Amateurs and professionals

Sharon Wheeler

If you're in the media industry (or even if you're not – unless you're living in a cave somewhere), you can't help but spend an inordinate amount of time pondering where it's all going next. And those of us who've spent a chunk of our careers on newspapers get all misty-eyed at the thought of print dying out.

I've been following the debate on DorothyL about the demise of the book pages in US papers. And even though newspaper circulation figures in general this side of the pond aren't looking too healthy, the book review sections are still alive and well.

If you buy a quality Saturday and Sunday paper in the UK, you'll find a hefty selection of review pages in some equally hefty publications (the paper boys and girls of the nation are going to have wrecked backs before they're 18 due to heaving the likes of the Sunday Times around).

The Times Literary Supplement (weekly) and the London Review of Books (twice monthly) are significant and weighty (intellect, not newsprint!) players in the review field.

Even though I mainline news via my computer, I still have to have at least one newspaper in my hand every day, or I get withdrawal symptoms. And even though I check online review sites fairly assiduously, they've yet to persuade me that they’re ready to replace the established set-ups. Well, with the exception of RTE, I would say that, wouldn't I!

To be brutally honest, the standard of online reviewing isn't great – and I reckon there are two reasons for that. One is that old amateur/professional divide. Yes, there are some damn good reviewers who aren't trained journalists – there are highly literate academics who are used to looking at a book with an impartial eye, or non-fiction writers who can express themselves cogently and sensibly.

But the problem with reviewing is that every bugger thinks they can do it. Well, every bugger can probably write a précis of a book they've just read but then so can my nine-year-old nephew, and he won't be sitting down at a computer any time soon. I've learned by bitter experience not to bother reading most of what people call reviews on the discussion lists or blogs, because they're not – they're barely adequate summaries, usually finished with that teeth-grinding phrase 'recommended' or 'not recommended', as if suddenly that transforms the trite description into incisive analysis. Most of them are what my blog colleague Jeff Cohen once called "powderpuff reviews."

Which takes me onto the second reason . . . I didn't know whether to laugh or cry a few weeks back when someone on one of the lists proudly announced that she was starting up a review site where the reviewers would all be authors, reviewing their peers. She seemed to think that only published writers could understand the pain when you've slaved over a book for months or years, and therefore should be the ones doing the reviewing.

So there, in one no doubt well-intentioned but staggeringly naïve move, goes any hope of impartiality, that goal that all journalists strive for. Authors go to conventions. They're on panels with other writers. They sit on award panels. Plenty of authors have told me off the record that they don't feel they can be honest in public about books they've read, just in case their paths cross the writer's at a subsequent event. So I stick by what I've said previously – once you get published and you're doing the promotional rounds, withdraw gracefully from reviewing. Or go and review theatre or gigs or restaurants instead.

It's a problem, too, for the 'fan' reviewer. A number of these appear to have cosy little niches where authors send them books and they post the 'reviews' on lists or blogs. Because they've had the book direct from the author, most appear to feel they can't then be honest, which renders the review almost useless. And many of these fans go to conventions and seem to thrive on meeting authors . . .

But it reminds me why I'm old-fashioned enough to feel more comfortable when it's professional journalists doing the reviewing. Yes, I do think being taught how to write and structure a review properly, just as you would a news story or feature, improves the finished product no end. And you've got a better chance of the reviewer at least striving to be impartial. One of the first things you're taught on training courses is to be good at making contacts, but don't get too close to people and let it impair your impartiality.

Journalism is one of those careers where the most unlikely people seem to claim they are in the profession. It's amazing the number of British MPs, who would have it that they're journalists. And soccer player Wayne Rooney's wife Colette apparently describes herself as a journalist, which is a truly frightening thought!

OK, so we're not talking training to be a doctor, but journalism training is rigorous in its own way, particularly the legal side of it (and yes, you can libel people in reviews!) So I always twitch when I see people, who I know damn well haven't got that background and knowledge, trying to pass themselves off as journalists.

Which brings me back to reviewers. Don't get me wrong, there are some damn good 'amateurs' out there. But a heck of a lot of online reviewers are going to have to up the ante if they want to be taken seriously.

Comments

[maxine]

As both a professional editor (and occasional reviewer) and amateur (blog) reviewer, I have a foot in both worlds, and identify very much with what you write.

On authors, another point I have found since being involved myself in blogs and social websites, is that "get an author on the internet or in some other unedited forum", and what they do is write about themselves (as if they are intrinsically a fascinating person) and their books. If a review site were to be exclusively populated by authors (which will not happen, in any sustained or systematic way, I predict), many of the reviews would contain comparisons or allusions to the reviewers' own books.

