How to Write a HELPFUL ‘Bad’ Book Review

In a previous blog post, Do You Know You Have a Superpower? I nagged everyone about the importance of taking the time to write a good book review if you liked a book as reviews help an author immensely, however, I  left you all hanging with the promise of how to write something quite different ~ the ‘Good’ Bad Book Review.

So, now I’m keeping my promise and won’t leave you hanging any longer. 

To recap, good reviews are important, and we authors really appreciate them, but then, what if you the reader didn’t like a book?

 

First off, I’ll remind everyone that pumping out a lot of bad reviews is not a good thing to do. 

If you write a lot of bad reviews, your public profile on whatever site you like to post your reviews will end up looking awful and cast YOU in a bad light...you will come across as a sourpuss troll who doesn’t like anything and will find fault with everything.  It’s one of the reasons why I don’t like to post anything below a three star review, and very few three-star reviews at that. 

As I said before, you can kill a book faster by your silence than by writing a bad review.

So if you want to spare someone else from wasting their hard earned cash on what you think is a bad book, just don’t say anything about it.  Bad reviews can backfire and actually make people curious about why the book is sooooo bad, and they end up buying the thing anyway, which is what you trying to save them from in the first place.

Okay, from that angle a few bad reviews might help an author too, but frankly, if you can’t say something nice, write something helpful along with your grumblings ~ go for a three star thing.

This is how you can save yourself from looking like a meanie sourpuss online, help people discover if it is still a book they want, and help an author discover their weaknesses, while yet helping to promote their book without destroying their work entirely. Notice the keyword? HELP.

  Yes, it still helps!

Just give it three stars, (don’t go under that amount) and write a ‘middling review’, or to look at it in a more positive light ~ a ‘helpful’ bad book review.  In that way, it ends up being a good review despite whatever flaws you saw in it, and doesn’t burn the book entirely.

How do you do that?

1)      Describe the book, plus what you didn’t like, (no plot spoilers please), then...

2)      DO include things that still may reading it worthwhile, even if it wasn’t quite what you were looking for. Find some of the silver lining and include it in your review.

I’ll give an example of a ‘Middling’ 3 star review I wrote.

Way back in college, I had to read a few of books on Medieval and Early Modern history during an introduction course on Medieval music, just to get a feel for the period.  One book on the list which we the students were encouraged to read was what was described on the back cover as  a “lively” and accessible, and is ‘used as an introduction’ to the period: “Europe in the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Centuries” by Denys Hay.

Hmm, I didn’t find it that ‘lively’, and ‘accessible’ to a beginner studying the period like the blurb portrayed it, so how could it be such a ‘great introduction’ to new students as the back cover promised?  In fact, it felt like it was geared towards those who were already very familiar with the era.

 

Basically, it felt like bad advertising, like when you order a product online and the product is not like how it is portrayed in the photos.  Same with fast food advertising!  The food never looks  like its picture. 

BUT we love the taste of fast food anyway, and the 'fast' part they have advertised correctly, even if we fill picture-jipped, right?  MIDDLE POSITION.

 

 

I felt the same about the book, great stuff, but not as portrayed, i.e. as something 'lively and accessible for a beginner', it was a trifle boring to wade through, not 'lively', despite all the really good info, which I did like. 

Well, here is my ‘middling’ review on it, pointing out where it fell flat to me, but ALSO pointing out what other stuff it had that was good, so you get the idea:

***

“As the title suggests, it is a general overview of the late medieval period of Europe, and according to the back cover, has become the standard introduction to that era in universities and colleges. My sympathies to all future history 101 students who are assigned this book in their reading lists. Yes, it is packed with information, but it is dished out in such a general form that after wading through the text from cover to cover, you feel no wiser than before, even for a general introduction, it simply fails to engage the reader ala Froissart.  Perhaps the author tried to fit too much data into a little space, and the chapters are rather short. However, it is useful for searching out informative quotations and factoids for term papers and other research projects. It is more helpful if used simply as an encyclopaedic reference book, for instance, looking up different sections on conditions of trade, religious practises and the church councils, conditions of travel, the arts and culture, the ravages and outcomes of battles, the various successions to the royal thrones of Europe, etc, rather than expect it to be an attention-grabbing read. Several interesting general genealogical tables are included in the appendix, i.e. for the English Royal family, the rulers of Portugal, Castile, Aragon and Navarre, Poland Hungary and Bohemia, the rulers of Naples and Milan, the Medicis, the Scandinavian kingdoms, the German and Holy Roman Emperors, and also the Palaeologi and Ottoman rulers from this period. There are also several maps displaying the political layout of Europe in those times, and an index. I would recommend it as a reference book to thumb through when needed, but that is all.”

