Comments on: Alice Hoffman and the Purpose of Book Reviews http://chamberfour.com/2009/07/02/alice-hoffman-alain-de-botton-and-the-purpose-of-book-reviews/ for readers of books and ebooks Fri, 10 Feb 2012 08:43:26 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1 By: Nico Vreeland http://chamberfour.com/2009/07/02/alice-hoffman-alain-de-botton-and-the-purpose-of-book-reviews/comment-page-1/#comment-439 Nico Vreeland Wed, 08 Jul 2009 20:00:08 +0000 http://chamberfour.com/?p=3647#comment-439 Hi Shuchi, Thanks for reading and for your thoughts. As for writing a fair and objective book review, I think it's more than hard to accomplish, it's impossible. But since it's impossible, I think too many reviewers don't even try. The subjectivity of book reviewing makes it inherently an imperfect recommendation system, for all the reasons (personal taste primarily), that you listed. However, I think there are a lot of conventions in the system that don't help. For instance, I don't care very much about an author's other books. I find most authors vary pretty widely between books, and if they don't, we probably don't need to review their individual books. So I can't help but feel like reviewers discussing an author's oeuvre are primarily showing off. As for reviewing books for an audience, I think you have to take the reviewer's subjectivity (like my favorite books) out of it as much as possible, making it less "I liked this part" and more "The author writes great characters." However, I think you can, at the same time, account for the subjectivity of the reader. That's one of the reasons that we do the "Similar books" thing at the end of our reviews; we're trying to triangulate the kind of book it is, so if you like one of the similar books, but it's a negative review, you might give it a chance. In any case, book reviews are definitely not a perfect enterprise, but it's important to have an arm of the publishing industry (if I can call it that) that's more concerned with the reader than with the publisher selling more books. There's no question in my mind that book reviewing needs to evolve, but exactly what constitutes a successful book review is, of course, up for debate. Hi Shuchi,
Thanks for reading and for your thoughts.
As for writing a fair and objective book review, I think it’s more than hard to accomplish, it’s impossible. But since it’s impossible, I think too many reviewers don’t even try.
The subjectivity of book reviewing makes it inherently an imperfect recommendation system, for all the reasons (personal taste primarily), that you listed. However, I think there are a lot of conventions in the system that don’t help. For instance, I don’t care very much about an author’s other books. I find most authors vary pretty widely between books, and if they don’t, we probably don’t need to review their individual books. So I can’t help but feel like reviewers discussing an author’s oeuvre are primarily showing off.
As for reviewing books for an audience, I think you have to take the reviewer’s subjectivity (like my favorite books) out of it as much as possible, making it less “I liked this part” and more “The author writes great characters.” However, I think you can, at the same time, account for the subjectivity of the reader.
That’s one of the reasons that we do the “Similar books” thing at the end of our reviews; we’re trying to triangulate the kind of book it is, so if you like one of the similar books, but it’s a negative review, you might give it a chance.
In any case, book reviews are definitely not a perfect enterprise, but it’s important to have an arm of the publishing industry (if I can call it that) that’s more concerned with the reader than with the publisher selling more books. There’s no question in my mind that book reviewing needs to evolve, but exactly what constitutes a successful book review is, of course, up for debate.

