Book reviews seem to be going the way of social media posts. Everyone has an opinion and our filters are becoming as thin as our grammar and spelling abilities. Don't get me wrong, I do put stock in a patron review. Librarians have the knowledge and a good idea of what our patrons want, but ultimately when the patrons speak for themselves, we should listen.
As much as I detest social media trolls and the like, Kirkus has the right idea allowing both positive and negative reviews. Opinions are important and Kirkus reviewers do an all around good job at presenting their views in a professional, albeit sometimes harsh, way. Patrons want to know if a book is good before they check it out and librarians need to know if the title is worth putting on their shelves or in their digital collection, therefore negative reviews need to be given as much precedent as positive ones. Let's not allow the world of books to become an "everyone wins, enjoy this participation trophy" world. Well written books should be celebrated and we should allow honesty about the not so great ones. Whether the author is considered a talented writer or not doesn't always play into how our patrons choose their books. Talent is in the eye or ear of the reader after all.
Case in point--The Billionaire's First Christmas is a free Amazon book. I'm not usually a romance reader but the story sounds cute and I wouldn't mind picking it up around the holidays. It sounds like the makings of a classic Lifetime Christmas movie! The reviews were positive and I wouldn't hesitate to put it my collection because it's digital only and free. Angela's Ashes is a book I haven't read but I've heard enough to know it's a classically popular book; something you read for a high school or collegiate English class. Despite it's heavy, and from what I gathered reading the summaries, extremely depressing content, the reviews are also positive and I would have at least one copy, maybe two, in my collection. Both of these titles deserve to be reviewed and given the same exposure to readers. It effects collection development in a negative way if certain genres of books aren't allowed the same amount of exposure as others. With the invention of digital books and audio books, librarians are able to provide patrons with a larger variety of items. We can't do that if we don't know the book exists.
Unfortunately, romance novels, especially digital only books, are not given as much exposure as titles like Angel's Ashes. There are a number of reasons why this could be the case but I would wager it's because both the authors and books aren't viewed equally. One of the authors is most likely interpreted as superior and by default, their books are too. Whether my assumption is correct or not, I don't believe an author's perceived writing talent should negate their right to be reviewed. If the book is great, say so. If it's the worst thing you've ever read, say that too. Let your voice be heard, even if it is wrong...just kidding ;)
I recommend both Kirkus and Goodreads for professional and personal reviewing! Add School Library Journal to that list if you are looking for school age reading!
I agree- romance novels get the short end of the stick it seems when it comes to reviews by critics. However they have a loyal fan base. While the content might be flimsy and they are going to be the next great piece of literature, they sell and circulate.
ReplyDeleteExactly! They are flimsy and fun but that's why people like them :) It's a nice break from stress of reality to read about a very unrealistic romance.
DeleteI am reading a Danielle Steele right now for an annotation. I haven't read much of her lately- I used to a lot. I am really noticing how often the same thing is repeated, just in a different way.
ReplyDelete