[LMB] Two Reviews (sherwooded)

[V L'Ecuyer]

>
>
> Message: 7
> From: Lois McMaster Bujold lbujold at myinfmail.com
>
> I think it is very instructive, on a meta-level, to compare and contrast
> these two reviews of _Legacy_: one from a skiffy-minded reader, and one
> from a reader coming strictly out of the romance genre.  (This romance
> reader is unduly handicapped by not having read the first volume,
> note).  But what is especially interesting to me is which elements of
> the tale they draw out as central to their attention, at least enough to
> be worth commenting on.  While I wouldn't say there is no overlap, the
> two reads are decidedly orthogonal.  It's a not-bad sample of the sort
> of effect I noticed in reviews of _Irresistible Forces_ from the two
> camps, when it came out back when, and which gave me so much to think
> about -- about half a million words of thinking-about, in fact.
>
> The romance reader's review goes like this:
>
>
> http://www.coffeetimeromance.com/BookReviews/Thesharingknifevolumetwolegacy.html
>
>
> And the skiffy person's review goes like this:
>
> http://alixsin.typepad.com/main/2007/09/peering-into-th.html
>
> Victoria L'E might have some reaction here...
>
> Ta, L.




You paged me?

The reviewers' differences you noticed are rooted in something else you've
already observed elsewhere--the dialog between the reader and the writer via
the story. Alayne does a good job of pegging the why of the differences.
too.

In my opinion, the reasons for the schizophrenic reviews you've been getting
with TSK:vol# go one step farther. The reader/reviewer comes to a book with
a pre-selected bunch of expectations based on where they are shelved in a
book store. Or they have rigid and/or narrow definitions of what A Bujold
Book is. In short, they have genre agendas.

People read what they do because they want something familiar and pleasing.
The majority of genre readers are in it for their personal pleasure and
don't want to waste either their time or their money on bad entertainment.
Because there is a little something for everyone in TSK series, everyone is
cherry picking what appeals. The negative reviews come from "allergic
reactions" to the rest of the elements that exist outside of the reader's
desired entertainment agenda. (Ex Aero over on Baen's Bar and her opinion of
romance before we sent her to the "cootie aisle" with a recommended reading
list is a good example of "negative reading agendas." Her reactions to TSK
are consistent with her slightly altered but still negative reading agenda.)

 After reading the reviews and parsing their contents and context, I would
say Liadan, the romance reader (
http://www.coffeetimeromance.com/BookReviews/Thesharingknifevolumetwolegacy.html),
self-selects for stories about person-to-person relationships and pays
attention to inter-personal dynamics and family politics. Here's her bio:
http://www.coffeetimeromance.com/Reviewers/Liadan.html. Based on her
favorites list, I'd say plot and setting is less important (and may even be
optional) if the characters and the relationships they have are believable
enough. This is pretty standard for the romance genre reader/writer. They
don't care about the details (or accuracy thereof) as much as they want a
good story about relationships. /Legacy's/ "extra material" confused Liadan,
but it didn't put her off.

Alison Sinclair, the skiffy reader (
http://alixsin.typepad.com/main/2007/09/peering-into-th.html) goes for
realism (for a given value of "real") in regards to The Big Picture and
wants good world building where believable characters do believable things.
Which makes sense, because she's an author herself
http://www.sff.net/people/asinclair/ (via her blog link). Alison's criteria
are pretty standard for the skiffy reader/writer. They want modern legends
and up-to-date heroes to act as a mirror for us, our increasingly mechanized
society and our hopes and dreams. (Which is what the ancient legends and
heroic tales did. They explained things.) Facts and accuracy are as
important as the story because the skiffy reader is the kind of person who
cares about those things.

Message: 13
> From: JenL jenl1625 at gmail.com
>
> [snipped]
>
> Any idea why someone unfamiliar with book 1 reviewed book 2?




I used to say, "Critics get paid to fart" until I realized that I had to
critique the reviewer and determine their criteria for a good/bad story.
IMO, the good reviewers tell the audience either overtly or indirectly, what
criteria they are judging the creative work by. When I read/hear reviews, I
pay attention to that more than I pay attention to what's said about the
work in question. If I agree with the reviewer's criteria, I pay attention
to their opinion. If not, I don't.

In recent years, I've noticed that reviewers fall into three basic
categories: Professional, Semi-/Sorta-Pro, and Amateur. Professionals are
the ones who get paid for their opinions by news papers, magazines, radio
shows like NPR, and the like. Amateur reviewers are the voracious readers
who feel obligated to share their opinions about what they read via blogs or
home-grown web sites (Their reviews are pre-selected based on their default
reading tastes, random interests and what their friends suggest. ) Alison
Sinclair falls into the amateur category.

The Semi-/Sorta-Pro falls into one of two sub categories. One is an amateur
hoping to gather a following so they can make money from either site ads or
have some mass media organization hire them based on their fame and amount
of hits. They will review regularly, develop their writing, and generally
act and sound like a professional reviewer. (The good ones, I think, are
responsible for "buzz" and viral marketing phenomena. That means they will
never earn money, just a lot of on-line fame.) The second category of
Semi-/Sorta- is something along the lines of "paying a membership fee" to
belong to an on-line reading group. [1] Who reviews what depends on the
reader's group setup, mission and membership requirements.

Liadan, the romance reviewer belongs to such an on-line reading group based
on the site's submission page
http://www.coffeetimeromance.com/reviewsguidelines.html. (Summary: readers
submit books to the site, the site's reviewers have to read and respond with
their honest opinions. Just glancing around, it looks like a clearing house
for small presses and new authors trying to start a buzz.) Then there is
this from the "rating system" page. ---begin quote--- Looking for an honest
book review? This is the place to be. We have all seen a book that 'looks'
great, but is it as good as the promotion that you just read? Our staff
reads hard to help you make those critical decisions...to buy or not to buy.
---end quote---

 Victoria

 [1] Similar sites include http://www.theromancereader.com/ and
http://www.themysteryreader.com/ There are others, but I prefer getting
recommendations from sources I can interrogate and/or debate with.