Maintenance Monday
I'm going to borrow a little more shamelessly from Book Love Affair when it comes to the structure of these posts. First, we'll have a book topic/discussion/random poll, then I'll get to the technical nitty-gritty in terms of reminders and lists and whatnot. Also, I'm going to stop listing the reviews I've already posted. Unless you suggest otherwise, I don't think you need to be reminded of a review you've already seen. ;)
Approaching Book Reviews
darwinstorm asked me recently how I approached book reviews, and I thought that would be a great topic to discuss here. Not just for those of you who like to do the same thing, but so for you readers who might want to know my thought-process when I post a book review.
First and foremost: everyone's different. Everyone has something different that works for them. Ultimately and always, do what works for you. Book reviews don't have to be a long essay. I've seen some that "interviewed" the book in question, so when it comes to approach, if the traditional blogging method doesn't work for you, think outside the box! You never know what'll come to you!
Personally, I try to write reviews that would help me if I were the reader. So I don't like reviews where the bulk of it is summarizing the book. All I need is the basic premise, but I want to read the book to experience the story. I don't want it summarized before I ever get around to it. That said, in the sections behind the LJ cut, I do talk plot. Sometimes I bet that comes off as summary, but I do my best to not mention a plot point without in turn discussing my personal reaction to it. You know, because reaction is part of the journal name. :)
But seriously, that's how I view my reviews: my reactions to the books I read. My experience as a critiquer (I've been seriously critiquing unpublished work since spring of 2002) keeps me from getting overly fangirly, but it doesn't tame the ranting beast either, so I always strive for objectivity, even though there are times I fail. I strive for objectivity because I hate having other people's opinions handed to me as if said opinions were FACT. I hate the condescending tone of it, and it makes me resent the item reviewed and the reviewer. So when I have strong opinions, and when even though it's obvious that my reviews ARE opinions, I try to explain where I'm coming from. And when I can't, I try to point out that I may be acting irrational.
Like I said, I don't always succeed, but I try.
A basic rule of thumb, though, is this: when reviewing, talk about the stuff you thought was good and why (do you like character-driven stories? Rich world-building? Action-packed plot?) and talk about what didn't work for you and why (grammar make you crazy? Was the heroine a bitch?). And while I always aim for balance, sometimes that's not possible. Sometimes I have more good to say than bad, or sometimes I have more bad to say than good. And in the case of the latter, I always try to look for the good and think about the type of reader who WOULD like what I'm reviewing. Because while I'd like to believe otherwise, I am not God, so what my likes and dislikes do not and should not reflect that of the rest of the reading population.
And while this might be a crippling reminder, always write as if you know for a FACT the author will read your little review. ALWAYS. This means if you're going to rant like a bitch (I've done it), you better be able to stand behind that review if the author does come knocking (in his/her blog or your own). You better not put yourself in a position of apologizing for your position. It's one thing if you misread something, but it's another to bash a book and then fawn all over the author and say the author is awesome just because they read your review. Trust me when I say, there's been more than a few times when an author has commented to my review of their work. Trust me when I say that good or bad review, my blood always drains from my face, because I'm human, I want to be liked, and the author's human too. I feel bad about bad reviews, but I stand by them. You should too (but don't be bitchy defending those reviews either, even if the author is a bitch first).
I think that's more than enough. I hope this helps anyone who was wondering, and if you have questions, shoot them to me in the comments.
Book Club Selections
December: The Last Unicorn by Peter S. Beagle
January: The Adoration of Jenna Fox by Mary E. Pearson
Book Club Discussion: the review/discussion post for Racing the Dark is up! Don't forget to add your two cents and vote here. (Seriously, I need to know what my participation stats are). :)
EPIC POLL OF DOOM!!! Okay, so it's not OF DOOM, but it is an EPIC POLL and I really, really need your opinions and comments. If you haven't filled it out, just click here.
Upcoming Reviews: Indigo Springs by A.M. Dellamonica, Boneshaker by Cherie Priest, Magic Bites by Ilona Andrews, and Give Up the Ghost by Megan Crewe
Currently Reading: Oryx and Crake by Margaret Atwood
Book Meter: I might make this a regular feature for 2010, but I tallied up my completed reads and I only have 8 books to go before I hit 100 for the year. Can I do it? I sure hope so. I was well beyond 100 last year, but I'll be happy with 100 this year. What's your tally for the year so far?
