Welcome to Literary Ashland

Follow

From Alisa Bowman, author of Project: Happily Ever After, Dangerous Instincts, (with Mary Ellen O’Toole), and 30 other coauthored books including seven NY Times bestsellers.

In today’s online world, I think of book reviews differently than I did years ago. It used to be that people mostly bought books based on reviews in newspapers, trade journals (such as Publisher’s Weekly), magazines and book inserts like the NYT Book Review. While getting reviews in these outlets is still very important, they are harder and harder to come by. Professional reviews are shrinking. Some newspapers don’t do them at all. Others don’t include many pages for them. The New York Times Book Review only handles certain types of books. For instance it won’t review self -help books.

This used to be a sad and dismal situation, but the online world has started to change that. Now more and more amateur bloggers will review books, mostly because publishers like to give away free copies to their readers. And, of course, Amazon, Goodreads, BN.com and other sites include reader-driven reviews. These reader-driven reviews are probably just as important (if not more so) than professional ones. But they are also problematic.

1. People who have an axe to grind with an author will often go onto Amazon and leave one star reviews, even though they haven’t read the book. The best example is this one: Touched: The Jerry Sandusky Story. Of course, who wants to read his book, right? But still, at least 100 of those reviews are from people who are reacting to the scandal, not the book. Amazon will not remove such reviews. I know many authors who have tried.

Another example of this is the review left by Ann Pace here:

Such reviews really are not helpful for readers since they are not about the book.

2. People who are friends with authors will leave glowing 5 star reviews of books they (a) have only skimmed (b) didn’t really love. These are loyalty reviews and, again, they don’t help readers. I can often sort them out because they saw “This book is awesome. I recommend it for everyone!” without offering any substance to back that up.

3. Real reviews written by real readers who are reacting to any number of things. I think, as a book buyer, all of these are helpful. It’s easy for me to tell when a reader is reacting negativity to something that I personally wouldn’t be bothered by. For instance I see many people leave reviews like “I liked this book, but I would have liked it more if it had a Christian perspective.” That usually tells me that I will love the book.

That was a lot of rambling. Take or leave any or all of that. As an avid reader and book lover, what I look for in a review are:

* A short description of the book, but one that doesn’t repeat the book jacket or publicity materials from the publisher.

* A personal reaction of how the reader/reviewer connected with the book. I want to know why the reader loved it or hated it.

* Adjectives that tell me what I can expect. Is it a fast read? Or are the first 100 pages slow? Is it high brow? Or dumbed down? Will I cry on my Kindle screen? Or laugh until I worry that other people are staring at me? Is it so provocative that I’ll find myself talking about it where ever I go? Will it offend me so much that I have to read it just so I can tell others why I hate it? Those are the sorts of things I want to know.

* An honest reaction to a flaw in the book. For instance, if I were reviewing Jenny Lawson’s Let’s Pretend This Never Happened (which is extremely funny in parts), the honest flaw would be that the chapters didn’t flow in chronological order. They also were not out of order for any logical reason. It seemed she had slapped some material from her blog into the middle of the book and hadn’t done the work to edit it to make sure the sequence would flow in order. That said, I didn’t find this disconcerting. As a reader, it was easy to follow her plot development.

Follow

Last term, my History of Publishing class talked about the gatekeeper role of publishers and how they select and develop books, ideas and authors. As you might expect, we noted that as large publishers consolidated, they’ve invested less in authors and ideas. That disinvestment (plus changing economic conditions and technology) has opened the doors for small independent publishers who are more nimble and risk-tolerant.

What we didn’t quite get to this year is the parallel between the gatekeeping role of publishers and the gatekeeping role of reviewers: how do we (book-buyers and library-users) decide what to read? Do we follow a favorite author? Take the advice of a book group, friends or spouse? Follow Goodreads, the New York Times Book Review or the New York Review of Books? Read the Amazon reviews? Get hooked by book advertisements in mass or social media?

They’re all imperfect. Print reviews are constrained by word and page limits, reader-interest and inertia. Many on-line reviews are susceptible to five-star friends and family or one-star competitors. Amateur reviewers can be incisive and informed, or they can be raving fanboys or snarks. (Or worse.Take a look at how some ideologues anonymously one-starred Brian Griffith’s Correcting Jesus on Barnes and Noble’s lax online site.) Even professional reviewers can embarrassingly misread books (e.g., Janet Maslin, reviewing Patrick Somerville’s This Bright River, misidentified a main character in a way that undercut her conclusions).

New York Times critic-at-large (and former Ashlander) Sam Anderson, reminds us that reviewers (he calls them critics) “can no longer take readers’ interest for granted” but must write about fundamental questions “with more energy, more art, more conviction, more excitement and a deeper sense of personal investment.” And Jonathan Landman, the Times culture editor says that “A reader should walk away with a feeling of having learned something; maybe some unfamiliar facts about a work and its creator; maybe some historical or philosophical background; perhaps something about the art form itself.”

What makes a good book review? What should a book reviewer do (and not do)? What are the obligations of reviewers? I asked some writers, editors, and reviewers this, and here’s what I heard.

From Tod Davies, editor and publisher at Exterminating Angel Press

Really, the most important thing is that the reviewer should actually have read the book. You would be astonished, or maybe not, to know how many people give opinions, often quite strong ones, based on what they think the book is or should be about, rather than what it is. But of course this is a problem in human interaction generally.

From Jeff Baker, Book Review Editor for the Oregonian

What I always tell prospective reviewers is that a good review should do three things: say what the book is about, whether the reviewer liked it or not, and why. Not as easy as it looks in 500 words. Beyond that, a good review should both pique an interest in reading the book and provide enough information and context to know what it’s about without reading it. Again, not as easy as it seems.

