Accentuate the positive

   I've recently felt quite out of step with fellow reviewers whose opinions of a certain book are markedly at odds with mine. Broadly speaking, they are raving about it, while I found its flaws too great to overlook. The best analogy I can give for this is to say imagine a house which seems extremely attractive on paper or in pictures, so interesting and beautiful that everyone wants to go and live in it, but when you look closely you see that the architect has provided insufficient bathrooms, sited the dining room miles from the kitchen, and positioned the building so that the scullery and the boot room get the best views. Not only that, the windows don't fit and the roof leaks - but it looks absolutely wonderful!

    Sometimes a book works so well that the reader can make allowances, ignore continuity errors, lacunae or non-sequiturs, put up with some stretching of the imagination. Suspension of disbelief means you can accept a lot because of the spirit in which that's been asked of you, but what happens when the writer has got so carried away with their overall idea and their plot at the expense of actually making it work, of getting their characters from A to B in a complete and credible manner? - then this reader is reaching for the red pen.

   Why am I not naming the book? I could be being unduly censorious (though I'm often thought to be too 'soft' on books and not caustic enough for some tastes), and I don't want to burst anyone's bubble and spoil the fun that others are obviously having. Why do I mention it at all, then? Because it has truly vexed me since I read it, even moreso given what I'm reading about it which makes me question my critical skills.

    This is all part of a much bigger issue and one where the blogger may feel the need for self-drawn guidelines for writing 'negative' reviews, something which came up in this quite memorable post. As you see, I'm still working on mine.

Comments

[Harriet]

You are very honorable not to name the book, and of course I respect you for it, but I'm sure I will not be alone in being absolutely desperate to know what it is!

[m]

I do hope that this is a cliffhanger and that you'll tell us tomorrow!

[Verity]

Ditto what Harriet said!!

[Dark Puss]

Do not, what ever else you do, question your critical skills! Why should you not be out of step with other reviewers? I have been reading recently, from people whose views I respect, some rave reviews of the books of William Maxwell. You will remember my negative review of They Came Like Swallows when it was read for the CBG. My view then was clearly out of step with yours, with Adele Geras, with Harriet Devine and many others. Perhaps I'm arrogant but I did not then, and do not now, worry about being the lone voice. You are a much more perceptive reader and certainly a far better critic of novels than I am so you should be even more sure of your the validity of your own views. I doubt if you'll spoil anyones fun by naming the book and I am certain that what you have to say about it will be thoughtful and insightful.

Like Harriet, "m" and Verity I look forward to reading your review tomorrow!

[Simon T]

Oh Karen, what does it say about my nature that these thoughts have made me FAR more intrigued about what the book is than the most glowing review could have done...

[Julie Fredericksen]

Re: Dark Puss' comment: "I did not then, and do not now, worry about being the lone voice". I felt exactly like the lone voice when reading the highly-touted "The Corrections" by Jonathan Franzen. I kept feeling like the little boy in "The Emperor's New Clothes": We're all having the wool pulled over our eyes!"

And your statement "..the reader can make allowances". I made allowances in reviewing Pat Conroy's "South of Broad just because I loved "The Prince of Tides" so much and could not utterly slam a writer I had greatly respected.

However, I'm not at all afraid to slam a book in a review (e.g. "Sundays at Tiffany's" by James Patterson). Then again, I'm not being sent books to review.

As to willing suspension of disbelief, I can absolutely do that with certain books, like "Outlander" by Diana Gabaldon but cannot manage to do so with books like "Like Water for Chocolate", "Even Cowgirls Get the Blue" and books by Louise Erdrich (she's fine when not asking us to suspend disbelief, as in the excellent "The Painted Drum").

I'm not at all afraid to slam a book in a review (e.g. "Sundays at Tiffany's" by James Patterson). Then again, I'm not being sent books to review.

[Karol/New York City]

Please, please tell us the title of this book. One of my constant complaints about many book blogs is the reluctance of the blogger to be negative about a book. I understand the desire to avoid the nasty "snarky" comments that pervade the internet, but there is a way to write a negative review without being mean-spirited. There are far too many books to read to waste time with badly written or poorly constructed novels, and one of the joys of book blogs is finding someone whose reading taste and critical acumen are similar to mine and discovering gems that I might not otherwise have known about. I just started a book (An Unfinished Score) by Elise Blackwell that was reviewed on Mary Whipple's blog and I would never have known about this book if not for her review. Since it has a classical music theme (the main character is a violist in a string quartet), I am delighted to have found this book.

[LizF]

I can understand why you don't want to be overly censorius, but you are a very well read and intelligent woman and your view is as valid as any other.

[Ros]

I don't trust reviewers who never write negative reviews. I don't believe that every book is good, and I don't believe that every book appeals to every reader. I would much rather hear the occasional lone voice pointing out the flaws in a book than a chorus of repetitive praise. There are several books I've loathed which received almost universal critical acclaim. I would have loved to have found a lone reviewer who pointed out the flaws that I found.

