might err slightly on the side of subtlety
I’ve been thinking again about book reviews and star ratings after I saw a snippet of a Twitter discussion in which YA authors were expressing irritation with reviews that are along the lines of “I probably would have loved this as a teenager and given it 5 stars. But I think I may be too old for it, so...2 stars.”
I understand why this is frustrating for authors, especially in an environment where a book’s average ratings can affect sales. But I think it’s really a problem with the system, rather than with readers. Even if a site specifies that two stars is “okay” and five stars is “amazing”, there’s unlikely to be consensus on whether that should be “okay for a book in this particular genre” or “okay for a book in general”, and everyone will have their own interpretations of what both of those mean, depending on their taste and what other books they’ve read. It’s always going to be subjective.
Also, as a reader, ratings can be a quick, visual way of expressing -- and recording -- how much you liked a book. Now. When you read it. Especially when you don’t have the time or inclination to write a lengthy review. From this perspective I think it’s fair enough to leave reviews that boil down to “teenage me would have said 5 stars but me today says 2 stars”.
The authors’ retort to such reviews was “You’re not the intended audience”. I’m not going to argue with that, but I also think that’s isn’t necessarily obvious to all readers.
If a book has teenage protagonists and is sold as YA, that doesn’t actually confirm what the author was thinking when they wrote it. It just tells you what category the publishers thought the book would best sell under. And even if the author was thinking specifically of a teenage audience, that in and of it self doesn’t exclude the possibility that they also had other readers in mind.
Personally I try to consider things like a book’s intended audience, and to analyse and articulate the reasons for my reactions, but if I look back, I can see that over the years that I’ve been reviewing practically everything I read, I’ve become much better at being fair and thoughtful. It’s not something that just comes automatically. (Also I have a degree in English and time that I can afford to spend being particular about how I review things. Not everyone has that.)
I don’t know where I’m going with this. It’s all subjective. Readers are allowed to have subjective reactions to the books they read and to rate books however the heck they feel like, and authors are allowed to be grumpy about it.
Ellen Emerson White, All Emergencies, Ring Super: Dana, an actress working as a building superintendent while she works out what to do next, is asked by a teenager to investigate a building fire.
The first part of this book was curiously lacking in tension. I enjoyed Dana’s interactions with people but some of the bits in between were almost dull. Seriously, can’t White write an interesting book about adults? I wondered --- and then the tension kicked in and things became intensely personal. By the end of the book, I was seriously disappointed that there isn’t a whole series about Dana solving mysteries.
I like that Dana investigates by doing research at the library, making use of her acting abilities and enlisting the support of her friends. Her female friendships are one of the highlights of this book: Molly, a firefighter who is wary new acquaintance; Valerie, a fellow actor who is so cheerfully and unquestioningly willing to get involved; and Peggy, who says things like “Look, it’s your life, you’re free to do something stupid, if you want, but I don’t have to help you.”... yet is willing to go to great lengths for Dana, with Dana.
Several with Dana’s relationships -- most notably with Molly, with Peggy, and with the romantic interest when he eventually turns up -- involve smart, difficult people who are honest with each other and decide it is worth the effort required to build/maintain this relationship. That’s a dynamic I find interesting. And entertaining.
I’m not quite sure what to think of White’s tendency to make things intense and personal by having her main character be physically assaulted and threatened, but the way she writes about the aftermath of trauma is compelling and thoughtful. (Also I appreciate that her heroines are not sexually assaulted.)
In other noteworthy details: Dana has a dog (and also several cats). And I wish there were sequels.“I pay my bills, I don’t have any debts, I can afford to go to a movie or a ball game now and again,” Dana said. “So, what’s the problem?”
“You’re wasting a lot of education and God-given talent,” Peggy said.
Well-education, at any rate. Dana shrugged. “My prerogative.”
“What are you going to do?” Peggy asked. “Just walk up and accuse him?”
