I like that show where they solve all the murd3rs ([info]cedarlibrarian) wrote,
@ 2008-03-03 12:09:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
Current mood: cranky
Current music:it's hard to leave when you can't find the door
Entry tags:books, reviewing

I really wish you'd stop saying that.
Instead of writing booktalks, I'm blogging. Yay!

While reading this review of Ink Exchange by Melissa Marr, I thought, "Yes, yes, okay, I agree..." and then it all came to a screeching halt.

Let it be known that I did not like Ink Exchange by any stretch of the imagination. While the ideas might have been strong, a lot of things about that book annoyed me: poor writing, tattoos always make you cool and interesting, dialogue that was funny when it shouldn't have been, too many adjectives, etc. But I thought that the Smart Bitches had really good insight to the themes of the book until I read the final line: Henderson’s assertions that 12 year old girls ought not read this book because of her mistaken perception as to the sexuality within the story are infuriating in light of the manner in which this book explores profoundly important issues. I can think of few books that should be required reading for teenage girls, but this is certainly one of them. It’s painful, and it’s important.

And then I almost took Smart Bitches off my RSS reader. (I didn't though, because I like what they say.) Why?

No one book should be required reading for teenage girls, or anyone else, and people who say things like that in a review irk me. (Call me a prude, too, but 99 times out of 100 I would not recommend Ink Exchange to a twelve-year-old. Message is one thing, execution of it is quite another.) No one book can speak to all people. To think otherwise is ridiculous. I also think a lot of readers would get so bogged down in the poor mechanics of this particular book that they'd miss the message the reviewer thinks is so important. I was talking about this with [info]lizzb over IM, and here are some other phrases we think all reviewers, whether they review for professional journals or blogs or whatever, should never never never never use:

  • "Well-written" (And that means what, exactly?)

  • "Everyone must read this" (Everyone? Really?)

  • "A must-have for all libraries" (Sorry, not unless it's guaranteed to circulate)

  • "Has an important message" (Why is this always such an issue with children's books? We never require adult books to have a message!)

  • "The next Harry Potter/Twilight/Percy Jackson/Elsewhere." (I should clarify this: I have absolutely no problem with reviewers who say something like "Harry Potter fans will like this" IF they can specify why. Most of the time, they don't/can't.)

  • "For your sophisticated readers" (Who is "sophisticated?" And how insulting!)

  • I gave this to my son/daughter/niece/nephew and he/she loved it! (No one cares.)


The thing that amazes me most? That reviewers for professional journals use these useless phrases at all. In a blog you can make your review as long or short as you like, but in a journal you're limited to 200 words, 250 if you're lucky. In 200 words I don't have the space to use "well-written," a phrase that means nothing and doesn't fulfill the purpose of a review. I have to tell the reader if the characterization is good, if the writing style works, if it'll circulate (which is not an easy answer to give), and say what generally makes it special or not, plus a quick plot summary.

Writing this entry didn't make my booktalks go away. Back to work.

(Post a new comment)


[info]dettiot
2008-03-03 05:14 pm UTC (link)
No one book should be required reading for teenage girls, or anyone else, and people who say things like that in a review irk me.

I definitely agree. Like so many things in life, YMMV when it comes to books, and reviews that try and claim otherwise are just wasting my time.

Since I'm getting ready to apply as a reviewer for SLJ, I'm definitely gonna keep this entry in my mind when I write my sample reviews. Thanks!

(Reply to this)(Thread)

[info]cedarlibrarian
2008-03-03 06:18 pm UTC (link)
I'll read your sample reviews, too, if you want. Before you send them in, that is.

(Reply to this)(Parent)

[info]janni
2008-03-03 05:16 pm UTC (link)
Why is this always such an issue with children's books? We never require adult books to have a message!

That. Yes, yes, and yes. (And yes and yes.)

Adults are allowed to read just because it's fun. Why don't kids and teens have that same right?

And why do we think every last thing a child does has to be actively good for them? Adults don't live that way; why on earth do we expect kids to?

(Reply to this)(Thread)

[info]cedarlibrarian
2008-03-03 06:22 pm UTC (link)
And why do we think every last thing a child does has to be actively good for them?

Because then they won't get into Harvard, get married, have 2.5 children, buy a McMansion and an SUV, and they'll be poor and miserable and totally unfulfilled omg!

