Into the Fire

Passionate thoughts about the world of writing and the Power of God

 

Well, I'd like to think we all don't make "lousy reviewers", but I'm sure most of us do. This is never more apparent to me than after blog tours where the featured novels are reviewed by mostly readers. Readers who generally read a lot of fiction. Readers who look forward to the next book like a child grins while anticipating a piece of candy. Readers that digest story and don't dig into the plot holes or potential writing mishaps.

 

We writers are a critical lot – forced to be as we scour our work for "bad" writing errors. What ultimately happens is we see every downside of others' works right along with our own except that if they're published and we aren't, we want to tear apart the author for his/her choices in words, style, and/or message (or lack thereof). We become less and less satisfied with what we read. Sometimes a little bitter. Sometimes a little jealous. Sometimes a lot frustrated. Aw, c'mon. You know it's true.

 

But reviewing novels maybe should be divided into two groups: the readers' reviews and the authors' reviews. I guarantee the results would be dramatically different. And even then sub-categories wouldn't be a bad idea. Because readers of literary fiction won't be satisfied with a lot of commerical fiction and vice versa.

 

I've learned a few things from attempting to write reviews in recent times. If I choose to review a novel, I have to remember who the audience for it is. I have to remind myself someone will love it even if I don't. And I have to be reasonable if I criticize it. I'm sent various novels for review. Most of them I requested. This means – to me – an inherent fairness is required. I thought the stories would be interesting, good, satisfying – something like that. So if the books aren't any of those, reviews should say either why I didn't find them that way without crucifying the authors and their words or why a certain kind of reader will – or both.

 

Writers tend to examine the actual writing of the story moreso than the story itself. We look at how the characters develop, all the technical aspects of putting words together, and we decide if the methodology works. Sometimes readers have no idea what we're talking about and find these factors non-essentials. And that, my friends, is why writers can make lousy reviewers – as far as readers are concerned.

 

Father, let us be kind even if we must point out faults. Help us to look ourselves square in the mirror before making claims about others. In the Name of Jesus, Amen.

Posted in

33 responses to “Why writers make lousy reviewers.”

  1. BK Jackson Avatar

    You do reviews very well. I find them to be fair and well-tempered and if there’s something about a book you didn’t like, you always put it tastefully.
    I’m not a big reader of reviews. Yes, I’ve seen some reviews written too critically. I’ve also seen reviews that are too obvious in the other direction. Worst, many reviewers give away key elements of the story, which drives me nuts!
    From the writer’s standpoint, I wish it was possible to divorce ourselves from our writer side while reading other people’s books because it certainly does change the reading experience.

    Like

  2. Mike Duran Avatar

    Hm. I think I see this in reverse. The best reviewers are those who have a first-hand knowledge of the craft. I would put more weight in a musician’s opinion about music than an amateur’s. I would listen more carefully to an artist’s take on a piece than I would to a non-artist. It’s why former athletes make some of the best color commentators or coaches. They know the game. Being mean and nit-picky is a totally different issue that even non-writer reviewers can be just as guilty of. Interesting post, Nicole!

    Like

  3. Nicole Avatar

    Yes, Mike, and I would expect you to, but you’re a writer, and even if you were speaking from that place before you actually became a writer, the innate desire and love of the art would’ve been with you – that is, to appreciate the craft of any art from the perspective of who presents it. And, in spite of my title and opinion, for readers, the only reviews that really register in the same “vein” are those written by other readers. For those of us who write, those reviews rarely hold the same value in spite of the fact that we write for an audience that includes but often doesn’t cater to other writers.
    Thank you, Brenda. I’ll be the first one to admit it’s difficult writing a review of a novel I don’t like for whatever reason, but just the same it’s pointless to be ugly about it when it’s just my opinion. And, yes, once a writer, the pleasure of the reading experience often shrinks. One would think it should be enhanced, but the opposite seems true.

