Talking about talking about books.

[shewhomust]

I occasionally rant about on-line reviews, to the effect that "That's not a review, it's a plot summary". There is clearly a convention that outlining the early stages of the story is part - a major part - of the reviewer's duty. At the same time, to refer to something which is revealed beyond a certain point in the book is to spoiler. My problem is that I have very little sense of where that point is. On the one hand, if I am writing about a book, I want to discuss the whole book, which might well include how the characters respond to events, or how satisfying I find the ending. On the other hand, I read reviews to help me choose what to read: once I have chosen, I would like come to a book knowing as little as possible about it. So I feel mildly spoilered by almost any plot summary.

Here's a professional review, from the Telegraph newspaper:

Hidden Depths (Macmillan, £12.99) is another classic, traditional crime novel in a contemporary setting by Ann Cleeves, winner of last year's Duncan Lawrie Dagger. A teenage boy and a young woman have been murdered, evidently by the same killer, but nothing seems to link the victims.

Inspector Vera Stanhope, the detective in charge of the case, is convinced that the crimes are somehow connected to a group of four very different men, bound together only by their love of bird-watching, and the woman who is married to their leader.

The story follows each of the main characters in turn, but it is fat, lonely Vera, awkward with her staff and unaware that they are frightened of her, who makes the biggest impression in this skilfully crafted mystery.

Given its provenance, this is presumably how it's supposed to be done: if it doesn't meet my requirements, I'm looking for the wrong thing, or in the wrong place.

I get the impression (from the character sketch of the detective, perhaps?) that it's a recommendation, that the reviewer liked the book, but there is no phrase there that I could pick out to support that - "skilfully crafted", at best, and that's fairly lukewarm. Yet the plot is fair game, it is in order - in a classic detective story - to reveal something of the identity of the second murder victim, something of the detective's approach to the case. I'm not being ironic, clearly this is within the rules: but I'm glad I read the book before I read this review.

I'm currently deep in matociquala's Blood and Iron, and I was thinking about a pattern I had discerned in it, and that I might be able to say something sufficiently coherent about it to post here, in the fullness of time - and realised that not only is there something inherently spoilerish about picking over a book with triumphant cries of "Hey, I got a theme!", the clever title I had thought of for the post was in itself spoilerish. Yes, I can put in cuts, and yes, I can put up warnings - but I realise that I cannot be trusted to recognise a spoiler when I see one.

In that sense, I want to write critiques rather than reviews, assessments of books to be read by those who have read the book first (or who are prepared to make a pretence of having read the book, or at the very least claim no special treatment because they have not read the book). But this sounds very grand, and more thorough than my scattershot impressions can ever be. Really, all I want to do is talk about books.

Comments

[sartorias.livejournal.com]

*nodding*

Yep, know that feeling. (I feel further frustrated because I am one of those who could not care less about spoilers, but I know I have to respect others' rights in this matter, so I end up never saying anything at all.)

[lil-shepherd.livejournal.com]

There is no "right" way of doing a review. "I liked this book," is not going to help anyone else decide whether to read it or not. I certainly could not have decided whether to bother with the book in the quoted review. If I am reading a review to decide if to read the book myself, I need people to tell me why or why not they liked or disliked a book so that I can make a guess as to whether I will like it.

On the other hand, I often read reviews of books I have read, because they may give me a new insight, or because I can begin to build up a picture of that reviewer's taste, and therefore know whether if I'm going to love (or hate) a book that that reviewer recommends.

Personally, I try not to reveal too much of the plot, but put the whole thing behind a cut, which lays the onus on the reader. (For instance, I will post a review today of Neal Asher's Brass Man that will describe, in a small amount of detail, a scene quite late in the book that is essential to the plot. However, I don't think that description will give away more than why I think the term "widescreen baroque" might have been invented to describe Asher's work. However, my reviews are written primarily as a discipline for me, so it hardly matters.

If there are major spoilers behind the cut then state that this is so. If your review is more of a critique, state that it is a critique. This gives enough info to put the blame for spoilers on the reader.

[shewhomust.livejournal.com]

Thanks: that's encouraging.

[samarcand.livejournal.com]

I think that a large part of it is personal taste and also reader (of the review) beware. I think it usually shows quite early whether or not the reviewer is any good at the job of reviewing or is just précising the plot. But then, this seems to be very much a dying art - very like the ability to make a trailer for a film or tv show that doesn't tell you everything that happens. It seems to me that many reviewers are just getting lazier when it comes to writing their reviews and they go for the easy option of telling the plot and a rather loose 'it was good' or 'it was badly written' without going any deeper into the whys and wherefores of their opinion.

But that's just my opinion.