Review Group discussion

I just joined the review group. Before I begin reviewing any book and before my book gets reviewed, I wanted to share my personal philosophy regarding the question "what is the purpose of a review?". I think we should all ask ourselves this question and have a discussion here.

Let me start with my thoughts:

I believe that the only book that can be classified as "bad" is the one that has been written only for commercial success and thus does not convey the author's deepest feelings. If the author has honestly written what he/she truly feels then by definition it has to be a good book - and this is because no body's deepest feelings can be "bad".

So in my opinion a reviewer's job is not to say whether a book is good or very good or bad. The reviewer's job is to help a reader find a book that would resonate with what she has also felt - at a different time, in a different situation. So a book creates a resonance between two hearts and the job of the reviewer is to enable that resonance.

Kanwarpreet,

Thank you very much for your post!

You wrote:

I believe that the only book that can be classified as "bad" is the one that has been written only for commercial success and thus does not convey the author's deepest feelings. If the author has honestly written what he/she truly feels then by definition it has to be a good book - and this is because no body's deepest feelings can be "bad".

I believe there certainly is such a thing as a bad book. The judgment is not on the contents -- say, a declaration that reading the book will be harmful to society or to individuals. The judgment or observations of a well-written review should have to do with how successfully the author conveys the ideas he or she is trying to express. What the author feels and what the book conveys are two totally separate and unrelated things. For instance, an author could feel great rapport for what he sees as the suffering of whales; however, if his work contains contradictions, cliches, sentimentalism, and seventeen grammatical errors for every sentence, then it will likely be judged as 'bad' by most reviewers -- regardless of the honesty or sincerity with which the author wrote the story.

Likewise, a writer may be completely apathetic (or even antagonistic) to whales and yet write a moving, memorable, life-changing novel ... for money and money alone.

It's like with poetry. A skilled poet is not necessarily feeling anything while composing a love poem. The end product is a type of performance though. The poem is to a poet what an actor's behavior is to an actor acting.

Regarding your second paragraph:

So in my opinion a reviewer's job is not to say whether a book is good or very good or bad. The reviewer's job is to help a reader find a book that would resonate with what she has also felt - at a different time, in a different situation. So a book creates a resonance between two hearts and the job of the reviewer is to enable that resonance.

In my opinion, again, the reviewer's job is to act in the best interest of the reader. As a reviewer, we don't look out for the writer. That's not our job. We're letting other readers know what we thought about the work. We may say it's no good because of all the errors described above, or we may simply say it's beautifully written but not engaging or moving. We may try to describe why. We may warn other readers of the fact there are indeed an average of seventeen grammatical errors for every sentence in the book. We may say, "Steer clear. Keep your ninety-nine cents!" Or we may say, "It's $24.99, I know. But buy it! You NEED to read it!"

And again, this has nothing to do with what the author was feeling -- or even on how hard they worked or even how long it took them to finish. Would that the quality of our novels were directly proportionate to the amount of time we spent producing them! :)

Okay -- just some thoughts you provoked. Thanks again for your post!

All valid points, Mike, but I can also see where Kanwar is coming from. A book that has engaged your innermost self in the writing is very likely to resonate with someone in the reading. Sincerity of feeling shines through. Total immersion, with your work the most important thing in your life at that time (outside of family), engenders your very best efforts to get it right. You are compelled to spend that extra time and make that extra effort to produce a work that is as perfect as you can make it.

Now, if your best efforts still have a multitude of flaws, then a reviewer should make that clear to a reader. Poor spelling and grammar really irk me and I would feel cheated if I'd spent good money on a book the author should have got someone else to edit and proof read if they are not capable of doing it themselves.

Bottom line as a reviewer is always to give an honest opinion of the overall quality of the book. Personal taste is not a factor: that is only relevant in what you choose to read.

I think you both bring up good points. But I think the purpose of writing a review can depend greatly from person to person. One might write a review because they loved a character, or an idea, or whatever else, or even because they disliked something about the book, whether that's about the author's writing style, or an extra evil character, or grammatical mistakes.

Is it right to write a review about things you DIDN'T like? Yes, I think it is.

When I look at a book (or any product) and read the reviews, I want to hear it all, the good, the bad, the ugly. And that's, what I think, is the beauty of everyone writing their own reviews, with no standards attached. You get an immense variety. 10 word reviews to 1000 word reviews. As a reader, you will find reviews that you like, because there's so many different ones that all follow their own rules.

Jay wrote: "All valid points, Mike, but I can also see where Kanwar is coming from. A book that has engaged your innermost self in the writing is very likely to resonate with someone in the reading. Sincerity ..."

I think you and Kanwarpreet romanticize the writing process. When I see such comments, it always reminds me of Anthony Burgess and his famous repudiation of A Clockwork Orange:

In 1985, Burgess published Flame into Being: The Life and Work of D. H. Lawrence, and while discussing Lady Chatterley's Lover in his biography, Burgess compared that novel's notoriety with A Clockwork Orange: "We all suffer from the popular desire to make the known notorious. The book I am best known for, or only known for, is a novel I am prepared to repudiate: written a quarter of a century ago, a jeu d'esprit knocked off for money in three weeks, it became known as the raw material for a film which seemed to glorify sex and violence. The film made it easy for readers of the book to misunderstand what it was about, and the misunderstanding will pursue me until I die. I should not have written the book because of this danger of misinterpretation, and the same may be said of Lawrence and Lady Chatterley's Lover.

~http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Clockw...

I'm also reminded of that quote by Stephen King, where he says:

“Amateurs sit and wait for inspiration, the rest of us just get up and go to work.”

~http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/15627...

:-) :-p

Lena wrote: "I think you both bring up good points. But I think the purpose of writing a review can depend greatly from person to person. One might write a review because they loved a character, or an idea, or ..."

I don't think there should be any question about whether or not people should review products (yes, even books) because they don't like them; however, things get tricky with books because, as Jay mentioned, the dislike is often based on personal taste. That's completely different from finding fault in a work because, say, it doesn't stay true to itself throughout.

A reviewer needs to be conscious of the difference and most aren't.

Still, I'd rather have a person write, "I hate this tent because the sun caught it on fire with a beer bottle and I burned my butt to three degrees!" than not write a review at all and get my own rear beer burn....

Each reader will have a unique response to a book. We really can't write perfect reviews that will anticipate every reader's preferences.

Check out the reviews of some really famous books, and you will find some readers that trash them!

What we can do is show the same generosity of spirit that the writer showed in writing the book. And then give an honest response that would be useful to other potential readers. And if you are responding to the work, in part, on the basis of taste, that is fine as long as you say so explicitly in the review. At least some people will share your taste.

Another opinion....