Nasty reviewers, nasty reviews

One of the things that really gets my shorts in a bunch is when a reviewer goes out of his/her way to be nasty or insulting in his critique of an author's book. Unfortunately, this happens more frequently than you'd think, and even some otherwise good reviewers are guilty of it.

For whatever reason, the Washington Post seems to have published several of these pieces recently, with victims ranging from George Pelecanos to Lawrence Block. Perhaps their worst, though, was reserved for a pair of unknowns.

Those pieces seem mild-mannered, though, compared to some of the "reviews" that get published. For example, Joe Queenan has written a couple things for the New York Times recently that have been particularly nasty.

Ed Gorman, who's been on both sides of the aisle, as a reviewer and an author, wrote about this phenomenon recently on his blog:

I saw a geek several years back (a dead ringer for Charles Laughton despite his preppy clothes) on one of the more upscale talk shows (Cavett?) blubbering about how much he loved trashing writers in his book reviews. What a fine old time he had inflicting pain, don’t you know? What made this even worse was that he then boasted of what a fine novelist he was.

So that’s my true hatred among reviewers—writers who diss other writers. You can’t escape the taint of jealousy or vendetta or simple mischief.

He relates a few other anecdotes as well about the apalling behavior of some of these small-minded jerks.

I chimed in with my thoughts on the subject:

Ed, the people you're describing in your column aren't reviewers. They're petty, sniveling little hatchet men (and they always seem to be men) who are only interested in showing off and promoting themselves. They can't think of an intelligent and insightful way to discuss an author or a book, so they resort to venom and slurs and insults instead.

I've reviewed over a hundred books in the past couple years, and not one of those pieces has been nasty or mean-spirited. That is not what true critics write. It's fine to dislike a book, even to really and truly loathe one. It's fair to speak your mind and express negative thoughts, as long as it's done with balance and restraint.

But if you HATE the book or HATE the author, what's the point in reviewing it? The purpose of a book review is NOT to promote yourself, or make yourself look funny, or score points at the author's expense. That is juvenile nonsense and shame on all the editors who will publish that crap.

There are people who make careers out of writing poisoned pen "reviews" and they get a lot of attention, and will probably have more success than I ever will. But I wouldn't be one of them even if they printed me in the New York Times every week.

The purpose of a book review is to give a fair, reasoned and truthful critique of the work under discussion. It is not a diatribe, nor a screed, nor a personal attack.

The part that really bothers me is that knowledgable and reputable editors keep printing this stuff, even though they must know better.

Considering that there is so little review space available that only the tiniest fraction of books can be covered, it's a real crime that ink would be wasted like this.