]]> By: Shuchi http://chamberfour.com/2009/07/02/alice-hoffman-alain-de-botton-and-the-purpose-of-book-reviews/comment-page-1/#comment-438 Shuchi Wed, 08 Jul 2009 19:03:17 +0000 http://chamberfour.com/?p=3647#comment-438 Very interesting post, thanks for sharing your thoughts. On another note, I'd be curious to know how books are chosen for review. As the book review sections are the first to get cut from newspapers, fewer and fewer books are actually being reviewed. So how much should people (and can people) rely on book reviews these days? I'd argue that an Alice Hoffman fan will buy her new book, regardless of the review, but just might be cynical while reading it. She may not pick up many new readers, but I don't think she'll lose enough for it to make a substantial (financial) significance. As for your take on book reviews, I think it's an admirable goal, but hard to accomplish in practice. It's easier to make a snap judgment, to gush or malign, than it is to be fair. And I'm all for peer reviews, but what the NYT type reviewers have under their belt is the number of books they've read. Whatever criticism you may have of them, you can't deny the fact that they are well read, and can therefore be somewhat of an authority when it comes to books. I stay away from reviewing books because my tastes constantly change. I may like a book while reading it, then like it more or less after I've sat and thought about it, and think differently about a year or two later. I like recommending books to friends- people who I know, and whose tastes I know, and people who know me and my tastes. But to a web audience, who I am no more than a name to, I hesitate. That is a big responsibility, and one that I don't take lightly, and don't really feel as though I'm informed enough to take on. The business of recommending books publicly is serious, and should be approached carefully. Because in essence, that is what a review does- it suggests what one should or shouldn't read. I worry that because of blogs, reviewing is taken less seriously. Anyone can review any book, regardless of how uninformed and thoughtless they may be. As I said, I do admire the steps you've taken to be as thorough as possible in your reviews- your ratings system, for example. But, I think the way peer reviews (reviews written by readers for readers) are most efficient is if the reader knows about the peer reviewer's tastes up front- what are your favorite books and why? If I love the same book that you love, I am more willing to read your review a book I haven't read. Very interesting post, thanks for sharing your thoughts.

On another note, I’d be curious to know how books are chosen for review. As the book review sections are the first to get cut from newspapers, fewer and fewer books are actually being reviewed. So how much should people (and can people) rely on book reviews these days? I’d argue that an Alice Hoffman fan will buy her new book, regardless of the review, but just might be cynical while reading it. She may not pick up many new readers, but I don’t think she’ll lose enough for it to make a substantial (financial) significance.

As for your take on book reviews, I think it’s an admirable goal, but hard to accomplish in practice. It’s easier to make a snap judgment, to gush or malign, than it is to be fair. And I’m all for peer reviews, but what the NYT type reviewers have under their belt is the number of books they’ve read. Whatever criticism you may have of them, you can’t deny the fact that they are well read, and can therefore be somewhat of an authority when it comes to books.

I stay away from reviewing books because my tastes constantly change. I may like a book while reading it, then like it more or less after I’ve sat and thought about it, and think differently about a year or two later. I like recommending books to friends- people who I know, and whose tastes I know, and people who know me and my tastes. But to a web audience, who I am no more than a name to, I hesitate. That is a big responsibility, and one that I don’t take lightly, and don’t really feel as though I’m informed enough to take on.

The business of recommending books publicly is serious, and should be approached carefully. Because in essence, that is what a review does- it suggests what one should or shouldn’t read. I worry that because of blogs, reviewing is taken less seriously. Anyone can review any book, regardless of how uninformed and thoughtless they may be. As I said, I do admire the steps you’ve taken to be as thorough as possible in your reviews- your ratings system, for example. But, I think the way peer reviews (reviews written by readers for readers) are most efficient is if the reader knows about the peer reviewer’s tastes up front- what are your favorite books and why? If I love the same book that you love, I am more willing to read your review a book I haven’t read.

]]> By: Nico Vreeland http://chamberfour.com/2009/07/02/alice-hoffman-alain-de-botton-and-the-purpose-of-book-reviews/comment-page-1/#comment-432 Nico Vreeland Sat, 04 Jul 2009 04:12:38 +0000 http://chamberfour.com/?p=3647#comment-432 A little meta twist: an author has responded to a harsh review of his book on C4, and its relation to this post, in the comment thread <a href="http://chamberfour.com/2009/07/02/review-infected/" rel="nofollow">over here</a>. A little meta twist: an author has responded to a harsh review of his book on C4, and its relation to this post, in the comment thread over here.

]]>