Last week, friend and novelist Nicole Petrino-Salter posted a provocative piece entitled Why Writers Make Lousy Reviewers. Her thesis:
We writers are a critical lot – forced to be as we scour our work for
“bad” writing errors. What ultimately happens is we see every downside of others’ works right along with our own… we want to tear apart the author for his/her choices in words, style, and/or message (or lack thereof). We become less and less satisfied with what we read. (emphasis mine)
It’s a legitimate point. When I began pursuing professional publication, I recall developing an acute awareness of “technicalities” in the books I read. Stories that I would have, at one time, breezed through, I began to falter on, niggling over passives and POV shifts. You know, the things writers are taught to look for. Which leads Nicole to conclude,
Writers tend to examine the actual writing of the story moreso than the story itself. We look at how the characters develop, all the technical aspects of putting words together, and we decide if the methodology works. Sometimes readers have no idea what we’re talking about and find these factors non-essentials. And that, my friends, is why writers can make lousy reviewers… (emphasis mine)
At that point, Nicole began to lose me. And the further the discussion went, the more lost I became.
Do writers tend to fixate on method rather than story? Does “technical awareness” really mean that writers make lousy reviewers? On the contrary, I think writers may be some of the best reviewers on the planet! Let me explain.
I went through a cultural Renaissance many years ago. Siskel and Ebert were the culprits. I already loved movies, but Siskel and Ebert took it to another level. I enjoyed watching those critics banter about film. Often, they did not agree. Which was all the more reason to watch. However, their love for movies was contagious. As a result, I purchased several books about film history and film critique (recommendations made by S & E). I began watching the classic films, foreign films, and discovering directors like Akira Kurosawa and Werner Herzog. I learned about Hitchcock’s MacGuffin and Kubrick’s employment of the wide-angle lens in films like The Shining. Did this study of “technique” hinder my appreciation of film? Just the opposite: I fell more in love with it!
The same thing has happened to me as a writer.
Now that I’m a published author, have attended several writer’s conferences, read all the obligatory craft books, and frequent writer’s circles on a regular basis… I am MORE in love with books than ever before.
That’s the thing: Most writers are fans of reading. We love good stories! We revel in realistic worlds, fresh characters, and unique plot twists. We live to be sucked into a tale and, when we finish, pine to recapture that glow again and again.
As such, we love the technicalities that make good stories. Yes — good stories are good precisely because of technicalities.
- Building a believable character involves technique.
- Story set-up involves technique.
- Unraveling a plot involves technique.
- Creating believable dialog involves technique.
- Mounting suspense involves technique.
- Properly pacing the story involves technique.
- Bringing about a satisfying resolution involves technique.
The technical elements are part of what makes a story work.
Sure, readers might not be as interested in the technical processes as writers. But make no mistake: Without those technical processes the reader would not have the same appreciation for the story. Kind of like Ben & Jerry’s New York Super Fudge Chunk — I don’t need to know everything that goes into it, but I’ll probably know if one of the ingredients is missing. Especially fudge. Likewise, many readers do not know about MacGuffins and wide-angle lenses… but they would know if those things were missing. As a result, their “critique” often comes out as imprecise and highly subjective: “I don’t know — the movie was just slow,” or “It wasn’t that scary,” or “It wasn’t my cup of tea.” Had they been able to pinpoint the “technicalities” that caused their disinterest, they would be one step closer to being a discerning viewer… and a candidate for amateur film reviewer.
A good reviewer grows her readers, gives them insight into the medium, and makes them fall in love with it more.
Of course, there’s folks who will lambaste everything, obsess over “writing rules,” and lose sight of the forest (story) for the trees (technique). I’m guessing Nicole had these reviewers in mind when she wrote her piece. But does this realistically describe most writer / reviewers? Are writers so enamored with details as to be irrelevant? Are we so boxed in by methodology that we “become less and less satisfied with what we read”? Have we lost “story” for the sake of “science”? Have we lost touch with the “average reader”? Are writers just plain lousy reviewers?
On the contrary, reviewers who ignore or, even worse, are not aware of the technicalities of a story are just as bad as reviewers who nit-pick technicalities. Reviewers who praise everything are just as bad as reviewers who pan everything. Even worse are reviewers who simply don’t care about craft and/or assume their readers don’t either. In reality, these reviewers are little more than PR reps, doling out recommendations rather than analyses.
But is it appropriate to even call them reviewers?
Listen, if anyone is qualified to review books you’d think it would be those who spend their lives with them. But, then again, I’m just a writer…
Whether you’re a writer or not is irrelevant. Can you articulate what you did or didn’t like about the story, or at least what made you like or dislike it?
I know writers and non-writers alike who are critical readers. I won’t review something unless I can at least specify what made me like or dislike it. Some of the non-writing readers I know are even more critical than I am.
