![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
vcmwI enjoy reading tor.com quite a lot, but I find I like their reviews best when they're reviewing the old or the obscure. Context wise, the below comes directly from my multi-day irate reaction to the review there of Dead in the Family. But I hasten to add that I feel this way about tons of reviews, in tons of venues. In fact, the original development of this irritation led directly to my choice about 6 years ago to give up reading the New York Times Book Review, or at least its fiction component. It led to similar decisions regarding Library Journal. The only library review source that I found routinely avoided driving me nuts in this way was Booklist.
So I'm not particularly upset by the reader/reviewer's reaction to the book. We disagree on some points (for instance, I thought that several of the plots were closely linked thematically around the issue of dealing with the lingering messes left by family, so I didn't find them to be 4 unrelated plots) and that's fine. I know as a reader, for instance, that I'm unusually willing to be satisfied by emotional thematic parallels. But this is the latest review to frustrate me with what I see as a common double standard in the way that many different reviewers talk about writing quality. As far as I'm concerned, there are any number of ways/modes/axes in which a writer can display talent and skill. And it seems to me that certain axes are consistently identified as being "good writing" and other axes are not.
My perception is that some axes are more susceptible to relatively quantifiable analysis given a set of external criteria, and that these axes are identified with good writing. And other axes are less susceptible to quantifiable analysis, and more susceptible to qualitative analysis, and that these axes are consistently identified with "something else" - as in, "that wasn't good writing, but it had "something else" that captured my attention and kept me interested."
Here are some observations I've made about axes of skill/talent and their perception in reviews:
In the "considered elements of good writing by critics" group, I'd place:
Precise/exquisite/detailed Sentence-level craft
Original/distinctive Use of metaphor
Technical Construction of plot
Worldbuilding that is handled through subtle/layered incluing
In the "considered by critics not as good writing but as something else" group, I'd place:
Character
Narrative Voice
Emotional construction of plot
Worldbuilding handled through explicit description
It seems to me that the main distinction between the "good writing" axes items and the "something else" axes items is that most things in group 1 can be assessed in a relatively objective way among members of a certain group at a certain time. Standards for the best sentence level craft, use of metaphor, and construction of plot vary with culture, time, place, and peer group, but it is possible to reach a within group consensus on them among one time/group/place. The fact that they are not absolutes across time/space is part of why literature classes need to introduce readers to a spectrum of writing from a given time and place to help the reader assess quality in the context of time/place - it's a lot easier to appreciate Shakespeare or Marlowe or Dickens if you take a look at what other artists in those times and places were doing with the toolset and critical expectations of that time and place.
Whereas the elements of group 2 are going to be things that you react to very individually, rather than through group consensus. Whether a character reads as believable or compelling or well-constructed to you is a pretty darn individual reaction. Whether a narrative voice charms or grates, likewise. Whether the emotional tensions in a plot are sufficient to keep you engaged and move you forward depends on whether you find those emotions meaningful and believable; compare that to the question of whether a more technical or event based plot sells the connection between its external events (or, if it's a more literary-constructed book, whether the sections of the book sell their intellectual connections in a compelling sequence).
The worldbuilding axes are perhaps more particular to fantasy. I'll make a sweeping and perhaps unjustifiable assertion and say that the more of an in-group reader of fantasy you are, the more you identify subtle incluing with good writing. Out-group readers of fantasy often seem to prefer (at least by sales numbers) books that make the world-building very explicit because as infrequent readers of fantasy a fantasy book contains more ideas and concepts that are unfamiliar to them and thus they need to have bigger chunks of information built into the text in order to support their comprehension. I see this as a function of audience to a large degree - and I consider a writer who does heaps of explicit "as you know bob" worldbuilding as potentially a very good writer as long as they can deliver that description in a narrative voice that keeps me entertained - but again, being entertained by a narrative voice is a very qualitative type of experience, very individual.
I often hear both readers and reviewers say something like "the writing was bad but it kept me engaged" or, "they're not good at all, they're just crack, but I've read them all" or something of that sort. When I hear this, I tend to get a bit hot under the collar. To my mind, the writer successfully created characters and emotions that engaged you. That's good writing. It's good writing of one particular sort. Whether, in your opinion, the writer demonstrated good writing of a different sort (as, sentence level craft, etc....) is an open question that I'd love to hear addressed in your review or response. Ideally I'd like to hear it addressed with a consideration of marketed audience. For instance, series books of the Sookie type have very particular market expectations about how the reader is supposed to be brought up to speed on characters, past plot developments, etc., with the expectation that most books can be stand-alone points of entry to the series. There are also narrative traditions at work that emphasize repetitive constructions and re-use of descriptions. These aren't necessarily failures of craft - they can be choices of literary dialect, as it were. (My usual long rant about literary and oral story telling traditions and their descendants in literary and popular narrative and what I consider the classist interpretations of the difference redacted here.)
