This is a very useful article, I appreciate Inner Life posting it here since I've been taking the time to learn lessons from my Ernaux reviews, which may have, at times, appeared to some like the revenge posts you mention here. 😇 (They're not: rather, I expose certain hidden motives that, for certain reasons, I just can't reveal objectively)
In terms of whether we need book reviews, part of the reason I do series' like this is that in the world of oversaturation, a lot of "cleaning house" needs to happen. Book reviews can help with that. In the case of my Nobel series, readers can know which are the most worthwhile books (which I place on my charts objectively, even if the review itself might differ) and which ones they can avoid, unless they end up becoming a fan; something that is also more likely if people know where to start. Almost all the people I've met who dislike Dostoyevsky have one thing in common: they read The Idiot first, when they should have started with Crime and Punishment. Suffice to say there are a lot of utilitarian functions book reviews still have today. Making sense of oversaturation is one such function.
Don't know about those reviews on Amazon or Goodreads. In the long term those casual reviews don't tell a prospective reader nearly enough of what they need to know. And they hinder the process of rediscovery. That is good news for Substack: if Ted Gioia is right about the return of long-form content, then that could also mean a return of longer, more detailed book reviews.
I base this solely on intuition, and my own experience. But out of the four widely-accepted Dostoyevsky masterpieces - The Idiot, The Brothers Karamazov, Crime & Punishment and Notes From The Underground - it is the most universal. Every man and woman on the face of the planet who uses their brain has an opinion about these concepts. As mentioned, the Idiot doesn't have a good track record irrespective of the novel's strengths. (My experience, once again, but I'm really not kidding when I say that every Dostoyevsky disliker I've encountered started with The Idiot) There are readers today who would be turned off by the undisguised Christian dimensions of Karamazov, unfortunate but true; nor does the prominent Pole Dostoyevsky satirizes in this book make it an ideal recommendation for my fellow Poles, for whom I would already be going out on a limb by recommending a Russian writer who loved his country and people. And while I would accept a case made for Notes From The Underground - I certainly think it's the next best starting point, and the best for those who aren't into huge novels - it's not a story that reveals its secrets right away. I have no problem with that, but other readers might be less patient.
Though thinking about it a bit more, The Gambler is a safe first read as well. But because it's Dostoyevsky's best comedy and is set abroad in dramatically different circumstances, it doesn't prepare the reader for his other works all that well.
Thanks, Felix. I hadn't thought of book reviews as an antidote to over-saturation, but it's true. Although in my case it often works in the opposite way. When I read the review that began "This is the worst book on education I've ever read", it made me want to read it. On the other hand, when a book is proclaimed as being "hilarious", "laugh out loud" I usually avoid the book because in so many cases statements like that have proven to be somewhat exaggerated.
No problem! A lot of authors - particularly of Celtic extract - have tended to appreciate the beauty of a negative review and how it gets people more interested, rather than less. (I have James Joyce and Alasdair Gray in mind) But while it might complicate efforts to lessen oversaturation, I'm okay with that reaction in readers. It means that clearing up the oversaturation doesn't have to result in death sentences for those that don't get favorable reviews.
Every point in this essay about the way book reviews sometimes get done, Terry, needed to be said. Before we read book reviews, we do indeed need to consider the source, as you point out. Kudos on a well thought-out piece. Your edge of humor in places adds to its candor, believability. Overall, on the full essay, I salute your expertise. Thank you for joining us on Inner Life.
One of my creative writing mentors, whom I'll not name here, confided to me once that he held back a lot of his honest opinion while blurbing a younger writer's book. What you don't touch on, Terry, is that blurbing is a version of book reviewing that is purely driven by marketing. This is one of the curses of becoming a well-known author -- you become deluged by blurb requests (not that I have experienced this, personally, but it's a common complaint). My mentor had been asked to write a blurb that would then figure prominently on the back cover and in the online description. He told me that it was a young man's book, and that some parts of it were silly, like being "mad at" a certain city. But he also confessed that in his line of work there were no upsides to criticizing a work -- you either did the blurb and wrote a nice one or you refused.
There is a side of this that parallels the social media phenomenon of "liking" everything. It's kind of the opposite of trolling. Neither is terribly productive, I don't think, because I've read a lot of glowing blurbs and reviews that oversold the work. And then I was either disappointed or a little miffed at the dishonesty.
But I know the pain of a petty review. One of the Amazon reviews of my memoir was written by someone who seemed angry about my book for reasons I still don't quite understand. Many of his criticisms seemed to be critiques of the memoir genre, itself, not really my own writing. For instance, we all kind of have to position ourselves as the protagonist in our memoirs, and we have to clarify the stakes of our stories. What one person sees as compelling stakes, I suppose another reader might see as melodrama. Hard to please everyone. But that review lives on.
