Not My Job Redux | Romancing the Blog | Romance Authors and Readers Who Blog

April 25th, 2007 by Diana Peterfreund

Last week, Karen Templeton used this space to discuss whether romance writers should indulge in critical analysis of their fellow authors’ work.

“Every once in a while, someone suggests that perhaps the genre would be taken more seriously by Others (and, perhaps, by Us, as well) if more romance authors reviewed/critiqued each other’s work. That lack of critical analysis – of romance by those who write it – is what separates romance from the literary Big Boys (and Girls).”

I did not agree with her argument about the nature of romance novels, but I’m with her on this part. It’s not the first time I have heard this theory that the genre is somehow being materially damaged by the fact that more authors do not engage in open disagreements about what is good or bad.

Are we talking about the same genre whose leading organization held a poll to define romance? The same genre whose organization’s newsletter is regularly filled with invective-riddled diatribes about how sexy vixens/vampires/virgins/Christians/old biddies/gay men are “ruining” romance? Whose members campaign for a complete overhaul of our most prestigious contest due to subgenre bias (and many argue that it would be more prestigious if it was not decided by a small panel of author judges)? I think there is plenty of open debate.

Templeton’s post sparked quite a long comment trail, including drop-ins from many romance authors who do review books. Alison Kent listed statistics from several major newspapers pointing out how many book reviews each had run in a given issue and how many had been written by fellow authors. The percentages were always a majority.

I think this is a misleading stat. Author reviews are to the book reviewing world what stunt casting is to a network sitcom. The more famous the reviewer, the more likely it will draw readers to the newsstand. The more controversial, the better, since everyone likes to be witness to infighting. Does anyone remember what kind of “reasoned critique” Curtis Sittenfeld gave of Melissa Banks’ The Wonder Spot, or do they just remember the part where she said that calling another author a chick lit writer is like calling her a slut? When the queen of genre romance, Nora Roberts, was asked to review Stephen King’s new “love story,” it was part of an effort to encourage a larger female, “women’s fiction” audience than the horror writer usually garners.

Which is not to say that the reviews weren’t valid – no doubt Roberts did love Lissy, and Sittenfeld did dislike Sophie. But these types of bestseller reviews are outliers. Not only are the majority of book reviews not written by other authors, most do not appear in major commercial newspapers (or as official Amazon features). Most reviews for books of any genre appear in trade journals such as Publisher’s Weekly, Kirkus, Locus, and Romantic Times.

In passing, I’d argue that, more than saving the genre, such circulation boosters as celeb reviews might prove handy in saving the book review.

Should authors write professionally vetted reviews for other people’s books? Sure, if they are so inclined. And in doing so, they should understand that they are likely to be less popular around the cocktail party buffet. It’s not their fault—just a professional hazard for all critics, no matter how impartial. They’re the IRS agents of their world: generally disliked through no fault of their own. I made no restaurateur friends during the years I wrote food reviews.

I also do not think there is any harm to the genre if authors don’t review, much as I don’t think the problem with the movie industry is remotely related to the fact that few movie critics are filmmakers themselves.

There seems to be an ongoing call to arms among a certain facet of romance writers and readers. Authors who do not choose to review are often painted as fastidious yes-men complicit in dooming the genre to mediocrity. Not so. Maybe, as Templeton said, it’s just not her job. I do not think an author has an obligation to publicly review another author’s books.

Such disinclination is not a behavior that is exclusive to romance authors, by the way. I know authors in many genres who choose not to share criticism with the public at large. Young adult fantasy author (and speculative fiction scholar) Justine Larbalestier said to me: “I’m not a book reviewer; I’m a book evangelist.” Book criticism, she added, requires an entirely different set of skills than novel writing, and a person who is talented at one is not necessarily talented at the other. Ebert is not necessarily Kubrick, and vice versa.

And yet, do not think that those who aren’t posting book reviews to their blogs or to The LA Times do not participate in criticism of another’s books. Every author I know has a close circle of colleagues with whom she discusses recent releases. Most authors I know work with a circle of first readers, also pros, who help smooth out the rough edges of their work. Not all criticism bent on improving a genre needs to happen in public. Ask the Inklings. The genre does not lack respect due to a dearth of peer review and debate, in no small part because there is no dearth.

