I've been trying to put my finger on something for a while - to do with reviewing books/ blogging /and what I *do*.There's a few things that have factored into my ponderings. The first is that I've read a couple of books recently which I just adored. A+ books for me - and yet I can't say they're 'perfect', whatever that means.
The second thing is that there has been a lot of stuff on blogs about this lately. I'll just link to a couple of posts that Jessica, a relatively new blogger (Racy Romance Reviews) has done: one on whether a review is just an opinion and another one on the value, if any, of snarky reviews. But there have been others on other sites.
There's a tendancy in any discussion about the reviews and criticism to focus on objectivity/ subjectivity, of which the former is often assumed to be superior. Objective criteria that affect a review might include the author's technical skills, character development etc. Subjective, emotional criteria tend to be more difficult to articulate.
It made me think about emotional intelligence, and the idea that 'intellective factors' are not the only factors that impact on intelligent behaviour (paraphrasing the Wikipedia link there). In the same way, objective criteria aren't the only criteria that are of relevance when judging the worth of book. Objective criteria do, of course, have the great benefit of being verifiable and measurable but if I'm honest, the reviews of books that really get my attention are the ones that engage with the reviewer's emotional reaction.
It's not so surprising. The books that I love and the books that I hate (which are the two categories I feel most compelled to blog about) are usually those which have provoked a strong emotional reaction in me: swooning delight, vitriolic hatred. Either way, it's a response. Between these two extremes there are many books which don't provoke a strong emotional response and many which don't prompt any. That's not to say that I don't enjoy those books. Some of them I enjoy very much. But these tend to be my 'B' and 'C' books.
I have been known, while reading, to bite pillows, squeal, blow raspberries (yes, at the book), verbally take characters to task etc. Maybe any attempt to articulate that sort of response/ opinion/ reaction is inevitably doomed. But that is one of the things I am searching for on my endless reading quest. That total submersion. And when I read a review in which that strength of reaction, good or bad, comes across it so makes me want to read that book - often even when the review is negative.
I'm thinking here of reviews like Bam's superlative bit of admiring snark about Mistress of the Groom by Susan Napier, or Kirstie J's evangelical delight in Broken Wing by Judith James, or Lisabea's enthusiastic outpourings about Death of a Pirate King by Josh Lanyon. Interestingly, Lisabea felt constrained to head her post up 'Not a review' and recategorised it as a 'tribute'.
Is there a fundamental distinction between a reader's objective observations about a book and her emotional reaction to it? Are the two intertwined? Does the emotional reaction come first and the objective observations come later (a revisionist approach, 'evidence' to support a verdict that's already been reached)? Or is there a hierarchy of reactions?
I think it's a mixture of the above for me, but I'm quite drawn to the hierarchy idea. Rather than try to describe what I mean by that, I'm going to give an example: let me describe my feelings about My Lord and Spymaster by Joanna Bourne.
I loved this book.I loved this book.
I adored this book.
Jennie from Dear Author didn't, it's fair to say, feel the same way. She gave it a C. She admired the prose but didn't like the powerplay between the hero and heroine.
If I'm honest, that's fair comment. If I'm really really honest, the book is not perfect. It's flawed by a sullen and slightly (slightly, I maintain) charmless hero whose umimaginative possessiveness is bordering on psychopathy.
Don't care! Don't care, I tell you! I love this fucking book. It didn't matter that Sebastian wasn't my ideal of a hero, because everything else about this book was off the scale. The richness of the prose, the beautifully realised setting, and most of all the fabulous heroine, whose voice was so vivid, so alive, so insouciant and courageous. I loved Jess. Who couldn't love a woman who says she's 'finally met a man who got her teakettle whistling', or who says this of the hero: 'canny as a parliament of owls, that was the Captain.'?
Oh, I loved her. I was romanced by her. She was enough make the flaws not matter. The flaws are there. I recognise them. But I can't rate the book lower than an A+. I just can't.
It's the hierarchy thing. An A+ book should be objectively as close to perfect as it's possible to be (and devoid of overbearing heroes). But when a book comes along that gets my teakettle whistling as much as this one did, the rules go out the window.
The emotional reaction trumps any other.