As a result of my own experience, I'll admit that I don't read any of the reviews or blurbs before buying a book. It all feels like either marketing tripe or one-note congratulation. Bad reviews quite often negate themselves, the way whiny student evaluations do. I know there are some thoughtful reviewers like you out there, but I really wonder if it's worth your time to weigh in because your thoughtful points will be jumbled up with a lot of other noise. At the same time, I'd dearly love for a reviewer like you to review my memoir on Amazon, not just to drive up the gold stars, but to know that the work resonated with you. So perhaps Philippa has the best approach: if you don't have something nice to say, keep it to yourself, but if you do like a work, saying so in a review will at least mean something to the author, perhaps because of all the other insipid reviews.
Now you have me thinking, which is the highest compliment I can give -- count it as my review of your post!
Thanks, Joshua, and thanks for the compliment! I perhaps should have mentioned blurbs. Your comment reminded me that I'd intended to publish a review of a book called Blurb Your Enthusiasm, by Louise Wilder. I've scheduled that for Friday now. I think the word "blurb" has slightly different meanings in the UK and USA, but Wilder says that "The blurb must summarise the book's themes and entice potential buyers, but not appear to be written by the author's mother." which I think sums up the problem!
A big issue with Amazon is that they own your review. A non-starter I would think for many reviewers.
Likes on Substack are odd since you can then pull up a list of who “liked” a piece. And guess what? The people who also have Substack newsletters (sometimes the majority of the likers) are listed at the top.
Bob Dylan’s new book is an odd duck, particularly when you see no blurbs anywhere, and how the back fold of the dust jacket, where the publisher normally blows and snorts about the author’s credentials, is blank. Nor does the book have a photo of Dylan anywhere. And it doesn’t have an introduction or a forward by someone else (more promotion). Every writer’s dream?
That blankness sounds like a marketing ploy in itself. Interesting. I agree about Amazon owning the review. Unfortunately I think writers need Amazon reviews to help their sales.
Well, maybe anti-marketing, like the Beatles’ White Album or Brian Eno’s Music for Films. Or maybe it’s Bob having a laugh. Or just possibly trying to direct our attention to the songs he writes about.
I haven’t looked at Amazon for a few years, so I’m trying to make sense of the book review system there. It would seem that what a reviewer really wants is a way to stand out from the thousands of “Customer reviews” that some books have, often little more than a sentence or two. Amazon does feature excerpts from “Editorial Reviews” (although no links to them) from Kirkus all the way down (?) to Book Him Danno Blog (I did not make that up). But it’s not clear how to get in that select company.
On IMDb (also an Amazon property) it’s a different system. If you have an actual Web site or blog such that you can come up with a link to your review, then you can post that link in the “Critic reviews” (External reviews) section, alongside Roger Ebert and Sight & Sound (well, below those, but alphabetically by site/blog name). And they don’t own your review since it’s not hosted by IMDb. Or you can post in the “User reviews” section, alongside thousands of one-sentence reviews.
i didn';t know all that about IMDb and hadn't heard of that blog! My knowledge of Amazon reviews, which is a few years old now so may no longer be true, is that once you get 50 genuine reviews their algorithm kicks in and starts promoting the book. I found it very hard to get anywhere near that number. <sigh>
I just read Martin Amis' The Information. The main character is a book reviewer facing up to failure as a novelist the hard way by revenge (as you mentioned) against a writer friend who doesn't deserve his success. Funny and dark.
Interesting article, although a bit 'cynical' in calling every book reviewer biased and self motivated. I think that you listed some *possible* reasons for reviewing a book, but also, I personally enjoy reviewing books for my own entertainment and education--it gives me practice in writing and I am forced to pay attention better when I write it. I would actually venture to say that 95% of book reviews (Amazon, Goodreads) are unbiased (although subjective) book reviews on what the reader liked, enjoyed, and thought missed the mark. But I also think that you listed some interesting reasons for book reviews which might veer off the typical path.
Thanks, Joaquin. I don't think I said every reviewer was self-motivated. As for bias, I think it's unavoidable. I don't think that's being cynical, just realistic (which may of course be the same thing!). If you and I each review the same book, our past experiences and current knowledge differ, so in that sense we're each going to be biased in a different way. I might be tempted to suggest that the only purely objective review would be one "written" by AI, but even that wouldn't work because the AI programs embed the biases of the people who created them.
It seems to me that for writers there are two pretty good reasons for writing a review without worrying about objectivity or maybe even the matter of expertise.
