Forum: Author Hangout

but the answer is no.

You overlooked something Awnlee. Keet was talking about personal dislike of a genre not expertise.

A reviewer's review is their personal opinion of what they read.

If someone really hates the genre, then there is a high likelihood that they will hate the book and write a negative review because that is their opinion of the book. A negative review would be a fair review for it is their opinion. I would not want to be placed in the position of having to say something positive about a genre that I despised; I would have to lie to do that.

Keet's position of letting the editor know about your opinion of the genre and probable review you are likely to write is probably the best way to handle the situation.

Keet was talking about personal dislike of a genre not expertise.

I think it very unlikely someone with a personal dislike of a genre, who never reads books in that genre by choice, would be an expert in that genre. Certainly they wouldn't be able to understand comparisons and references to other books in that genre.

However a competent reviewer should be able to put their prejudices aside and provide an objective, albeit superficial, review. I did, IMO. Certain qualities such as plot, pacing, characterisation etc are pretty much genre independent.

AJ

would be an expert in that genre.

If you review the OP, nowhere in the description does it say the people reviewing books are experts in the genre of the books being reviewed at Podunk Review of Books. The description sounds as if the editor arbitrarily assigns books to whomever is available. The fact that the editor assigned a book in a genre that the reviewer hates and does not read indicates the reviewer's expertise in the genre of the book was not a consideration of the editor.

Most of the book reviews I read by professional reviewers explain why the reviewer likes the book. There is very little, if any, description of character and plot development

You're correct. My post was in regard to Awnlee's post in which he said those types of things should have been included in a review of a book; the review would have been targeted at average readers, not authors who would understand the importance of those items to a story.

If the review did go on about character and plot development, the average reader wouldn't understand it.

Wow, my newspaper publishes book reviews that average readers are unable to understand.

In the UK, everyone gets lessons on English Language and Literature at school, including plot development and characterisation in plays and stories. Obviously not every child will take the lessons to heart, but most kids will at least have a grasp of the concepts.

YMMV.

AJ

The fact that the editor is assigning reviews to reviewers indicates a professional environment. Someone who refuses to do their job is not a professional.

My newspaper prints short reviews of the latest releases, often no more than two or three paragraphs. The plot development is usually mentioned (except in Literary Fiction, obviously), characterisation less so.

In a professional publication dedicated to reviews, to omit how proficient the author the author is at aspects of their craft would be unprofessional. Even the amateur reviewers on SOL have categories for plot, technical quality and appeal. If your professional reviewers tell you less, I recommend you switch to other sources.

AJ

Someone who refuses to do their job is not a professional.

Suggesting that someone else do the review is not refusing to do your job.

In fact, my personal opinion is, a professional would point out to their supervisor that they have minimal knowledge of the genre and a very negative opinion of the genre that combined would adversely affect any review they wrote.

The SOL environment is very different than a commercial firm that prepares reviews for the general public. In general, SOL's reviewers do a good job of expressing their personal opinions of stories written by SOL authors. The stories are generally written by amateur writers and reviewed by amateur reviewers. The ratings given by most reviewers are highly subjective.

However, I would trust their reviews more than the reviews written by professional reviewers who have a financial motivation for praising the author of the book they are reviewing. They and their firms are being approached by the author/publisher and are paid to write a good review. If they write a negative review, authors/publishers will not pay them in the future to write a review.

Suggesting that someone else do the review is not refusing to do your job.

So who is at fault? Podunk Review of Books for employing someone not up to the job, or the reviewer for accepting a job they were unable to fulfil?

AJ

So who is at fault?

You are for not accepting that everyone has limitations.

An employee in a firm producing book reviews cannot be expected to be an expert in every genre and we all have our preferences and personal dislikes. In the ideal world, if a reviewer were assigned a book to review and the reviewer hate the genre, they would just complete the assignment in a professional manner. In the real world, that doesn't always happen. Remember, people have squicks that affect them severally. If a genre is a squick for a reviewer they should not be forced by there employer to read books in that genre.

Furthermore, the editor should not be expected to know every reviewer's likes and dislikes. If an editor hands out an assignment that a reviewer feels they are not qualified to complete, then the reviewer should identify their feelings to the editor. It would then be the editor's choice to have the reviewer complete the assignment or to assign it to a different reviewer.

