Is Book Reviewing Broken? Guest Post by Annabel Smith

This is the second piece on reviewing by author Annabel Smith, whose book Whisky Charlie Foxtrot will be published by Fremantle Press in November 2012.

Annabel writes:
 
In 2011 John Locke became the first self-published author to sell more than a million copies of his books on Amazon Kindle. He then wrote How I Sold 1 Million eBooks in 5 Months, a ‘how-to’ marketing guide for other self-published authors. However, he neglected to mention one of his key marketing strategies - paying for five-star reviews.

(Image in public domain)

Few people would argue that by providing a forum for ordinary readers to publicly express their opinions about what they read, the internet is having a significant impact on the world of books. But what happens when the systems that allow ordinary readers to review books are abused? Recently there has been a spate of scandals exposing reviews which flout Amazon’s guidelines stating that reviews should not be posted by users with either a financial interest or a competing book.

In a New York Times article outing the disingenuous practice of paying for reviews, it was revealed that reviewers who work for services such as Todd Rutherford’s (now defunct) GettingBookReviews.com are so poorly paid that they don’t even read the books in question and are further discouraged from being truly critical by having their fee reduced for a less than five-star review.

Perhaps even more shameful than paying for rave reviews is the practice known as ‘sock puppeting,’ in which writers create fake online identities to praise their own books and rubbish those of competitors. British crime writer RJ Ellory recently prompted outrage in the literary world when he was caught writing ecstatic five-star reviews of his own works, and low-rated pannings of his rivals’.

Some readers and writers are calling for sites like Amazon to tighten up their reviewing systems; others believe it is a case of ‘caveat emptor’, or buyer beware. Australian blogger Bernadette calls for real consequences for authors engaging in ‘morally bankrupt’ practices, in her post on Reaction to Reading titled ‘Hit ‘em where it hurts’: 

…what if it wasn’t worth the risk for authors to engage in such practices? What if the cost was more than a fake apology or a few public tears? What if there were real and material consequences?

She applauds the stance of Jon Page, President of the Australian Bookseller’s Association, who has stated he will no longer stock books by authors found guilty of sock puppeting. She advocates an agreement between booksellers and bloggers not to support the works of any writer proven to have engaged in anonymously criticising their rivals’ works. Furthermore, she suggests such writers should be denied consideration for awards.

The New York Times exposé of GettingBookReviews.com quotes a data-mining expert at the University of Illinois, Chicago, who estimates that one-third of consumer reviews on the internet are fake. However, on the Guardian blog, Paul Laity suggests that due to the incredible volume of reviews on the internet ‘only a tiny fraction of them can be corrupted’. What the real figure is we may never know. But on Twitter and in the blogosphere, readers are expressing their loss of faith in the system: ‘[Reading] samples via my kindle and just being downright suspicious is my future, I guess,’ said a crime fan on Stuart Neville’s blog.)

On Twitter, @bkclb, whose mission is ‘linking independent writers and publishers to adventurous readers,’ asked ‘Is book reviewing broken? If so how do we fix it’? Certainly, readers may be more choosy about where they read their reviews in future.

What makes a good review? Guest post by Annabel Smith

Recently, a group of volunteer bookbloggers started discussing how to build on the momentum of the AWW challenge. The result is we now have a draft website up on WordPress which we're using to iron out a few issues that have beset this year's challenge. (Not so sadly, Mr Linky will have to go.) The plan is to hold another challenge next year, and to allow people to subscribe to posts which related to specific genres and interest areas, covering as broad a range of Australian women's writing as possible. The mission will be "to support and promote" writing by Australian women throughout 2013.

One issue that cropped up in our discussion is "What makes a good review?" Some bloggers have expressed concern about the quality of their reviews. Others have said they like to write "responses", rather than critiques. One asked if AWW could do a "How to" post. As a result, author and reviewer, Annabel Smith kindly agreed to give her tips on reviewing.

Over to Annabel:

Book reviews are personal; they reflect the reviewer as well as the book being reviewed, and for that reason there is no right way to write them. However, bearing in mind that their purpose is to guide other readers in their choices, there are a few guidelines to follow if you want your reviews to be useful to others, as well as interesting to read.

Perhaps the most important thing to remember is that a book review is an evaluation, not a summary. Essentially, it should examine whether the author has successfully achieved what they set out to achieve. The analysis may consider the quality and significance of the book in terms of its literary merits and/or its ideas. For example:

• Does the novel fit its genre or does it play with the conventions of its genre in fresh and stimulating ways?
• Does it convincingly depict a certain time and place?
• Were you persuaded by the narrative point of view?  
• Do the characters feel real and relatable?
• Does it stimulate you emotionally or intellectually?
• Is the plot compelling?
• How does it compare to other books in its genre, or other books which tackle the same themes/issues?

Would you recommend this book to others? Your readers will be interested in your personal response to the book. For example:

• How did it make you feel?
• Did you relate to the characters? Why/why not?
• Were the themes or issues relevant to your own life? In what ways?
• Did any of your views change as a result of the ideas explored?

Whether your review is positive or negative, your opinion should be supported by evidence and a balanced review will consider both the strengths and weaknesses of a book. In a thought-provoking article entitled ‘The Ethics of the Negative Review,’ Jan Zwicky asks us to

Look at the word itself: re-view…To look again. But to what purpose? … to further “appreciation.” The reviewer who understands their task in these terms, then, would be one who has taken the trouble to listen again, to listen with care, curiosity, and respect, in an attempt to give genuine attention to what is being said. And who can help the rest of us begin to listen attentively, too. (Read more here.)