Even in a generally positive review, I think it's very helpful to mention flaws in a book. If your reviews are primarily for the benefit of readers deciding where to spend their hard-earned cash, I think it's only fair to let them know the weaknesses in a book as well as its strengths.

[Ros]

Also, when you say: I could be being unduly censorious (though I'm often thought to be too 'soft' on books and not caustic enough for some tastes), and I don't want to burst anyone's bubble and spoil the fun that others are obviously having.

I think you're wrong. I don't think that a single negative review in the face of apparently a whole host of positive critique will burst anyone's bubble or spoil anyone's fun.

[Claire]

I echo all of the above. If lots of others are really enjoying this book I would really appreciate your comments. I know they will be insightful (is that a word??) and valid to you so, go on, tell us. Or, perhaps, drop a few clues and we can all guess!

[Dark Puss]

Claire, I hope that your last comment is light hearted? Dropping hints, which I for one am unlikely to identify correctly, is surely exactly the wrong approach to proper criticism. Transparency is all (hope you have been watching appalled the "train crash" of the historian Orlando Huggins and his "reviews" on Amazon).

[Dark Puss]

Ros, I don't think Cornflower's reviews are "primarily for the benefit of readers deciding where to spend their hard-earned cash".

[m]

I'm sure I'm not the only one to have a cast an eye down Cornflower's booklist and jumped to my own conclusion ... and, as you say, more than likely identified the wrong book!

[Oxslip]

You can't leave us like this. Just give a spoiler warning and then reveal as a comment so it's only visible if you click through.
Or would it be more fun to have a sweepstake, profits to charidee?

[Ros]

Maybe you're right. I would be interested to know what Cornflower does think is the purpose of her reviews, because I think that must determine the appropriate way to review a book, especially one she doesn't much enjoy. If it's straightforward literary criticism, then I can't see a problem with a negative review. If it's for the benefit of other readers, then again I think that negative reviews are valuable. But if the purpose is simply to share books that she has enjoyed with others, then it's completely reasonable just to pass over the less good books. And maybe the purpose is something wholly different that I haven't thought of.

[Desperate Reader]

When I started blogging I decided I didn't want to write about books I didn't like (what a lot of I's) and I'm sticking to that which makes me feel okay if I bring up negative points - the book's only on there because I think it's worth shouting about. If I was sent a book and hated it (not happened yet) I'm not prepared to give it even the limited publicity my blog would grant; easy to say before the dillema happens.

It seems to me though that if a book is doing the rounds and you don't like it it's fair enough to say so. The debate around 'Howards End Is On The Landing' last year was all the better for differing opinions.

I'm also really curious as to which book it is your currently not enjoying!

[Nancy]

I love your analogy. Ditto Harriett - & Dark Puss's very first sentence (to you).

[Sandy]

A new experience evokes a reaction which is always unique to the individual. Sometimes this response is so different as to be 'out of step'. This does not make it invalid, even if the response actually alters at a later date.

Any review is of help in my search for new material. I will give it more or less weight depending on previous experience of the reviewer. I dont expect all reviews by anyone to be infallible but just expect reviewers to be consistently true to themselves.

PS - dont tell us the book - 1st thoughts are the best!

[jodi]

I'm interested in the fact that you read the entire book. I've become quite a snob lately. If a book does not interest me in the first few chapters, I generally don't finish it.

[Linda Gillard]

The faults that you mention in your post (eg "getting their characters from A to B in a complete and credible manner") are faults of the *editor* not the author. Authors shouldn't make this sort of error, but sometimes we do and it's the editor's job (and then the copy editor's job) to spot this sort of howler and put it right. I can see no reason why you shouldn't point out that an editor is not doing the job s/he is being paid to do. If this kind of sloppiness is tolerated, publishers will think a) readers don't notice b) readers don't care.

If you've spotted these flaws and other reviewers haven't, it suggests to me that you are a more thorough and thoughtful reader and it's opinions like yours that I value.

[Simon T]

I didn't know there was a right and wrong approach... ;-) Karen can keep schtum, drop hints, or be completely outright as she chooses - I look forward to seeing which she picks...

[Lisa Guidarini]

I run into this sort of thing all the time. Cover blurbs, for example, should ALWAYS be ignored. Seems these people are paid to say something good about everything, because everything that's published is apparently "luminous," "pitch-perfect", etc.

Just be honest and say what you think. No matter what others say. It's a very subjective thing, like someone preferring a food over another and another person hating it. And, yes, you have people who don't say anything bad about any book.

Just keep using your own instincts. They seem finely honed to me!