Sarcasm aside, I really think that a lot of adults and teens won't find any meaning in their lives whatsoever if it's not forced on them, so it MUST be in their books. I think it's ridiculous. Just having fun is not overrated! When I saw Jon Scieszka speak at a S&S event not long before the release of Trucktown, he talked about how much the idea of "just having fun" meant to him, that smashing trucks and making noise was just as beneficial as learning whatever the day's important lesson was. More people need to be like him, methinks.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

[info]lizzb
2008-03-03 09:42 pm UTC (link)
"why do we think every last thing a child does has to be actively good for them"?

Because we are now our own gods; we believe we can control our own destiny and that of our children.

As cedar points out, that control will lead to us and our young ones being Perfect.

No disease will touch our bodies; no bad things will ever happen; no bad thoughts will ever intrude. We'll be Happy All The Time.

And this beautiful future will be yours too --- if you live your life perfectly and raise your children perfectly.

Which includes books with The Right Message; and keeping away those Bad Books.

Sorry for the mini rant.

On a lighter note, I do believe I could be my own drinking game as I'm sure I have used well written in one too many blog reviews.

(Reply to this)(Parent)

[info]thistleingrey
2008-03-03 06:34 pm UTC (link)
For that matter, since adults extrapolate meaning from things that're meant to be "just fun," I don't see why some adults assume that teens can't / won't. Video games come to mind, never mind Obama's dismissive comment that people should put away the games and get going. And some things resonate despite having a message aimed at a different audience, or because they do. ("I am nowhere in this narrative" is easier dealt with in a book than a rl situation.)

Cedar, thanks for the post.

(Reply to this)(Parent)

[info]sartorias
2008-03-03 05:29 pm UTC (link)
*clapping hard*

(Reply to this)(Thread)

[info]cedarlibrarian
2008-03-03 06:23 pm UTC (link)
*blushing*

And thanks for linking :)

(Reply to this)(Parent)

[info]fashionista_35
2008-03-03 05:35 pm UTC (link)
You know, the review, as such, didn't bother me. Probably because I've gotten to the point where I skim over that sort of commentary to get to the meat of review. OTOH, I can certainly see your point and I definitely think it's valid.

ETA: And at least it's clear she read the book, right? Too many times I've read reviews where it's clear the reviewer only skimmed, at best.

Anyhow, this comment, in particular:

"For your sophisticated readers" (Who is "sophisticated?" And how insulting!)

*nodding like a bobblehead*

Makes me CRAZY. Actually, there's a lot about what kinds of YA get reviewed and HOW it gets reviewed that makes me absolutely insane. I often feel as if there's this "clique/cool kids" approach to YA that has the net effect of splitting the genre into two groups—the stories with what's seen as more literary cred and the ghetto. It's something I've longed to write up a post about, but I don't know exactly HOW to do it without coming off as sounding like a whiny, sour-graping git, if you know what I mean.

So I see your crank, definitely.

*full disclosure—SBTB gave me a really happenin' review for Adiós and it was one of the most insightful and well-thought out reviews anyone gave the book. Just want to be up front about that. :-)

Edited at 2008-03-03 05:39 pm UTC

(Reply to this)(Thread)

[info]cedarlibrarian
2008-03-03 08:07 pm UTC (link)
What can I say? I'm easily bothered :) Not taking things too seriously has never been one of my better qualities.

And YES on your ETA. Reviewers who don't read their books annoy the hell out of me, especially if they're reading YA.

I know what you want to write your post about, but I also see where you're coming from regarding sounding like a whiny git. I don't think you're a whiny git, of course, but because you're a writer your irritation takes on a different tone than it would if you were a librarian or book blogger.

P.S. I've ALWAYS got my crank on.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

[info]fashionista_35
2008-03-03 09:48 pm UTC (link)
Not taking things too seriously has never been one of my better qualities.

*snerk* Right there with you. Some things though, I've learned are just Not Worth the Effort.

because you're a writer your irritation takes on a different tone than it would if you were a librarian or book blogger.

Exactly—there's just no way that I can see, right now, to articulate what I want to say in a way that won't sound bad or negative. It's not, really—it's more an observation of how things are and how I wish they could be different. I mean, there are so many, really, really good books that fall between the two extremes that I feel get overlooked because they don't fall into one category or the other or happen to break out into that third category known as Sells! Buckets! and Buckets! and more Buckets! If that makes any sense.

P.S. I've ALWAYS got my crank on.

And again, right there with ya.

(Reply to this)(Parent)

[info]praetorianguard
2008-03-03 05:50 pm UTC (link)
Did you like Wicked Lovely? *curious* I'm on the fence, but I think that's because I'm about worn out of the plot device featuring the "other" (freak, disabled, poor, you name it) child suddenly being the most important person evah more than any issue I necessarily had with the writing or the plot.