When the conversation came up at Access Romance a year ago, one poster compared the need for authors reviewing others’ works to the pattern of peer review of scientific papers. But, indeed, that seems to conform more to the idea of critique groups/beta readers. Scientific peer reviews occur before publication, and the writer is given a chance to address all of the concerns the (anonymous) reviewer raises before her research is made final, public, etc. Concerns raised after publication are also aired in a formal fashion— a response is reviewed and vetted every bit as critically, and is also shown, pre-publication, to the writers of the original article, who then have an opportunity to answer it, often in the same issue of the journal. However, the metaphor disintegrates when you consider the varied needs of scientific fact and critical opinion of a novel, as well as the fact that such articles are written for other scientists, with the intent on relating a repeatable result.

Book reviews are not written for authors. They are not written with the intent to improve the published book, alert the author to her failings, or save the genre. Not one of my restaurant reviews was intended for an audience of restaurateurs. When I visited a restaurant with a friend who is a chef, he noticed entirely different things than I would, and wasn’t bothered by details that bugged me. He might have bee able to give the restaurant a bit of backstage advice, or, barring that, write for a small audience of insider foodies. My job was to tell diners where they could buy a great meal.

The same purpose exists for book critics, and they take it very seriously indeed. Should authors be critics? Only if they want to, and only with a true critic’s purpose in mind.

This entry was posted on Wednesday, April 25th, 2007 at 6:00 am by Diana Peterfreund. You can link to and feed this entry. Both comments and pings are currently closed.

34 comments to “Not My Job Redux”

I so agree.
by Bernita April 25th, 2007 at 7:57 am
Book evangelist! Love that term. Great column, Diana.
by Charlene Teglia April 25th, 2007 at 9:35 am
Given that Romance is the largest, most widely published genre, I hardly see how it needs saving.

I think what people within the genre are hungering for is respect from “everyone else” in the literary community. Can I be so bold as to say that it isn’t going to happen? Can I be even bolder still and say who cares?

The weight of “their” opinion can’t be shouldered unless we decide to pick it up.

If I could grant a wish, it would be that everyone within this genre that I love so much would simply decide to stop defending it. I believe it’s our defense that implies there’s something that needs defending.

I know that’s not going to happen. But as long as our genre boasts half-naked people on the covers and writers gush like teenagers on their websites and blogs about Hot Sex Scenes and Gorgeous Hunks, don’t expect the literary community to take us seriously.

A few analytical reviews by other romance authors isn’t going to make all the other stuff go away. Not that I care. Because I don’t. Writing romance is the best gig in the world, as far as I’m concerned, and anyone who doesn’t like romance can just not read it. That’s okay. At something like 55% of the publishing world, I think we’ll be fine.
by Tracy MacNish April 25th, 2007 at 9:39 am
Book reviews are not written for authors. They are not written with the intent to improve the published book, alert the author to her failings, or save the genre.

Exactly. My biggest beef with Karen’s post was her contention that such was the purpose behind authors reviewing. That would assume reviews are written for authors - which they’re not. I’ve never written a review with any of those things in mind. Barbara Samuel reviews for BookPage, a magazine distributed to libraries and booksellers - again, not to authors, but to those who can direct readers to books they might like to read.

However, Diana, all the places you pointed out where discussions have been had are within RWA as an organization, not public discussions with readers, consumers, booksellers, the general public. I don’t think organizational politics equate with open discussion of the genre.
by Alison Kent April 25th, 2007 at 9:51 am
But, Alison, I see that argument quite often. It wasn’t too long ago that there was a huge dust-up on some reader-review blog where several posters (I don’t think it was the site runners) took offense with the fact that authors weren’t “paying enough attention” to their reviews. That, having been informed by the review what was wrong with the book, they should — I don’t know, apologize and make it better?

I’m not saying it’s every reviewer’s motive, but it is one I have seen put forth a little too often of late.

