Comments on: What is the job of contemporary sf criticism?

By: Big Dumb Object

Big Dumb Object — Sat, 27 Jan 2007 21:09:20 +0000

Vector and Matrix arrived in the mail today

Today the BSFA’s magazines Vector and Matrix arrived in the mail. Vector has a wonderful front and back cover, the front of the Woking Martian, the back of lots of books that I want to pick up. Plenty of great…

By: Sean Wright

Sean Wright — Wed, 20 Sep 2006 20:29:07 +0000

I have to say I’m with Mr Edelman on this one. Book reports are annoyingly lacking. Fact is: there aren’t enough Clutes and Chouinards around, willing to air their opinions without the pressure of feeling the need tnot to offend. They call it as they see it, and some: the critical eye can spot all kinds of pros and cons on a book, but the real key to a successful review has to be… in context with other books of this or that type. Comparisons are useful to other authors’ work, and the wider the reviewers reading and knowledge of speculative fiction, the better the review. In theory.

By: Niall Harrison

Niall Harrison — Wed, 23 Aug 2006 16:20:51 +0000

“But I think it

By: Armchair Anarchist

Armchair Anarchist — Wed, 23 Aug 2006 14:57:33 +0000

Glad you’re liking the colour scheme – it’s much less aggressive, no?

I take your point on the ‘reviews as recommendation’ idea; from someone you trust, that is indeed all that is required. But I think it’s imporatant for a reviewer to build that trust, by not merely saying whether a book is good or not, but by also giving tangible reasons for liking or disliking it – writing style, characters, plot, tropes, whatever.

This again is where the line between review and critique becomes blurry – it is necessary for me to go into some technical detail about the actual writing of the book, beyond simply treating it as an experience, because we all look for different things in a piece of sf, although the general trends may be similar. A prime example is the stylistic difference between US and British authors – I often struggle with American writers because of the brisk flat prose, but that is a large part of the appeal for many other readers (who prefer fast action to rich description, say). So it is not sufficent for me to say ‘I don’t recommend this book’; it’s important that I make it plain that I don’t recommend it for a person with my tastes, and for me to give an indication of what those tastes are so that the reader can make an accurate assessment of what they will get from the book in question.

Furthermore, it is imperative not to simply dismiss a book as being rubbish, or indeed laud it as excellent. That may be all the review reader wants, but the industry would react poorly to someone reviewing in a pro or semi-pro outlet who simply gave it a thumbs up/thumbs down response – they want feedback, and most importantly, evidence that the reviewer has actually read the book! This is highlighted by the recent controversial flap that involved Emerald City – it may not be important to the average consumer, but a reviewer has a burden of integrity to carry, and a duty to the authors themselves to be honest and objective. This is how the trust you mention should be (and is) built up between reviewer and public, and between reviewer and industry.

Or that’s how I see it, at least!

By: Jose

Jose — Wed, 23 Aug 2006 14:37:11 +0000

I don’t pay much heed to book reviews often. I’d much rather go by reccomendations by people whose tastes I’m familiar with. And I don’t need a lot of information, a one or two line description with a thumbs up or thumbs down is good enough.

The green background works much better, btw.

Cheers,