***

Now, you see what I didn’t like about the book, BUT, you should also see that I pointed out what else the book contained and might prove helpful to someone for whatever research they need to do.   In fact, there is a lot of information in the book.  In that sense, my middle-of-the-road grumblings become a ‘helpful’ review.

In fact, as I write this, that review on Amazon still has five thumbs up and no thumbs down yet from customers who found my review ‘helpful’, which is the whole point.  Perhaps they might agree with my opinion, and not buy the book, OR, they may see the description I wrote and think, “Hey, this book still has what I need.” 

So, it’s a winner all around: I get what I didn’t like off my chest while not ripping that book to shreds, (a lot of research and work went into after all), and the review proves helpful to someone else by still showing it’s a book that THEY might like even if I personally didn’t find it all it was cracked up to be.

Now, I must warn you, there is a downside  to writing these ‘Middle Star’ reviews, which is a reason why I don’t write many of them just like I don’t write all-out bad reviews: people sometimes don’t see the good points you’ve written, and just seem to focus on the ‘bad’ stuff and think you are still dissing the book outright, when in fact, you aren’t.  They think you’re a meanie!  

The only reason why I’ve ever done two of these middling reviews at all is to show I’m not giving a ‘happy clappy’ four or five star rating on everything I review without due deliberation.  I review books I like, but will give a so-so review every now and again too, which should show people if they look at my public profile I actually think about what I'm writing before I post a review ~ they ARE getting my honest opinion.

However, like I said, people still take the three star thing the wrong way.  I discovered one comment on Amazon from a user named “Mike DePUe, OFS” that said:

“It is worth noting that Eamon Duffy (Saints and Sinners: A History of the Popes; Third Edition (Yale Nota Bene), p. 436), finds this book "invaluable."”

Well, I just left a comment with that:

“Hi! Well, it is invaluable depending on the reader I guess! For facts and figures, statistics, yes, it is very useful, which I did point out. I just found the way the history was present a bit 'dry': as I wrote in the review, I was hoping for a book along the lines of Froissart's chronicles, something which made you feel as if you were transported back then, something that would help me to get a 'flavour' of the cultures, the customs, how people really thought...it depends what you're looking for in a book. :-)”

Yet this didn’t satisfy someone else who saw my review, for another comment popped up from a user called “Santosh”:

“This isn't a very good review at all; it merely states the book does not conform to what the reviewer wanted in a book. Then why did you buy it? Didn't you have any idea what it contained?” 

You gotta be kidding me.

Okay, this testy observation from Santosh was a bit much considering they had only written two reviews on Amazon to date, and not positive ones at that, a one star and a two star review.  Maybe I should have left it alone, but of course, I had to comment:

***

(Me:) “That's odd ~ five of five people so far found the review 'helpful', so if the review explains exactly what is in the book to help other readers make an informed purchase, (whether or not the book was what I was looking for), it is a 'good' review in that sense.

Yes, I had an idea it would be about Europe in the 14th and 15th centuries as the title suggested, (I can read after all), but was disappointed the material was so 'dry' and not 'lively' as it is described on the back cover.

At least, I didn't think so. It is not engaging like Froissart's contemporary chronicles of the Middle Ages, or as another modern-day example concerning Elizabethan England, "The World of Christopher Marlowe" by David Riggs.

Is "Europe in the 14th and 15th Centuries" informative? Yes. Useful? Yes.
Dry and hard to wade through from cover to cover? Yes. You get buried under facts and information. Great for essays and fact-checking. I found it helpful in one or two areas. Does it help keep you *interested* in the period because of said 'dryness'? No, not for me.

One big problem I found: too much important history was generalised into many short chapters, when whole books would be needed to delve into those topics, volumes in fact! Not just a chapter. Perhaps the book is *too* general and the author fit too much in. Two centuries of European history squashed into 450 or so pages? Ambitious.

That's why I give it a middle star rating. If I outright hated the thing, I would have given it one star, but I rarely hate a book! So, in this case, I just stated my opinion, while people can judge from it whether this book is something they can use or not.