The first reason would be just to celebrate something you liked; you want to spread your enthusiasm around. You can say up front that you liked a book and here’s why. That indicates bias, sure, but really no different than saying to a friend, “I found a great little restaurant that I think you’ll like.”
As readers, we all have our blind spots. And every book probably has a group of potential readers that isn’t being reached. Even classics can be written about in new ways, even if not in a review per se.
The second reason might be to use a new work to write one of the old-style review-essays. That is, the article is ostensibly about the new work, but what you really want to write about is a larger body of work that the new work is part of or a subject that the new work addresses. Or maybe it just gives you a chance to write about your own personal hobby horse.
Maybe this reason is a little selfish, but it seems like it’s an obvious two-fer: readers interested in the new work, check; readers interested in the genre or subject, check.
Thanks, Frank. I agree on both counts. On the first one, I don't see bias as bad, it just is. I think hidden bias is problematic, or potentially so.
As for the essay review, I love reading them myself, in places like the New York Review of Books. Tackling several books in one article usually results in a post that is far greater than the sum of its parts. I have sometimes tackled the essay review myself, but it's time-consuming!
A few years ago I decided that reviewing self-published books ( which have difficulties in finding reviewers for obvious reasons) was one way I could 'pay it forward'. Not for friends, nor for a free copy. I always bought the book so if I felt I could not review it favourably the author would get at least something. Instead of attempting objectivity I based my review on how the book appealed to me, If it didn't I did not review it. This applied not only to non-fiction but poetry and fiction as well. Because of Amazon's insistence that only 'certified purchasers' could review I never received similar reviews myself, so the paying forward was a false hope but I still stand by the reviews I wrote. Subjective and openly so.
Thanks, Philippa. I think your approach was a good one. I also think that getting repaid for paying it forward doesn't necessarily come from the same person. For example, I was bought lunch by someone a few years ago when I inadvertently left the house with no money. A few years ago I bought lunch for a completely unconnected person 8n the same position 😃
A terrific post, Terry - thank you for the masterclass! I've learned a great deal. 😊
Thanks, Rebecca :-)
This is a very useful article, I appreciate Inner Life posting it here since I've been taking the time to learn lessons from my Ernaux reviews, which may have, at times, appeared to some like the revenge posts you mention here. 😇 (They're not: rather, I expose certain hidden motives that, for certain reasons, I just can't reveal objectively)
In terms of whether we need book reviews, part of the reason I do series' like this is that in the world of oversaturation, a lot of "cleaning house" needs to happen. Book reviews can help with that. In the case of my Nobel series, readers can know which are the most worthwhile books (which I place on my charts objectively, even if the review itself might differ) and which ones they can avoid, unless they end up becoming a fan; something that is also more likely if people know where to start. Almost all the people I've met who dislike Dostoyevsky have one thing in common: they read The Idiot first, when they should have started with Crime and Punishment. Suffice to say there are a lot of utilitarian functions book reviews still have today. Making sense of oversaturation is one such function.
Don't know about those reviews on Amazon or Goodreads. In the long term those casual reviews don't tell a prospective reader nearly enough of what they need to know. And they hinder the process of rediscovery. That is good news for Substack: if Ted Gioia is right about the return of long-form content, then that could also mean a return of longer, more detailed book reviews.
PS Why is Crime & Punishment the better place to start with Dostoevsky?
I base this solely on intuition, and my own experience. But out of the four widely-accepted Dostoyevsky masterpieces - The Idiot, The Brothers Karamazov, Crime & Punishment and Notes From The Underground - it is the most universal. Every man and woman on the face of the planet who uses their brain has an opinion about these concepts. As mentioned, the Idiot doesn't have a good track record irrespective of the novel's strengths. (My experience, once again, but I'm really not kidding when I say that every Dostoyevsky disliker I've encountered started with The Idiot) There are readers today who would be turned off by the undisguised Christian dimensions of Karamazov, unfortunate but true; nor does the prominent Pole Dostoyevsky satirizes in this book make it an ideal recommendation for my fellow Poles, for whom I would already be going out on a limb by recommending a Russian writer who loved his country and people. And while I would accept a case made for Notes From The Underground - I certainly think it's the next best starting point, and the best for those who aren't into huge novels - it's not a story that reveals its secrets right away. I have no problem with that, but other readers might be less patient.
Though thinking about it a bit more, The Gambler is a safe first read as well. But because it's Dostoyevsky's best comedy and is set abroad in dramatically different circumstances, it doesn't prepare the reader for his other works all that well.
What are your thoughts on that?