24 comments:
*standing ovation*
I completely agree. To be truthful, I don't care if a book is written in perfect Iambic Pentameter or if they use first possisve past tense wrongly or all that shit. That is not gonna make me want to read it or not to read it. It's just gonna make me scratch my head and go....whatever and dismiss the title from my tiny peanut brain.
I read for the emtions, I want an emtional review. I want an opinoin, not a grammar lesson. I could care less about pompous idoits telling me what literature is.
*joins sayuri in wild applause*
I don't like objective reviews. I like to know what you, as a reviewer, like and dislike, and how the book affects you.
Screw objectivity. Give me a rant or a rave instead and I'm a happy girl.
Ok I have to join the girls in the ovation here - that was great.
I'm kind of an objective/subjective review lover if that makes any sense. I like to have the objective part (no, not a grammar lesson) and then I want to know how it effected you emotionally. I don't think I actually do that in my reviews but it's what I like to read in other. If it's strictly objective though I don't want to read it.
I think it's two very different forms to have fun riffing on a book, or to write a review that's intended to be useful. I enjoy reading people's rants but I get nothing out of raves. Someone else loving a book doesn't tell me a thing about whether I'd enjoy it myself. In fact when a book gets too many raves that all love the same things, I lose interest. I do the same with films, and I definitely did it with The Spymaster's Lady--all the raves start to sound like group think and I get skeptical. (As it turned out, I didn't enjoy TSL so who knows whether that was coincidence or whether I really was getting information, albeit negative, from all those rave reviews.)
I suppose I fall into the Tracy category. I like a mixture of objective and subjective in my reviews. I visit a variety of sites for that very purpose because I like to get 'full picture' on a book. But what I'm trying to rebut in this post is the idea that there is no value in a 'rave' as RfP puts it.
RfP - it's so interesting to me that you start your comment by talking about the difference between riffing on a book and a "review that's intended to be useful". What do you mean by that? And what is 'useful'? You say that you don't get anything out of someone telling you they loved a book. Well, that's not the case for me. It tells me that that writer might be (might not) someone who has the power to move me. If I *know* the person expressing the opinion, I might be able to predict the likelihood of that quite well. In it's way, it's JUST as much a clue to me as reader (and often more) as is a more traditional bit of literary criticism . Particularly given that I think a lot of those are really a sort of revisionist take on the book after the 'emotional' verdict has been reached.
I want it all. I'm a bit veruca salt about reviews: I need to know what was good; what was bad; how the reviewer FELT; and why she/he felt that way. I want examples from the text! I want the review to be emotional, particularly if the book inspired emotion. Uh. This may be why I write so few reviews (they drain the life outta me) and why I trust so few reviewers.
Also if I wanted complete objectivity, I'd read my wee manual on how to operate my crockpot.
Tribute: yes it was. It's a rare thing when a book delivers that depth of emotion. I wasn't going to write about it. But then I thought: that's stupid. It's my favorite. How can I not tell you all how much I loved it?
And I've written before, T, on this subject of loving a book despite the author making choices that you THINK you hate or, ok in this case, you hate.
What I find particularly interesting is how Spymaster's Lady is adored by my blog bff's. Give it an A+. You loved it. It spoke to you DESPITE the thing you didn't like: that's a DIK.
anywho. I've had no coffee. Morning, T.
PS I heart you, your blog, and this post. :)
Heh. It's a love in.
What a great post, and I felt the same way about My Lord and Spymaster. I think the way it went the hierachy way with me, too - I wanted to love it, but it didn't blind me to the flaws, it just made them not matter.
But I do think if the flaws had been more numerous, and if they'd included some of my writing pet peeves, that may have put me off the book, no matter how I loved the characters.
Interestingly though, my 'objective' writing pet peeves (Like dropping extensive backstory into the middle of an exciting action scene) provoke an emotional reaction in me.
I totally agree with you! Emotional response is key. Without it, everything else falls flat. Creating an emotional reaction is part of good writing. The hardest part.
You said you find it difficult to articulate how a book made you feel. I know what you mean. I struggle with how to convey my characters' feelings in a relatable way on a daily basis.
Taking the emotion out of the equation, in a romance novel, is like serving wax fruit or something. You can admire it, but you can't eat it.
