Before we move on to other topics, I'd like to go back to my critical stance in yesterday's post and say a bit more. As you'll know if you stop by here regularly, I am sent a great many books, and my reaction to every one as it arrives is excitement and interest. My palate isn't jaded, I'm not bored, I don't pick up a book silently challenging it to impress me, instead I have as open a mind as possible and I look forward to new discoveries because any or every package could and often does contain a delight. I'm an enthusiastic, optimistic reader, and I hope I'm never a cynical one.
As I read, much as anyone else does I'm making tiny judgements throughout, calibrating my level of enthusiasm as the book progresses, noting any snags, any clumsiness, any overblown passages, gauging the consistency and credibility (if relevant) of the plot, seeing how well the characters and their predicaments engage me, and so on. Can I bear to put the book down or do I have to steel myself to pick it up again? Would I recommend it wholeheartedly - as something I've enjoyed, and about which I may yet have some reservations - or was I unimpressed?
Another category of response altogether is like that of the boy to the emperor's new clothes: when from amidst the fawning, admiring crowds, the child points at the imperial personage and says "but he's got nothing on!" When that is my reaction to a book, it's always a source of perplexed surprise. Why did no-one spot the flaw long before the book reached me? What was the agent thinking of, or the editor; where is the person who should have said "that's all well and good but it needs more work before it's published"? I've read much-hyped books which I felt - as a reader, a consumer - were not in saleable shape when they were brought out, the text sloppy and ill-finished, but yet with a bit of care and attention it could have been otherwise, and that failure to make it otherwise is a shame. Maybe I'm unduly critical, but quality matters; publishers, ever commercial, must look to the bottom line - I'm more concerned with the top one, so I metaphorically wield my red pen and wonder why those within the publishing process didn't pick up theirs first.
One of the functions of sites like this is to be a filter for books, a means of sorting titles in some way, because as we can't read everything it can be useful to know that this reviewer rated a particular book while that one was less keen, and then the reader can make up their own mind about where they invest reading time and money. Allowing for variations in taste and inevitable subjectivity, it's a useful sifting process, and I hope a reasonably consistent one. If I'm critical in my writing about books it's not because I'm mean - I'm often taken to task for being too nice - but whatever I say has been weighed carefully, with first and foremost, the interest of the potential reader in mind.
I agree with your comments on how a reviewer should approach their task and certainly it should begin by being true to what appeals to them. Readers of this site come back because they trust that. No apologies necessary though it does feel strange to have such a negative reaction when you are almost always looking for the good. Thank you for your honest critique
Posted by: maria | 03 February 2011 at 12:26 AM
Totally agree. I feel strongly that the best blogs are there to serve readers, to help them find the books they're most likely to enjoy. And a part of that is taking note of both the good and the bad in what we're reading.
Posted by: Teresa | 03 February 2011 at 12:52 AM
Well said! I think you do a great job of keeping your reviews fair and honest.
Posted by: Susan in TX | 03 February 2011 at 01:46 AM
Great to see a negatively critical review from you from time to time; I know we differ on how often you should produce those! I'll make one comment and that is I don't associate the word critical with either negativity or positivity. You say "If I'm critical in my writing about books it's not because I'm mean." Surely all your writing about books is critical isn't it?
Posted by: Dark Puss | 03 February 2011 at 09:22 AM
Yes, you're right that 'critical' in its purest sense doesn't necessarily lean either way; in more colloquial usage (and, I see, the first of the dictionary's definitions) it implies a negative view.
Posted by: Cornflower | 03 February 2011 at 09:30 AM
Is it really the first meaning given (not that I doubt you of course)? I try very hard to get across to my students/colleagues here in XXX University that we should always be critical and that does not imply that we take a dim view of their work or performance. Can you then suggest a more neutral word (than critical) to use?
Posted by: Dark Puss | 03 February 2011 at 10:06 AM
Analytical? Appraising? Best I can do for now!
Posted by: Cornflower | 03 February 2011 at 10:12 AM
There is no use asking us if you have got the balance correct Cornflower.
It seems fair to assume we all like your style, otherwise we would have decamped long since!