    Like

  4. Mike Duran Avatar

    “…for readers, the only reviews that really register in the same ‘vein’ are those written by other readers.”
    I’m not sure how we can know this.
    I was a reader long before I was a writer. Writing has helped me grow as a reader. In fact, reviewers MUST be writers in that they are putting their opinions into a coherent narrative form. I’d suggest you are forcing a distinction between “lay reviewers” and “writer / reviewers” that doesn’t exist.

    Like

  5. Nicole Avatar

    I should stipulate that non-professional reviewers such as are found in profuse numbers on the web as opposed to say those paid to review fiction in newspapers can easily be identified as “lay reviewers”. Definitely not authors of novels. And those readers who seek out their reviews generally prefer, relate to, and understand what they have to say about fiction over those authors who post honest reviews about novels.

    Like

  6. dayle Avatar
    dayle

    Perspective does matter.
    The Shack:
    Editor — No one is gonna buy this.
    Writers — Poorly written.
    Public — We love it, here’s $80 million.

    Like

  7. Nicole Avatar

    Perfect perspective, Dayle.

    Like

  8. Carradee Avatar

    I know readers who don’t write, but they dissect the story. Other readers I know go to them for their reviews because they dissect things.

    Like

  9. Nicole Avatar

    Carradee, thank you for your thoughts. And I’m sure this is the case for some, perhaps many, readers. However, the readers who often review novels on the web base their “analyses” on their opinions of the story, not the writing itself.

    Like

  10. Carole McDonnell Avatar

    Writers make very good reviewers. They instinctively know where the author wanted to go and they can tell the theme and all the unspoken desires of the author. A writer is not only a writer but is often a reader. A writer is not going to be a one-dimensional person. So every writer/reviewer reaches a place where she has to decide what aspect of her personality will write the review,and what her heart will do. I tend to critique my friends’ stories very harshly before those stories are published. Then when they are published, I put on my reader personality. No writer is perfect. Because I am imperfect, I allow some imperfection in the finished work. Because I am human I try to be fair to both friend writers and enemy writers. A writer has to connect to different aspects of herself in order to create different characters and write a well-rounded novel. A writer who can’t change into different aspects of herself is not a good writer…and is very unkind. That said, if a book is truly bad, I manage to make my writerly suggestions in as kind a way as possible. And being human, I allow the book to judge my own life by adding that the problem might very well be one only seen by me. It’s a matter of maturity.

    Like

  11. Brenda Anderson Avatar

    Writers look for different elements than do non-writers. As a literature major, what I looked for in a novel before I started writing differs completely from what I look for now. I think both viewpoints are valid.
    My one concern with writers penning reviews is that many authors are afraid to be completely honest about a novel for fear of repercussions from those within the writing community.
    BTW – I agree with Brenda J. Your reviews are excellent.

    Like

  12. Nicole Avatar

    Carole, I refer to my first sentence of this post. And then I wonder what “friend” and “enemy” writers refers to . . . Thank you for explaining your thoughts on this.
    Bren, thank you. Very good points.

    Like

  13. Tim George Avatar

    The problem here is understanding the difference in a critique and a review. A literary magazine generally critiques a novel based on rules generally accepted in its closed literary circles. A review for the average reader is an animal of a different kind and more often than not a not so friendly domain for dedicated writers.
    A good example for me is that I have been watching and reading Science Fiction since I was a little boy. Because of that, my standards for what makes good Science Fiction is very different from my wife who likes to watch something like Stargate or Fringe from time to time. When I begin pointing out plot problems, inconsistencies in world building, etc… she rolls her eyes at me and tells me to be quiet so she can just enjoy the story.
    I am a writer and I do a lot or reviews. And in each review I have to muzzle the professional writer so that what I write speaks to those who are predominantly readers. It’s a balancing act I admit. Sometimes I allow the muzzle to fall and come off sounding like one of those food snobs who didn’t like the presentation of an entree. Average eaters are far more concerned about how the food tasted than how it was arranged. If they want a review of an eatery they want to know if the food is worth paying their hard earned money for.
    The same is true of the average reader. They want to know if a particular novel will be of interest to them and if it is worth their time and money to pursue.