[Lyn]

I've only been blogging for a few months but I've only blogged about books I've enjoyed. Then again, I wouldn't finish a book I wasn't enjoying & I wouldn't review a book I hadn't finished so it's not saying much really. I enjoy reading diverse reviews. I agree with Hayley's comments about the different opinions about HEIOTL last year. I enjoyed it but wasn't bowled over by it & I found the differing opinions fascinating. Especially the reviewers who seem peeved because Susan Hill hadn't written the book they wanted her to write! It's your blog & you should write what you want. I think any comment is valid as long as it's considered & not just nasty. Your reviews are always thoughtful & never nasty.

[Ros]

Linda, I take your word for it that those issues are the fault of an editor. But I wonder, is there any reason why a reviewer shouldn't also point out when an author isn't doing their job?

[Dark Puss]

Simon, I believe strongly (you wouldn't expect anything else from this cat I'm sure) that dropping hints is most certainly the wrong approach!I think the proper options are saying nothing or providing a proper considered review. Anything else is fraught with problems for the reviewer, the reader and most certainly the author.

[Dark Puss]

Dear Jodi, why did you chose the word snob here? Surely it's just common sense to abandon something that gives no pleasure? I see no sense of condescension or superiority in that.

[Claire]

What a stramash you've started Cornflower! In response to Dark Puss. My comment was light hearted but I don't believe we'd cause too much damage by having a guess. I think you must be referring to Orlando Figes. I have, indeed, been watching his travails. They would seem, however, to be self inflicted.

[Mr Cornflower]

It requires a quite remarkable level of intelligence and erudition to think that, if your name is Orlando and you are a professor at Birkbeck, your identity will remain hidden if you sign one of your phoney reviews "Orlando-Birkbeck". It absolutely fits the classical definition of tragedy, a spectacle which inspires pity and horror.

[jodi]

Dear Dark Puss,

Perhaps because I think that I should finish what I start? But then I've come to the realization that there is no sense on wasting valuable time on books that don't interest me (or are badly written) And there seem to be quite a few! And this is coming from someone who is not well schooled in grammar rules.

[Dark Puss]

Greek tragedy indeed, especially when you see the involvement of his poor(?) wife in this too!

[Nan]

Here's my 2¢ Karen, a quote I love:

In literature, as in love, we are astonished at what is chosen by others.
Andre Maurois (1885-1967)

I've never known how to jump on any bandwagon. That's the joy of reading. It is one of the only things in life where we get to choose. You can pick up a book and drop it. You can love what everyone else hates. And you can hate what everyone else loves. Once in a great while, I've written about a book I haven't liked so well, and always gotten comments saying, 'what, you too? I thought I was the only one who didn't care for it.'

[Margaret Powling]

My goodness, what a lot of comments. I would just like to add that I thought Howards End IOTL is a slight book in a pretty cover, nothing more, nothing less. I whipped through it in no time at all (and I'm a slow reader) and afterwards I could barely recall what I'd read, it made no lasting impression.
I used to review for the Historical Novels Society. I didn't choose the books I was asked to review - I was simply sent them either by the publisher or by the Society. I felt honour bound to say what I felt about a novel because if I didn't, and only praised books, then I'd soon be 'found out' if a book was, shall we say, rubbish? My integrity as a reviewer would then be lost forever. So sometimes I had to give a less than fulsome review although I always tried to find something complimentary to say - there is always something you can praise if only the colour of the binding, or the size of font!
I'm now longing to know the book in question, Cornflower!

[Karen]

When I started blogging (primarily but not exclusively) about books, I decided that I would only mention books that I can recommend, and I have more or less stuck with that approach. It works for me because blogging was an outgrowth of the fact that other people, knowing of my bookworm ways, have always asked me for reading suggestions, and I get a lot of pleasure out of making just the right match between reader and book. So I look on my blog as one of book "recommendations," not book "reviews." If people want a more professional and critical eye, they can always turn to the New York Times book review, etc.

[Erika]

That makes sense, Karen, but the problem is that I no longer turn to the New York Times book review because they hardly ever review books I am interested in, whereas you do! So I find I rely on you and my online reading group to recommend books, and also steer me away from books (which you don't do very often, bar the very mildest of comments). Regardless, it's been very liberating to ignore NYT and others. I think my reading is even more far-ranging as a result.

[sue rosly]

What an interesting discussion. After reading your comment above, I feel sure you will not divulge the book in question and I admire you for same. I must say that book blogs help me to decide whether to buy the book, borrow it from the library or not read it at all.

[Kari]

Very interesting discussion, although I'l admit I am more than disappointed not to know what book it is. Cornflower, your recommendations have always been spot on (for me at least), and it would be nice to know what to avoid. There is way too much praise out there for many many books, in my opinion. It is nice to find "real" comments made by thoughtful readers!

[Elaine]

I always try to write about books I loved and ignore those I dislike as I work on the premise that just because I don't like it doesn't mean that everyone else would feel the same. I, too, hesitate to give a negative review but on the odd occasion when I feel strongly about a book then I do. The Children's Book by Byatt filled me with such fury at the obvious look at me aren't I a clever woman to impart all this knowledge to you attitude of the author, that I could not be anything but honest about it.