Probably. “Well, I might err slightly on the side of subtlety,” Dana said.
Peggy kept frowning. “Are you familiar with the words ‘slander’ and ‘libel’?”
Oh, please. “Are you familiar with the phrase ‘cocktail party conversation’?” Dana asked.
Midway through the second quarter, she got an idea.
“Best defense is a good offense,” she said.
Peggy frowned at her. “Please don’t discuss sports with me, Dana.”
Yeah, yeah, yeah. “I want to get into his house,” Dana said. “Poke around a little, see if there’s anything incriminating.”
“Please don’t discuss breaking the law with me, Dana,” Peggy said, with the exact same inflection.
Theodora Goss, The Sinister Mystery of the Mesmerizing Girl: The Athena Club return to London from one extraordinary adventure (see: European Travel for the Monstrous Gentlewoman) and are plunged into another. Their teenaged kitchen maid Alice has been kidnapped, Sherlock Holmes is missing and there is a plot afoot to impersonate the queen.
This story has adventure, teamwork, mystery, unexpected twists, more cameos by characters from popular Victorian fiction, and commentary on late Victorian concerns (like empire and eugenics). I particularly liked seeing Alice become a central part of the story, and her complicated relationship with her newly-discovered mother.
But my favourite part was not the adventures of the Athena Club but how they tell them -- their interactions when they interrupt the narrative to discuss their lives together, to highlight what they think is important or to argue about what Catherine has chosen to include in the narrative. Their voices often are present, even in the middle of a scene that isn’t about them, and I like what these interruptions reveal: a team, a household, a family. BEATRICE: They are the clothing of the New Woman. They are meant not to be feminine, but practical.
CATHERINE: On women they look like men’s clothing, on men they look like women’s clothing. That’s where the New Woman meets the Dandy.
BEATRICE: Why is it necessary to categorize people in that fashion? Why can we not all wear whatever we wish, whatever is useful and aesthetically pleasing? I believe that someday we shall all wear garments that are light and of a pleasing texture, easy to put on and take off. At the same time, they will express the aspirations of the spirit. They will be like the garments of the Greeks, both graceful and functional. Why can we not dress in such a fashion now?
MRS. POOLE: Because this is England, and you would all catch your deaths of cold.
JUSTINE: Mr. Gray is not what society deems him to be. He has been greatly misunderstood. He assures me that he had no intention of harming Mr. Wilde.
MARY: He would say that.
CATHERINE: Can we not discuss the Wilde scandal in the middle of my book? You’re going to get it banned in Boston, and such other puritanical places.
MARY: I checked in the Encyclopaedia Britannica. It says pumas like to swim. Why are you such a coward about water?
CATHERINE: Pumas like to swim. In calm, clear, cool water, preferably in tropical jungles. Where does it say they like to walk around in chilly, intermittent rain that never seems to end? Also, as you may have noticed, pumas have fur-a thick, luxurious pelt of it. Moreau deprived me of that. I like water when it’s not coming out of the sky, and when I know I’m not going to be shipwrecked in it.
MRS. POOLE: That must account for your endless baths.
No, the idea of writing about their experiences-hers, Mary’s, Diana’s, Beatrice’s, and Justine’s, was silly. Who would read such an account? Anyway, the others would never allow her to write it. They would not want their lives, their thoughts, exposed to the public.
MARY: And we still don’t. Really, Cat, you ought to listen to us when we tell you there are certain things we don’t want the general public to know. After all, these are our lives.
CATHERINE: Who is this we? You’re the only one who ever objects to anything. [...] You’re just upset because I keep writing about things that you think are embarrassing.
MARY: Well, yes. There is that.
CATHERINE: If you want me to write that in Dutch, you’ll have to translate it yourself.
DIANA: Why don’t you ask Lucinda?
CATHERINE: Because she’s gone out hunting, and honestly I wish I’d gone with her! At least you wouldn’t keep coming in here all the time and interrupting. This is the problem with being in the office-or the library, since we’re calling it that now. Some days, it’s like trying to write in Piccadilly Circus!