(I can't help but think that if anyone actually *reads* my review, they would see all this already.)

Useful review = good review, despite the star rating.”

 ***

There ended my comment.  Well, rising to the bait of a troll wasn’t a complete waste of time in this instance, it did allow me to explain again why I disliked the book plus gave me an opportunity to say good things about the book again.

In all, I think you get the point.  It’s possible to write a three star review so you can mention the few things that bugged you about it, but not trash a book entirely so you can still help an author.   

However, do so at your own risk: you may get reactions from people who can’t seem to *read* what you are actually saying, but if you like to get into bookish debates, go for it! 


 

You heard the President!

Write a GOOD book review!  And if you simply can't, try to keep your review to a 3 Star and find some good points to say about it.

****

"Boccalini in his 'Adertisements from Parnassus' tells us that Zoilus once presented Apollo a very caustic criticism upon a very admirable book, whereupon the god asked him for the beauties of the work.  He replied that he had only busied himself about the errors. On hearing this, Apollo, handing him a sack of unwinnowed wheat, bade him to pick out all the chaff for his reward." ~ Edgar Allan Poe

Don't be like Zoilus! Find the wheat!

Like my blog?  You'll LOVE my books!  Check them out!  (Click here.)

 

 


 

What Do We Do with a Bad Review?

(Post orginally published June 2012)

 

(Image from the Nuremburg Chronicle 1493, three suns observe a book-burning. ) 

If you are an author, you will at one point or another be presented with a bad if not scorching review of your work. Quite possibly, you may receive an equal amount of negative criticisms and evaluations of your cherished creations in proportion to all the good reviews you receive. Hopefully, you will not receive more bad reviews than good!

How do we address the distressing reality of unjust criticism? The general rule has been to accept everyone is entitled to their opinions, be they good, bad, or incorrect, and simply ignore their bad comments. However, there are times when reviews are completely erroneous they leave us wondering if the reviewer had actually read the book and could comprehend its contents. Or, might we dare suggest, are deliberately condemning a work for some unknown ulterior motive? I have read reviews on other people's work that I had studied and the results were totally perplexing, (the reviewer reporting the author failed to address topics or issues when they had, or completely missed that author's point etc.), and now I too have fallen prey to the poison pen, or at least, a misguided one.

