Based on a cursory glance at certain book-selling websites, we\u2019re also the People of the Snarky Book Review.<\/p>\n
Now, I\u2019m a fan of well-written sardonic humor, and of well-reasoned critiques and reviews, but a lot of what I\u2019ve seen in book reviews on various sites leaves something to be desired in both the reason and writing departments. Part of that is a function of the Internet, where everyone\u2019s voice is louder, which means that even misinformed or malicious opinions have a broader audience and a bigger megaphone. Combine that with the democratic, egalitarian, and individualist notion that everyone\u2019s opinion is equally valid and worthwhile\u2014which is a conversation for another day\u2014and it\u2019s not hard to see how broad access to communications technology can have something of a levelling effect on discourse, boosting the signal-to-noise ratio firmly in the direction of \u201cnoise.\u201d<\/p>\n
What follows are a set of trends I\u2019ve noticed in \u201ccustomer reviews\u201d of books which contribute to the noise. These reviewing styles aren\u2019t exclusive to Pagan, polytheist, or magical writings, of course, but they do<\/em> turn up often enough that I noticed them\u2026 and if you read reviews of books, odds are good that you\u2019ve noticed at least a few of them, too. Among the most easily dismissed reviewers are folks who simply didn\u2019t read the book. A subset of the Complaining About Shows You Don\u2019t Watch<\/a> trope, these reviewers are relatively easy to spot in the wild: they complain about qualities that aren\u2019t actually present in the book, or about the absence of things that are<\/em> in the book. Of all the \u201creviewing\u201d styles listed here, this one galls me the most. Why? Put simply, if you haven\u2019t read it, you aren\u2019t qualified to comment.<\/em> This isn\u2019t meritocracy or elitism, but basic pragmatism. Am I qualified to tell you if it\u2019s raining outside if I haven\u2019t bothered to look outside? No, I am not. So, dear ones, if we haven\u2019t made a good-faith effort to actually read the book\u2014by which I mean, we have a physical or digital copy of the book in our own possession, at least 25% of the text of which we have passed through that marvelous analytical meat computer between our ears, we should still our restless fingers. No one needs to know what we think of a book we didn\u2019t read.<\/p>\n As implied above, merely waving the text in front of our sensory organs is no guarantee of sound critique. Without bringing some measured analysis to a review, all that\u2019s left is the reviewer\u2019s opinion, void of context\u2026 which is useless if the point of the review is to let other folks know whether or not the book is worth their time. It\u2019s especially galling when the review makes it clear that the reviewer\u2019s opinion is so heavily influenced by their preconceptions and perceptual filters that they\u2019re functionally not even reading the book itself, but their own reactions to it.<\/p>\n The solution here is, of course, to apply some critical thinking and analysis to how we approach a text, and to actually read what the author wrote, rather than what we think<\/em> they wrote. (This principle also applies to writing comments on the Internet, by the way, such as responses to Patheos articles.)<\/p>\n This reviewing style could be seen as a subset of the previous entry, but I think it qualifies as it\u2019s own special type of terribleness. The \u201creviewer\u201d goes into their relationship with the text assuming they\u2019re going to dislike it, based on some set of preconceived notions, then has precisely the response they expected to and, rather than acknowledging their own biases, place the blame squarely on the book and its author. This is different from making an accurate risk assessment, which usually involves suspending critical judgment until one actually reads the text. In this case, it\u2019s the judgment happened before the reviewer ever engaged with the text. Again, the reviewer is responding to their own feelings, rather than the text itself, but where the previous example shows a reader simply misreading a text, the I Knew It Would Be Awful reader is going in with a critique already written.<\/p>\n As before, critical thinking and analysis are key, but in addition to being focused on the text itself, that keen discernment and analytical eye should also be turned on one\u2019s own feelings and biases. Just as no one needs to know what we think of a book we didn\u2019t read, no one really needs to know how we felt about a book before we read it.<\/p>\n The one-word review appears in two variants. The first is usually some sort of complaint or negative judgment on the book, such as \u201ctrash\u201d or \u201cawful,\u201d though it occasionally shows up as \u201cgreat.\u201d These reviews might be called the \u201coffhandedly pithy,\u201d though they always strike me as \u201cI\u2019m too lazy to actually write what I thought about this book, but I wanted to MAKE MY OPINION KNOWN!