Is an objective review even possible?
"it's so interesting to me that you start your comment by talking about the difference between riffing on a book and a 'review that's intended to be useful'."
Tumperkin, actually that sentence was the last thing I added, because I was trying to put my response here into the context of my approach to reviews. I enjoy riffing on a book, as you know. When I write a review that I want to be "useful" to others, that may or may not include riffing; mostly I try to say more about the book than about myself or my reactions. (I mean "useful" in terms of helping others find books to enjoy, as opposed to enjoying reading reviews.)
I do it that way because that's how I choose books. To me, emotional reaction to a book is extremely personal and subjective. I have better luck choosing books based on themes and styles that appeal to me, rather than who else loved them.
Of course not everyone finds my style of review less than persuasive. I'm sure I could improve, but at the same time, I'm writing what I know. There must be others out there who choose books the way I do, LOL.
Lisabea, I totally agree with your list. I would love to achieve what you describe; trying to do even half of it can make reviewing a major undertaking.
"I want it all. I'm a bit veruca salt about reviews: I need to know what was good; what was bad; how the reviewer FELT; and why she/he felt that way. I want examples from the text! I want the review to be emotional, particularly if the book inspired emotion. Uh. This may be why I write so few reviews (they drain the life outta me) and why I trust so few reviewers."
Tumperkin again: "a more traditional bit of literary criticism . Particularly given that I think a lot of those are really a sort of revisionist take on the book after the 'emotional' verdict has been reached.
Absolutely, that happens a lot; often I think it's because we feel the need to justify our feelings.
I should have said, by the way, I do get something out of reading raves: I get to share someone's excitement over reading. I love that. What I don't get (and now I'm trying to think of exceptions) is a conviction that I'll love the book too.
Because I don't tend to respond to raves as you do, unfortunately that leaves me unsure how to review some of my favorite books. I have a small pile of books I adore and haven't figured out how to talk about. That's my particular, selfish project as a reviewer: to figure out how to convey my love for a book in a way that speaks to me and whoever else reads reviews the way I do. I have a much easier time dissing a book, or explaining why I enjoy a book despite its flaws. It's when I love a book in a way that knocks the hierarchy askew that my reviewing founders.
I can see rfp's point. Over-the-top raves, without any examples or evidence of what made the book great, don't convince me. But neither do (so-called) objective commentaries about an author's technical skills. I want to hear a reviewer's emotional response, but I need to know what the author did to elicit that response. That means some discussion of characterization or plot or whatever.
Sometimes the most helpful part of a review, for me, is the summary. Everything else, IMO, is subjective. Useful, necessary, and of great interest to me, but subjective.
^ Heh. I gave myself a back-handed slam up there:
"not everyone finds my style of review less than persuasive"
You know what I meant.
Jill: Sometimes the most helpful part of a review, for me, is the summary.
How much summary? I actually try hard not to go on about the plot, which I know is counter to some sites' approach. Again, I do it that way because of the way I use reviews. Sometimes a really lengthy summary makes me feel I've pre-read the book in someone else's words, and it robs the story of surprises.
I also choose books partly for language, so instead of talking plot, I would ideally use the space for an extended quote from the book. Maybe that's the crux of it: some readers are more plot-oriented, some more style-, sex-, surprise-, etc-oriented.
Does a book review EVER convince me I'll love it?
Never. The most it can ever do is intrigue me, pique my interest, make me think that here, perhaps, is something worth reading.
I don't know if this makes me completely shallow, but it's the plot description that usually decides whether I'll read a book or not.
I enjoy reading reviews, but - for example - reading a positive Lisa Kleypas review won't make me rush out to buy it. The fact that the heroine is an invalid and the H&H love each other from the first page is what catches my interest (in a way that the book that came before it didn't.)
Similarly, at the moment, I think I'd read anything with an older heroine/ younger hero. So if I came a review with that set up, I'd explore further.
So it's very rare these days that a review alone will do the trick - sometimes too much positivity can put me off (I think it's part of the reason I haven't read The Spymaster's Lady... yet).
That said, I enjoy reviews and Tumperkin, your tongue in cheek Lynn Graham reviews make me itch to read them. You derive such obvious enjoyment from them, I want to experience it too. I think that's what the best reviews ought to do.