I have left many a blog and internet forum becuase it is too self-promotional for a reader like myself. If an author wants to see an excellent example of an author blogging, they could look at Martin Edwards's blog, Do You Write Under Your Own Name? That is one of the very, very few author blogs I regularly read, having started out with many.
Sorry if that last bit was somewhat off-topic, or tangential, anyway. I think your post is very well observed.

[Norm]

I am one of those completely amateur and untrained bloggers who you would classify as a self promotional 'fan' reviewer. I would never give a favourable review to a book I did not like and have absolutely hammered one book so far this year. If the publisher won't send me any more books too bad.
If you don't review for the money but purely for enjoyment and to boost one's own ego what is the point of not being completely honest.
If I see a book 'recommended' by the amateur bloggers I know [who are in fact very professional in their approach] I am much more likely to buy it than if it is reviewed by some 'professional' reviewer or author.
I enjoyed your stimulating post and if I might respectfully 'up the ante' by saying that Wayne Rooney's wife is named Coleen not Colette. ;0)

[Sharon Wheeler]

Hi Maxine! Oh boy, don't even get me started on BSP (I've ranted about that enough before!) I've unsubbed or gone onto digest on lists because I can't bear authors dragging every conversation round to them and their books . . . And I fully agree that a large number will probably be unable to review without mentioning their own work!

I have no interest in author blogs or websites -- only the book in front of me is what I'm focussed on. I do read Murderati on Tuesdays, solely for Louise Ure's blog (and was heart-broken when her blog-mate Ken Bruen threw in the towel). Neither Louise nor Ken banged on about their own books -- so I read the blog simply because I was interested in them as people and because of the quality of their blogging.

[Sharon Wheeler]

Hi Norm! Thanks for your comments -- and arrghhh, I stand corrected. The new Mrs Rooney is definitely Coleen. I wonder who Colette is and where she appeared from?! I can hear my first editor berating me soundly for what was an entirely checkable error . . .

And yay for an 'amateur' reviewer who *is* truthful! I don't know if you're on any of the discussion lists that I'm on, but if you are, you'll see why I believe you're one of the sadly few exceptions to the rule. A lot of 'amateur' reviewers *do* think publishers won't send them any more books if they criticise, or they won't be honest for fear of hurting the author's feelings. A worrying number admit this in public (or in private emails).

I find reviewers I trust and often base purchases on what they say. I'd be most unlikely to buy a book on the recommendation of an author gushing over another author!

[Lorraine.]

I'm a reader, usually buy my new books from amazon & feel seeing as I've paid my money, that it's okay for me to write a review. Because I don't personally know the writer, have never been to conventions, etc. I write about the book with no set plan to promote or trash, hopefully just to help someone else decide if they want to buy a copy. Of my last 2 new books, one that I loved had a plot glitch that I mentioned and another dragged, but had some pluses. It's the kind of thing I'd like to know if I were contemplating buying these books.

btw, I sometimes read reviews of books after I've read them and on rte, I recently read a review of a book by a writer I know from a blog to be a friend of the author.
Naturally, she saw the book as wonderful, whereas it made me decide I'd not seek out work by that writer again.
Be nice if there was a sort of disclaimer -- warning perspective readers that the review posted was by a friend of the author. IMHO.
Lorraine

[Sharon Wheeler]

Hi Lorraine. I want to know pluses and minuses before buying a book as well! I do skim reviews on Amazon, but am never quite sure with them if some of the reviewers have an agenda (either cheerleading or trashing!)

I don't like people reviewing books by friends. I've done it once, reluctantly, and wrote a disclaimer. I wish reviewers would tell me (or Yvonne, who's currently editing the site) when this is the case. If they don't, we have no way of telling.

[Kerrie Smith]

Hello Sharon

I'm afraid I got a bit carried away in my blog today. I felt a bit wounded, as an amateur, with your posting, but I didn't mean my response to feel like a personal attack, so I hope you won't take it that way. I read both HeyDeadGuy and RTE all the time.
The offending post is at http://paradise-mysteries.blogspot.com/2008/07/temerity-to-write-review.html
Kerrie

[Sharon Wheeler]

Hi Kerrie. Nope, didn't take your response as a personal attack! Like I said in the blog, there are some good amateur reviewers out there, and far be it from me to suggest amateurs aren't entitled to write reviews. I'm just calling it how I see it in relation to the state of the print (and review) industry and the standard of some of what pass for reviews online!