Back to Top

Everyone’s a critic

11 Comments

“I thought this book would never end…What a silly story about people I could care less about. . . . It gave me a headace and this book was not in the least amusing. I never even smiled once while reading it! What a waste.”

Laurie’s post about judging the RITAs had me thinking about other ways our books are judged, i.e. by readers through the medium of Amazon reviews.

A few years ago, an Amazon glitch revealed the identities of anonymous reviewers (Click here to read what the NY Times article) and confirmed what many people had long suspected: that some reviews were written by authors and/or their friends and relatives, either praising their own books or trashing those of rivals.

About a month ago there was a debate on the credibility of reader reviews at Romancing the Blog. Some argue that only writers are qualified to evaluate whether a novel is “good” or not. Some say no one should criticize unless they could do better themselves. I don’t agree with that last statement. If I go to a fine restaurant and order creme brulee, I expect it to taste good, even though I would be scared to wield a blowtorch in my own kitchen. If I need an appendectomy… well, you get the picture!

OTOH many readers can’t set aside their own personal preferences and peeves when evaluating a book. What if a restaurant critic said something like, “I hate fish, and Chef So-and-so’s salmon special was no exception”? It wouldn’t fly, but I’ve read reviews on Amazon that read that way. The reader just picked the wrong book (and sometimes covers and back blurbs are misleading, adding to the problem).

This is my feeling: that readers usually aren’t qualified to decide if a book was “good” or not. But they can say whether they liked it or not. That’s useful to other readers, but only if they explain why .

I tend to discount any of the following:

  • Raves like “Best book I ever read!” on a debut novel, sans any detail that might prove the reviewer ever read the book, posted by someone who just happens to hail from the author’s home town.
  • Incoherent reviews filled with spelling and grammatical errors (unless they are incoherently praising one of my books, of course!)
  • Anything that is too flaming. Really angry reviews make me wonder if the person has bigger problems then being disappointed with a book.

Personally, I don’t have the time to write negative reviews. I do try to write positive reviews when I’ve enjoyed a book (but I’m waaaaayyyy behind). I don’t make buying decisions based on reviews on Amazon. I also avoid reading reviews of my own books if I’m in a rough patch of writing, as negative reviews can topple wobbly self-confidence.

I do take seriously the reviews, positive or negative, that are intelligently written with some explanation for the rating they gave. If it’s one of my books, I may not take those comments to heart when writing the next book, but they always make me think. That’s not necessarily a bad thing! 🙂

When do you ever write Amazon reviews? Do you read them? Do they influence your buying decisions?

Elena
LADY DEARING’S MASQUERADE, RT Reviewers’ Choice Award nominee
www.elenagreene.com

P.S. That first quote was from an Amazon customer review for my first book. I did find, after searching, that the same reviewer had given 1’s to many Regency authors, including Mary Jo Putney and Mary Balogh.

Errors Large and Small

10 Comments


I’m glad I’m not the only one who’s been rushing to finish reading her Rita books! There’s definitely a difference between reading a 400-page novel and reading fifty pages of manuscript (as one does for the Golden Heart Contest, which is what I’ve judged in years past.) 🙂

So here are my random opinions on judging today:

JUDGES SHOULD, when reading an unpublished writer’s manuscript, just read it the way they would read any published piece of fiction. When reading a bought novel, one doesn’t stop on page 2 to analyze the goals, motivations, and conflicts, so don’t do it now! At least not on the first read-through.

JUDGES SHOULD NOT become too rule-bound. Nor should they let their tastes or prejudices overwhelm their judgment.

I THINK THERE IS A DIFFERENCE between serious historical errors and minor ones, and I think a judge should take this into account. Certainly, every historical author and every judge will have his or her own opinions on which errors are egregious, which serious, and which unimportant….and here are a few opinions of mine. (By the way, in the interest of discretion, I will point out that none of the following refers to any books I am currently judging!) 🙂

ERRORS THAT BOTHER ME LITTLE OR NOT AT ALL:

1. If a character uses a word in 1810 that has its earliest OED cite as 1830, that doesn’t bother me. (Words were often spoken long before they were written.) An exception, of course, is a word like “mesmerize” which has a clear and sudden origin (a friend of mine once saw that word used in an Elizabethan-set novel…)

2. If characters are not always wearing their gloves and hats when they ought, that rarely bothers me. (I have seen experts almost come to blows over when and if ladies removed their hats when paying calls, so I know the subject has its murky areas!)

3. If an Almack’s patroness is referred to as a Patroness in a year she wasn’t, or if Wellington is called a duke back before he was a duke, or if characters use candles when they should use oil lamps, that doesn’t bother me at all.

4. If Almack’s is having balls every day of the week.

ERRORS THAT DO BOTHER ME, AT LEAST SOMEWHAT:

— basic card game errors (such as piquet being written as a four-person card game, or a character who’s so good at faro that he beats every else); cards are very easy to research, so I think every writer who uses them should know the basics of any games to which she or he refers
— basic carriage errors bother me, though not hugely: i.e. I think the writer should know whether a carriage was owner-driven or coachman-driven, whether it was open, and approximately how many it could seat
— Mistaking a major inland city for a seaside town
— Regency gentlemen wearing “pants”
— Regency misses who have clearly read 21st century sex manuals

ERRORS THAT BOTHER ME A GREAT DEAL:
— when Sir John Doe is occasionally referred to as Sir John but much more often as Sir Doe
— knighthoods being inherited titles
— Regency gentlemen driving buggies through London
— heroes who run away to sea at age eighteen and buy a commission in the navy

So which errors bother you? Which errors don’t bother you?