Originally @ Dreamwidth.
I understand why this is frustrating for authors, especially in an environment where a book’s average ratings can affect sales. But I think it’s really a problem with the system, rather than with readers. Even if a site specifies that two stars is “okay” and five stars is “amazing”, there’s unlikely to be consensus on whether that should be “okay for a book in this particular genre” or “okay for a book in general”, and everyone will have their own interpretations of what both of those mean, depending on their taste and what other books they’ve read. It’s always going to be subjective.
Also, as a reader, ratings can be a quick, visual way of expressing -- and recording -- how much you liked a book. Now. When you read it. Especially when you don’t have the time or inclination to write a lengthy review. From this perspective I think it’s fair enough to leave reviews that boil down to “teenage me would have said 5 stars but me today says 2 stars”.
The authors’ retort to such reviews was “You’re not the intended audience”. I’m not going to argue with that, but I also think that’s isn’t necessarily obvious to all readers.
If a book has teenage protagonists and is sold as YA, that doesn’t actually confirm what the author was thinking when they wrote it. It just tells you what category the publishers thought the book would best sell under. And even if the author was thinking specifically of a teenage audience, that in and of it self doesn’t exclude the possibility that they also had other readers in mind.
Personally I try to consider things like a book’s intended audience, and to analyse and articulate the reasons for my reactions, but if I look back, I can see that over the years that I’ve been reviewing practically everything I read, I’ve become much better at being fair and thoughtful. It’s not something that just comes automatically. (Also I have a degree in English and time that I can afford to spend being particular about how I review things. Not everyone has that.)
I don’t know where I’m going with this. It’s all subjective. Readers are allowed to have subjective reactions to the books they read and to rate books however the heck they feel like, and authors are allowed to be grumpy about it.
Ellen Emerson White, All Emergencies, Ring Super: Dana, an actress working as a building superintendent while she works out what to do next, is asked by a teenager to investigate a building fire.
The first part of this book was curiously lacking in tension. I enjoyed Dana’s interactions with people but some of the bits in between were almost dull. Seriously, can’t White write an interesting book about adults? I wondered --- and then the tension kicked in and things became intensely personal. By the end of the book, I was seriously disappointed that there isn’t a whole series about Dana solving mysteries.
I like that Dana investigates by doing research at the library, making use of her acting abilities and enlisting the support of her friends. Her female friendships are one of the highlights of this book: Molly, a firefighter who is wary new acquaintance; Valerie, a fellow actor who is so cheerfully and unquestioningly willing to get involved; and Peggy, who says things like “Look, it’s your life, you’re free to do something stupid, if you want, but I don’t have to help you.”... yet is willing to go to great lengths for Dana, with Dana.
Several with Dana’s relationships -- most notably with Molly, with Peggy, and with the romantic interest when he eventually turns up -- involve smart, difficult people who are honest with each other and decide it is worth the effort required to build/maintain this relationship. That’s a dynamic I find interesting. And entertaining.
I’m not quite sure what to think of White’s tendency to make things intense and personal by having her main character be physically assaulted and threatened, but the way she writes about the aftermath of trauma is compelling and thoughtful. (Also I appreciate that her heroines are not sexually assaulted.)
In other noteworthy details: Dana has a dog (and also several cats). And I wish there were sequels.“I pay my bills, I don’t have any debts, I can afford to go to a movie or a ball game now and again,” Dana said. “So, what’s the problem?”
“You’re wasting a lot of education and God-given talent,” Peggy said.
Well-education, at any rate. Dana shrugged. “My prerogative.”
“What are you going to do?” Peggy asked. “Just walk up and accuse him?”
Probably. “Well, I might err slightly on the side of subtlety,” Dana said.
Peggy kept frowning. “Are you familiar with the words ‘slander’ and ‘libel’?”
