So this week's TBR column is on Annie Dillard, Cathcart and Klein, and Nora Roberts:
Inside the ListNot exactly full of analysis; this kind of review is more about selling the book. I read that and think, Gee, I may have to read it ;) But that's a fleeting response to blatant advertising.
By DWIGHT GARNER, The New York Times
July 29, 2007
. . . FIVE HEARTS: The romance novelist Nora Roberts has a new book on the fiction list — “High Noon” is at No. 2. Roberts has published more than 170 novels, and they aren’t often reviewed in major newspapers. But Lezlie Patterson, a writer for McClatchy Newspapers, has reviewed “High Noon.” Here’s how Patterson says the novel stacks up:
“Overall rating: 5 of 5 hearts. . . .
“Hunk appeal: 10, almost 10-plus. The trouble with creating an admirably strong, self-sufficient and independent heroine is it often leaves little room for a hero to show his stuff. In this case, Duncan managed to be gallant by not being as gallant as he wanted. He’s a good guy, who says and does the right things for Phoebe and those in her life.
“Steamy scene grade: X. . . .
“Happily-Ever-After: Good for the romantic finale, awesome for the suspense. . . .”
Seriously, I'd be more interested in the book if it got a more critical review: a review that talked about themes, pointed out flaws as well as strengths, and put the book into context as a romance, as a bestseller, or as a Nora Roberts. In other words: a review that took it seriously.
It's not that I'm a Nora Roberts fan. I'm not. I've enjoyed some of her J.D. Robb/Eve Dallas speculative romantic suspense novels, but I don't read her romances.
Although according to Jane on Dear Author, High Noon may be Robb-like.... I may have to read it after all.
7 Comments:
There's something I don't like about a romance being awarded "steamy scene grades" and a "hunk appeal" rating. It may be appropriate for some romances, but it seems to me to reinforce the "romance is just porn for women" idea by suggesting that one of the deciding factors for romance readers choosing a book to read is whether or not the hero is sexually attractive to them and whether there are HAWT love scenes.
I don't know, maybe (a) I'm being over-sensitive and (b) I'm basing my opinion on reading a truncated version of the review, but the reviewers at AAR, Smart Bitches and Dear Author manage to write reviews without resorting to this sort of thing.
I'm not saying there shouldn't be any indication about the level of sexual content, just as it's fair enough when reviewing thrillers to give some indication of whether it's a "cosy" or "hardboiled", but this particular ratings system seems to go beyond that.
I don't think you're being oversensitive. It's not my favorite kind of review either, and Garner mentions (perhaps apologetically, for not quoting a well-known reviewer) that NR doesn't get many print reviews.
At the same time, I think Patterson had constraints. She was writing for a small paper and probably a very limited space. She did manage to say things that many readers want to know; she just labeled them in ways that make me a little uncomfortable--but I can see that her approach is practical. She's certainly more terse than any of the sites you mentioned.
My take was that Garner felt he should include something on High Noon, and was probably at a loss for two reasons:
1. There aren't a lot of quality reviews of High Noon out there. Certainly not in the print press; but not really on the blogs either.
1b. Even if there were great blog reviews, quoting them is problematic. I don't think blogs have sufficient status in the public's mind that it makes sense to quote a blog review of a huge name like Nora Roberts. Readers look at the attributions on those quotes, and it sends an unfortunate message when other bestsellers have quotes from, say, the LA Times (positive or not) and there's nothing in print on NR.
2. How does one review a romance? Many of the readers probably want to know exactly what Patterson told them. And many reviewers would have no idea of the genre form, no way to frame the review.
Overall, I thought Garner gave a nod to the issue, no more, no less.
I think the more important issue is, if major reviewers try to incorporate romances, how would they do it?; and when there's an obvious candidate like a bestseller, how do they bridge the current gap and find decent sources to quote?
I suspect that what they really need to do is pay someone like the romance bloggers, if not one of the bloggers, to do quick reviews for them. I know next to nothing about how reviews work, though, so maybe that's not practical.
I would appreciate it if the review remained as objective as possible, mentioning the sub-genre and describing the characteristics of the hero/heroine/plot rather than trying to tell me how I'll feel about them, because my tastes in heroes, heroines and plots might differ from the reviewer's. Telling me that there's violence, or explicit sex, or that it's a romantic comedy is fine; telling me that I'll be struck by terror, filled with lust or rolling on the floor is not.
I'm sounding really grumpy, aren't I?
what they really need to do is pay someone... to do quick reviews for them
That would be ideal, yes. There are difficulties with that scenario, though. First off, I see a pretty wide gap between the bloggers writing for an audience of romance readers and the NY Times reviewers writing for an audience of newspaper readers.
Grumpy? No, I think your wishlist expresses a preference for reviews and essays, rather than recommendations. Suffice it to say, I'm not trying to block your IP address from reading my reviews.
Suffice it to say, I'm not trying to block your IP address from reading my reviews.
Thanks! ;-) The trouble I've found with "recommendations" is that in general they don't work for me. Or rather, if I put my mind to it I can see why the other person recommended it/enjoyed it, but it doesn't suit my tastes. It makes me very, very hesitant to recommend books to other people, and I only do that for close friends whose tastes I know very well.
I see a pretty wide gap between the bloggers writing for an audience of romance readers and the NY Times reviewers writing for an audience of newspaper readers.
Why's there a gap? What sort of gap is it? I really don't know enought about the demographics or expectations of newspaper readers and blog readers to know, so I suspect I'm missing something here. And I'm also getting the impression that the New York Times has immense cachet, but again, that's not something I know much about.
Criticize my reviews but not my semicolons.
I find it's easiest to see why the recommender picked that book if it's based on something I've read ("If you liked X, try Y"). That understanding doesn't mean the recommendation works for me. E.g. I'm generally not interested in reading two similar books in rapid succession, but if the resemblance is more tenuous I'll try it. (Though I occasionally read two books of similar form back-to-back because I'm interested in the form itself.)
What sort of gap is it?
I was thinking of the gap in audience knowledge--the "insiders" who know and love the genre, versus a broader audience. Of course, both online and in print, reviewers build up readerships who enjoy their writing, if not the genre they write about. Quite a few people enjoy reading about books more than reading books. I've always wondered how perceived audience (versus lack of a well-versed reviewer) factors into why some papers have an annual roundup instead of a regular reviewer. (The NY Times has roundups--sci fi, cooking, and poetry come to mind--along with occasional reviews in those genres.)
I'm also getting the impression that the New York Times has immense cachet
It does, and that's why I'm happy to see Garner paying attention to the diversity of what the book section represents. (NYT also has a huge website, so it's easy to reference.)
OTOH, there's cachet and there's quality. To some extent any "major" newspaper lends its reviewers cachet in the public's eye: a quote from a LA Times critic has more brand power than a quote from the Unknown Occasional Newsletter. But that's not the only reason for the cachet. I really enjoy several major papers' books sections.
I should clarify, since there's been discussion about genre "respect" lately:
LV: I'm also getting the impression that the New York Times has immense cachet
RfP: It does, and that's why I'm happy to see Garner paying attention to the diversity of what the book section represents. (NYT Ialso has a huge website, so it's easy to reference.)
I'm not talking about academic or intellectual cachet. I mean the sense of legitimacy that the NYT name conveys to a reader looking at a review or a book jacket. The reaction of "Look, it got a NYT review." And implicitly, "The NYT took it seriously."
Post a Comment