\u201d I suspect that, if pressed to expand on their thoughts, most of these folks would show up under some other heading, such as I Didn\u2019t Read It (But Let Me Tell You Why It\u2019s Terrible) or I Knew It Would Be Awful (And It Was). You already know what I think of those<\/em> reviewers.<\/p>\n The second type is the \u201cclever\u201d one-word reviewer whose review is a play on words, referencing either the book\u2019s title, the subject, or the author\u2019s name. The canonical example of this version is Leonard Maltin\u2019s one-word review of the 1948 musical Isn\u2019t It Romantic?<\/em>, which reads, in it\u2019s entirety, \u201cNo.\u201d<\/a> Zingers like this can be funny on occasion, but they\u2019re rarely informative. Unless one has the wit of a Leonard Maltin\u2014and, really, how many of us do?\u2014I suggest we find other outlets for our stand-up comedy urges.<\/p>\n Let me tell you why I don\u2019t care! Reviews of this sort tend to sound an awful lot like the reviewer has a personal grudge against the author of the text: \u201cLady Pixie Moondrip was rude to me once at a Pagan Pride Day! Don\u2019t buy her awful book on chakra energy washing! She\u2019s mean to children and small household animals! Also, I don\u2019t like the way she looks!\u201d Now, Lady Pixie Moondrip might indeed be rude, mean, or aesthetically displeasing to some folks, but none of those judgments tells me whether or not her book on chakra energy washing is any damn good or not. (I\u2019m sure it\u2019s awesome. After all, how could it not be, right?) If you\u2019re writing a review, review the book<\/em>, not the author.<\/p>\n Ever read a review so scathing and venomous that you just have to know what sort of person would write it? And then you look at their profile, and discover that their account is mere days old, there\u2019s no information about them whatsoever, that they\u2019ve written no other reviews? In other words, it looks as though they manifested on this plane of existence for the sole purpose of venting vitriol about this book? Whenever I see these folks, I\u2019m further convinced that there are people who literally don\u2019t know how to get through life without being angry about something, and if they can\u2019t find anything else, they\u2019ll get mad about a book they didn\u2019t like. It\u2019s the only explanation I can come up with for someone literally creating an account for the sole reason of attacking someone else\u2019s work.2<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n Of course, I could understand this behavior if someone thinks a book is legitimately harmful, but books on chakra energy washing or whatever are rarely dangerous, and\u2014more to the point\u2014I find it difficult to believe that most people are genuinely moved to protect \u201cthe Pagan community\u201d from badly-written, poorly-researched books. (Alas.)<\/p>\n Seriously, folks, we can do better than this.<\/p>\n I\u2019ll grant you, there are some less-than-stellar books out there, and a few I\u2019d even go so far as to say are just plain bad. However, with the exception of some truly cynical garbage I\u2019ve seen turn up in the past few years, even books that are just sorta \u201cmeh\u201d were written by folks who were genuinely trying to put something of value out into the world, to have some positive effect on their communities and traditions of practice. I guarantee you that no one<\/em> is writing Pagan, polytheist, or occult books to get rich. In fact, as Erynn Rowan Laurie<\/a> recently pointed out, authors in this field are struggling to get people to pay for their books at all<\/a>.<\/p>\n So, if a book is misinformed, mistaken, or simply not to your taste, and you want to point that out in a review, go for it! Argue with the author\u2019s ideas, challenge their conclusions, critique their writing. All of those are all fair game. Just don\u2019t waste anyone\u2019s time with any of the lazy, self-involved, petty things I called out above. It\u2019s a small thing, perhaps, but even small things contribute to making our interlocking communities better spaces for everyone.<\/p>\n Even\u2014or especially\u2014the folks who write books.<\/p>\n Until next time, dear ones, be safe and sassy. \u2665<\/p>\n Pagans, polytheists and occultists might be the People of the Library, but if certain book-selling websites are anything to go by, we’re also the People of the Snarky Book Review. How can we better engage with the books we love so much?<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3023,"featured_media":2452,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[128,3,83,36,34,173,12,13],"class_list":["post-2440","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-uncategorized","tag-book-review","tag-books","tag-occult","tag-occult-books","tag-pagan","tag-pagan-community","tag-paganism","tag-polytheism"],"yoast_head":"\n
\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/790\/2019\/03\/serge-kutuzov-429401-unsplash.jpg\")
I Didn\u2019t Read It (But Let Me Tell You Why It\u2019s Terrible)<\/h3>\n
I \u201cRead\u201d It Through A Pair Of Welding Goggles<\/h3>\n
I Knew It Would Be Awful (And It Was)<\/h3>\n
One. Word. Review.<\/h3>\n
Let Me Tell You Why I Don\u2019t Like The Author<\/h3>\n
I Just Made An Account To Complain<\/h3>\n
\n\n