"Does a book review EVER convince me I'll love it?"
For me, no. It can get me excited and curious. A review plus an excerpt can get my hopes way up.
"I don't know if this makes me completely shallow, but it's the plot description that usually decides whether I'll read a book or not."
Oh yes, completely shallow :P
Plot description draws me in too (especially unusual elements), but for me the magic isn't in *lengthy* plot description. What reels me in is often an outline of striking elements of plot, plus some themes that catch my attention. Secrets, art, trust, discovery, prejudice, travel... all kinds of themes can grab me, in part because they set the book apart from others with similar-sounding plots.
OTOH, Bam's riff is hilarious and I can totally see wanting to read the book after that. For me, wanting to read a book that's been snarked (Barbara Cartland's still on my list) is different from hoping to fall in love with a book (e.g. a Joanna Bourne or Jo Goodman).
Plot description draws me in too (especially unusual elements), but for me the magic isn't in *lengthy* plot description. What reels me in is often an outline of striking elements of plot...
Yep, same here. Throw in that excerpt and you've probably made a sale.
Maybe too enthusiastic reviews, then, don't work. Perhaps the best reviewer tamps down their own response so that the reader has room to draw their own conclusions?
Tumperkin,
I'm glad you saw that post. I knew you were interested in the topic and I was thinking of some comments you had made on my blog when I wrote it.
I think my view on this topic has already been made painfully clear so I won't belabor it.
The issue of the difference between taste (your emotional reaction to a book) and judgment (your objective assessment of the value of a book) is a very complicated one, but we all know when what it feels like they come apart.
And just because I think book reviews can and should have objective components, doesn't mean I think they are easy to separate in practice from the subjective ones. As you and RfP put it (and Laura Vivanco also tok this line up over at Teach Me Tonight): our considered judgment is often an after the fact rationalization of our gut emotional reaction.
One way to look at it is that in a review we are giving public, shareable, discussable reasons for a very private inarticulable gut reaction. This is a difficult process when those gut feelings are very strong as in the case of really loving or hating a book.
Great post and thanks for the linkage!
"Throw in that excerpt and you've probably made a sale."
Yes.... So part of the conundrum is, I don't review to sell books, but at least some of the time I'd like reviews to help me figure out whether to buy books.
I don't review to sell books, but at least some of the time I'd like reviews to help me figure out whether to buy books.
Yes, me too!
I'm being very careless with words at the moment, contradicting myself all over the place.
To recap, when it comes to choosing what books I might buy, the more objective review, with illustrative quotes and a brief summary, from a reviewer I generally trust, is my best bet.
I occasionally take a gamble on passionately reviewed books, but then it's a case of being charmed by the review itself, or wanting to experience some of the delight the reviewer has derived from a particular book.
I think the thing to do is try and find a reviewer (as far as review blogs are concerned) whose taste broadly matches your own.
I follow KMont's reviews on Lurv a la Mode because I think a lot of the time our tastes mesh.
But there are other blogs I follow and I've picked up books by hopefully being open minded. I always try and research new authors anyway to avoid disappointment. But I often get the first spark of interest in a book from reading a blog review.
I know when I review it's probably a more emotional reaction to the book. Sometimes I read through my reviews and think, no one is going to have the slightest idea what this book is about. LOL - and probably the more enthusiastic I am about a book the more my coherence decreases. But hopefully I am getting across what I enjoyed and had problems with in a way that is reasonably helpful.
Sometimes I read through my reviews and think, no one is going to have the slightest idea what this book is about.
I've definitely done that. Falling in love with a book is like drinking heavily--I make no sense when I'm in the throes.
I just sent you 2 messages.
This has nothing to do with your post. I'm just supposed to tell you I've chosen you for the Love Your Blog Award. (I need to learn to say no to memes.)
Great post!
Oh excellent post!! In my 'evangelical delight' (love that phrase) over Broken Wing, it was pure emotional perfection. If I were to be more objective about it, I could have found errors in it. And it I were to do that - I wouldn't have given it such a high grade. But I FREAKIN' loved that book - so to give it anything else wouldn't be true to how I really FEEL about it.
Post a Comment