Snarky reviews

What's with all the snarkiness in reviews lately?

I just read this line in a Publishers Weekly review of a debut thriller: "Despite some clunky expository dialogue (practically a genre requisite)..."

It is? Thrillers are required to have clunky dialogue? Has this reviewer read many thrillers? I doubt it.

Earlier in the week, we had Janet Maslin's review of Marcus Sakey's The Blade Itself, which can be summarized as: "Marcus Sakey has written a pretty good book, the ideas for which he ripped off from Dennis Lehane, Joseph Finder, George Pelecanos and Elmore Leonard. Although it is occasionally an entertaining story, Sakey is not as good a writer as Lehane. Nor, for that matter, is he as good as Leonard."

Just because Sakey lists some writers he likes on his website, Maslin assumes he's copying them? She somehow knows that his voice is not his own, based on reading one novel? She assumes that he is cravenly creating an amalgam of better writers because he worked in advertising, and is thus suspect from the start?

Patrick Anderson, who doesn't know the difference between a mystery and a thriller, rails against the thriller authors "who write what can generously be called fluff, deliberately dumb books filled with cliches, improbable events, inane dialogue and crowd-pleasing gimmicks that have nothing to do with the real world."

I'm all for panning lousy books, but that statement not only belittles writers who are quite likely trying their best (how many people deliberately write dumb books?), but also insults the people who read them.

I know the temptation to write snarky reviews, and have on rare occasion succumbed to it myself. But it's like eating junk food. It might feel good at the time, but ultimately it's bad for you, and if you've got any conscience, you'll just wind up regretting it later.

Of course, considering that Maslin writes for the Times and Anderson writes for the Post -- and that I'd be pleased to write for either of those publications -- they must know something that I don't.

Perhaps it's time to send off for my poison pen...

Comments

[Lana Lang]

Well, just look at Michiko Kukitani. Look up the term "snarky review" in the dictionary and you will see her picture. And she won a Pulitzer, for goodness sakes.

Patrick Anderson is a failed novelist, and I will never forgive him for trashing Joseph Finder's PARANOIA as dog food. He also seems to get strangely excited over certain novels that I find merely average. Still, I find his reviews interesting to read. He's never boring, and I think that's the key to being a good reviewer.

[Ken Van Durand]

I have found enough mistakes about plot a/o characters in reviews by both Maslin and Stasio from the NYT to assume their take on a book is based on reading the Cliff Notes versions.
Let us not take these Jayson Blair enablers seriously.
There are just too many really good reviewers of mysteries and thrillers who are both readers and fans of the genres (starting with David and the Ft. Lauderdale Sun Sentinel's Oline Cogdill) whose reviews are well thought out and contribute to the growth of the category.

[David J. Montgomery]

That's kind of you to say. Thank you.

I'd forgive someone the occasional error with regards to the plot or characters... I'm sure I've made plenty of them, although I try hard not to.

It's the attitude that makes me wonder. So often I read reviews written by people who don't seem to enjoy the books they're reading. So why bother?

It's an old complaint that I've made many times before, but the purpose of a book review is NOT to show the reader how smart the reviewer is.

[spyscribbler]

I found Maslin's review confusing. She kinda raved about The Blade Itself, even listing in another article his book as a top ten choice for Christmas gifts (confusing in itself because its release isn't until Tuesday), but at the same time, there were some real stabs in there. It felt like she was stabbing him with a knife while saying, "Hey, awesome job!"

I've just read the excerpt, and I can't wait to pick up The Blade Itself. The excerpt totally kicked ass.

[David J. Montgomery]

For the record, I thought the book was very good and not derivative. I never got the sense that Sakey was trying to ape any other writers.

[Tim]

I think there are two kinds of reviewers out there, those who know and love the genre they're reading and those that love the sound of their own voice. A "snarky" comment tends to identify a reviewer that wants you to notice how clever they are, as opposed to a true reviewer, who acts as an invisible guide to a new book or author. Sadly both get to have bylines and call themselves reviewers, so the reader only has their relative snarkiness to tell them apart.