Must we authors stay silent, or are we entitled to defend our work and beat back the flames of unjust criticism?   In the case of an academic review, I think we may, since are academics are expected to be adept readers.  With your permission, I offer you an example below: a review of my work, Faust: My Soul Be Damned for the World Volume 1 , written by Nicholas Holland for Folklore, the Journal of the Folklore Society UK, published March / April 2012. My defense is presented in Italics.

~~~

“E.A. Bucchianeri's book, the first of a two-volume study, surveys works concerned with the famous magician Doctor Faustus from the earliest German notices to Christopher Marlowe's eponymous play. A short final section discusses seventeenth-century and eighteenth-century works before Goethe. The first chapter reviews German accounts of Faustus prior to the earliest known version of the German Faust Book, and places a particular emphasis on the search for biographical evidence about the historical Faustus. Bucchianeri surveys the various early accounts, including those of Trithemius, Melanchthon, and Weyer. The majority of the material covered will be familiar from other modern studies, but whereas the studies of Frank Baron, for example, draw out the complexities of the relationship between historical evidence and the subsequent fashioning of the legend, this study tends to place great emphasis on searching for insight into the biography of the historical Faustus; an approach that can be detrimental to the consideration of the sources surveyed in their historical context.”

(I tend to place more emphasis on the biography? Of course, we cannot see how the folklore developed without arriving at a clear picture of Faustus, this historical man of mystery. To all intents and purposes, I followed Baron's analytical example in discovering the historical Faustus, and offered additional findings / observations to the material Baron provided and discussed. The chapter dealing with Faustus' biography is only one quarter of Volume I, (125 pages) and roughly half of this chapter also examines the legend-formation process. The rest of Volume I (nearly 400 pages), features the Faust folklore / literature. Holland then declares in so many words it is 'detrimental' to piece together a biography of Faustus from the sources that exist and that I did not consider their historical context. Did Mr. Holland actually read and comprehend my work? ~ E.A.B.)

“For example, when considering the account of the famous abbot and philosopher Trithemius that Faustus declared himself the source of the necromancers, Bucchianeri's bewilderment that Faustus "would freely choose a profession that would utterly ruin his reputation" (p. 28) seemingly takes Trithemius's report at face value. Trithemius's opinions concerning Faustus surely demand more cautious consideration in the light of his own possible motivations, reputation, and interests; in particular since so little concerning the historical Faustus and his magical practices can confidently be corroborated using other sources. More generally, Bucchianeri's biographical focus in the early part of the book tends to direct the reader's attention away from what must be the most significant and astonishing aspect of the documentary legacy: the impact, durability, and openness to further interpretation of the legend of Faustus through the sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries, first in German and later in English culture. Whereas the historical Faustus is an almost invisible footnote in early modern intellectual history, the legend of Faustus became, in the hands of a number of important writers, a means of expressing early modern interest concerning both the potential power and also the potential dangers of magic.”

(I could find no evidence presented to date to doubt Trithemius' letter written to a friend and colleague, warning him to be wary of Faustus. The letter was reprinted during Faustus' lifetime, it could not be a bogus document. Trithemius may have aggrandized Faustus' claims concerning his magic skills, but this topic is discussed in detail. Faustus was known to declare himself a "necromancer" according to well-documented historical sources, therefore, according to the historical evidence, Trithemius was accurate in describing Faustus. I have examined the content of Trithemius' letter minutely from all aspects, similar to Frank Baron. To declare oneself a 'necromancer' was a serious matter in those times, Faustus could have been tried and executed. Why take such a risk? His motives had to be questioned, and these questions hypothetically answered. I find it curious Mr. Holland believes the biographical material in Volume I detracts from the efforts to describe the "impact" and the "openness to further investigation" of the legend: as I said, three quarters of Volume I (about 400 pages) explores the rich Faustian material inspired by his legend over the centuries and how it was used to deter people from studying magic in addition to admonishing people to live good Christian lives. Holland's conclusion that I digressed from explaining the "early modern" fascination and fear of black magic is erroneous. ~ E.A.B.)

“The remainder of the volume is mostly dedicated to substantial descriptive accounts of the German and English Faust books, and of Marlowe's Doctor Fautus. Bucchianeri's major new proposition concerning the latter is that the B-text shows that "Marlowe had regained a considerable measure of the defiant 'Machiavellian' optimism", which was absent from the A-Text (p. 368). Although precisely what she means by "Machiavellian" (or "liberal Epicurean," a phrase she applies to Marlowe's Faustus in the same passage) is unclear, her reading of the play evidently belongs to the school of interpretations which considers the overarching admonitory message of the play as being in some way questioned by the manner of its presentation. However, her core interest again is in trying to establish firm connections between biography and text. Her proposal is that the B-text of the play is a revision of the A-text chiefly undertaken by Marlowe himself in the light of personal experiences and historical events that enable it to be dated to 1592. This is an unusually precise stance concerning the genesis and authorship of this text, but ultimately fails to persuade. For example, some basic textual evidence seems to conflict with such a precise and confident dating. The author argues, in particular, that the references to the Anti-Pope Bruno in the B-Text are inspired by news of the arrest of Giordano Bruno in Venice in 1592. However, if a similar method is applied to the reading of two of the most striking points of similarity between the fictional