And the argument about it being a way to improve the genre… that one I can point to a specific instance, but it’s one that I see quite a bit, most commonly on blogs exactly like this one. Take this comment from Michelle Buonfiglio’s blog that she recently invited a classroom full of Princeton students to (sorry, there is no direct link on blogspot to a comment, but it’s by “robin” and it’s about halfway down the comment section of this post):

I’m confused about the perception that it’s “those” people (fill in the blank) who keep Romance from being accepted when the Romance community seems to have so many rules around discussion and reflection on the genre internally. ::snip:: Because when I hear those cries of “if you can’t say anything nice,” or “it’s only entertainment;” and when I hear about agents who say they won’t work with someone who says something bad about another author, when said editor’s own authors have behaved in a way I find abominable (and in public, no less); and when I see authors who don’t feel comfortable reviewing other Romance authors’ work in print; and when I see readers who dare question some of the tropes in the genre being questioned for their loyalty to the genre…

When I first read Karen’s post, I wondered if she was not inspired by this exact comment.

This is just one example. But I see such arguments put forth a few times a month in the comments thread of RTB, RbTB, Smart Bitches, Dear Author, or similar. It *is* a theory that is out there…

Regarding the “privacy” of such conversations… first of all, I don’t know how private it was. The blogs certainly didn’t ignore the controversies! In addition, you are talking about a “privacy” of 9,000 odd members, right? 9,000 people who are most devoted to the topic. And then, it’s all repeated and debated further on the romance-focused blogs. The letter about the “slippery slope” a few months ago appeared on a half-dozen of the big blogs, and who knows how many personal ones?

And it’s the same with other genre organizations. Witness the recent “technopeasant webscab” scuffle of SFWA. The blogosphere pounces on anything that may have once been organizational politics and makes it into a very public issue. Also, when the situation is not a poll, but rather a letter from a member to the editor’s newspaper…followed by other member’s responses. what else can you call it but open debate?

Where else would genre discussions occur but in organizations devoted to the genre? In Spec fic, I think the big conversations about new subgenres happen at their conventions, at Clarion, etc. (If not, like now, on blogs exactly like these.)

In the past two weeks on RTB alone, we’ve had discussions about the role of the alpha male, of tortured heroes, of story vs. character, of the need for an erotic romance RITA…

Should these conversations be happening in the NYT instead? I don’t know. I like the focus that having them in RWR gives. Direct to the source.

I think future historians of the genre WILL be looking at these developments in the pages of the genre’s leading organizations’ newsletter, not unlike historians have looked through old magazine discussions in the past.
by Diana Peterfreund April 25th, 2007 at 11:03 am
I’m not sure what to think about authors reviewing their peers work. It’s almost like quotes authors give for the covers of other books. If I’ve never read the author quoting and she loved the book but I hated it, I’m less likely to read the work of the author quoting.

It’s really one of those double edged swords for authors. If they write an unfavorable review, they will have those calling them catty or jealous. If they write a glowing review, they will have those that say “oh, they must be BFFs.” Not fair, but still.

You are absolutely correct in saying that reviews are not for the authors, they are for readers. That’s why reader blogs are so popular, readers want to hear from other readers what worked for them and what didn’t. Reviews are a great means to get the word out on a book (good or bad) not a way to get a critique to make your book better. And in the end, it should be the readers you listen to and not necessarily other authors, readers will tell you what worked and what didn’t, authors are writing for the readers NOT other authors…
by Chari-Dee April 25th, 2007 at 11:17 am
I think reviewers should review books and authors should write books. I always have a problem with a romance author reviewing another romance author’s book because they are, in effect, competitors. I wouldn’t expect to see one actor reviewing another’s performance in a film — and if I found out a movie critic was also a competitor in the acting business, I’d consider his/her review suspect for bias.
by phyllis towzey April 25th, 2007 at 11:31 am
::My biggest beef with Karen’s post was her contention that such was the purpose behind authors reviewing. That would assume reviews are written for authors - which they’re not.::

Actually, Allison, I think that came out of someone’s comment to my column, not the column itself. My contention was, actually, the same as Diana’s — that I’m not seeing how peer reviews would up the respect factor for the genre, either within or outside it. Believe me, I’m the last person to suggest that reviews of any kind are written for authors. But I remember there being a comment or two growning out of the discussion suggesting that authors’ giving heed to reviews might serve to improve the craft.

Just so we’re on the same page…:wink:
by Karen Templeton April 25th, 2007 at 11:42 am
You’re right, Karen. You never did say that, about who teh reviews were for.

Okay, my other post was finally de-spammed. Teach me to include links!
by Diana Peterfreund April 25th, 2007 at 12:03 pm
That would have been me saying that there is something to be learned from a respected review.

