I've noticed on Goodreads reader reviews of SAINT—first time I've paid attention to the form lol—that it's a common tendency to frame dislike of some element or the other as the failure of execution (of an imagined goal) rather than a choice (of a different goal) that they disagree with.
I bang on about this to my arts and culture journalism class to what I'm sure is a tedious degree, but I think it's key to distinguishing interesting criticism from, well, everything else on the internet. "This is not the thing I wanted; I would like to send it back" is a customer service complaint.
Granted, that's the reading culture that a highly formulaic publishing culture produces. From cat-saving to hero's journeys to the now-standard trope-breakdown promo graphics, the pressure is on readers and writers alike to engage with popular fiction in a standardized, fungible factory format
In pushing back against this tendency, I'm somewhat heartened by the gradual success of the incredible THE SPEAR CUTS THROUGH WATER as a popular book (it's becoming more of a Booktok fave! Love to see it) because it's structurally such so weird. Put the big climactic fight in the middle! I love it
When something feels "off" about a text—when something is happening that is not what you expected—it's perfectly reasonable to ask, is this a failure of execution? But the reading is richer if you also ask the corollary questions: what does it mean if this is on purpose? Why would they do that?
i think about this a LOT
I do feel that our public critical structures are in a period of atrophy, as it were. Great book discussions grapple rather than simplify and define imo
Yup. I think it important to try to figure out what the author wanted to do, instead of what I wanted the author to do...and did they succeed? Then there's the matter of whether the story told, in they ways it's told, should be told. Which is an opinion (and perhaps a moral issue), not a critique.
One of the best reviews of my work was from Adam Roberts. Fellow writers tend to be more willing to engage: "Ok, if this was on purpose, what does it mean?" than assume grand mistakes. I'd like to do blog book reviews again. But the pressure of "KAMERON HURLEY IS BEATING UP NEW WRITERS" is intense
I wonder if it is harder now to build up the edifice of "I want to talk extensively & critically about a book" without it being framed as punching down (or similar). Part of it is that old idea that "critique" is negative when one can also like (even love) a work & also grapple with its flaws.
I have a critical review pubbed of the first True Detective that talks about all the things I loved and also its problems with misogyny. Someone said in an interview recently that I "hated" the show and I was like uh wut?? I loved it! You can love something imperfect and speak critically about it
Now that I think about, if I truly disliked (or even hated) a book, I'm unlikely to want to engage with it for long enough to critique it in any meaningful way.
I've found what truly inspires scathing critique from me isn't necessarily by being bad, but when it feels like there was a lot of potential that was squandered or wasted.
Yeah. That does annoy me too.
I mean, there's 'this wasn't written for me' or 'not my thing' or 'this is not a very interesting approach in general' but there are times when I do just feel I am looking at a squandered opportunity and that is sad (or, at times, maddening)
Something like Rise of Skywalker is a simple example (I loved Last Jedi, and watching all the potential future stories just...vanish into thin air was maddening). Or when a story feels like I should thoroughly enjoy it, but *something* keeps interfering, like a rock stuck in my shoe during a jog.