I am the least qualified person in the world to discuss this, but something I find endlessly fascinating is the age at which certain books become, on a general level, appropriate for kids. I was surprised that Holly Black's Tithe was as raw as it is, given that it's YA, when I first read it, what, four years ago. I'm still shocked that The Looking Glass Wars gets shelved with, more often than not, kids books, given the violence. And someone on my flist made a good point a few weeks ago about how it kills her that her daughter reads the Meyer books and loves Edward, but at least she knows what she's reading and she can talk about it with her.

Though really, in the end, perhaps no worse than the bodice rippers I was reading at 12.

(Reply to this)(Thread)

[info]cedarlibrarian
2008-03-03 06:28 pm UTC (link)
Did you like Wicked Lovely? *curious*

No, I didn't. And I liked Ink Exchange even less.

The thing with, "At what age is this appropriate?" is a question that can never be answered. Publishers give books a ballpark range, but you know, there's always someone whose kid is a Special Snowflake (and even fewer and farther between, a kid who really IS special).

I think the label of YA has as much to do with the narrator's experience as it does with the content. That's why TITHE is YA, among other reasons.

*shudders* Edward Cullen is the worst book boyfriend ever.

(Reply to this)(Parent)

[info]torrilin
2008-03-03 06:13 pm UTC (link)
I don't mind if a book has an Important Message. A lot of the books I read have a Message.

I was the kind of kid who read and enjoyed ancient Greek dramas at 10. Those are chock full of Important Messages too... and they end with blood all over, big messes and are mostly about telling a story. They made me happy in a way that most of the stuff aimed at 10 year olds didn't. Probably because at 10 I was a cranky, bloody minded kid who didn't like the kinds of sweet, happy stories that most little girls got shoved at them. Most of my classmates would have found those Greek dramas incomprehensible or just horrifying. That's ok. Different kids need different books.

I would say there are books that should be readily available. Most of those works are public domain and are obtainable via Project Gutenberg and inexpensive paperback editions. It's useful to have them in fiction libraries too, but if a book was published in my lifetime, it's hard to argue that it's a must have. I'm young, and a must have book needs a bit more than 30 years to have stood the test of time ;) Heck, I removed my original example because I loved it at 12 and find it very unpolished now (good story, but I've gotten pickier about prose over the years). And if the book is much younger than me, it's even harder to say it's a must have.

(Reply to this)(Thread)

[info]silk_noir
2008-03-03 06:45 pm UTC (link)
They made me happy in a way that most of the stuff aimed at 10 year olds didn't. Probably because at 10 I was a cranky, bloody minded kid who didn't like the kinds of sweet, happy stories that most little girls got shoved at them.

Well said.

(Reply to this)(Parent)

[info]thistleingrey
2008-03-03 06:46 pm UTC (link)
For me, how Message is built into the story matters a great deal. I wonder too to extent it influences how reviewers try to write about it.... I mean, one might hand an Anthony Trollope novel to a teen who liked the Victorian era, but I don't think one'd say eagerly that the book's great because its narrator instructs women and colludes with mainstream men.

p.s. I like reading Trollope, largely because it's foreign to me.

Most books that people enjoyed during the lifetime before yours have gone irrevocably out of print, and no one knows or cares enough about them to put them into Project Gutenberg. There's something cool about the juxtaposition of time and place as a moving target for people's interest--and in terms of "Will this book circulate?", the coolness seems very difficult to peg. Availability isn't enough, much though I appreciate what Michael Hart has done.

(Reply to this)(Parent)

[info]cedarlibrarian
2008-03-03 06:48 pm UTC (link)
I don't mind if a book has a message, either, but it needs to not take away from the way the story is told and a book's value should not be based on whether or not it has a message. That's a big problem in a lot of children's literature.

I would say there are books that should be readily available. Most of those works are public domain and are obtainable via Project Gutenberg and inexpensive paperback editions. It's useful to have them in fiction libraries too, but if a book was published in my lifetime, it's hard to argue that it's a must have.

I believe we're talking about two very different things here. I'm talking about reviews of new, popular fiction, not books that are in the public domain. Libraries can't just sit with empty shelves on the belief that nothing published in the past 30 years is hard to argue as a must-have. Must-haves for libraries, to me, include anything that will circulate. Period.

Edited at 2008-03-03 06:49 pm UTC

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

[info]torrilin
2008-03-03 09:09 pm UTC (link)
Sorry for not being clearer.

My read of the Smart Bitches quote is that "this book is a must have for a girl's education". I don't know whether they're right or not, and it's hard to judge that without the book being older. Books that my mom found essential to her education were often not relevant at all to mine... and the ones that did matter to us both were hundreds or thousands of years old. The mutual ground between mom and her mother and I is even more focused on public domain works. Most of that common ground material is stuff that will circulate, but it doesn't *need* to be in paper form anymore if the space is better used for a modern work. In fact, for several college literature classes, I ended up carting a Palm with Gutenberg copies around and keeping the official text at home.

To me anything that will circulate is not a must have as a part of one's education. Circulation is the acid test of popularity. A *library* needs books that circulate. A *kid* needs books that suit their taste. Those books may be popular, or they may not (in my case, they were mostly *not*). An *education* exposes one to a broad selection of books that one otherwise might not have read. Educational works are a weird mix of popular and unpopular, and often they don't circulate reliably if they're unfashionable. A library's primary purpose is not education IMO. It's letting people read what they want. This can educate them, but it's not the goal.

That's why must-have is such a bad descriptor. It doesn't reliably indicate anything in particular (except maybe an overexcited reviewer).

(Reply to this)(Parent)

[info]shipchan
2008-03-03 06:38 pm UTC (link)
I agreee that most books only work for some people. There will be some people who love them, and some who hate them, and some who just don't understand them. That being said, you must admit that there are books such as "The Lord Of The Rings" and The Sonnets of Shakespear that most everyone should at least try to read at once in their lifetimes. Even so, I agree that the list of terms up there should never be used (they result in things like Discworld books having reviews like "the next Harry Potter").

(Reply to this)(Thread)

[info]cedarlibrarian
2008-03-03 06:43 pm UTC (link)
That being said, you must admit that there are books such as "The Lord Of The Rings" and The Sonnets of Shakespear that most everyone should at least try to read at once in their lifetimes.

No I don't.

I don't believe most everyone should at least try to read Lord of the Rings or Shakespeare's sonnets any more than I believe everyone should try to read, say, Anne Rice. All reading is good reading, and people should read what they like, not what someone else thinks they should read. Note, however, I'm not talking about school-required reading here, I'm talking pleasure reading.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

[info]shipchan
2008-03-03 08:47 pm UTC (link)
Still, I feel there is some literature that has influenced our culture so intensely that it becomes almost mandatory to read it or else one won't pick up on certain references and how particular books, like old myths, have influenced our ways of thinking. If you don't know at least the plot of, say, Hamlet, you won't understand a lot of the sayings and references in our world as fully as you could. This doesn't mean you should fill your shelves with Yeats instead of Baby Sitters Club, but I do feel people should at least give the classics a try.

(Reply to this)(Parent)

[info]luminousmarble
2008-03-03 06:40 pm UTC (link)
Heh. When I see "well-written" I assume that the prose will have minimal spelling and grammar (and usage) errors, and read smoothly enough. But then I sort of expect that at a minimum anyway. Sometimes they throw in some nice imagery, but my liking of it depends more on the reviewer liking what I like.

(Reply to this)

[info]dlgarfinkle
2008-03-03 06:54 pm UTC (link)
I really, really, really like your post. Really! Maybe you can turn this into an article?

And I have never read Lord of the Rings. I don't like fantasy. I read 100 pages of Harry Potter and quit. So freakin' what? I doubt that on my deathbed I'll regreat not trying to read Lord of the Rings.

One little quibble: All things being equal, I think books with a message (as long as they're not didactic) are better than those without. Making readers think about life a bit differently after finishing the book is what, in my mind, separates award-quality books from other books. Of course, books with a message which do not also have great plots, characters, and pacing should not win awards.

(Reply to this)(Thread)

[info]lizzb
2008-03-03 09:50 pm UTC (link)
I am so giggling over the deathbed last words: "I ... should ... have .... read.... Harry Potter."

Message books: to me, a Message Book is one where the message intrudes to the point where it ruins the story, usually accompanied by a Heavy Anvil. "War is Bad." It's one where the result is "The Message". Message trumps plot; and often results in either one dimensional characters, or characters repeatedly acting out of character as they try to stay on point.

To be all lawyery about words (aw, c'mon, you do it to!) I'd say what you are describing are more books with a meaning; not a Blunt Message.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

[info]dlgarfinkle
2008-03-04 12:26 am UTC (link)
Ahh, I see. Yes. Books with a meaning: Good. Books with a message: Bad.

And probably the best books are those which every reader finds meaning in, but the meaning they find might be a little different from the meaning another reader takes away from the same book.