Since I’m not a member of RWA, I have no idea at the goings on, and the more I hear about them, the less inclined I am to join. So I’m ignorant of insider knowledge.

Is there a standard for film critics? Do they take a few courses of film history, maybe a class or two on screenwriting? Can they? Sure. Maybe the good ones have? Shouldn’t a reviewer-a good one- have some base of knowledge in what they’re reviewing?

IE: Although we all eat, I’m sure the details of food critique wasn’t a Homer Simpson, “Ummm. good.” I don’t know the specific parameters of food critique even though I eat all day. So I wouldn’t assume that I was skilled enough to make those judgements.

I agree reviews aren’t for peers, but for readers, and maybe it’s me and I’m over analytical, but if I respect the source, I consider what’s been said. I don’t think I’m the only person like that. And I’m not asking that reviews fill that requirement, it’s a bennie. What I do think, is that the genre have reviewers that have a knowledge of women’s fiction, genre history, and a good handle of how a story is crafted. Maybe pass an RWA test and get a spechul stamp. That way you don’t have to agree with the reviewer, but at least you know that have a point of reference.
by Eva Gale April 25th, 2007 at 12:13 pm
My contention was, actually, the same as Diana’s — that I’m not seeing how peer reviews would up the respect factor for the genre, either within or outside it.

And I’m not saying they would or even should. I don’t see that as the purpose at all. Opening dialogue, sure, that can happen, but I don’t expect any of my reviews to have an impact on the genre.
by Alison Kent April 25th, 2007 at 12:25 pm
I’m confused about the perception that it’s “those” people (fill in the blank) who keep Romance from being accepted when the Romance community seems to have so many rules around discussion and reflection on the genre internally.

Ah, but see, I don’t take that comment as saying peer reviews would IMPROVE the genre, only that the genre needs to stop being so sensitive about peer discussion. BIG difference.
by Alison Kent April 25th, 2007 at 12:29 pm
Eva: I definitely like to think my food reviews were more than “Ummmm good.” And yes, I agree that reviewers should know what they are talking about. I don’t know if there is any sort of formal requirement, however. It’s definitely a “know it when you see it” situation. There are book reviewers who I do not read because over time they have impressed me as reviewing merely to grind their favorite ax, or an overall ignorance of the genre, or a reliance on some “rule” or other…

But it is a matter of taste. I’m sure a reader with that same ax to grind LOVES those reviews.

For instance, in my local newspaper, we have “dueling” movie reviews. Over time, I have learned that one reviewer’s taste more closely matches my own. So I don’t read the other reviewer’s articles, because he’s not necessarily going to cover the things i’m interested in.

Do I think there is something to be learned by the AUTHOR in a review? Once, I may have agreed. But now I think that paying attention to that leads to a “too many cooks in the kitchen” situation. I may read something in a review that speaks to me, but when you are looking at dozens of reactions, it eventually gets difficult to separate the insight from the noise. Tryign is a sure recipe for madness. What one reviewer of my book hated, another loved. What one found unrealistic, another thought mirrored her life to a scary degree. I understand authors who ignore reviews, full stop. I wish I had the willpower!

Regarding RWA, sadly, people who AREN’T in the organization hear only about the dust-ups. I’m not a member of SFWA, and when I hear about it, it’s because of some sexual harassment situation at their big convention, or because the VP is a scary luddite (ironic, for SF, yes?). It would be easy for me to believe that this is all they are. Sadly, all the great stuff doesn’t inspire as many blog topics.

Alison, I seem to have, in my attempts to snip the post down somewhat, snipped out a sentence relating to my point. To wit, another quote from the same comment:

“IMO, the more open Romance becomes to honest and reflective critique, the less marginalized it will seem.”

Is that *really* the problem? I don’t think it is.
by Diana Peterfreund April 25th, 2007 at 12:59 pm
The thing that gets me is that a REVIEW is different than a CRITIQUE. So, to me a REVIEW makes no difference. I don’t know that it would be imperative that an author writes reviews to give the genre ‘more class’ or whatever. What you want is reviewers who are truly fans of the genre to promote the genre.

I assume that the reason authors write reviews is that the think it is also promotion for themselves, by having their name out there.

