Green Man's reviewing policy for YA books

[steepholm]

Anyone who reads the Green Man Review’s website will find that it makes some pretty strong claims for its influence - in terms of reach (‘It's far more likely than not that a Green Man will be ranked at the top of a search… We reach a quarter of a million or so unique readers every month’); longevity (‘A review or interview on Green Man reaches readers everywhere -- be it right now or decades from now’); and authoritativeness (‘If we say it's good, you know it's bloody good!’).

With this awesome power comes responsibility, however, and seeing that the same site invites readers’ letters, lady_schrapnell wrote to them recently, detailing some of the problems with their recent review of Death of a Ghost (you can read her original post on the subject here). The reply, which came from a senior staffer but may seem by its choice of pronoun to speak for the GMR as a whole, provides an instructive insight into the journal's YA reviewing policy...

“You want our answer? The book is for YAs; we gave it to one, and lo! She didn't like it. And if she is a mite snarky, well ... the target audiance is like that, you know? Comes with the territory. Get over it. Your angst over it is far more tahn it deserves.”

And that's it. In substance this is just a boorish variant on the conventional politician’s answer – ignoring all but one of the points lady_schrapnell actually raised (concerning the review’s incoherence, unsupported assertions, poor English, etc.) and choosing instead to answer one that she specifically didn’t (the fact that it was negative). The question of the reviewer’s personal snarkiness is acknowledged – admitted, indeed – but dismissed as unimportant, because GMR believes young adults to be snarky anyway. (It’s worth adding that there is no indication on the GMR site that the reviewer concerned is a young adult. Perhaps there should be, if GMR really thinks allowances should be made for her on that basis. Personally, I would feel patronized by that attitude.)

I’m well aware that all this hardly deserves further comment, but hey – it’s my LJ, and I’m the one who’s been snarked against, so indulge me if I unpack GMR’s response just a little further. With a concision that in another context would be impressive, it manages in a very few words to combine three distinct (but equally contemptuous) assumptions:

a) YA literature isn’t important enough to warrant a considered or coherent review
b) Young adult readers of GMR don’t deserve (or wouldn’t appreciate) such reviews
c) Young adults can’t be expected to write well, support their assertions with evidence, or distinguish between entertaining writing and cheap personal shots

a) needs no comment, I hope, as far as this LJ’s readership is concerned; but b) and c) are really more pernicious in tarring a whole age group with the inability to think or use language clearly, along with the more specific charge of snark. Now, I’ve no idea what the extent of GMR’s contact with young adults actually is, but for the last 17 years I’ve worked with them on a daily basis, discussing books and their own writing, both critical and creative. And guess what? In that time I’ve come across hundreds who write well and wittily, understand how to construct an argument, and are pretty decent human beings as well – and certainly more than capable of producing a book review to the professional standards GMR is happy not to uphold.

I’ve read some excellent reviews in GMR over the years – but I’m beginning to wonder if this was in spite of their editorial policy, rather than because of it.

Comments

[jadelennox]

I have considered reviewing for GMR but have chosen not to, not least because I find their reviews not particularly valuable from a reader's perspective. I find them not very well written, on the whole, and very strongly flavored by the reviewer's prior biases. And if they are silently having reviews written by young adults (and expecting less of the young adult reviewers than of adult reviewers) that says reams about their editorial policy.

[lady-schrapnell.livejournal.com]

I considered it when we all got that invitation and chose not to, because I didn't feel I was adequately qualified.

Had I but known, Tam Lin, Tam Lin...

[steepholm.livejournal.com]

I've been doing a bit of sampling over the last few days, as you might imagine, and I'm coming round to your opinion about their general quality. I think I was rather lucky in the first few reviews of theirs I happened to read. It's a pity, because I like the idea of the Green Man Review a lot!

[gair.livejournal.com]

I've been furious about this (silently) since I first saw the link on lady_schrapnell's LJ, and that reply is leaving me speechless again. That is shocking on so many levels - the ones that you list, but also: being a good reader of a book and a good reviewer or critic of it are completely different skill sets. So this whole 'target audiance'* thing seems to me to be completely irrelevant - with the one exception, which wasn't the case at all with this reviewer, that a YA reader might have more intimate knowledge about contemporary youth culture(s) than an older-adult author, reviewer, or reader, and might therefore be able to address the question of a book's success or failure in representing same.