And which of the above errors do you think I should start caring more or less about??? 🙂

All opinions welcome!

Cara (off to read!!!)

Objects of desire

6 Comments

Like Laurie, I’ve been scrambling to finish my packet of RITA books, figure out the difference between a 5.8 book and a 6.2 one (decimals confuse me), and get the scores sent off on time. Therefore, my post this week is something rather lazy, but, I hope, kind of interesting for “Regency geeks” like myself.

Last week in the “New York Times”, I read an article titled “Furniture of the Regency, an era of high whimsy, to be auctioned in London.” It concerns the estate of Maurice Turpin, a London antiques dealer, which is being sold by Christie’s next week. Over 900 lots of furniture, objets, bibelots, etc. Including a Davenport writing desk, a Canterbury music stand, a worktable with little spaces for sewing supplies, a Regency wine cooler modeled on an ancient sarcophagus, and an ivory Indian tea caddy (the only object that had a picture–I tried to scan it, but it didn’t work). I was almost drooling just thinking about all those wondrous goodies I can’t afford!

The article, along with details of the sale, also had some interesting historic tidbits. Like these:

“It was a world as fashion conscious as our own. When the Prince Regent changed his mealtimes, his admirers followed. Breakfast was served as a buffet from 10 am until noon, which led to the introduction of the breakfast room, often one fitted with breakfront side cabinets whose grilled doors were lined with pleated silk panels, another new fashion”

“Separate rooms were provided for listening to music, playing indoor games like billiards, and viewing paintings and sculpture. Conservatories were attached to living rooms so that guests could easily enjoy hothouse plants like orchids and cactuses” (This makes me want to write a scene where the villain gets pushed into that cactus, and emerges with spines stuck in his butt!)

“The library was often not just the principal room, but was distinctively and comfortably furnished with a variety of tables for specific purposes–sofa tables, writing tables, reading tables, bookstands, games tables…” (Examples of all of these are in the sale)

“The dining room also had its own distinct types: a table could be extended with endless spare leaves, serving tables, wine tables, and monumental sideboards, often built in. When the Prince Regent moved his dinnertime from 3 pm to sometime from 6 to 7 pm, gaslights and Colza oil lamps and twin-light candelabra were used to increase the illumination in the dining room”

The article concludes by saying “For those who want to learn more (about English Regency furniture), the Sir John Soane’s Museum Foundation in New York is offering a four-part seminar on Regency furniture and architecture” (http://www.soanefoundation.com) I would efinitely take advantage of this if I just lived in NY!

So, what I wonder now is this: if money was no object, what items would you like to own from the Regency? I’d love to have one of those sofas with tacky, Egyptian-style feet, plus that wine cooler. And maybe a nice little tea caddy. And my very own quizzing glass.

Reading, Judging, Objectivity

4 Comments

Hi. It’s me. Maybe you missed me yesterday? Well, I did! My brain was involved in a historical I was reading for the annual RITA contest and it didn’t come up for air. I have two extreme ways of being: completely focused, or completely not! Well, anyway…I thought I’d crack open that old discussion about rating/reviewing books.

Here are the rules I try to play by:

Be Objective. This means that I take your personal preferences out of the mix. If there’s a type of romance I don’t care for, I don’t judge on that basis. I look at how this romance compares to the standard of its type.

Don’t be a copyeditor. It isn’t the copyeditor you are judging, it’s the author’s work. A few typos, grammar errors or inconsistencies I can overlook. (I might add that I am doing ‘first round’ judging–the finalists will be judged a second time).

Look for something special that makes the book stand out. That may be the use of historical detail; the characters; the way the story draws me in and keeps my interest; the way the story explores its theme, taking me deeper throughout; the writing itself; the way the story plays out, keeping me engaged until the end–so that when I close the book I feel that it kept its promise and did not let me down.

It is difficult sometimes. We all have little things that we dislike that may or may not be an issue for anyone else–that may in fact be expected in the kind of romance we are reading. Yes, we do talk about clothes in traditional Regencies–not always, but we do. We often are writing about the upper classes in England. They had money, society was important, and they wore fashionable clothes, and sometimes it is expected that we tell what they were wearing. A judge may dislike references to fashion, but she should consider the genre.

I have a problem with cliches–little ones, like “her feet were encased in white satin shoes” instead of “she wore white satin shoes,” and various parts of a woman’s finery being referred to as “a confection of …,” and so forth. Just little word combinations that were fresh once but that have been repeated many times. But I don’t let this throw me when judging. I look at the big picture.

Having said all this, I still struggle. So…I would like to hear what you all look for in a book when reviewing it or judging it. What standards do you hold yourself to? Where do you draw the line between objectivity and subjectivity?

And finally…what do you think makes a winning book?

Laurie, with more questions than answers!

LORD RYBURN’S APPRENTICE
Signet, January 2006