First off, let me apologise for my absence. I’ve had a wicked kidney infection that makes sitting at my desk nigh unto impossible. And I really really loathe blogging on my mobile devices. So now that I have six readers left, I guess I get to shriek my opinion at those people.
I found out yesterday that for the last several days there has been this article floating around the author world about authors giving reviews. It’s by Kristen Lamb, and you can google it. I’m not linking it because…wait and see.
I’ve been blogging for nine years now; I’ve been reading blogs for more than a decade. In the early days every blog had a fairly wide reach in that it was possible to draw in folks of varied interest. Dooce was followed by nearly every reader of blogs.
Blogs have now become extremely niche oriented. It started with “Mommy blogs”–bloggers who wrote about their experiences as a mother for other mothers. A lot of those Mommy Bloggers were able to exploit their visibility into cash and prizes and soon much of mommy blogging was a contest to see who could net the most swag. What had once been about finding a voice and a community had transformed into pitching and enriching oneself. That is the iteration of blogging I absolutely despise. It’s self-interest coated in avarice. It’s not a conversation it’s a commercial.
That attitude is at the root of what caused me to pull back from blogging and it’s what causes me to avoid blog affinity groups like the plague. I admit freely that I’m a writer, but I don’t want to be a writer who is always and primarily talking to other writers about my writing. I have a blog to express myself as a person, to engage in conversation with interesting people who challenge me, to exercise my mind against new and different ideas and against new views of old ideas. Sometimes I will–like today–talk about professional writing. But it’s not WHY I have a blog and it’s not what this blog is about.
I’m less than not at all interested in renting space in the echo chamber. That’s why this idea from Kristen Lamb about how “authors should never give less than fully positive reviews to books” is so grating to me. I may publish my book someday. I hope so, but I don’t overdrive my headlights. I’ve always written and told stories for myself; I’ve always read. And that’s how I review books. I don’t review books as a jaded pitchman, always selling, selling, selling myself. There’s still a lot of Lloyd Dobbler in me. I want to connect with people, to be honest with people. I’m direct and upfront; I hate passive-aggressiveness with a passion. If I don’t like something, I’ll say so. (One of the side benefits of years of blogging is that I have learned to say so in a kinder way.)
The vast majority of comments on that other blog are of the “if you can’t say anything nice, don’t say anything at all” school of thought. Many of them pat themselves on the back for having such a gracious position in life–and then go on to slag off some author who was just dreadful but weren’t they nice to keep it to themselves? That to me is abhorrent beyond all measure. Because as much as they think they’re being kind, they’re being kind with one face, catty with another. That’s not “nice”. That’s bitchy. Plain and simple. More than that, it’s a selfish attitude that says “my self-interest as an author in this echo chamber of other authors is in my books and my sales of my books.” It isn’t about craft or the love of reading. It’s that Glengarry Glen Ross abomination of Always Be Closing.
I didn’t link to Lamb’s article because I don’t want to be part of the echo chamber. I’m not here to sell my book, I’m here to be honest.
(Kat Heckenbach’s much more measured opinion can be read here.)
Just Another Pretty Farce 
Thanks, Katherine :). I love the comparison to Glengarry Glen Ross (a movie I so despised it is the only movie I have ever actually bothered reviewing on Amazon–how’s that for irony?). But yes, I agree so wholeheartedly that when a review is written it is for the reader, not the author. We expect product reviews for saucepans and socks to be about the product and consumer–why are books so different?
Reviews without critique are just sunny MLM ‘let’s all get rich quicker’ schemes and which do nobody any justice. I won’t participate in an always positive echo chamber. If God doesn’t participate in favoritism, why should His children?
I think there must be a difference between opinion (“I don’t like Glengarry Glen Ross”) and critique (“Glengarry Glen Ross is an award-winning play and then film which is polarizing in its approach but brilliant in its depiction of a real estate office boiler room in an era where property is valuable but people aren’t buying.”)
It’s possible GGR is more of a guy film. I love David Mamet’s no-nonsense genius. Roger Ebert found the rapid fire testosterone-heavy dialogue compelling:
http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/glengarry-glen-ross-1992
Mamet’s dialogue has a kind of logic, a cadence, that allows people to arrive in triumph at the ends of sentences we could not possibly have imagined. There is great energy in it. You can see the joy with which these actors get their teeth into these great lines, after living through movies in which flat dialogue serves only to advance the story.
Oh, Johne, we must so totally agree to disagree on GGR :). Maybe it is a guy thing (although I tend to like guy movies more than chick flicks, but hey) since my husband actually liked it and I couldn’t sit in the same room with it playing :P.
But I think there is opinion, review, and critique when it comes to books, and the critique end of it tends to be something that should be done *before* the book is published. Review is more than just blanket opinion, and comes after the final product is made available to the public.
Oh, no, totally not a guy thing; I loved that movie. I think Mamet personally is pretty dislikable, and his characters are dislikable too, but his dialogue snaps.
Quick, think of 3 reviewers whose name and take on the thing they review(ed) you’ve noticed. I guarantee that if they’ve been good enough as reviewers that you’ve noticed and remembered them (and all the more so if you’ve been guided by their opinions), they’ve had something bad to say about some piece of work. Because nobody likes everything, but a good reviewer can tell you why s/he disliked something in ways that let you know whether you will like it yourself. There is a name for those who only have positive things to say about the things they review — usually it’s “shill,” sometimes it’s “person who lacks all critical faculties,” but either way they are useless as guides.
BTW, I hope you’re feeling much better. I forgot to say that before.
I don’t get the politics of a book review. It’s your opinion, nobody else’s. Be honest, give examples to back up your statements, move on with your life. I had somebody tell me once that they never post a review if it’s not four or five stars. Why? How is that honest?
Oh, my gosh! I totally loved this post. Tweeting it!! Your blog is always so helpful and full of good information. By the way, I wrote a really awesome post over at my blog. You might want to check it out. Follow me if you think I’m awesome, too. *ducking to avoid Katherine throwing things at me through the screen
Now it’s my turn to say, you two crack me up! 🙂
I guess I’m reluctant to review at all because any criticism I give could too easily be construed as, don’t read this, read something I published instead! Occasionally I’ll make an exception for a really great book, which does generally lead to posting no negative reviews. Then again, I review under my real name which may not be immediately associated with my publishing persona, and so far hasn’t been, since my reviews have escaped multiple rounds of Amazon culling. Perhaps I should put more effort in, for the sake of the readers.
Eh, the problem though is that there’s no real win to this for an author reviewing. Positive, people see you as shilling, and negative can be seen as tearing down another’s work. Honest criticism of a specific genre can make issues for you if you plan to write in it, especially Christian spec-fic due to its small size.
Also, there’s, well the human factor. I’ve read Jill’s book, for example, and I’d probably have to give it a two star or 2.5 rating (okay, to okay/liking it.) I’m not sure if I want to be the one to bring down the score even if I’m careful in saying that I liked parts of it very much, but others not so much. I think to many people there’s a dilemma when the book is like that, and to them, no reviews is the lesser of two evils.
Honestly, it’s tough. I notice most writers I am befriended to on Goodreads rarely if never review at all. When they do, it’s either out of their genre (Mike Duran rarely reviews any horror or christian fiction books) or positive (Kat has some negative reviews, but usually she reads books she likes more than not.) There’s a lot of negatives to reviewing as an author that probably outweigh the benefits.