Should a reviewer bother to read the book he’s reviewing?

[erastes]

You’d say yes, surely?  Transgressions and False Colors had some publicity and a semi-review in the Bay City Reporter yesterday, The link is HERE.

Not very flattering, all in all, but then again, people outside haven’t seen the genre before and obviously expected more of a happy ending in their romance – excuse us for being true to the period!! I find “homophilic” mildly offensive however.(and if other people can be offended easily, I think that it’s my turn, to be honest)

But what really gets me is that I firmly believe that if you are going to review a book, and more especially if you are going to be unflattering about it, is that YOU SHOULD HAVE BLOODY WELL READ IT. 

I mean… “Transgressions plants us down in Civil War-era Virginia, where British teen Jonathan is sent off on a ship to the colonies after a sexual peccadillo (topping his wealthy and pervy master in a barn reverses the class order, a major taboo then). He winds up working as a blacksmith on the plantation of a kindly owner and his handsome son David.”

The ignorance displayed here (even if he hadn’t actually read the book) is startling – as since when is “Civil War Virginia” set in 1600?  The logic makes my head burn. Also the “wealthy “ master he was topping in the barn WAS DAVID. They’d not have bothered to transport Jonathan, Mr Reviewer, they’d have hanged him. If he was lucky.  Gah. I have sent a letter to the editor. I never respond to reviews, but in this case I think I have a fair point. Make me your review editor. I couldn’t do worse, Bay City Reporter.

 

- - -

Comments

[aigooism.livejournal.com]

Obviously this reviewer stinks at history. Virginia in 1600? BWAHAHAHAHA. FAIL. UTTERLY FAIL. Virginia wasn't even colonised then, much less a state, IDIOT. >_<;;

Wow. FAIL.

[erastes.livejournal.com]

It's rather special isn't it?

[aigooism.livejournal.com]

I had to twit this. It was too funny not to. X_X;;

[copperbeech.livejournal.com]

Agreed. I review for several publications as well as am an author and I can't fathom ever reviewing something I've not read. How unprofessional and hypocritical.

[erastes.livejournal.com]

Rather embarrassing for the paper, imho, too.

[anderyn.livejournal.com]

Good Lord -- even if all he read was the BACK COVER, he'd have known more of the plot! Sigh.
And while I agree that your ending isn't "happy", I defy him to say that the ending of "False Colors" doesn't at least end with the lovers together and happy for now.

[erastes.livejournal.com]

Exactly - where he got "transported to America" from I can't imagine. Probably thinks that America is the only place to have a civil war.

[anderyn.livejournal.com]

What gets me is that the reviewer doesn't even parse his own historical gaffes -- (1) If it's American Civil-War-era Virginia, how the heck would an Englishman be transported there? Transportation to America stopped a looong time before that! (2) If it's not, then how does he explain Virginia being there in 1600? Sorry, but there were no states in existence then. Okay, okay, Jamestown, yeah, but witch finders in Jamestown? Hmmmm. Maaaybe. But it's a big stretch.

Sigh. I wonder how people live without knowing their history.

[vashtan.livejournal.com]

WOW. Absolute worst-case scenario.

[erastes.livejournal.com]

I'm just gobsmacked.

[vashtan.livejournal.com]

I think that would make a good post on a blog... that really should be spread far and wide...

[gehayi.livejournal.com]

After a considerable amount of ransacking the paper--for the Bay Area Review has no "Contact Us" area, making telling the idiot that HE DIDN'T READ THE BOOKS a bit difficult--I found a useful e-mail:

arts@ebar.com

This goes to the Arts Editor at the Bay Area Review.

So, you know, if you want to write to anyone and vent your rage, go ahead. I'm writing to them now, and I've given Sarah the e-mail as well.

[erastes.livejournal.com]

I said in the post I'd sent a letter to the editor. Don't write, thanks - but don't. It makes it worse.

[gehayi.livejournal.com]

I don't see how it makes it worse for more than one person to tell someone that his review is all wrong.

[bethbetter.livejournal.com]

Appalling. It's like they made up their own story. A really WRONG one. Good grief...

[joannesopercook.livejournal.com]

Civil war by-God Virginia??????

Clearly, the ignoramus who reviewed it didn't read it. Wow. What an utter assclown.

I think you were absolutely right to send a letter. That's utterly incredible and nigh unbelievable.

[belluthien.livejournal.com]

I would say yes.
That guy can't read.
And he must have failed history in school, if he went.

The good thing is, his review makes him look like a dumb ass, so, anyone with brains will know they should ignore it. Unfortunately, there are a lot of people who have very little brains...
*sigh*
y

[semioticwarrior.livejournal.com]

WTFH?

Forget reading the book, couldn't they at least have read the first two words of the Amazon blurb, which give the date and location?

This is beyond offensive.

[kethlenda.livejournal.com]

Yes, a reviewer should at least start the book, and if they don't finish, they should admit it up front. I've written "DNF" reviews, but I label them as such. And if they don't read a word of it, they should not review at all.

[tamara-allen.livejournal.com]

Wow. That's all kinds of pathetic. I wish I could say I was surpised. Don't blame you for writing to them.

"The potential accuracy of the historic descriptions in this subgenre is undermined by the authors' need to construct painful conflict between the lovers."

Huh? That makes no sense.

[lee-rowan.livejournal.com]

He doesn't know any more about the Royal Navy than the American Civil War.

[rwday.livejournal.com]

Virginia???? Sounds like they didn't even OPEN the book. You were absolutely right to contact that paper. Disgusting.

[alex-beecroft.livejournal.com]

Good grief! I admit that I just skimmed the reviews and went straight to the conclusions. If I'd actually read it properly I would have boggled! I boggle now! That's... *how* did they come up with that? That's not even vaguely close to what they might have learned by just reading the blurb. And the idea that he's being punished for 'reversing the class order' rather than mere buggery? *Boggles some more!*

[essayel.livejournal.com]

*staaaaaaaaares*

The man, assuming it is a man, has made himself look a complete tit.

[beckyblack]

Good lord! I don't claim to recall every little detail of a book I've read but I generally manage to remember which country it was set in!

[crawling-angel.livejournal.com]

My tired Briancell read that as Bay City Roller...

How can he review when he hasn't read it? That's like saying I don't like prawns but I haven't tasted them.

[erastes.livejournal.com]

NOM!

Aleksander has a hot tub!

And Sergei has a uniform!!

[crawling-angel.livejournal.com]

Bubbly!

I am forced to take Jaccuzui bath, *snort*

[lee-rowan.livejournal.com]

Why should he read the book? From a quick scan of the review page, Mr P has a quicker way--he googles to check whether the author has an innie or an outie, then stamps his tiny feet on the nasty gurrlz writing Manly Men, while praising anything published or written by a testicle-carrying member of the Boys Club. Maybe he's bucking for a judge's spot in the Lambda competition. He's got the right attitude.

[semioticwarrior.livejournal.com]

You've hit the nail on the head, there. Did you see the corrected version? Ugh.

[lee-rowan.livejournal.com]

Yeah.. and I also see where the books are on the Amazon bestseller list. "Living well is the best revenge..."

[smurasaki.livejournal.com]

It's been fixed, though with a really back-handed apology. I still think the reviewer didn't actually bother to read the book. (And should probably be replaced with a hamster. At least hamsters have an excuse for not being good at reviewing books.)