And I wish, wish, wish that it wasn't a type of review that so often was written up about best selling books. The books I most typically hear reviewed with a review along the lines of "it wasn't good writing but I did find it compelling" are almost universally best selling books in their particular field. I've heard/read numerous similar reviews of the Harry Potter books, the Twilight books, Cassandra Clare's Mortal Instruments books, the Sookie Stackhouse books, the Anita Blake books, James Patterson's books, Dean Koontz's books, occasionally Stephen King's books, etc.
So I'm not particularly upset by the reader/reviewer's reaction to the book. We disagree on some points (for instance, I thought that several of the plots were closely linked thematically around the issue of dealing with the lingering messes left by family, so I didn't find them to be 4 unrelated plots) and that's fine. I know as a reader, for instance, that I'm unusually willing to be satisfied by emotional thematic parallels. But this is the latest review to frustrate me with what I see as a common double standard in the way that many different reviewers talk about writing quality. As far as I'm concerned, there are any number of ways/modes/axes in which a writer can display talent and skill. And it seems to me that certain axes are consistently identified as being "good writing" and other axes are not.
My perception is that some axes are more susceptible to relatively quantifiable analysis given a set of external criteria, and that these axes are identified with good writing. And other axes are less susceptible to quantifiable analysis, and more susceptible to qualitative analysis, and that these axes are consistently identified with "something else" - as in, "that wasn't good writing, but it had "something else" that captured my attention and kept me interested."
Here are some observations I've made about axes of skill/talent and their perception in reviews:
In the "considered elements of good writing by critics" group, I'd place:
Precise/exquisite/detailed Sentence-level craft
Original/distinctive Use of metaphor
Technical Construction of plot
Worldbuilding that is handled through subtle/layered incluing
In the "considered by critics not as good writing but as something else" group, I'd place:
Character
Narrative Voice
Emotional construction of plot
Worldbuilding handled through explicit description
It seems to me that the main distinction between the "good writing" axes items and the "something else" axes items is that most things in group 1 can be assessed in a relatively objective way among members of a certain group at a certain time. Standards for the best sentence level craft, use of metaphor, and construction of plot vary with culture, time, place, and peer group, but it is possible to reach a within group consensus on them among one time/group/place. The fact that they are not absolutes across time/space is part of why literature classes need to introduce readers to a spectrum of writing from a given time and place to help the reader assess quality in the context of time/place - it's a lot easier to appreciate Shakespeare or Marlowe or Dickens if you take a look at what other artists in those times and places were doing with the toolset and critical expectations of that time and place.
Whereas the elements of group 2 are going to be things that you react to very individually, rather than through group consensus. Whether a character reads as believable or compelling or well-constructed to you is a pretty darn individual reaction. Whether a narrative voice charms or grates, likewise. Whether the emotional tensions in a plot are sufficient to keep you engaged and move you forward depends on whether you find those emotions meaningful and believable; compare that to the question of whether a more technical or event based plot sells the connection between its external events (or, if it's a more literary-constructed book, whether the sections of the book sell their intellectual connections in a compelling sequence).
The worldbuilding axes are perhaps more particular to fantasy. I'll make a sweeping and perhaps unjustifiable assertion and say that the more of an in-group reader of fantasy you are, the more you identify subtle incluing with good writing. Out-group readers of fantasy often seem to prefer (at least by sales numbers) books that make the world-building very explicit because as infrequent readers of fantasy a fantasy book contains more ideas and concepts that are unfamiliar to them and thus they need to have bigger chunks of information built into the text in order to support their comprehension. I see this as a function of audience to a large degree - and I consider a writer who does heaps of explicit "as you know bob" worldbuilding as potentially a very good writer as long as they can deliver that description in a narrative voice that keeps me entertained - but again, being entertained by a narrative voice is a very qualitative type of experience, very individual.
I often hear both readers and reviewers say something like "the writing was bad but it kept me engaged" or, "they're not good at all, they're just crack, but I've read them all" or something of that sort. When I hear this, I tend to get a bit hot under the collar. To my mind, the writer successfully created characters and emotions that engaged you. That's good writing. It's good writing of one particular sort. Whether, in your opinion, the writer demonstrated good writing of a different sort (as, sentence level craft, etc....) is an open question that I'd love to hear addressed in your review or response. Ideally I'd like to hear it addressed with a consideration of marketed audience. For instance, series books of the Sookie type have very particular market expectations about how the reader is supposed to be brought up to speed on characters, past plot developments, etc., with the expectation that most books can be stand-alone points of entry to the series. There are also narrative traditions at work that emphasize repetitive constructions and re-use of descriptions. These aren't necessarily failures of craft - they can be choices of literary dialect, as it were. (My usual long rant about literary and oral story telling traditions and their descendants in literary and popular narrative and what I consider the classist interpretations of the difference redacted here.)
And I wish, wish, wish that it wasn't a type of review that so often was written up about best selling books. The books I most typically hear reviewed with a review along the lines of "it wasn't good writing but I did find it compelling" are almost universally best selling books in their particular field. I've heard/read numerous similar reviews of the Harry Potter books, the Twilight books, Cassandra Clare's Mortal Instruments books, the Sookie Stackhouse books, the Anita Blake books, James Patterson's books, Dean Koontz's books, occasionally Stephen King's books, etc.