    Like

  14. Edward M. Erdelac Avatar

    Nicole, I feel you here.
    While I appreciate and enjoy the opinions of fellow writers, I would obviously rather be lauded by a dozen readers than one writer.
    Ultimately you’re writing for them, not your peers, and readers do base their opinions simply on whether the work entertained them or not. There’s always been a discrepancy between ‘professional’ reviewers and the public.
    Blood Meridian is an amazing novel, brilliantly constructed, poetic, evocative, and haunting.
    But I don’t think my mom would enjoy it.

    Like

  15. Mike Duran Avatar

    I must admit, the logical end of this reasoning — “professional” v. “lay” reviewers — is rather disturbing. Are we really prepared to say that the majority of “professional reviewers” are so detached and highbrow as to be irrelevant to the average reader? And if there are no objective elements that comprise a good story, book reviews and reviewers are absolutely pointless. Alas, in the end, it seems like an argument for mediocrity.

    Like

  16. Tim George Avatar

    No so much irrelevant as, quite honestly, annoying. My example of how my educated critique of Science Fiction annoys my dear wife is a prime example.Let me ask your question, Mike, another way. Are the majority of professional movie critics too high brow as to be relevant to the average movie goer?

    Like

  17. Nicole Avatar

    “Are we really prepared to say that the majority of ‘professional reviewers’ are so detached and highbrow as to be irrelevant to the average reader?”
    Yes, Mike. At times, definitely yes. And Tim accentuates this in his last comment with a good question.
    “And if there are no objective elements that comprise a good story, book reviews and reviewers are absolutely pointless. Alas, in the end, it seems like an argument for mediocrity.”
    I dare anyone reviewing anything artful to be “objective”. You like or dislike or feel ambivalent about something based on its appeal to you. Granted, you assess it based on your knowledge of the art, but the average reader, viewer (of paintings or sculpture), or listener (to music) judges it according to how they experience it. If they’re a like-minded artist, they’ll evaluate/review it according to their intellectual cognizance of the skills required to create it. You insist there can be this kind of pure objectivity when giving reviews based on the skill-set requirements. I disagree. A reviewer can definitely evaluate the skill in a positive or negative manor based on criteria, but who, other than literary readers or authors, really bases his opinion of the novel on this criteria?
    And, since I don’t read reviews until after I’ve read a novel and seldom read the reviews of film critics (who are so often out of touch with the general movie-paying public) and don’t need a musician to inform me of what’s amazing about who I listen to and enjoy, then, yeah, I could concur that reviews are pointless. Except to some readers they’re important.
    The idea that in order to matter and surpass “mediocrity”, the proper elements must be a factor in giving reviews really only matter to those who prefer “professional” reviews. Frankly, I think those readers are in the minority. Important nevertheless. And valuable.

    Like

  18. Nicole Avatar

    Ed, you make a very good point. Who are we writing for anyway? The critics, our fellow writers, or our particular audience(s)? Yes, most of us would love to be able to impress both if truth be told. But I still maintain writers are the most difficult critics, the most difficult to please, and not all of that is borne of skillful evaluation . . .

    Like

  19. Nicole Avatar

    Tim, well put. Good example. Thank you.

    Like

  20. Mike Duran Avatar

    Tim asked, “Are the majority of professional movie critics too high brow as to be relevant to the average movie goer?”
    Absolutely not! I LOVE reading the reviews on Rotten Tomatoes. But most of those writers are professionals, working for news and blog outlets. They do this for a living. many of them have went to school to know the finer points of filmmaking, film history, and the industry. Why create an artificial wedge between the two?
    Here’s the thing: You and Nicole are both “lay” reviewers. You focus a lot on Christian fiction. In the Christian fiction arena, reviews are typically “soft.” I’d suggest that that milieu contributes to your opinions. It is reverse elitism. In other words, reviewers who disdain “professionals” can appear just as snooty and exclusive as a highbrow critic. “WE are the only ones who connect with readers! WE are not bogged down by craft technicalities!” Well EXCUSE me.
    The individual Nicole has bantered with on my FB page today is a professional reviewer. He writes for Christianity Today and Paste magazine. I am rather flattered that he even commented on my page. I LOVE Andy Whitman’s stuff. He is far more “informed” than I am. I would trust his opinion over most average reviewer’s. Another friend, Brett McCracken, writes for Christianity Today and Biola University. Brett attended film school at UCLA. Does this mean his opinions are more valid than mine? No. But how can I dismiss his “professionalism” as an obstacle?
    Are there elitist reviewers ensconced in ivory towers? Absolutely. But to suggest that writers can’t be good reviewers is pretty baseless.
    Fun dialog! Thanks for the discussion!