I lost you, Mike, because some writers lose readers with their in-depth analyses. I made the post vague enough – with the exception of a provocative title – to insure that the point did not include ALL reviewers and ALL readers. Context played a role in writing the post as given in the first few sentences. Simple observation and opinion. Neither of which you agreed. 😉
I didn’t think that post was “vague” at all. Your point came across clearly. And I did get that it was a generalization, that you weren’t indicting ALL writers. As I’ve said, there’s some legitimacy to your post. Thanks for commenting, Nicole!
I’m not a published author, but i’ve written several stories (and read all the craft books as you said). I think I have more of an appreciation for what it takes to create a great story as a writer. I find I love reading more. And I love reviewing books because it gives me a chance to process what I’ve read, as well as try to compellingly articulate why others might want to read the story as well.
I review as a reader and a writer. Not all of my reviews are positive. In fact, in the past few months I’ve had to do a few bad reviews. One of those bad reviews was for a friend. That made it all the harder. I believe you’re right, Mike, on how critiques can make us appreciate the work that goes on behind the scenes.
I think writers make great reviewers IF they can set aside their envy of the other author’s success. I can’t count the number of writer-composed reviews of big sellers (i.e. Harry Potter, DaVinci Code) where constructive criticism was tabled or shouted down by the whole “I can’t believe this got published and sold a billion copies and I can’t even get an agent for my infinitiely better book.” I don’t want to have you show off endlessly about how you know some obscure fairy tale from the 17th century that is a better version of Harry Potter than Harry Potter.
Too many writers forget that the review of the book they’re doing is supposed to be about THAT book. Not about how great a writer or how well-read you are. Sure you can use some examples to illuminate a point but I get really tired of all the SMUG that screams out of a lot of author reviws. (Fair warning: I’m smug when I review David Foster Wallace and Jonathan Franzen. Because I don’t like them. Full stop.)
But if a writer can also cogently analyse what works and doesn’t work in a particular story it makes for a refreshing change of pace from all the Harriet Klausner-type “reviews” that are no more than a plot summary or regurgitation of dust jacket copy.
Mike, I do find I’m a pickier reader. I think that’s natural. But at the same time, I also appreciate more. Things I once took for granted or didn’t even notice, now give me reason to praise a work.
Another analogy might be sports. I’ve never played football and when I first started watching it as a kid, I wondered why the runners seemed to seek out the pile of players and run right into it. Eventually TV commentators who once had played or coached began explaining things and showing in slow motion what was happening and what was supposed to happen. It revolutionized my enjoyment of the sport. I gained a great deal of appreciation because those commentators shared their expertise. Writers who review can do the same thing if we’re willing to.
Becky
Becky, I’ve always appreciated your reviews. You have a great way of critically digging into a story without being overly critical. Like you, I am a pickier reader now that I’ve started writing. However, this hasn’t stifled my appreciation of reading in the least.
I have one simple question for both Mike and Nicole. How many professional authors do you know of who also consistently write reviews of other’s fiction? Katherine hit on what I took from the “writers make terrible reviewers” post by Nicole. Of course, all writers don’t make bad reviewers. But over time, many develop the same problem a majority of ex-athlete sports commentators have (sorry Rebecca) – over analysis. When I watch a football game, I really don’t need all the analysis. It’s interesting for a bit but then I really just want those guys to shut up and let me watch and appreciate the game. As Katherine said of some writer / reviewers. They bring too much of themselves to the party.
To answer your question, Tim, I don’t know of many professional authors who write reviews. I know far more professional reviewers. If over-analysis is the primary fault of writer / reviewers, I still don’t think that weights the argument one way or another. Knowledge of the craft (or sport) is seen as a plus in most fields.
Professionals in either industry rarely give an unbiased assessment. Whether or not that hinders the analyses/reviews resides in the opinion of the listeners or readers as is evident from the opinions here.
Nicole, every reviewer, professional or not, will bring biases. I’m not sure that authors have more than any other reviewer.
Writers make lousy reviewers? It’s a nonsensical premise. The judges on American Idol all have music backgrounds, don’t they? Or does that also make them lousy judges? give me a break.
Jason, read the post. If you read the post, you might understand it. But then, you obviously might not too. And I suppose everyone agrees with the judges on A I? Not that I’ve heard. (I don’t watch it.)
As usual, you make some good points, Mike. I just finished reviewing a book, and one of the things I picked up on was the constant and abrubt POV changes. A reader would not know why they were not liking the book, but, as a writer, I knew.
The more I’ve written, the more I have to force myself to turn off that internal editor that shrieks in my ear sometimes. This is supposed to be for fun. With the last book I finished, I let the story pull me along, instead of me focusing on characterization or what I would have done differently. Having that inner editor perched on the shoulder can take the “fun” out of the experience of just…reading…
There’s a time to read with that “critical” eye. I do that when I want to see what a writer did right, and if a book falls short for me, what I think they could have done better. I usually keep that type of opinion to myself.