I assume that all reviewers are failed writers, who think they know more than the published writer, well, is that the impression you want to give as an author?
by Patrick April 25th, 2007 at 2:43 pm
[snipped from another blog in Diana's comment]I’m confused about the perception that it’s “those” people (fill in the blank) who keep Romance from being accepted when the Romance community seems to have so many rules around discussion and reflection on the genre internally. ::snip:: Because when I hear those cries of “if you can’t say anything nice,” or “it’s only entertainment;” and when I hear about agents who say they won’t work with someone who says something bad about another author, when said editor’s own authors have behaved in a way I find abominable (and in public, no less); and when I see authors who don’t feel comfortable reviewing other Romance authors’ work in print; and when I see readers who dare question some of the tropes in the genre being questioned for their loyalty to the genre…::

And from Diana: When I first read Karen’s post, I wondered if she was not inspired by this exact comment.::

Nope, didn’t see that particular post. Have heard similar comments, however, in my travels, which did inspire my column.
by Karen Templeton April 25th, 2007 at 3:44 pm
I agree–reviews are not for the author. If a reviewer wanted to specifically tell an author where s/he went wrong, the reviewer could fire up a web browser and shoot off an email. Reviews are for readers. I especially agree with the point about critics being less popular. Any author would have to take that into consideration before sharing a negative review with the world. Critique Partners (aka Beta Readers) on the other hand can be worth their weight in gold.
by Erica R April 25th, 2007 at 4:20 pm
Can I ask who the “literary Big Boys (and Girls)” are? Are we talking about mainstream fiction? The books shelved in the “Fiction” section of the bookstore or library?
by Patrick April 25th, 2007 at 4:33 pm
As a reader I don’t trust any author’s opinion of another author’s book. Most authors read for style, not content, and readers of genre don’t care much about style. Readers (and I include myself) will buy even dreadfully written romances simply because they like the story idea: Marriage of convenience, amnesia, blind hero, arrogant aristocrat, island paradise, etc.

I’m not saying that authors cannot review, but reviewing is a separate art from writing fiction. (And not one that has anything to do with being a failed writer.)

As a genre, romance might get more respect from other genres if we were more openly controversial and critical of each other. But it will not get that respect from any critic who hates genre or who is too bigoted to see past already-established genres. Murder mysteries used to be held in contempt, remember. And science fiction writers still sell more books if they go mainstream.

My perfect example of bigoted literary criticism is the genuflecting to P.G. Wodehouse a while ago. Lovely writer, but the truth is, he wrote lightweight entertainment. Because the people who liked him were also the literary elite, they eventually enshrined him as a serious writer. It’s hogwash.

I’ve complained about the lack of true criticism in the romance field before in my regular blog. And I still think we shouldn’t just be boosters of every single stinkin’ romance that gets published. A lot of them aren’t particularly good.

But as I learned long ago when I was a comic book fan, respect is not something you whine and moan about. You earn it by creating wonderful stories. When comics improved (Maus being the first strike), so did their image with the general public and their treatment by elite critics.

I love that we have evolved, even if only on the Internet and not in the pages of the RWA magazine, to the point that we are actively debating these issues.
by Poison Ivy April 25th, 2007 at 5:44 pm
Patrick — yes, that’s who I meant in my original blog last week, in response to comments I’ve seen in the blogosphere about how romance as a genre isn’t taken as seriously (or, heck, at all seriously) by those folks who write (or read, for that matter), you know, “real” books. And that one reason for this might be due to a lack of authors dissecting each others’ books, or even the genre as a whole, through reviews, critiques, or academic analysis. I then took the position that not only did I not see how peer reviews would change things very much, but that — for various reasons — many authors simply aren’t keen on adding reviews OR analyses to their work load.

Diana’s basically continuing the discussion from her own perspective.
by Karen Templeton April 25th, 2007 at 5:55 pm
I think reviewers should review books and authors should write books. I always have a problem with a romance author reviewing another romance author’s book because they are, in effect, competitors. I wouldn’t expect to see one actor reviewing another’s performance in a film — and if I found out a movie critic was also a competitor in the acting business, I’d consider his/her review suspect for bias.

I disagree with everything said above in its entirety. First, authors are readers as well. Do you cease being a wife when you become a mother? Do you cease being a daughter when you become a wife? People wear many hats in this day and age, and to say a person cannot be one thing because she is another is quite limiting.