    Like

  21. Tim George Avatar

    So let’s see; what makes one a professional reviewer as opposed to an amateur? Is it the fact one person is paid to be on staff of a major magazine and among other duties review a variety of mainly non-fiction books. Whitman is indeed a good reviewer and writer (meaning he is a rarity).
    Here is the bottom line for me. Yes I mainly review Christian fiction but I have also met face to face with the likes of Jeff Shaara (multi-published New York Times best-seller) whose works are considered the gold standard of historical narratives. Brian McLendon, V.P. Deputy Director of Publicity at Ballantine/Bantam sent me a wonderful letter me complimenting me on my “professional handling of this special meeting”. What does that equate to? Absolutely nothing.
    I review on my site to meet, as Andy put it on FB, the needs of my buddies. Which really is an uninformed statement since less than 10% of those that have commented at Unveiled or Fiction Addict come anywhere close to being a personal friend. The people who read my reviews do because they are interested in the same kinds of stories I am and generally appreciate my direction to a book or genre they may have not previously considered.
    I have no axe to grand with professional critics except for the fact I often find their reviews just as jaded by personal preference as mine. So is it impossible for professional writers to be good reviewers? Whitman proves the answer to be no. Is it rare? My experience is, absolutely.

    Like

  22. Tim George Avatar

    Don’t want to beat this dead horse any deader but … Since Christianity Today has been mentioned as a good example of professional reviews. Consider its review of The Shack. http://bit.ly/nE8s2l
    This two page review spent exactly three lines discussing any technical problems with the writing. That’s less that 5% of the entire review. No mention is made about the poor writing style, flaws in grammatical structure, and the obvious muddying of the waters between allegory, narrative, fictional prose, and personal theology.
    But it was a professional review produces by a professional writer. That’s something I guess.

    Like

  23. Mike Duran Avatar

    Tim, I not sure what that proves. Does it prove that professional reviewers DON’T care about craft? Well, that militates against your point that professional reviewers and authors are too focused on craft. It comes down to individual reviews / reviewers, not generalizations. Honestly, I think you guys are digging a hole.

    Like

  24. Tim George Avatar

    Not sure what hole you think I’m digging. I agreed with Nicole as to her basic premise. The majority of writers do not make great reviewers for the general reader because of the nature of their focus. The average reader is looking more for recommendations than critiques. That is my limited experience with reviewing hundreds of novels over the last five years.
    You are right, however, that generalizations are always dangerous things. Just like the general assumption that my reviews and Niocle’s are bogged down by the mileu in which we write. Is that based on first-hand experience with my reviews or a general assumption about Christian fiction and reviews by Christians of Christian fiction?

    Like

  25. Nicole Avatar

    “You and Nicole are both ‘lay’ reviewers. You focus a lot on Christian fiction. In the Christian fiction arena, reviews are typically ‘soft.’ I’d suggest that that milieu contributes to your opinions. It is reverse elitism. In other words, reviewers who disdain ‘professionals’ can appear just as snooty and exclusive as a highbrow critic.”
    Whoa now, Mike, wait just a minute. “Disdain for professionals” isn’t a factor here. The point of this is most of the time, not ALL, the general/average readers don’t relate to their reviews because they (the professionals) mostly adhere to a criteria that they (the readers) find focused more on technique, style, voice – all those things which writers take seriously and work hard to achieve in some impressive capacity. Literary fiction readers are more inclined to appreciate these thoughts by professionals.
    And I didn’t suggest for one minute that I connect with Christian fiction readers in my reviews (having been blasted a few times for giving my honest opinions of the writing in certain novels), and if you’d read some of my reviews, Mike, you could hardly call me “soft”.
    And your professional reviewer Andy missed the point entirely of my post having probably given it a cursory read at best. After some discussion, he started to grasp what I was saying.
    The post title was provocative because there are factions of readers that only certain opinions of novels reach. Writers tend toward discussion of the craft. Readers want to hear about the story.
    Exceptions: of course, but your final words here miss the point, Mike.
    And I think Tim proved with his example of The Shack how opinion enters into the mix when a novel incites certain feelings in EVERY reviewer.

    Like

  26. Nicole Avatar

    I take back the comment about Andy “getting” my point.

    Like

  27. Mike Duran Avatar

    Nicole, the grind here comes down to what I perceive as a flawed premise: “…the general/average readers don’t relate to their reviews because they (the professionals) mostly adhere to a criteria that they (the readers) find focused more on technique, style, voice.” Unless you can authoritatively speak for most “general/average readers,” I don’t know how you can make that assumption. Thanks for the crisp chat!

    Like

  28. Mike Duran Avatar

    Tim said, “The average reader is looking more for recommendations than critiques.” Again, how is this known and what’s the distinction? Recommendations involve critique, for heaven’s sake! How can I recommend something unless I’ve critiqued it? Once again, the distinction seems contrived.
    “…the general assumption that my reviews and Niocle’s are bogged down by the mileu in which we write. Is that based on first-hand experience with my reviews or a general assumption about Christian fiction and reviews by Christians of Christian fiction?” This subject veers from the one on the docket. I’d say both you and Nicole want to see Christian Fiction flourish and Christian authors succeed, and that ultimately comes through in your reviews. Isn’t that true?

    Like

  29. Nicole Avatar

    And since neither can you, I don’t see how you can authoritatively oppose it. You’re welcome!

    Like

  30. Nicole Avatar

    “I’d say both you and Nicole want to see Christian Fiction flourish and Christian authors succeed, and that ultimately comes through in your reviews. Isn’t that true?”
    Speaking for myself, yes, I do want to see Christian Fiction flourish and Christian authors succeed. Does it come through in my reviews? Only when there’s a knockout novel to review. I’m just as dissatisfied with the status quo in Christian Fiction as with ABA fare.

    Like

  31. Tim George Avatar

    I want GOOD Christian fiction to flourish. I want variety in what is available in Christian fiction. I want people to give a Mike Duran, or Nicole Petrino-Salter, or T.L. Hines a try when all they know about is Francine Rivers or Karen Kingsbury. That will not be accomplished in popular reviews by tackling the minutia of literary style. There is a place for that. Wait till you see what I do in a new literary magazine I will be reviewing for in the next few months. Different setting, different audience, different intent. Can’t say any more or I’m going to get in trouble. 🙂

    Like

  32. Mike Duran Avatar

    Nicole said, “And since neither can you, I don’t see how you can authoritatively oppose it.”
    Wha–?
    I’m not the one claiming to speak for the “average reader.” You are. I need “authority” to question that?
    Getting a bit silly now…

    Like

  33. Nicole Avatar

    Mike, you challenge me like I’m making a foolish claim, like I have no idea who this mythical “average reader” is. You think I make this claim without any substantial information about readers in general. You must think it’s whimsical and based solely on an opinion.
    I can tell you this much: you are not an average reader. You aren’t one of the readers putting novels on the NYT bestseller lists or supporting pulp fiction.
    You seem to think that your assessment of the “vast” reading public presents so much variance that it couldn’t possibly produce anything related to “an average reader” in the bunch. Well then, good for you.
    I don’t consider my claim to be unreasonable or silly.

    Like

Leave a reply to Brenda Anderson Cancel reply