I do feel that RH has just used book reviews as pegs for rants and not bothered to find out whether the book actually contains rant worthy material or not.
I don't know. It seems to me that one of the reasons she had as many supporters as she did, and even still does, is because she did write some good reviews. I think that for many people, it's a 'being a fan of problematic things' issue. How problematic a thing is is a line we have to draw. Roman Polanski? He's a brilliant filmmaker, but I don't watch his films and think less of people who think his talent gives him a pass. Joss Whedon? I watch and wait, hoping that he will learn, because he seems to be teachable -- and not a criminal. RH? No way.
I only looked at a small sample of the reviews because there wasn't a big overlap between those she reviewed and those I knew well.
But on all of these I felt that either she hadn't read the book -maybe the sample kindle chapter and some other reviews -or if she had read the book had made a large number of errors or deliberate distortions in her review.
She isn't the only person who does that- Christopher Priest pulled the same cheap trick when reviewing Sherri Tepper's admittedly rather weak book in his Hugo awards rant in the Guardian.
People usually read reviews when they're deciding whether or not to read a book rather than when they are already familiar with the book, so they're not going to pick up on those errors and distortions.
I'm sure that colourful rants may make for eye-catching prose and pull in an audience but it's not a review let alone a good one.
I think there are two senses of "fan of problematic things" here: is the work inherently problematic, or is it problematic because of other things we know about the creator? Woody Allen's Manhattan is creepier given what we know now than it was when the movie was first released, for example.
Again, it matters whether the attack review is dishonest (or carelessly misleading in major ways) about the contents of the book/movie/etc. "I dislike the prose style" is inherently subjective, in a way that "kills off all the female characters" or "is allegedly set in England, but the police procedure and legal background are American and include things that wouldn't happen in England." The sort of thing that TVTropes might file under "Did not do the research," which can certainly be fertile ground for snark.
Yes. Although in this case, I think it's a problematic thing by a problematic person .
EDITED: that is, I have no problems with snark when it's deserved, as in your examples. I think calling people on factual error (including things like the way people speak, or in how the lives of a social group are portrayed) is important and necessary. Those things aren't misleading unless the reviewer is being dishonest or slipshod.
Reply
Reply
But on all of these I felt that either she hadn't read the book -maybe the sample kindle chapter and some other reviews -or if she had read the book had made a large number of errors or deliberate distortions in her review.
She isn't the only person who does that- Christopher Priest pulled the same cheap trick when reviewing Sherri Tepper's admittedly rather weak book in his Hugo awards rant in the Guardian.
People usually read reviews when they're deciding whether or not to read a book rather than when they are already familiar with the book, so they're not going to pick up on those errors and distortions.
I'm sure that colourful rants may make for eye-catching prose and pull in an audience but it's not a review let alone a good one.
Reply
Again, it matters whether the attack review is dishonest (or carelessly misleading in major ways) about the contents of the book/movie/etc. "I dislike the prose style" is inherently subjective, in a way that "kills off all the female characters" or "is allegedly set in England, but the police procedure and legal background are American and include things that wouldn't happen in England." The sort of thing that TVTropes might file under "Did not do the research," which can certainly be fertile ground for snark.
Reply
EDITED: that is, I have no problems with snark when it's deserved, as in your examples. I think calling people on factual error (including things like the way people speak, or in how the lives of a social group are portrayed) is important and necessary. Those things aren't misleading unless the reviewer is being dishonest or slipshod.
Reply
Leave a comment