Second, I don’t believe authors are in competition with each other. It’s not like Coke vs Pepsi, where if you buy the Coke, you probably won’t buy the Pepsi. How many readers only read one author? Now I know there are a number of people in the world who only read Dan Brown, but they weren’t readers before. Readers are people who love books and who buy a certain number of books every month. It’s part of how they enjoy spending their leisure time and their disposable income. So people who like Christine Feehan might buy Sherilynn Kenyon too. Are these two ladies competitors? Hardly. If a reader gets turned onto Linnea Sinclair, she may start buying Susan Kearney as well. Do readers really vow they’ll only read Laura Kinsale and no other? Heck no. They’re buying Loretta Chase too, I’d wager. As I see it, it’s not a competition and authors who write similar material are likely to be read by the same target audience.

Finally, as regards “bias”, that’s a rather nonsensical statement. Everyone has bias. I can’t stand vampire stories. That’s a negative bias. I love road trip stories, heroines in man-drag and cases of mistaken identities. That’s a favorable bias, and I’m predisposed to enjoy those stories. No reader alive can claim to open a book without her own unique set of personal biases, and authors are readers when they’re reading.
by Ann(ie) April 25th, 2007 at 6:00 pm
“a genre isn’t taken as seriously (or, heck, at all seriously) by those folks who write (or read, for that matter), you know, “real” books”

Yeah, this is about where I get off that train. What genre doesn’t think that. SF gripes about the same thing.

How serious SHOULD fiction be taken? The only books that should be taken seriously are non-fiction and even many of those are written with humor.

The “Fiction” section is just another genre. Sure it’s the generic mainstream/best seller genre so it seems like the big pond. Write a bestseller IN genre and you become mainstream fiction…

Ann(ie) - totally agree with you on non-competition with the exception of James Patterson 37 books per year. Anyone only writing 1-3 books per year can’t been seen as competition.
by Patrick April 25th, 2007 at 7:11 pm
Diana’s likening of authors reviewing other authors in print reviews to “stunt casting” is categorically absurd. The stats Alison Kent quoted in her response weren’t actually generated by Alison, I don’t believe, but certainly represent a regular level of reviewing in most major newspapers and the amount of “stunt casting” present is marginal. Most of the time, newspapers ask authors of no widespread acclaim at all to review other authors — it’s the nature of the freelance review pool in esteemed papers like the Post, NY & LA Times, Chicago Tribune et al. You pick up any week’s version of those papers and the preponderance of them will be reviews by published authors. PW also frequently uses authors to review — just because the reviews are unsigned does not mean the reviewers aren’t known — as do Kirkus. Library Journal and Booklist don’t…and the level of their criticism and esteem is certainly less than the others.

The real reason other author review, particularly for papers of note, is that they are the most qualified to do so. They are experts in the field. They have the training, typically, and they have the depth of the genres they examine.

Further, the inane comment that most authors review for style and not content is one of the largest sophisms I’ve read in my life — pick up the NY Times this week and tell me which reviews were only about style. Content and style live together in reviews because that’s what creates the foundation of literary criticism. Content can be just as fallible as style and believe me, authors who review find that to be just as annoying. When Nadine Gordimer reviews for the Times, do you think all she cares about his f’ing style? Do you think when Steve Almond review for the LA Times, all he cares about is style? Do you think when Kathryn Harrison or Daniel Mendelsohn review, they only look at style? Maybe the authors who review in RT or on their blogs say “Omigod, I love that style!” but that’s not what most authors do.

Every few weeks this arguement comes up in these circles and every few weeks I say I’ll keep my mouth closed, but this time it’s too much. We want to be taken seriously? We want our books not to be considered jokes in the mainstream? We want a table with the authors? We should act like them. We shouldn’t be all cotton candy and roses and support…it’s a business and not everyone in business gets to succeed. Only the ones with real talent should and real talent should be noted. I’m so tired of the fangirls and their rah-rah. Give me honest, brutal, print criticism and the rest of the writing world will stand up and take notice. Until then, we might as well be a sorority.
by Uninterested In Having All Of You Complain To Me Personally April 25th, 2007 at 9:53 pm
Hi, Uninterested!