~

Note: Scribe has offered to give away a number of books for the best AWW reviews. Look out for details in an upcoming post. 

What do you think makes a great review?

~

Annabel Smith’s latest novel, Whisky Charlie Foxtrot will be published by Fremantle Press on November 1st. Her first novel, A New Map of the Universe, was shortlisted for the WA Premier’s Prize for Fiction. She has had short fiction and reviews published in Westerly and Southerly, been a writer-in-residence at Katherine Susannah Prichard Writers’ Centre and holds a PhD in writing from Edith Cowan University. Connect with her on Twitter @annabelsmithAUS and Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/AnnabelSmithAUS

~

This post will be cross-posted to the test AWW site on Wordpress.

A reviewer's perspective & Meg Mundell's Black Glass: Annabel Smith

Author Annabel Smith gives her perspective on reading and reviewing books by Australian women, including Barbara Jefferis Award shortlisted novel Black Glass by Meg Mundell. Mundell's book was also recently shortlisted for The Australian Science Fiction Foundation's Norma K Hemming Award which recognises "excellence in the exploration of themes of race, gender, sexuality, class and disability."

The shortlist includes the following outstanding AWW novels: 

• Bell, A.A. Hindsight
• Douglass, Sara. The Devil's Diadem
• Falconer, Kim. Road to the Soul
• Goodman, Alison. Eona
• Hannett, Lisa L. Bluegrass Symphony
• Isle, Sue. Nightsiders
• Mundell, Meg. Black Glass
• Roberts, Tansy Rayner. The Shattered City

Annabel Smith writes:

Almost a decade ago I saw David Malouf read from his collection of short stories Dream Stuff at the Victorian State Library. During question time, someone asked Malouf if he had read Ulysses. Malouf had already responded to several idiotic questions during this session and this one had me squirming in my seat. But Malouf replied graciously that he had, and waited, along with everyone else, to see where this might lead. “I just can’t get to grips with it!” the questioner blurted out, confessionally. “Can you give me some advice?” Malouf’s advice was that life was short, and if a book wasn’t speaking to you, you should move onto one that did.

This is advice that I have always followed as a reader. When asked to write a review of the year in Australian fiction for Westerly, I decided, after some thought to apply that same practice to my reviewing. A book review is understood to be subjective. However, I believe a good review strives for objectivity wherever possible, or at least admits to its limits in that regard. As a writer, I’ve been on the receiving end of reviews that have seemed unfair; one in particular, where it was clear to me that the reviewer had read only the first section of my novel, and that his review did not represent my work as a whole, and was not therefore a balanced review. I believe struggling though a book that I don’t connect with is guaranteed to result in a review that is resentful and therefore perhaps unfair to the book in question.  Books I dislike or am unmoved by are not necessarily bad, they are just not for me.

One of the reasons I undertook the Westerly fiction review was because I knew I was guilty of cultural cringe when it came to Australian fiction, and I thought being forced to read more of it would give me an opportunity to adjust my perspective. And I did read some fantastic Australian books published in the last twelve months.  Only a handful of those, however, were by women writers so when I came across the Australian Women Writers Reading and Reviewing Challenge I saw it as a good opportunity to acquaint myself with more great writing by Australian Women Writers.

The books I’ve read and reviewed (on Goodreads) so far are:

Sarah Thornhill by Kate Grenville

When We Have Wings by Claire Corbett

Inherited (Short Stories) by Amanda Curtin

Shooting the Fox (Short Stories) by Marion Halligan

The Courier’s New Bicycle by Kim Westwood

A Common Loss by Kristen Tranter

Black Glass by Meg Mundell

The books I want to read are:

Five Bells by Gail Jones

Dog Boy by Eva Hornung

What the Dead Said by DJ Daniels

One Man Zeitgeist: Dave Eggers, Publishing and Publicity by Caroline D. Hamilton

Too Close to Home by Georgia Blain

Gone by Jennifer Mills

Above and Below by Stephanie Campisi

My Sister Chaos by Lara Fergus

Here is my review of Black Glass by Meg Mundell:

Meg Mundell’s debut novel Black Glass is the story of two sisters and their search for each other in a city of the not-too-distant future. The black glass of the title is the glass of surveillance. Those who inhabit the city’s various zones are not only watched but manipulated by technicians who subtly influence behaviour through the use of scents, sounds and lighting at a subliminal level. The text includes email exchanges, transcripts of conversations and internet search results, adding to the sense that in this brave new world nothing is private.

The novel is richly detailed, containing brief, beautiful descriptions and surprising metaphors. Mundell’s dialogue is one of the novel’s great strengths - witty, pacey and authentic, it positively crackles with energy and renders the characters perfectly.

A former journalist and government advisor, Mundell conveys a great deal of cynicism about the relationship between the media and the government. At one point, one of the characters reflects on how the media relies on “an endless supply of human folly and greed, criminality, bad luck and exploitation.” And this is exactly what Mundell serves up in her exciting debut: a blackly funny, sinister and gritty exploration of marginalisation.

AnnabelSmith’s first novel, A New Map of the Universe, was published by UWA Publishing in 2005 and shortlisted for the WA Premier’s Prize for Fiction. She has had short fiction published in Westerly and Southerly, been a writer-in-residence at Katherine Susannah Prichard Writers’ Centre and holds a PhD in writing from Edith Cowan University. Her second novel, Whisky Charlie Foxtrot will be published by Fremantle Press in November 2012.