The change in the publishing world has pushed writers and
readers onto the Internet faster than the offer of a free trip to the Bahamas,
but we have adopted the new way of life without thinking much about it except
how to manage the technology. Goodreads has recently stepped in to tighten up
its policies, deleting reviews it deems unsuitable and shelves in a reviewer’s
page, and Amazon is deleting certain books in a certain category (hint: think
porn).
All this change has some readers and reviewers reacting
loudly and angrily because they have come to regard these sites as public
spaces where individual rights applh. The reactions are to (1) Goodreads making
the changes without announcing them directly to all members of GR and (2)
deletion of reviews and shelves without an explanation first.
I understand the emotional reactions from reviewers who have
lost reviews without warning. Some have put time and effort into their reviews,
stating clearly what they dislike and why. They take reviewing very seriously,
and strive to present a thorough understanding of the book under review. But I
also understand the decision of GR to delete the negative reviews. Writers who
have received mean-spirited reviews that seem to attack the writer for writing
rather than discussing the book have had no recourse to this kind of cyber
bullying and will be relieved at the new policies.
The truth is, most reviews now are written by people who
have little or no experience in the world of journalism; they are not
professionals, trained and vetted by any independent organization. As
reviewers, many do no more than react. They do not think first and write
second. They do not give time or thought to why they dislike a particular book.
And they blur the line between disliking the book and disliking the author. Personal
feelings about the writer have no place in a review, and shouldn’t motivate a
negative review either. A review is supposed to be about the book, to guide
readers who are interested in finding books that will be entertaining,
interesting, and rewarding in insight and experience as well as within the type
they most prefer.
We have become a nation of individuals with short attention
spans. The book that requires the reader to “dawdle” through the first chapter
to get to know characters and ways of seeing the world is sure to get a
negative review. A book with a terse style that is meant to mimic a particular
group of people will certainly turn off some readers. But many readers are not
going to understand that the fault, to paraphrase Shakespeare inventing a quote
by Caesar, “is not in the stars but in ourselves,” that we are untrained
readers telling the world what we dislike.
Reviews of self-published books are useful as feedback from
unsolicited beta readers, and negative reviews of commercially published books
can also be useful. But reviews that are snide and mean are of no use to
anyone. They are often a brief one or two lines, which suggests that the
reviewer didn’t read the whole book, didn’t begin reading with a willingness to
give the book a fair hearing, and didn’t try to understand how the book fit in
the genre or contributed to the topic. If you only enjoy modern spy thrillers,
why are you reading for review a romance novel set in nineteenth century
France?
The controversy will continue, and the new gatekeepers,
Goodreads and Amazon among others, will have to continue making decisions about
what will be allowable on their sites. Some people will agree with their
decisions and others will not. But all of us will learn more about the kinds of
people who are out in the world looking for an opportunity to tell the world
what they think.
If you are interested in the discussion on GR, go http://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/1507089-new-rules-from-goodreads
And if you are interested in the policy statements, go
and for the update
on the policy statements go