(Reply to this)(Parent)

[info]cedarlibrarian
2008-03-04 01:36 am UTC (link)
You know, I might be emailing you about that article idea. I'm putting a few ideas together.

I don't like fantasy either, for the most part. I did enjoy Harry Potter but I liked it more for the complex world and the good vs. evil. I listened to Lord of the Rings and although there were some wonderful passages, there was also a lot I could have done without.

Your quibble is quite fair.

(Reply to this)(Parent)

[info]kennahijja
2008-03-03 07:14 pm UTC (link)
With you on all except the 'well-written' - because for me, that's pretty much an indication that there are no obvious problems with the writing (no obvious bloopers, it flows nicely, it does the job for the story that's being told in terms of vocabulary and structure and imagery and all that). Pretty much the opposite of 'not well written' (and I think we recognise that when we see it, too).

(Reply to this)(Thread)

[info]cedarlibrarian
2008-03-04 01:40 am UTC (link)
The thing is, all the things you mentioned are things that any book editor worth his salt should fix before the book even goes to galley. It's even stuff an author should take care of before trying to get an agent. Your list is largely mechanical, and mechanical is easy to fix.

(Reply to this)(Parent)
My own "well-written" pet peeve
[info]colorsarenice
2008-03-03 07:20 pm UTC (link)
When I was a bookseller I recommended books daily. I would go into all the great things about a book and why I thought X customer would like it given other reading enjoyed. And then at the end of my spiel X customer would ask, "is it well-written?"

(Reply to this)

[info]bookaddict88
2008-03-03 08:43 pm UTC (link)
(Here via [info]sartorias)

I agree with most of your pet peeves, though I think "For your sophisticated readers" could be ok with context and Important Messages isn't bad as long as it doesn't dominate the story at the expense of other story elements. For me, it's just one more element to consider when reviewing a book.

As a side note, in the review you mentioned, I have less problems with the "required reading bit" (although I hate that, too) than with the reason she gives as to why it should be required: "It’s painful, and it’s important." Woah, why should your reading have to be "painful"? And what does "important" mean?

(Reply to this)

[info]barbarienne
2008-03-03 09:29 pm UTC (link)
Here via [info]sartorias

I wasn't bothered by the SBTB review, but that's because I long ago learned to interpret an individual's reviews as just that--how the individual reviewer feels. If the reviewer has a known track record I can analyze (as I can with SBSarah), then I can evaluate the statement in light of past history.

Sarah feels that this book should be read by all 12 year old girls. If I'm generally in agreement with Sarah's reviews in the past, then I am likely to agree that this would be a good book to buy for my own 12 year old (if I had one).

But in general, I agree 100% with you that statements of "everyone should read this" are crap. However, I think that is largely because most professional reviews are anonymous (e.g. Kirkus, PW). It's impossible to get a handle on the reviewer's basis for comparison.

I have my own list of phrases I hate to see in reviews.

(Reply to this)

[info]thistleingrey
2008-03-03 09:35 pm UTC (link)
Near-synchronicity: a review of a YA Message book has popped up elsewhere on my f-list. The post is worth at least a skim; the book, not sure, though I'll probably get around to it, sort of on principle.

(Reply to this)

[info]davidlubar
2008-03-03 10:07 pm UTC (link)
You are, by far, one of my favorite ranters. I always tell kids that if I set out to write a book with a message, the book would probably be awful. It's fine if a message slips in along side the plot, but that is not the purpose of fiction.

(Reply to this)

[info]keilexandra
2008-03-04 12:54 am UTC (link)
I tend to use "well-written" as shorthand for having passable-to-decent prose (obviously a subjective judgment, but hey, my booklog is all about subjectivity). I do agree on all the other points.

(Reply to this)

[info]blpurdom
2008-03-04 01:04 am UTC (link)
I gave this to my son/daughter/niece/nephew and he/she loved it! (No one cares.)

That reminds me of this incredibly annoying tendancy a local movie reviewer has; she is usually the one dispatched to review "kids'" movies, evidently because she has kids at her disposal to take with her. She inevitably ends up including something in her review implying that if you are an intelligent adult you will be wanting 90-150 minutes of your life back after seeing the film in question, but kids will enjoy it (owing to their not having as many brain cells as adults and far less sophisticated taste). I'm so tired of her insulting the intelligence of children this way; it really is possible that children are as capable of spotting a terrible movie as an adult but she's convinced that just about anything aimed at kids will be enjoyed by them no matter how idiotic.

(Reply to this)

Create an Account
Forgot your login?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…