Maybe I’m not understanding you correctly, because it seems as if your information about author reviews is actually supporting my argument. Anonymous reviews in Kirkus etc are not recognizable as “author reviews “at all — certainly not of interest to readers as EITHER “expert opinion” or “stunt casting”. Such reviews could be written by me, by a librarian, by a guy on the street. I disagree that they aren’t known, however. If you are an author, and you know who is writing your anonymous reviews, then you need to tell me who to bribe. I know authors who write for those publications, but they certainly do not broadcast the identity of the books they’ve reviewed.

And I can’t imagine that these stats are “marginal” if they are actually a majority. However, it has not been my experience at all. My last book received more than half a dozen reviews in commercial newspapers, and none were written by novelists.

Regarding freelancers “of no real acclaim” reviewing books — well, that’s the nature of freelancing, isn’t it? I know very few journalists who don’t have a novel somewhere in them. Some have published them, some haven’t. Most novelists I know supplement their income with journalism work, in whatever part of the paper they can sell inches. I do!

But again, we are talking about a miniscule percentage of book reviews in total. MOST book reviews do not appear in the NYT or the Post.

Regarding expertise, I find it interesting that books alone receive this treatment. If it is so important to have this expertise in the realm of criticism, why aren’t the majority of film reviews written by producers and directors? Maybe because, unlike authors, these folks aren’t necessarily masters of the written word, and also, they don’t necessarily need some extra cash to tide them over to their next royalty statement? Maybe because film review pages sell more ads than book review pages, so film editors can afford to keep full time reviewers on staff, while book editors have to farm out freelance work at a cheaper rate. There are a lot of alternative explanations here.

I am sure that authors ARE experts in their field. I am not, however, sure that this is why they are asked to review. I feel that if this were the case it would be a phenomenon as common in other entertainment mediums. (In passing, I think these authors get a great benefit out of reviews, because hey — free publicity for their work!)

I do agree with you that there is no reason why authors should be more likely to review for one thing than another. It’s never something that I witness, in reviews written by anyone. A good critic appreciates the book as a whole (or not as the case may be).

And, as for your last paragraph, I do not agree that there is a lack of critique — not at all. I certainly don’t see any more or less than I do in ANY type of fiction. The worst fannishness I’ve ever seen came from MFA students who worshipped at the altar of that week’s lit darling and brutally eviscerated anyone who dared to point out flaws in his work. It’s all over. EVERY genre has its darlings, its cliques, its fangirls/boys…

Genre respect has NOTHING to do with it.

(Also — to Alison — with arguments such as these, do you still doubt that this theory is out there?)
by Diana Peterfreund April 26th, 2007 at 2:38 am
Actually, I think the snipped part of my posted comments were the most “relevant” to this topic:

I’ve never encountered another genre where critical discourse is so suspect, and where critique is automatically assumed to be criticism, and criticism is deemed a bad thing. IMO, the more open Romance becomes to honest and reflective critique, the less marginalized it will seem (and perhaps the less demeaning its marketing will be).

I find it interesting that my point has been characterized as one aimed at “improving the genre,” when, in fact, that’s not what I said. Instead, I said that I don’t think it’s those damned “outsiders” who are the only ones dismissing or diminishing or marginalizing the genre. An inference that marginalized = in need of improvement is one I actually didn’t make, but one that strikes me as potentially revealing about inner-community views of the genre. Which IMO is not the result of few authors reviewing, per se, but rather a persistent *taboo* around authors reviewing, and readers and authors publicly critiquing the genre. Whether in complaints about “mean girls” or snubbing of AAR or PBR reviewers or overt threats from editors not to be perceived as criticizing any other authors the editor represents, IMO it’s not so much about making the genre better (although I would not object to more finely crafted Romance novels to adore) but welcoming a closer look at the genre from those who read, write, and love it, as a reasonable and even natural happening in literate communities. It’s the idea that genre critique still has to be explained, defended, and justified that some of us feel, and the author-reviewer issue is simply ONE manifestation of a much larger issue that at this point IMO should be a total non-issue. MFA programs may have their share of fangirls/boys, but they sure as heck don’t have to debate the merits of critical conversation in general.
by Robin April 26th, 2007 at 2:59 am
As a reader, I love book reviews, because they let me know about books I might otherwise miss and sometimes lead me to try things I might not otherwise have tried. Who wrote the review is irrelevant, except insofar as I know something about that reviewer. If it is a writer whose books I like, I know someothing about that reviewer, but equally, if it is a reviewer whose recommendations I have liked in the past, I know something about that reviewer.

