This careful reviewer looked beyond the surface and into the purpose of the crafting.

I understand that it may not be possible for a writer to do that with every book reviewed.  It may not even be the reviewer's purpose.  I love liking things and trying to understand them, so it makes sense that I would prefer to read reviews written by people who like something and rhapsodize about its virtues while not making false claims about its perfection.

If I ever publish, I'll value one thoughtful review like these (even if they don't like it, as long as they look carefully) more than ten that fail to kindly look beyond the surface.  Just remind me of that if I'm freaking out over a shallow, dismissive, hate-fest review.  (I hope to be able to own those reviews like John Scalzi does.)

Have you read any reviews that made you rethink your opinion of a book you've read and apparently not understood?

Why I'm glad (again) that I am not a critic

I was reading a review of a group whose music I have really enjoyed on the radio.  The review was condescending, and, in my experience, inaccurate when it talked about how unremarkable the album was because the group sounded like everyone else on the radio at the time of the album release. 

I had never heard a group that sounded like them.  Why would a reviewer say that, I wondered, if it was obviously not true?  What I forgot is that most reviewers get paid to listen to a lot more music than I do. 

The radio station I normally listen to (because I have good reception) is more Adult Contemporary, and this group getting airplay was probably more due to the fact that they're local boys than that they fit the station's format. 

When I recently tuned in to the other station, the one that's more rock/alternative oriented, I understood what the reviewer was saying.  Another reason I don't listen to this other station (aside from the poor, are-they-broadcasting-from-a-shoebox reception) is that there is a certain everyone-sounds-vaguely-the-same vibe.  Ah, this is what the reviewer meant.  If I listened to this station more, maybe the songs I loved from this specific band wouldn't have stood out as much, which would have been a shame, since the songs really spoke to me when I needed them.

I felt bad for the reviewer.  It would be awful not to be able to enjoy the huge, sonic hug aimed at those who have been kicked around and stomped on by the world we live in.

I feel the same way about some book reviewers.  It's sad that they don't get to just enjoy books.  It's sad that they demand originality in order to enjoy something, that they've read so much that originality is often the only thing that matters to them.  It makes me glad, once again, that I have chosen not to be a critic. 

Me and all the other rabid fans who love this music (or that book), regardless of what the critics say because this art is what we need now in our lives. 

Grumbling, Disagreeable, possibly-Entertaining critics

I was book reading reviews today, and I cracked up after the fourth Booklist review contradicted all the others (Library Journal, Publisher's Weekly, even Kirkus Review).  All four of these Booklist reviews said, "Sniff.  Well, I suppose the young, unsophisticated people like that sort of low-brown, pedestrian thing, but we found it frankly tiresome and boring and didn't like it at ALL.  Sniff."

Usually they were more specific and pointed out that they specifically hated the things the other reviews liked.  If Publisher's Weekly loved the outstanding character development, Booklist thought the book suffered because it was populated with undeveloped, stock character types.  If Library Journal loved the sophisticated, twisty plot, Booklist thought the whole thing was terribly predictable and didn't have a moment of REAL suspense.  Sigh.

It's not like I don't understand being contrary as a way to seem smart, and it's not like I don't understand how everyone liking something can make one not like it JUST BECAUSE, but if I were a reviewer, and I knew I was having that kind of petulant, immature, biased reaction, I would hope I had the professionalism to deal with it maturely or else pass the review on to someone who could.  For Pete's sake.

At least I got a laugh out of it.

Have you ever felt that way about a book everyone seemed to praise to the skies?  (What book?)  Did you read it?  Did reading it change your mind?

Something Great Someone Else Said about Procrastination and Recommending Books

I promise I'll stop doing this soon, but I wanted to share another link.  I promise when I do it's always relevant.  Somehow.  If you put a little thought into it.

Anyway, Patrick Rothfuss wrote a post about liking/recommending books that is more than vaguely related to something I wrote back in August, and I felt like sharing it.  It's nice to know I'm not alone in my particular procrastinatory habits.  Sometimes you like something, and you can't explain why, but that isn't very helpful to people unless they share your exact reading habits.

Do you ever not talk about something you enjoyed because you're afraid someone will ask why?  Anything you inexplicably loved and want to share here since you don't have to explain why you like it at all?  :)

Another Reason to Love John Scalzi

This is classic.   Be sure to read down to his paraphrase of the letter in question.

My favorite line:

"So, despite the fact that you’ve made science fiction a foundational part of your life, follow and support the genre, and are grown-up, accomplished people who are on average both smarter and better read than the average Joe, you are somewhat full of FAIL."

I wish The Vorkosigan Companion had won the Hugo for Best Related Book, but I am obviously completely biased, so congrats to Scalzi for taking that trophy for 10 years of "Taunting the Tauntable" in Your Hate Mail Will Be Graded: A Decade of Whatever, 1998-2008.