Posted by: Sandy | 03 February 2011 at 12:21 PM
I think that you are always fair in your reviews and if you do make not entirely favourable comments, give valid reasons backing them up, which is all anyone can expect.
I'm not an academic, just an enthusiastic reader, and I have also recently read books which would have been improved if they had been edited more thoroughly, or perhaps skilfully.
Not sure why this happens: is it caused by the speed of publishing today (certainly the speed of newspaper printing has led to far more typos than there used to be when processes were slower and had more stages where mistakes could be picked up and corrected)or simply a shortage of experienced editors?
Posted by: LizF | 03 February 2011 at 12:34 PM
I often think books I'm reading could have done with better editing. Also proof reading leaves a lot to be desired, I find. Many highly regarded writers can barely write grammatically, much to my fury - so I'm a far more difficult customer than Cornflower and very much appreciate your considered reviews.
Posted by: B R Wombat | 03 February 2011 at 02:58 PM
LizF, I can think of lots of poorly written books that would have benefitted from better editing from earlier decades too! I think that books were also significantly more expemsive in terms of relative income than they are now. How much more would you be prepared to pay to have better editing?
Perhaps some publishers might like to comment, my remakrs carry no backing of personal experience in this field (except extensive experience of writing & editing editing scientific papers).
Posted by: Dark Puss | 03 February 2011 at 04:10 PM
Re. errors, I'm reminded of my old days as a lawyer when we took pains to ensure legal documents were correct. When a draft deed, say, had been engrossed, that is, the good copy made, ready for signing, one member of staff would read the draft aloud, another reading the engrossment for comparison purposes as they did so. Labour-intensive and time-consuming certainly, but necessary for accuracy.
Posted by: Cornflower | 03 February 2011 at 04:50 PM
I value your reviews enormously and think you do a grand job!! Keep it up. No apologies necessary!
Posted by: adele geras | 03 February 2011 at 05:35 PM
I assume that, quite correctly, you charged these hours of careful work to the client. As I said to LizF, how much more for books would you pay (on average) to ensure the quality of editing you would wish? Do you, with your knowledge of publishing in C21 literature area, have any insight into what the relative costs are?
Posted by: Dark Puss | 03 February 2011 at 09:24 PM
I don't know, I'm afraid, but it would be very interesting to find out.
Posted by: Cornflower | 03 February 2011 at 09:41 PM
We also did this checking in the accountants' office where I worked in the 80s to ensure the accuracy of typed accounts. In those days it was even done on the local paper - 2 readers were employed and I think this was their main job. I wonder if it persists?
Posted by: B R Wombat | 03 February 2011 at 10:30 PM
I so agree Cornflower, and value your judgement because it's so scrupulous.
Would it be useful to know that writers work so long on a book that we almost all become blind to its flaws, typos etc? This is why a proper editor is so vital. Yet they are like hens' teeth. The ones who do the real work now are often ex-publishers, very poorly paid, with little confidence and no power. More and more novelists try to read each other in manuscript to get over this - but of course that is unpaid, and unprofessional. It's worse on many national newspapers, now largely subbed by those on work experience.
Posted by: Amanda Craig | 04 February 2011 at 05:16 PM
Thanks so much, Amanda - it's great to hear from someone on the inside. I can quite understand how writers' objectivity fails them when they are so close to their work, and how sad that what seems to be such an important part of the publishing process is being devalued or lost altogether.
Posted by: Cornflower | 04 February 2011 at 08:12 PM
Cornflower, as so many people have said, we trust your judgement and follow your blog because you are honest and fair. It can't be roses all the time otherwise you would lose credibility. If you feel strongly about something - especially when you're talking about someone who is standing on their own success, rather than a new and perhaps more vulnerable writer to whom you might be tempted to give the benefit of the doubt - then you should probably tell it like it is. If writers can't take constructive criticism and grow the fabled thick skin, they won't grow - it's painful but true (spoken as a writer). It doesn't mean you have to be unkind - that wouldn't be your style - but don't worry, we can tell when you're not over-enthusiastic!
Posted by: Michael Faulkner | 11 February 2011 at 08:05 PM
Thanks, Mike!
Posted by: Cornflower | 11 February 2011 at 08:31 PM