Bruno and the historical Bruno, these events have no direct connection to 1592. The fictional Bruno undergoes excommunication, a punishment which the historical Bruno stated to his interrogators in Venice he knew had been imposed on him in absentia by a hearing convened by the Dominicans in Naples prior to this period in England (1583-5). The execution by burning for heresy, pronounced on the fictional Bruno by Faustus in disguise, was visited on the historical Bruno as late as 1600, seven years after Marlowe's death. While there is a case to be made for the influence of the historical Bruno's person and thought on Marlowe via the circle of Earl of Northumberland, there is in fact nothing tangible to link the scene in Doctor Faustus more strongly to the news of 1592 than to the news of any other year of a period spanning the whole of Marlowe's writing career. Furthermore, by attempting to bind the play's genesis too tightly to Marlowe's biography, the author underestimates not only the imaginative capacities of Marlowe himself and of the other writers who most probably had a hand in the B-Text, but also the uncertainties that cloud our understanding of Marlowe's personal beliefs. Such an approach also fails to place sufficient emphasis on the need to understand the contents of Doctor Faustus in the context of the early modern performance traditions upon which it draws.”

(The terms "Machiavellian" and "Epicurean" may be on the same page, but not in the same paragraph. From the context of the study, Holland should have understood the term "machiavellian" to mean Faustus' thirst for power and his determination to acquire it by whatever means or cost. The philosophical term Epicurean was explained in the first chapter, but possibly Holland forgot: "... pleasure is the supreme goal one should aim for in life, particularly intellectual pleasures above those of sensual ones. Epicurus taught that one could only acquire true happiness and serenity by conquering one’s fear of the gods, death, and the afterlife. He also believed that humans ceased to exist after death, declaring the soul died with the body." The term was referred to in this philosophical context throughout the chapter on Marlowe, and we note Faustus in Marlowe's play begs his soul to dissolve at death. The context of Epicurean should have been clear from the beginning.

I am sorry if my argument concerning the dating of the A and B Texts "failed to persuade" Mr. Holland, but I notice he discussed only one piece of evidence I presented, and omitted to mention all other observations pertaining to the 1592 date. If it was a matter of that one detail, Bruno's arrest, then there would not be enough evidence, but a good detective should look at all the evidence presented.

I also notice Mr. Holland points out every historical detail of the the real Bruno, and how this factual information does not match the action of Marlowe's play: must everything in the drama display historical fact? Surely, Marlowe had the creativity to imagine the scene of Bruno's arrest and make artistic predictions concerning the possible outcome of that event, even if they proved incorrect in the future. In this instance, Holland has failed to follow his own conclusion and has committed the same supposed 'error' he condemns me for, that is, trying to find the historical details that correspond with Marlowe's biography and are included in the play ~ let us note that Holland's states "by attempting to bind the play's genesis too tightly to Marlowe's biography, the author underestimates not only the imaginative capacities of Marlowe himself and the other writers who most probably had a hand in the B Text". In so many words, Holland has proposed that authors, playwrights and artists are uncreative and unimaginative when they draw upon their life experiences, (and therefore, contemporary history), for their material. Interesting observation, Mr. Holland.

He also says by binding the play´s genesis too closely to Marlowe's biography, I also "underestimated the uncertainties" that cloud everyone's understanding of Marlowe's personal beliefs. Not so. It was due to these uncertainties I conducted a close reading of Doctor Faustus with Marlowe's known biography. I simply examined the claims Marlowe was an "atheist" in that he did not believe in the established Christian religions, and noted how these claims may have a basis in fact through a close reading of Doctor Faustus. I endeavoured to shed some light on the accusations levied against Marlowe, and if possible, display how close the creative soul of the writer is to his work. ~ E.A.B)

“The stated aim of this study is to provide a "comprehensive exploration" of Faustus and his legacy. It provides lengthy descriptive discussion of the contents of the texts surveyed and, to some extent, it offers a useful single point of reference for them, although it must also be noted that the author's digressive style makes it relatively hard to read. As a work of analysis, however, its most serious failing is that it does not examine more fully and in a more systematic way the complex forces that worked to shape the legend of Faustus within a wider cultural context, and instead places its primary focus on an attempt to find close relationships between biography and text. As a consequence, it fails to offer readings of the material under consideration which have the depth of insight or nuance of the most valuable works already written on the various works it surveys.”

(The aim of this study was to provide "a comprehensive exploration of Dr. Faustus, the man who sold his soul to the devil, and those who lived to tell his tale" ~ so yes, providing detailed explanations of the texts and why each author presented the Faust material as they did was the object of the work. I do not see how Holland thinks this does not present the "complex forces" that shaped the legend of Faustus, when everything from religious intolerance, the Reformation, academic competition, fear of black magic, the scientific discoveries of the day such as the Copernican / Galileo controversy, folklore and history, and how they were included in the Faustian tales, are discussed. Can the "cultural context" become any wider? If this study lacks "the depth of insight or nuance of the most valuable works" already written on the subject of Faust and Faustian literature, I shall leave it to you, the reader, to discover if this be true or not. I thank Mr. Holland for his review, albeit it took nearly four years for it to appear from the time the paperback edition was published and sent in for review. E.A.B.)

~~~

 

Faust: My Soul Be Damned for the World Volume 1

***

 

Like my blog? You will LOVE my books!

Click here and check them out today!