Approaching Book Reviews
darwinstorm asked me recently how I approached book reviews, and I thought that would be a great topic to discuss here. Not just for those of you who like to do the same thing, but so for you readers who might want to know my thought-process when I post a book review.
First and foremost: everyone's different. Everyone has something different that works for them. Ultimately and always, do what works for you. Book reviews don't have to be a long essay. I've seen some that "interviewed" the book in question, so when it comes to approach, if the traditional blogging method doesn't work for you, think outside the box! You never know what'll come to you!
Personally, I try to write reviews that would help me if I were the reader. So I don't like reviews where the bulk of it is summarizing the book. All I need is the basic premise, but I want to read the book to experience the story. I don't want it summarized before I ever get around to it. That said, in the sections behind the LJ cut, I do talk plot. Sometimes I bet that comes off as summary, but I do my best to not mention a plot point without in turn discussing my personal reaction to it. You know, because reaction is part of the journal name. :)
But seriously, that's how I view my reviews: my reactions to the books I read. My experience as a critiquer (I've been seriously critiquing unpublished work since spring of 2002) keeps me from getting overly fangirly, but it doesn't tame the ranting beast either, so I always strive for objectivity, even though there are times I fail. I strive for objectivity because I hate having other people's opinions handed to me as if said opinions were FACT. I hate the condescending tone of it, and it makes me resent the item reviewed and the reviewer. So when I have strong opinions, and when even though it's obvious that my reviews ARE opinions, I try to explain where I'm coming from. And when I can't, I try to point out that I may be acting irrational.
Like I said, I don't always succeed, but I try.
A basic rule of thumb, though, is this: when reviewing, talk about the stuff you thought was good and why (do you like character-driven stories? Rich world-building? Action-packed plot?) and talk about what didn't work for you and why (grammar make you crazy? Was the heroine a bitch?). And while I always aim for balance, sometimes that's not possible. Sometimes I have more good to say than bad, or sometimes I have more bad to say than good. And in the case of the latter, I always try to look for the good and think about the type of reader who WOULD like what I'm reviewing. Because while I'd like to believe otherwise, I am not God, so what my likes and dislikes do not and should not reflect that of the rest of the reading population.
And while this might be a crippling reminder, always write as if you know for a FACT the author will read your little review. ALWAYS. This means if you're going to rant like a bitch (I've done it), you better be able to stand behind that review if the author does come knocking (in his/her blog or your own). You better not put yourself in a position of apologizing for your position. It's one thing if you misread something, but it's another to bash a book and then fawn all over the author and say the author is awesome just because they read your review. Trust me when I say, there's been more than a few times when an author has commented to my review of their work. Trust me when I say that good or bad review, my blood always drains from my face, because I'm human, I want to be liked, and the author's human too. I feel bad about bad reviews, but I stand by them. You should too (but don't be bitchy defending those reviews either, even if the author is a bitch first).
I think that's more than enough. I hope this helps anyone who was wondering, and if you have questions, shoot them to me in the comments.
Book Club Selections
December: The Last Unicorn by Peter S. Beagle
January: The Adoration of Jenna Fox by Mary E. Pearson
Book Club Discussion: the review/discussion post for Racing the Dark is up! Don't forget to add your two cents and vote here. (Seriously, I need to know what my participation stats are). :)
EPIC POLL OF DOOM!!! Okay, so it's not OF DOOM, but it is an EPIC POLL and I really, really need your opinions and comments. If you haven't filled it out, just click here.
Upcoming Reviews: Indigo Springs by A.M. Dellamonica, Boneshaker by Cherie Priest, Magic Bites by Ilona Andrews, and Give Up the Ghost by Megan Crewe
Currently Reading: Oryx and Crake by Margaret Atwood
Book Meter: I might make this a regular feature for 2010, but I tallied up my completed reads and I only have 8 books to go before I hit 100 for the year. Can I do it? I sure hope so. I was well beyond 100 last year, but I'll be happy with 100 this year. What's your tally for the year so far?