tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-109955980329789216.post8140800900238722645..comments2024-01-18T11:46:30.540+11:00Comments on Dangers Untold and Hardships Unnumbered: The Hatchet Job: Celebrating a roasting?Rhiannon Harthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03611927348379723038noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-109955980329789216.post-51179015688897711452012-02-10T15:13:20.951+11:002012-02-10T15:13:20.951+11:00@ Sue --- You're right about the reviews being...@ Sue --- You're right about the reviews being for the readers not the writers.<br /><br />@ Anon -- Ha! British journos. I'll take your word for it.<br /><br />@ Livinia -- Right as well. I agree that rationally there are things that are good about this award. It still makes me cringe though.Rhiannon Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03611927348379723038noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-109955980329789216.post-61592042821083364832012-02-09T15:24:05.212+11:002012-02-09T15:24:05.212+11:00I must admit, I don't like writing bad reviews...I must admit, I don't like writing bad reviews. Most of the time I make myself write the bad review immediately, while I'm still angry at the book. Otherwise I chicken out.<br /><br />But I must say, I'm all for awarding bad reviews. Writing bad reviews is hard because we're raised not to say things that aren't nice about stuff people worked hard on. But you know what? Saying someone uses the word "beautiful" too much or didn't research 1970 well isn't mean. It's true. Some flaws are objective. As for subjective flaws, well, the reviewer should say their truth because it might be their reader's truth too.<br /><br />A reviewers duty is to be as true as possible to the people who might read the book their reviewing. Awards like this keep reviewers from developing a Cult of Niceness. (There are plenty of places where I go that require Niceness. I enjoy those spaces. I don't think criticism should be one of them.) I'm fine with this award as long as it truly recognizes well-written criticism, not just vitriol-for-the-sake-of-it.<br /><br />As for giving the column over to a book that deserved praise, generally the actual reviewers get assigned a book by their editor and don't get to ask for another because they didn't like the one they got.Livianiahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10479932701589363306noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-109955980329789216.post-9880718922809364792012-02-08T23:33:59.907+11:002012-02-08T23:33:59.907+11:00I agree with you, Rhiannon - except I would probab...I agree with you, Rhiannon - except I would probably go further. The British journalist as a breed does not as a rule require encouragement in the sharpening of knives department, I fear, and when I read a bad review I mourn the lost column inches that could have been given over to celebrating another book, that deserved praise, so that I might buy it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-109955980329789216.post-1039487633056365672012-02-08T19:23:27.327+11:002012-02-08T19:23:27.327+11:00I checked out this page and looked at the review o...I checked out this page and looked at the review of the Robert Hughes book on the history of Rome, because he's the only one of whom I have heard. Personally, I thought the review was very fair. Firstly, the newspaper gave the job to an expert in the area; Mary Beard is a professor of classics. That's more than can be said of the woman who reviewed my children's book on crime, Crime Time, who admitted she didn't know anything about children's books and said she supposed it might be okay for helping with homework! Homework! - the only thing it was NOT meant for. Thank goodness it also got reviews from people who did know what they were reading (including Adele Walsh, who used to be a teacher).<br /><br />Secondly, the author of this review spent about half the article saying what was terrific about the book. And when she does get to the criticism, it's not about, "I hated this, it was badly written" but ""he got his historical detail wrong and here are the mistakes he made." Not minor glitches, such as a book I read in which Carl Williams was said to have left school at 11 rather than in Year 11! That could have been a typo. These were pretty big mistakes which you wouldn't expect from a well-known writer of classic books about art and history. If you didn't know, you'd assume he had got it right.<br /><br />She had every right to warn readers what to expect and didn't say, "Don't bother" but "start at Chapter 6".<br /><br />If she'd been reviewing something of mine, i would have cringed at the errors, but not been angry with the reviewer.<br /><br />Look, I'm a writer too, Rhiannon, not just a reviewer. I know how it feels when someone calls your baby ugly, which happens whoever you are and no matter how many fabulous reviews you get (and Wolfborn got plenty of those too).<br /><br />But the purpose of a review is not to help the author write a better book next time - it's the editor's job to make THIS book the best it can be. It may just be a matter of opinion and as a reader I take that into account too. But it's not for the author's benefit, it's for the reader's, to know what they're getting for their money.Sue Bursztynskihttp://suebursztynski.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.com