As I writer, I would avoid reviewing books because
1. I don’t think I am very good at reviews. Even at school I was lousy at it. I would serve neither the public nor my own profile by doing it in public.
2. My writing time is too precious to spend doing something I don’t like and am not good at.
3. I am not interested in analysing books I read for fun. I like em, or I don’t. I’m much the same with wine. I am happy to listen to others talking about he cigar-box overtones, or the grassy and herbaceous character, but I limit myself to taking a note of the name so I can buy it again.

As Miss Snark says: write well: that’s all. That’s how I see my job as a writer.
by Imelda April 26th, 2007 at 3:32 am
Wading in here with the offering of one who does review. As Alison pointed out, I review romances for BookPage. The opportunity came up a year or so ago at a moment when I felt frustrated over good books being overlooked. Because of the nature of this particular column, the demand is for postive reviews, so my task is sorting through the enormous piles of novels I receive every month and finding four I can recommend with high marks. I try to offer a balance–time periods and styles and wildly famous authors versus unknowns. (One of my reviews–a rave, I might add–was for Courting the Courtesan, a first historicial romance.)

Mainly, I am seeking excellence. I’m looking for great storytelling, great writing, books I would be happy to press into the hands of my own readers and friends. And I’m doing it because I love the genre and want to participate in the dialogue over it. I am an expert, after all–I’ve been reading romances since I was twelve, and writing them since my early twenties. Why not me? I have at least as much to say about books as anyone else.

I do think we need to be less sensitive about criticism. It’s not about being accepted by some outside body–it’s about growing up and realizing that there is a standard within our own ranks. We know great romances when we see them. We know bad ones. We all have different opinions–and hey….here’s an idea: that’s perfectly okay! We do not have to create one monolithic body of approval or disapproval. That way lies stagnation.
by Barbara Samuel April 26th, 2007 at 10:06 am
It’s pretty telling that the major publication in romance is a fanzine. It’s a signature example of why romance shouldn’t be taken seriously. I certainly agree that authors shouldn’t feel compelled to review if that is something that they don’t wish for. But critical examination of romance is important for gaining respect, if that is what authors of romance want. And if respect is what authors want, then more authors should offer critique within their own genre.

The giving of a negative opinion is akin to airing one’s dirty laundry in some of the genre’s eyes. I have had one publisher refuse to work with me, in any way, because I gave a mediocre (not even a negative) review of one of the books despite having given several positive reviews of other books published by that house.

It was clear from the Dixieland mafia event, that negativity spoken about an author by another author or would be author can be damaging to that person’s career. I commented to one blogger the other day that I was glad to have no desire to be an author because I felt like that way I could be free to voice whatever opinion I wanted, whether it be positive or negative. It’s a shame that authors don’t have that freedom in terms of giving expert analysis in their own field.
by Jane April 26th, 2007 at 12:45 pm
Jane.

Give me an example of “not being taken seriously”. What in the world do you mean? Do the authors get paid in monopoly money? Do they get paid less than other GENRE books?

Romance doesn’t get taken seriously because it is escapism — as is Fantasy or (most)Science Fiction.

What I’ve noticed is that most Fantasy people recognize that and don’t care “to be taken seriously”. SF on the otherhand whines about the same thing.

Mystery, I assume, doesn’t have this problem because it is considered drama or something.

In part, this whole “taken seriously” thing is absurd. That’s like Jerry Seinfeld complaining that Sitcoms aren’t taken seriously. And isn’t it lame when they try? Like Roseanne or Family Ties when they had those ‘dramatic serious’ episodes? Weren’t those the worst episodes?
by Patrick April 26th, 2007 at 7:17 pm
In “taking seriously” I am referring to the lack of respect that romance gets. for example, the LA Times revamped book blog (in place of its print book review section) is covering general fiction, mystery and science fiction. No romance despite the fact it comprises over 50% of the mass market sales. I emailed to see why this was but received no response.

I read recently an article where Science Fiction was being touted as the new mainstream literary fiction. There is no comparable claim for romance fiction despite it being read by a greater number of people.

In comparison with other genre fiction, romance is often discussed in terms of heaving bosoms, naked men, and sex without giving any nods toward the difficulty of working within the HEA parameters an