Oh, please. “Are you familiar with the phrase ‘cocktail party conversation’?” Dana asked.
Midway through the second quarter, she got an idea.
“Best defense is a good offense,” she said.
Peggy frowned at her. “Please don’t discuss sports with me, Dana.”
Yeah, yeah, yeah. “I want to get into his house,” Dana said. “Poke around a little, see if there’s anything incriminating.”
“Please don’t discuss breaking the law with me, Dana,” Peggy said, with the exact same inflection.
Theodora Goss, The Sinister Mystery of the Mesmerizing Girl: The Athena Club return to London from one extraordinary adventure (see: European Travel for the Monstrous Gentlewoman) and are plunged into another. Their teenaged kitchen maid Alice has been kidnapped, Sherlock Holmes is missing and there is a plot afoot to impersonate the queen.
This story has adventure, teamwork, mystery, unexpected twists, more cameos by characters from popular Victorian fiction, and commentary on late Victorian concerns (like empire and eugenics). I particularly liked seeing Alice become a central part of the story, and her complicated relationship with her newly-discovered mother.
But my favourite part was not the adventures of the Athena Club but how they tell them -- their interactions when they interrupt the narrative to discuss their lives together, to highlight what they think is important or to argue about what Catherine has chosen to include in the narrative. Their voices often are present, even in the middle of a scene that isn’t about them, and I like what these interruptions reveal: a team, a household, a family. BEATRICE: They are the clothing of the New Woman. They are meant not to be feminine, but practical.
CATHERINE: On women they look like men’s clothing, on men they look like women’s clothing. That’s where the New Woman meets the Dandy.
BEATRICE: Why is it necessary to categorize people in that fashion? Why can we not all wear whatever we wish, whatever is useful and aesthetically pleasing? I believe that someday we shall all wear garments that are light and of a pleasing texture, easy to put on and take off. At the same time, they will express the aspirations of the spirit. They will be like the garments of the Greeks, both graceful and functional. Why can we not dress in such a fashion now?
MRS. POOLE: Because this is England, and you would all catch your deaths of cold.
JUSTINE: Mr. Gray is not what society deems him to be. He has been greatly misunderstood. He assures me that he had no intention of harming Mr. Wilde.
MARY: He would say that.
CATHERINE: Can we not discuss the Wilde scandal in the middle of my book? You’re going to get it banned in Boston, and such other puritanical places.
MARY: I checked in the Encyclopaedia Britannica. It says pumas like to swim. Why are you such a coward about water?
CATHERINE: Pumas like to swim. In calm, clear, cool water, preferably in tropical jungles. Where does it say they like to walk around in chilly, intermittent rain that never seems to end? Also, as you may have noticed, pumas have fur-a thick, luxurious pelt of it. Moreau deprived me of that. I like water when it’s not coming out of the sky, and when I know I’m not going to be shipwrecked in it.
MRS. POOLE: That must account for your endless baths.
No, the idea of writing about their experiences-hers, Mary’s, Diana’s, Beatrice’s, and Justine’s, was silly. Who would read such an account? Anyway, the others would never allow her to write it. They would not want their lives, their thoughts, exposed to the public.
MARY: And we still don’t. Really, Cat, you ought to listen to us when we tell you there are certain things we don’t want the general public to know. After all, these are our lives.
CATHERINE: Who is this we? You’re the only one who ever objects to anything. [...] You’re just upset because I keep writing about things that you think are embarrassing.
MARY: Well, yes. There is that.
CATHERINE: If you want me to write that in Dutch, you’ll have to translate it yourself.
DIANA: Why don’t you ask Lucinda?
CATHERINE: Because she’s gone out hunting, and honestly I wish I’d gone with her! At least you wouldn’t keep coming in here all the time and interrupting. This is the problem with being in the office-or the library, since we’re calling it that now. Some days, it’s like trying to write in Piccadilly Circus!
Originally @ Dreamwidth.