Clever humour of that title aside, where do you stand on the issue? Up until six months ago, I was starring things without a lot of deep thought on the practice--books mostly, and usually on Goodreads. And then I read The Goldfinch. And then I read The Luminaries. Both are award-winning books that I really did not enjoy that much, and like unsatisfied readers everywhere, my first reaction was to find other unsatisfied readers to justify my opinion. What I found eventually, after reading a lot of scathing reviews of both books, was a piece by Eleanor Catton in response to criticism that she is a writer of elitist fiction. On Literature and Elitism deals with a few interesting questions as to the relationship between reader/consumer/writer, but the one that really gave me pause was her questioning the habit of giving starred reviews to reading experiences. I spent some time this week trawling through customer reviews on Amazon and Goodreads, in order to look for trends — paying particular attention to the scathing one-star reviews that inevitably warn all other readers against buying or reading the disliked book. Starred reviews affix to all works of literature a kind of efficiency rating, which over time average out to a meaningless valuation somewhere between the middle threes and the low fours. And she's right, there isn't a lot to be learned from a star rating because it generally does fall smack in the middle of the scale, but also because the ratings are coming from an audience of people that you don't know anything about. For instance, I think it's a fair bet that someone who normally reads and loves Danielle Steele is not going to enjoy The Luminaries, but should that person feel free to give The Luminaries a one or two star review? I got a rejection letter last week that also speaks to this issue ... one of the feedback snippets basically said, "I would have liked this story a lot better if it was a horror story." Which is kind of like saying, I would like cottage cheese a lot better if it was yogourt. That's not criticism, constructive or otherwise, that is just identifying what you like, and telling other people that you only like what you like. Catton concurs, saying that a starred review amounts to "just an expression of brand loyalty," that is as ridiculous as "giving four stars to your mother, three stars to your childhood, or two stars to your cat."
Shortly after reading that, I stopped star-reviewing the books I didn't enjoy. One thing I don't want to do anymore, especially since putting my own book out in the world, is tear another writer down. The vitriol that normally accompanies a poor rating of a book astounds me. People seem to forget sometimes that the book they read and didn't like and then proceeded to trash online is still the product of a human being with feelings. The book, though you may not care for it, is the outcome of a lot of time and hard work. Also, if a book doesn't mean much to you, that's not necessarily the writer's fault. That's maybe, at least partly, the reader failing the writer at being a good reader. I know I sometimes read things impatiently, or while distracted with life, or while in an especially critical or otherwise unfavourable mood. Maybe I wasn't the intended audience. And though it's nice to think that a great wordsmith could transcend the boundaries, could draw everyone in and wrap them up in a great story no matter their age, interests or life experience, it is just not possible. Preferences are normal and we shouldn't feel guilty for having them, but we shouldn't think that they hold any evaluative worth. It's fine to have opinions, and it's good to voice them, even if they are negative, but if you do, then criticism should be well-considered and go beyond the realm of thumbs up/thumbs down. And if I love a book? Then I star it and share it and love it up all over the place. Because even though what I think doesn't mean anything about the quality of the book, it is the only way I have to show my gratitude for a very rare experience: synergy between reader and author.
7 Comments
I SO AGREE! I just wrote a blog about pet peeves as a reader, and one of the ones I wrote was that it irks me when people confuse not liking a book with legitimately bad writing. Just because you didn't like a book - doesn't mean you have to tear it apart. It makes me laugh when there's the one person on a list of 5 stars who HATED the book and insults every aspect of the book, like said person must be a contrarion.
Reply
Erin
6/24/2014 02:29:23 pm
Hi Nikki -- thanks for commenting! I don't want to pretend that I've never posted a poor or one-star review to Goodreads. I am so capable of snap judgements - just ask anyone who knows me! But, I am definitely not going to be putting these hasty judgements online anymore. I read a quote from the Dalai Lama very recently (be warned ... this is about to get all happy-hippy) who said, "Be kind whenever possible. It's always possible." I don't subscribe to much, but I I've been really trying to heed this advice as much as my sarcastic little heart will allow! So, if that one-star review isn't helping anyone (and it's not, because it is not real criticism) then I'll keep it to myself ... and family and close friends - because I can warn them about bad books, right? ;-)
Reply
6/25/2014 04:42:02 am
I love this post, Erin, and I totally agree.
Reply
Erin
6/25/2014 09:55:26 am
Oh man. Terrible. He obviously did not get the Dalai Lama's memo!
Reply
Ken Ellis
6/28/2014 02:24:18 pm
Reviews can be helpful, I think, if read with the same critical eye one reserves for the item being reviewed. Each of has a unique viewpoint and sensitivity to a writer's words. If one remembers this, one can stay in the moment and realize that this one person's (critic's) voice is a personal one and thus, the review can serve as a guide or starting point. If one stars only those works one sees in a favourable light, are we not doing a disservice to others who might like some unique, but honest and well-supported views? We saw two wonderful ( in the eyes of 4 of us) productions at Stratford yesterday. Tho we disagreed with the Star's less than enthusiastic reviews of the same productions, said reviews provided fodder for an educational post-performance discussion amongst the four of us. A comparative analysis of a written work under similar terms could also be educational and informative whether or not one agrees with the reviewer.
Reply
Erin
6/28/2014 03:38:06 pm
Hi Ken -- I totally agree that we must have a healthy literary discourse (see above comment) and I completely agree that negative reviews are part of that. My problem is not with professional critics who might have critical things to say about a book/play/album. For the most part, professional critics consider and review the work from the position of whether the artist/writer/etc achieved what they set out to do, and whether what they set out to do is important in their discipline or not. Nor is my problem with amateur critics who take the time to really look at the work they are reviewing from an angle other than "How much did I like this book/play/album on a scale of 1 to 5?"
Reply
Judy Foster
6/28/2014 02:44:26 pm
I quite often do not enjoy books that have garnished multiple glowing reviews - notably, I do not recomment to friends most of the Bookers, with some excpeptions (Hilary Mantel I adore). I also feel that our personal responses to books alter according to our particular circumstances at the time of reading. A littany of literary illusions or a setting multilayered in time periods and places can be off-putting or a welcome challenge. For award winners, I think we have to discover the leanings of the committees. I usually trust the Commonwealth Writers Prize and the Impact Dublin, but not universally.
Reply
Leave a Reply. |
WhoErin Bedford, writer. What
All
When
December 2017
|