Black Static

On occasion, reviewers get it wrong. I don't mean when they pull the legs off a poor little story that the rest of the world and its cousin think is the bee's knees - that's just a matter of opinion, regarding which there is no right or wrong. No, I have in mind stuff such as writing a review that is little more than plot synopsis, or in which facts are wrong, or that commits the cardinal sin of giving away the ending. These are all areas where reviewers can, and sometimes do, mess up, and it's perfectly legitimate to call them on it when such things slide by an editor's eagle eye. Nobody should be above criticism, except possibly Bruce Springsteen.

But there are other criticisms of reviewers that I see cropping up over and over again which are entirely irrelevant, and it's way past time some of these tired old bloodsuckers were staked through the heart and done with.

One complaint I see all too often is that a review is not 'constructive', whatever the heck that means. It's usually voiced by a writer who has received a negative review and, after stating how cool he or she is with criticism (wouldn't do to be seen complaining), adds the 'not constructive' codicil almost as an afterthought, though of course slipping in this little shiver tipped with venom was probably the whole point of the exercise. That writer, he or she, is a fathead who doesn't understand the purpose of reviews.

Reviews are not written for the benefit of writers. They are not intended to help writers improve at their craft: if you're a writer and you want tips on where you're going wrong, then there's a whole industry geared to help you, from Stephen King and his On Writing at the very tip of the pyramid, right down through university courses in creative writing, night schools, online critique groups and the band of mates who gather in some salubrious watering hole to dissect their latest masterworks in progress between trips to the bar, but reviewers are not part of that industry.

The purpose of a review, whether it's posted on Amazon or published in the TLS, is to help consumers decide if they wish to spend time and/or money on a product (in this case a book or magazine). Reviewers attain this goal by detailing their own response to a literary work and, to belabour the obvious, the readers who are most familiar with an individual reviewer's opinions, how they coincide or disagree with their own, will be the ones who get the most benefit from that reviewer.

Now I won't deny that reviews can be of help to a writer, if not with regards to the work being reviewed which, after all, is a done deal, then in flagging areas where they might look to improve in future. If a writer can take something positive away from a negative review, then all well and good, and I certainly don't begrudge them that, but...

As a reviewer I take umbrage at the idea helping writers improve is one of my mission specifications, and that if I don't do this then somehow I've failed to deliver.

Let's put this in terms that, hopefully, even fatheads will be able to understand.

My job as a reviewer is to say whether or not the writer has produced a load of crap. It is not to give him or her handy hints on how to have a better, cleaner bowel movement next time.

But hey, more bran in the diet might help.