From Adam Woog, author and crime and mystery reviewer for The Seattle Times.

One thing that really burns me: finishing a review and knowing more about the reviewer’s own thoughts than about the book itself. There’s a place for a personal essay inspired by a book, but not when it’s disguised as a review telling me if the book would interest me.

Maybe related to that is when a reviewer tries to impress me with his/her erudition and overall sense of superior intellect. I know a lot of big words, but I spend most of my time writing books for middle-school students and a newspaper — I’m very conscious of the need to write cleanly and concisely for an audience that may not know all of those big words. It’s satisfying to read a review that gets a complex book’s point across in an unadorned style (without dumbing it down).

From freelance reviewer Audrey Homan:

Impartiality plus critical thought equals a win. If all you post is positive reviews — and indeed some blogs state up front that all they do is positive reviews — then I’m just gonna assume you’re shilling for the man and move on. I want reviews that explain what worked and didn’t work, along with examples.

If the writing’s flat and lifeless, include a passage you think exemplifies that. If you didn’t care if the whole cast of characters got hit by a train, tell me what would’ve made you pull their helpless persons off the tracks. Did the man with the gun ever make it into the plot? Was he late? Was the gun in a vase of azaleas? It’s just as important to show your work in a book review as a mathematical proof.

From Brian Griffith, author of A Galaxy of Immortal Women: The Yin Side of Chinese Civilization and Correcting Jesus. Correcting Jesus: 2000 Years of Changing the Story, The Gardens of Their Dreams: Desertification and Culture in World History, and Different Visions of Love: Partnership and Dominator Values in Christian History.

I think book reviews should be short–maybe three to six lines. I don’t think people want to read essays while shopping for books. The point should be what’s important about the book, or what contribution it makes. If it doesn’t make a significant contribution, I wouldn’t bother saying so. When I write reviews, I’m trying to promote significant ideas while promoting myself at the same time. I make a hopefully astute observation about the book, and sign it.

Stay tuned for more…

Follow

Here are the Non-Words for August. I’ve made it through month eight, which included at the beginning a vacation to the Idaho desert and at the end five days with a fever.

Thanks to Jennifer Marcellus, Rebecca Ann Bartlett, Lesley Hopper, Charlotte Hadella, William della Santina, Cara Ungar, and Amy Miller for their non-words.

glind, v. to simultaneously grind and glide. 1 Aug

twoops, n. a pre-programmed tweet that suddenly becomes inappropriate in the context of that day’s news. 2 Aug

biofullia, v. to have had too much of the great outdoors. 3 Aug

eluct, v. to avoid (also, eluctable, adj., able to be avoided or resisted-backformations of ineluctable). 4 Aug

undermood, n. insufficient pride in one’s accomplishments (cf. Old Eng. “overmod,” and thanks to Jennifer Marcellus). 5 Aug

cudgole, v. to persuade someone to move along by displaying a nightstick but not actually using it. 6 Aug

dwin, n. the flat monotone of one who knows many languages. 7 Aug

exvestigate, v. to outsource one’s research, inquiry or investigation to consultants. 8 Aug

wretchword, n. TV character’s catchphrase used with the intent of producing annoyance (eg, Rob Lowe’s “literally”). 9 Aug

widle, v. to move with one’s widest part side first in a blustery advance (“He widled up to the woman at the bar.”) 10 Aug

birch, v. to walk by someone and pretend you don’t see him/her (thanks, Rebecca Ann Bartlett). 11 Aug

Augdust n. superheated, dry summer weather carrying dirt and debris on hot winds. 12 Aug

caren’tless adj. to do something in an “I couldn’t care less” manner. 13 Aug

vitup n. (pronounced “vit-TOOP”) prolonged verbal abuse or severe censure (clipping of vituperate). 14 Aug

dogmanic, adj. to willingly have your life taken over by a dog’s needs (thanks Lesley Hopper). 15 Aug

cananity, n. to treat dogs better than people [from inane plus canine, thanks to Charlotte Hadella]. 16 Aug

huscular adj. of a boy, husky evolving to muscular; of a man, muscular devolving to husky [tks William della Santina] 17 Aug

rainmanliness n. the demonstration of savant-like abilities (overheard from Cara Ungar on Facebook). 18 Aug

ekleptic, adj. to compulsively steal ideas and opinions from a wide variety of sources. 19 Aug

fanupsmanship n. to outfan others with arcane knowledge of some sport, pastime or popular genre. 20 Aug

ideoligarch, n. one who must have his or her ideas validated. 21 Aug

terroneous adj. mistaken for a terrorist, or to mistakenly terrorize. 22 Aug

debonoir, adj. displaying the charm and smarm of a 1940s movie villain. 23 Aug

hakkle, noun or verb, the ability of most pets and some people to feel a command before it is made. 24 Aug

schlubeezer n. [faux Yiddish] someone whom retirement does no good. 25 Aug

hwin, n. the sound of fingers on whiskers. 26 Aug

foreforgive, v. to anticipate that someone is going to do something wrong and forgive them in advance. 27 Aug

confligate, adj. to be excessively thrifty or cheap; or to hoard money. 28 Aug

autocowreck, n. a linguistic infelicity caused by an aggressive autocorrect feature. 29 Aug

polyphones, n. words (like “economics” or “either”) that have more than one acceptable pronunciation. 30 Aug

febreesia, n. a sweet scent that you first think is fresh flowers, then realize is air freshener. Thanks to Amy Miller. 31 Aug

Coming soon on Literary Ashland: Authors, Editors and Reviewers on Book Reviewing and An Interview with Kristy Athens.