Remember, people have squicks that affect them severally. If a genre is a squick for a reviewer they should not be forced by there employer to read books in that genre.

It's a murder mystery, a very important genre these days. If the employee is unable to review such books because of a squick, they should have mentioned it at job interview time.

Furthermore, the editor should not be expected to know every reviewer's likes and dislikes.

I would have thought knowing their underlings' strengths and weaknesses was very much part and parcel of management responsibility. How else to perform annual reviews and draw up training plans?

AJ

And if that sort of thing is a concern, why would it not be the interviewer's responsibility to explicitly ask about it.

It's a very artificial situation, particularly the inferences that are being read into it.

AJ

particularly the inferences that are being read into it.

Go back through the thread and count the number of inferences you have made with nothing in the OP to support those inferences. In fact, the majority of inferences in the thread have been made by you.

Where in the world did you come up with that standard?

I wasn't responsible for that remark. I was going to challenge it but I can see that reviewers might have a vested interested in making positive reviews. If they make too any bad reviews a publisher might stop sending them free advance copies.

AJ

The technical side of a review can be somewhat objective but the appeal side most definitely not and a reviewer would have to lie about that given the OP's situation.

Not necessarily. The book reviews in my newspaper sometimes contain quite strong recommendation but often there's nothing about the appeal. That's not lying, unless you call it lying by omission. But there's still enough about the plot and characters for fans of the genre to make up their own minds about whether the book might appeal to them.

AJ

Any editor that demands a reviewer review something in a category they dislike should not remain in that position.

You're biasing the result.

And only using reviewers that like the category isn't biasing the result?

Not in a bad way no.

If you for example, love reading books about Anime Waifus, and your editor assigns you to do a deep review of the history of the Songhai Empire of West Africa in the Middle Ages...

And I, a reader of African history, am assigned to do a review of "Waifu Girls of Planet X at Tokyo High"...

Do you think either of us will be able to write a review that has any decent level of value to a person who reads those genres?

A prospective reader wants an informed opinion of an "expert" in that field.

If I'm buying a book on African History... I want to be sure the author actually knew their stuff, and wasn't some non-African Colonial idiot full of "opinions"...

And if someone is an Anime fan, they want to know if the Manga they plan to buy is a good Manga, and not some half=baked thing written by a Canadian Dubbing company with no grasp of the genre.

NOT doing it that way is how you get "Reviewers" telling you Star Trek Discovery is the best Star Trek ever... ;)
- Become some fool assigned the 'Game of Thrones" fanboy to review it, rather than the Trekkie who keeps showing up to the office in his "Kirk cosplay". If I want to know if a new Star Trek show is good, I ask a Trekkie.

Would you trust a fan of Country Music to tell you what the best new Rap album was? Or the reverse?
(This example is a bit of a trick: because if you asked the artists, a lot of them secretly work together, but their fans are usually not crossing over much).

Any editor that demands a reviewer review something in a category they dislike should not remain in that position.

You're biasing the result.

A prospective reader of that review will not get what they seek. You want a review from someone who has an interest in a topic, telling you if this is a good or bad example of that topic, and how.

It's a flawed exercise. In today's job market, it wouldn't even be worth it for that reviewer to stay there. So my answer is that I would refuse to write the article.

As an NCO I was required to write an annual NCOER (Non Commissioned Officer Evaluation Report) on my subordinate NCOs. I was supposed to be as unbiased and professional as possible. All NCOERs also have a Senior Evaluator (Senior NCO), typically a Platoon Sergeant, the Company First Sergeant and Commanding Officer (typically a Captain) also review it for fairness.

Quarterly verbal counseling (sometimes backed up with a written counseling statement; in particular if punishment/reduction in rank, or an award or promotion was due) was among my duties to develop junior NCOs.

Didn't matter if I liked them or disliked them. It was my responsibility to be objective. If I took a bullet to the head, my Squad would live or Die because of the performance of my subordinate NCOs! Some guys I didn't like were competent. Some I liked required improvements. My duty was to train and mentor them to becoming better soldiers and leaders!

Similarly, if your job is to write reviews, you should be prepared to do so. Communication with your boss to have a more qualified person do one, or a few assignments is reasonable. No one is an expert on everything. However, if you have to to the job. Objectivity and professionalism should be more important than your opinion.