Thanks, Felix. I hadn't thought of book reviews as an antidote to over-saturation, but it's true. Although in my case it often works in the opposite way. When I read the review that began "This is the worst book on education I've ever read", it made me want to read it. On the other hand, when a book is proclaimed as being "hilarious", "laugh out loud" I usually avoid the book because in so many cases statements like that have proven to be somewhat exaggerated.
No problem! A lot of authors - particularly of Celtic extract - have tended to appreciate the beauty of a negative review and how it gets people more interested, rather than less. (I have James Joyce and Alasdair Gray in mind) But while it might complicate efforts to lessen oversaturation, I'm okay with that reaction in readers. It means that clearing up the oversaturation doesn't have to result in death sentences for those that don't get favorable reviews.
very true
Every point in this essay about the way book reviews sometimes get done, Terry, needed to be said. Before we read book reviews, we do indeed need to consider the source, as you point out. Kudos on a well thought-out piece. Your edge of humor in places adds to its candor, believability. Overall, on the full essay, I salute your expertise. Thank you for joining us on Inner Life.
Thanks very much, Mary -- and thanks for inviting me.
One of my creative writing mentors, whom I'll not name here, confided to me once that he held back a lot of his honest opinion while blurbing a younger writer's book. What you don't touch on, Terry, is that blurbing is a version of book reviewing that is purely driven by marketing. This is one of the curses of becoming a well-known author -- you become deluged by blurb requests (not that I have experienced this, personally, but it's a common complaint). My mentor had been asked to write a blurb that would then figure prominently on the back cover and in the online description. He told me that it was a young man's book, and that some parts of it were silly, like being "mad at" a certain city. But he also confessed that in his line of work there were no upsides to criticizing a work -- you either did the blurb and wrote a nice one or you refused.
There is a side of this that parallels the social media phenomenon of "liking" everything. It's kind of the opposite of trolling. Neither is terribly productive, I don't think, because I've read a lot of glowing blurbs and reviews that oversold the work. And then I was either disappointed or a little miffed at the dishonesty.
But I know the pain of a petty review. One of the Amazon reviews of my memoir was written by someone who seemed angry about my book for reasons I still don't quite understand. Many of his criticisms seemed to be critiques of the memoir genre, itself, not really my own writing. For instance, we all kind of have to position ourselves as the protagonist in our memoirs, and we have to clarify the stakes of our stories. What one person sees as compelling stakes, I suppose another reader might see as melodrama. Hard to please everyone. But that review lives on.
As a result of my own experience, I'll admit that I don't read any of the reviews or blurbs before buying a book. It all feels like either marketing tripe or one-note congratulation. Bad reviews quite often negate themselves, the way whiny student evaluations do. I know there are some thoughtful reviewers like you out there, but I really wonder if it's worth your time to weigh in because your thoughtful points will be jumbled up with a lot of other noise. At the same time, I'd dearly love for a reviewer like you to review my memoir on Amazon, not just to drive up the gold stars, but to know that the work resonated with you. So perhaps Philippa has the best approach: if you don't have something nice to say, keep it to yourself, but if you do like a work, saying so in a review will at least mean something to the author, perhaps because of all the other insipid reviews.
Now you have me thinking, which is the highest compliment I can give -- count it as my review of your post!
Thanks, Joshua, and thanks for the compliment! I perhaps should have mentioned blurbs. Your comment reminded me that I'd intended to publish a review of a book called Blurb Your Enthusiasm, by Louise Wilder. I've scheduled that for Friday now. I think the word "blurb" has slightly different meanings in the UK and USA, but Wilder says that "The blurb must summarise the book's themes and entice potential buyers, but not appear to be written by the author's mother." which I think sums up the problem!
A big issue with Amazon is that they own your review. A non-starter I would think for many reviewers.
Likes on Substack are odd since you can then pull up a list of who “liked” a piece. And guess what? The people who also have Substack newsletters (sometimes the majority of the likers) are listed at the top.
Bob Dylan’s new book is an odd duck, particularly when you see no blurbs anywhere, and how the back fold of the dust jacket, where the publisher normally blows and snorts about the author’s credentials, is blank. Nor does the book have a photo of Dylan anywhere. And it doesn’t have an introduction or a forward by someone else (more promotion). Every writer’s dream?
That blankness sounds like a marketing ploy in itself. Interesting. I agree about Amazon owning the review. Unfortunately I think writers need Amazon reviews to help their sales.
Well, maybe anti-marketing, like the Beatles’ White Album or Brian Eno’s Music for Films. Or maybe it’s Bob having a laugh. Or just possibly trying to direct our attention to the songs he writes about.
