The two latest trolls on Goodreads pissed me off, so here's my response

A good critic is trying to tell you what she has learned about herself from the reading of a particular piece of literature. A bad reviewer is often trying to tell you how smart he is by declaring whether or not he liked a particular book. If he liked the book, then this is the kind of book a superior person likes, and vice versa. He might try to explain why he didn’t like it, but the review is really just a tautology. “I didn’t like this book because it is bad,” is equivalent to “This book is bad because I didn’t like it.”
Kevin Guilfoyle, The Tournament of Books 2014

So this is something I found at the Tournament of Books site, and with which I agree completely. I've had a lot of private and public snark on several fora about the fact that I write reader-response reviews. "Who cares" is the general tenor of these snorts of derision, with an undercurrent of "how dare you" for additional smugness.

Here's the thing: I don't much care if you liked a book or not. That's nice, either way, ohhh mmmm ah-hah. So? I like BLTs. So you go out and get yourself a BLT because Richard said he liked them. It's a soggy mess, with undercooked bacon and watery tomatoes and limp, wilted iceberg lettuce on untoasted white bread. "Ick ptui," you say, "that Richard steered me wrong! I'll never trust his recommendations again."

And you'd be right.

I **love** crispy bacon. When you put crispy, just-on-the-edge-of-burned bacon on a toasted piece of seeded rye bread, and add fresh, home-grown Green Zebra tomatoes that have been slightly salted to accent their sweetness...well, the only thing that makes it better is an inner leaf of butter lettuce, one of the yellowy ones with a crunchy-thick rib and that snap-in-the-tooth texture. Being a fat-o-holic, I need mayo on my bread, but honestly who would be a stickler and whine about the lack with these ingredients?

And please, oh please, give me a good bock beer, a Dos XX or a Shiner, cold cold cold, so I can sluice my mouth clean with carbonated richness! Could any sandwich anywhere ever say "summer" more loudly than this?

Now you hate the sound of that because you're some sort of stupid veggie nutball, or you're a religious nut who won't eat pigmeat, or maybe beer makes you cringe. Maybe you don't like tomatoes. But what you are not is in any doubt about what I'm saying I like. Based on your take on the elements presented, you have a clear picture of whether I'm speakin' your language or I might as well be speaking in tongues.

That's what I'm trying to get across, both positively and negatively, in my reviews. If you disagree with me, fine. But I don't care. It's not important to me that you "validate" me with praise each and every time I utter a pronunciamento, as more than one of the arrogant assholes who've publicly or privately told me to belt up have said.

If you don't like what I've written, go on about your day. I don't care to know why, or that, you are Offended or Bored or Contemptuous. Go feel your feelings the way you feel your bits: Privately.

A conversation on reviewing

One of the 800-plus reviews I have left on Goodreads drew an interesting conversation about the process of reviewing books. I rated the first Gervase Fen mystery as a 2.5* read, reviewing it with this (full review reproduced here):

My Review: Tedious, fusty, and supercilious.

Well, that about sums that up.

Then along comes someone with a made-up Goodreads username:

PERSON: I agree {with your review of this book}, mostly. Why rate "ok" if not? I'm debating between 1* or 2* myself right now, so question is serious.

I've been trolled an awful lot by nastygrams from sock puppets, by people wanting to "engage in debate" (aka make me see how wrong I am to have my particular opinion), by former friends making an effort to assure me I'm the world's least worthwhile reviewer, so as often as not I ignore this kind of leading post. This time, I didn't.

ME: I rated it 2.5* because it's not a *bad* book, just tediously predictable for me. I found the style annoyingly arch, but that's a matter of taste. On my own scale, a 1* book is one that is truly just *bad* and people need to be warned away from it. I don't feel that way about this book.

That would, for most trolls, be enough to get the flames burning. So then whoever it is sent this:

PERSON: Good point put me back pondering dithering all over again.

Hmmm. So I've just posted this response, and look forward to seeing what comes next:

ME: It's all subjective, this rating dodge. It's never really easy to justify putting a judgment on a book, or a TV show, or a work of art; after all, who cares what another person thinks of them when what counts is what we ourownselves think of them?

Plenty of people, myself included, don't have unlimited time to devote to enjoying the many wonderful things there are to enjoy in this life. I use reviews by review sources I've got reason to trust to narrow down my field of operation.

I learn to trust them by comparing our opinions on things we've both reviewed. At about 70-75% similar, I learn the most from a person's opinions, by making interesting discoveries or getting my own opinions challenged by a new and intriguing perspective.

Above that, it's all about having fun reading that person's take...not too many of those. But I treasure them when I find them.

But that going back and forth, debating with yourself about what to say, what to tell people, why you think a particular thing about a book, a movie, a play, a painting...that's the part that makes writing about what others have done so satisfying and such a worthwhile exercise.

And that's where we stand.