hawkwing_lb: (Aveline is not amused)
My first real internet slapfight. It feels like a coming-of-age. Or perhaps a baptism by fire.

The comments at SH have broken 125. I never expected a response of this magnitude, but since it's occurred, I think it's worth a moment's consideration. (Also, I am procrastinating on my conference paper.) Out of the response a number of interesting questions have arisen, which may be roughly grouped into two opposing views of legitimacy.

The first group raises the following questions:

1. Who may "legitimately" review what sorts of books?

2. Whether passion, hyperbole, and angry rhetoric invalidate legitimate critique.


This latter argument is most often referred to as the tone argument (Why you gotta be so angry, baby?) and followers of various race- and feminism-related internet discussions will recall its frequent use is as a silencing and/or derailing technique - the discussion is often derailed into considerations of tone and politeness alone, rather than addressing the substance of the argument. Too, adherents of the tone argument frequently question the legitimacy of the anger/passion itself, denying that there may be a long-running pattern which gives both rise and reason to it.

The first group's questions are not, I think, critical. But the second group's ones trouble me.

The second group asks this:

1. Whether some books are more inherently "worthy" of critical review than others.

2. What constitutes such a book?

3. (Implied.) And why?


This is a question SFF as a genre and a community should, perhaps, consider asking. Books by men are reviewed more frequently than books by women; reviews and "buzz" affect what's considered for awards, and what's brought onto the horizon of people's attention. Criticism also serves a purpose in pointing out problematic trends in entertainment: the acceptance of social privilege, for example, as a normal and unmarked state troubles me about the books I read - not while I'm reading them, but after, when I cast my mind back. (Too, the marginalisation of female agency is a large part of why I can't wholeheartedly enjoy some of the epic fantasy (and other high fantasy) that I read; and the prevalence - the normalisation - of violence, particularly sexual violence, in the grim/dark mode irritates me excessively.)




I've collected a few links for posterity.

Comments at SH

Fantasy Book Critic

The OF Blog

The Hysterical Hamster

towersofgrey

ETA: Google Alerts has, somewhat tardily, brought me more links:

http://wisb.blogspot.com/2012/01/bad-bully-reviewer-manifesto-or-why.html

http://adrianfaulkner.com/2012/01/14/dear-genre-bullying-reviews-are-very-uncomely/

http://iansales.com/2012/01/16/how-to-write-a-good-review/

http://requireshate.wordpress.com/2012/01/16/calm-the-fuck-down-fanficyasfftie-in-fiction-is-not-serious-business/

http://chamberfour.com/2012/01/17/the-weeks-best-book-reviews-11712/

http://fozmeadows.wordpress.com/2012/01/19/criticism-in-sff-and-ya/#comments

http://pauljessup.com/2012/01/17/strange-horizons-and-the-tear-down-of-a-terrible-book/

http://corabuhlert.com/2012/01/21/gender-and-review-bias-2012-edition/

http://corabuhlert.com/2012/01/22/more-on-the-reviews-dust-up/

http://garethrees.org/2012/01/28/critics/
hawkwing_lb: (Aveline is not amused)
Rules for reviewing, Opposite World edition:

1. Reviews must be "objective."

2. Never use passionate rhetoric.

3. Never mention the author's treatment of female characters.

4. Never mention the author's ability, or lack thereof, to construct a sentence.

5. Probably best to just quote the flap copy and say "Eeee."

6. All negative reviews are personal attacks upon the author and everyone who likes their work.





I'm venting, at least a little. The comments on the review over at SH are pretty much the first time I've had shit-talking directed at me personally over the internet (what can I say, I've been relatively sheltered) and it's been an interesting learning experience. (One of the commenters scored a sexist/abusive bingo right out of handbook.) (Also, wow, anti-intellectualism.) (But most of them are, I suspect, just feeling judged by the fact that someone else thinks that a thing which they like is crap. As someone who still holds a tendre for a couple of books by Terry Goodkind and an avid reader of some really really problematic (and sometimes downright bad) books, I can sympathise.)

Thing is, for me? I get as much or more out of a negative review (by someone else) than I do out of a positive one. Article-sized negative reviews frequently go into more depth, so I can see exactly what I may or may not like about the work - and they're frequently more entertaining.

I mean, mostly I'm reading article-sized reviews of films. These days I get my book recommendations in the form of a blog paragraph or line from people whose tastes I know often align with mine (I think the last book I bought as a result of an actual review was Suzanne McLeod's urban fantasy, which I found rather meh, in the final estimation. Or take the case of The Steel Remains, which I ended up loving but which was getting such good press from reviewers whose tastes don't align with mine I thought I'd hate it to pieces, and only read it out of guilt at ignoring a gift sitting months on my shelf), or in the form of direct recommendations after asking people. But the point is, I think, comparable.

Anyway. Venting done.

Profile

hawkwing_lb: (Default)
hawkwing_lb

November 2021

S M T W T F S
 123456
78910111213
14151617181920
21222324252627
282930    

Syndicate

RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated May. 28th, 2025 05:29 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios