[the search for that One Good Review]
Sep. 2nd, 2005 06:46 pmI was reading a really bad review of `Singer of Souls' on amazon.com by its #1 reviewer, which was thankfully rated unhelpful by 5/8 people, and it led me to thinking: what do you think makes a great review?
It's hard to put a finger on, but I'd say I know what doesn't-- a straightforward, simplified rehash of the initial plot without any reference to the actual flavor of it, a catchy hook like 'this is a book for all ages, and you don't have to be a fantasy buff!' or some such, or some lame platitude about how it'll make you rediscover your soul or it's a wild joyride through modern somewhere-or-other. Bitch, please.
Actually, come to think of it, the unifying factor in all these negatives is that they make it sound like the reviewer is hard-selling you the book-- they don't really get it, and they think you don't really need to get it either, you just need to be hooked by some cheesy bit of propaganda about how it's meant for all ages or something.
Then I got to thinking about my favorite reviews, and I think most of my memory's from reading Asimov's and other genre magazines, where you'd often have actual writers make detailed reviews of their favorite books of the moment. The Magazine of Fantasy and Science Fiction had a book review section in the 90s, at least, with some great reviewers-- one of them was Robert Silverberg, I believe, and another was Paul Di Filippo in Asimov's. Sometimes I had the unabashed pleasure of reading Harlan Ellison (my hero!!) review sci-fi movies. Ahhh, those were the days. I may actually never be that geeky again. But I have hopes.
Anyway, the thing I remember about those books-of-the-moment overviews was the engaging voice of the reviewer, which let you know something about their tastes, why they personally enjoyed the book, what it made them think of, how they related to it-- so you could judge whether you'd identify with the reviewer's estimation on a case-by-case basis and through an overall degree of alignment between your tastes. A great review was always about more than just the book itself-- it would introduce the book to you through a unique context of that reviewer's experience of the current genre and knowledge of the writer, and it would tell you how certain little details of the book resonated with them in some quirky way.
In a way, it's even more fun to read about a cross-section of same genre books at once, to get a feel for the current crop and an appreciation for where the field is moving-- which is really why I'd read reviews rather than just visit a bookstore (with its oh-so-useful back-covers and actual browsing capabilities) in the first place. More than half the time, I didn't think the specific books were my bag and I didn't check them out, but I really enjoyed reading about them and knowing what was out there-- so really, I read the reviews for the reviews, not even as a precursor to reading. Man, I miss those days-- that feeling of being part of a certain zeitgeist that I had, especially because browsing amazon.com just doesn't have that... certain something involved. Like pleasure. These days, the only thing I've really kept up with is HP fandom, and let's face it, that well's run dry (at least for me).
Regardless, I guess my point is, a review, ideally, is way more than a marketing device or a browsing aid-- it's a sort of book-critic's journalism, not so dry and academic as an actual paper, puffed-up Times article or an obscure book that tries to 'define' a subject-- hopefully, it's a live report from the fringe, a postcard from the reading zone. A wild joyride through... you get the picture :D
It's hard to put a finger on, but I'd say I know what doesn't-- a straightforward, simplified rehash of the initial plot without any reference to the actual flavor of it, a catchy hook like 'this is a book for all ages, and you don't have to be a fantasy buff!' or some such, or some lame platitude about how it'll make you rediscover your soul or it's a wild joyride through modern somewhere-or-other. Bitch, please.
Actually, come to think of it, the unifying factor in all these negatives is that they make it sound like the reviewer is hard-selling you the book-- they don't really get it, and they think you don't really need to get it either, you just need to be hooked by some cheesy bit of propaganda about how it's meant for all ages or something.
Then I got to thinking about my favorite reviews, and I think most of my memory's from reading Asimov's and other genre magazines, where you'd often have actual writers make detailed reviews of their favorite books of the moment. The Magazine of Fantasy and Science Fiction had a book review section in the 90s, at least, with some great reviewers-- one of them was Robert Silverberg, I believe, and another was Paul Di Filippo in Asimov's. Sometimes I had the unabashed pleasure of reading Harlan Ellison (my hero!!) review sci-fi movies. Ahhh, those were the days. I may actually never be that geeky again. But I have hopes.
Anyway, the thing I remember about those books-of-the-moment overviews was the engaging voice of the reviewer, which let you know something about their tastes, why they personally enjoyed the book, what it made them think of, how they related to it-- so you could judge whether you'd identify with the reviewer's estimation on a case-by-case basis and through an overall degree of alignment between your tastes. A great review was always about more than just the book itself-- it would introduce the book to you through a unique context of that reviewer's experience of the current genre and knowledge of the writer, and it would tell you how certain little details of the book resonated with them in some quirky way.
In a way, it's even more fun to read about a cross-section of same genre books at once, to get a feel for the current crop and an appreciation for where the field is moving-- which is really why I'd read reviews rather than just visit a bookstore (with its oh-so-useful back-covers and actual browsing capabilities) in the first place. More than half the time, I didn't think the specific books were my bag and I didn't check them out, but I really enjoyed reading about them and knowing what was out there-- so really, I read the reviews for the reviews, not even as a precursor to reading. Man, I miss those days-- that feeling of being part of a certain zeitgeist that I had, especially because browsing amazon.com just doesn't have that... certain something involved. Like pleasure. These days, the only thing I've really kept up with is HP fandom, and let's face it, that well's run dry (at least for me).
Regardless, I guess my point is, a review, ideally, is way more than a marketing device or a browsing aid-- it's a sort of book-critic's journalism, not so dry and academic as an actual paper, puffed-up Times article or an obscure book that tries to 'define' a subject-- hopefully, it's a live report from the fringe, a postcard from the reading zone. A wild joyride through... you get the picture :D
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}