I haven’t looked at Amazon for a few years, so I’m trying to make sense of the book review system there. It would seem that what a reviewer really wants is a way to stand out from the thousands of “Customer reviews” that some books have, often little more than a sentence or two. Amazon does feature excerpts from “Editorial Reviews” (although no links to them) from Kirkus all the way down (?) to Book Him Danno Blog (I did not make that up). But it’s not clear how to get in that select company.
On IMDb (also an Amazon property) it’s a different system. If you have an actual Web site or blog such that you can come up with a link to your review, then you can post that link in the “Critic reviews” (External reviews) section, alongside Roger Ebert and Sight & Sound (well, below those, but alphabetically by site/blog name). And they don’t own your review since it’s not hosted by IMDb. Or you can post in the “User reviews” section, alongside thousands of one-sentence reviews.
i didn';t know all that about IMDb and hadn't heard of that blog! My knowledge of Amazon reviews, which is a few years old now so may no longer be true, is that once you get 50 genuine reviews their algorithm kicks in and starts promoting the book. I found it very hard to get anywhere near that number. <sigh>
A beautifully edited piece, Terry. Smart. Thoughtful.
Thanks very much, Sharron :-)
I just read Martin Amis' The Information. The main character is a book reviewer facing up to failure as a novelist the hard way by revenge (as you mentioned) against a writer friend who doesn't deserve his success. Funny and dark.
Cheers, Mosby. I'm going to have to read that. Another one for the already-toppling TBR list -- thanks, mate!
Interesting article, although a bit 'cynical' in calling every book reviewer biased and self motivated. I think that you listed some *possible* reasons for reviewing a book, but also, I personally enjoy reviewing books for my own entertainment and education--it gives me practice in writing and I am forced to pay attention better when I write it. I would actually venture to say that 95% of book reviews (Amazon, Goodreads) are unbiased (although subjective) book reviews on what the reader liked, enjoyed, and thought missed the mark. But I also think that you listed some interesting reasons for book reviews which might veer off the typical path.
Thanks, Joaquin. I don't think I said every reviewer was self-motivated. As for bias, I think it's unavoidable. I don't think that's being cynical, just realistic (which may of course be the same thing!). If you and I each review the same book, our past experiences and current knowledge differ, so in that sense we're each going to be biased in a different way. I might be tempted to suggest that the only purely objective review would be one "written" by AI, but even that wouldn't work because the AI programs embed the biases of the people who created them.
It seems to me that for writers there are two pretty good reasons for writing a review without worrying about objectivity or maybe even the matter of expertise.
The first reason would be just to celebrate something you liked; you want to spread your enthusiasm around. You can say up front that you liked a book and here’s why. That indicates bias, sure, but really no different than saying to a friend, “I found a great little restaurant that I think you’ll like.”
As readers, we all have our blind spots. And every book probably has a group of potential readers that isn’t being reached. Even classics can be written about in new ways, even if not in a review per se.
The second reason might be to use a new work to write one of the old-style review-essays. That is, the article is ostensibly about the new work, but what you really want to write about is a larger body of work that the new work is part of or a subject that the new work addresses. Or maybe it just gives you a chance to write about your own personal hobby horse.
Maybe this reason is a little selfish, but it seems like it’s an obvious two-fer: readers interested in the new work, check; readers interested in the genre or subject, check.
Thanks, Frank. I agree on both counts. On the first one, I don't see bias as bad, it just is. I think hidden bias is problematic, or potentially so.
As for the essay review, I love reading them myself, in places like the New York Review of Books. Tackling several books in one article usually results in a post that is far greater than the sum of its parts. I have sometimes tackled the essay review myself, but it's time-consuming!
A few years ago I decided that reviewing self-published books ( which have difficulties in finding reviewers for obvious reasons) was one way I could 'pay it forward'. Not for friends, nor for a free copy. I always bought the book so if I felt I could not review it favourably the author would get at least something. Instead of attempting objectivity I based my review on how the book appealed to me, If it didn't I did not review it. This applied not only to non-fiction but poetry and fiction as well. Because of Amazon's insistence that only 'certified purchasers' could review I never received similar reviews myself, so the paying forward was a false hope but I still stand by the reviews I wrote. Subjective and openly so.
I like this approach. Thoughtful and commendable.
Thanks, Philippa. I think your approach was a good one. I also think that getting repaid for paying it forward doesn't necessarily come from the same person. For example, I was bought lunch by someone a few years ago when I inadvertently left the house with no money. A few years ago I bought lunch for a completely unconnected person 8n the same position 😃
Always taken that view but it works better without the intervention of Amazon always assuming the worst!
Very true!