Hmm. I just typed-and-deleted a parallel with queer reviewers, who might be seen as being particularly trustworthy in talking about the representation of queer characters in books by straight authors, and with that in mind this:

The book is for YAs; we gave it to one, and lo! She didn't like it.

becomes slightly sickening. 'This book is for women; we gave it to one, and she didn't like it'. It's a total objectification of the target audience. Yuk. YUK IN CAPS.

I think this requires my Foucault icon.

*sic?

[lady-schrapnell.livejournal.com]

Absolutely sic. As is 'far more tahn it deserves'. And indeed, as is the lack of any word of greeting, let alone encouragement to submit a letter for publication or anything. What you see is exactly what I got, and all I got. And - y'know, because I'm a woman and all, I suppose I should mention that the letter I sent this guy wasn't all emotional, and hysterical and I didn't virtually include the hair I've torn out and am chewing... (Yeah, I'm furious 99% on Charlie's behalf, but that 'angst', as if this were only a female emotional thing because he insulted my luver, got me on my own as well.)

[steepholm.livejournal.com]

Thanks, gair. (I can't do Foucault, but here's a pendulum at least.)

[emmaco.livejournal.com]

I read this entry this morning but couldn't think of anything to say beyond a splutter. I still can't but just thought I'd say I agree that it is patronising to young adults and to young adult books. And if lady_schrapnell's letter was as articulate as her post (which I don't doubt) then the reply was also rude to her.

[steepholm.livejournal.com]

It was indeed. The splutter is appreciated (I do hope you weren't eating muesli at the time?).

[shewhomust.livejournal.com]

Declaration of ignorance: I'm not a reader of GMR, I haven't read Death of a Ghost (yet!), I followed all the links because I'm interested in reviewing, how it works and how (to my taste) it often fails.

People have been using the word "unprofessional": the word that came into my mind - and I read the review before I read the discussion - was "amateurish". There's nothing on the page (or elsewhere, as far as I can see), other than the quality of the review, to indicate that this is a review by a member of the target audience, rather than a professional (in the sense of experienced and applying standards) reviewer - and the link from the reviewer's name to biographical information is broken. But the level of spoilerage, the disorganised nature of the review, the pointless jibes - we might have guessed!

So all in all, when GMR respond that it's an amateur review and what does it matter, I'd be inclined to agree with them. Clearly, they aren't a publication to take seriously.

There remains the matter that they do get good rankings on Google: not top, on this occasion, but above the page about the book on steepholm's own web site - and this is something it might be possible to improve on. steepholm (on the understanding that you do indeed run the website yourself), you might try adding an h1 headline with the title, and making sure that your name appears in full on the page, and in the meta-text...

[steepholm.livejournal.com]

Thanks for the comments and for the tip, shewhomust. I do indeed run the website, but I constructed it using an idiot-friendly program (WebPage Maker) which doesn't allow easy access to the underlying HTML. I'm sure there is a way to get at it, though, and am making enquiries. Meanwhile, I shall ensure that my name is blazoned more liberally across its pages.

[shewhomust.livejournal.com]

My pleasure, steepholm. I can bore on this topic almost indefinitely, so if there's any help I can offer at any time...

[sartorias.livejournal.com]

The weirdest thing is, that reply (to lady_schrapnell's letter) seems to have been written by a thirteen-year old.

[steepholm.livejournal.com]

Good to see you here on Steepholm Island, sartorias! It does look that way, doesn't it? Perhaps there's a glade in the GMR greenwood with a Fountain of Eternal Adolescence.

[sartorias.livejournal.com]

I didn't know you were posting--last time I'd checked, your journal was blank, so I hadn't joined it. Fixed now!

[scholars-blog.livejournal.com]

I'm a fellow splutterer ! I'm completely foxed by their response - as completely as I was foxed by the original review... It's just beggars belief !

Charlie - if you need any more HTML help, I'm always at hand !

Michele
http://scholar-blog.blogspot.com/

Fantastic article ! You havemade some very astute statements

[(Anonymous)]

I used the translator and I have learned a lot for you! Thank you a lot for sharing.

[(Anonymous)]

Hi,
sorry, I don't have an Lj account, but happened to find you through a link (from a link...from a link...).

My sympathies go out to anyone reeling from a less-than-complimentary review. That's never any fun. I haven't read Mr. Butler's work, but if I understand correctly, it's the nature of the particular Green Man review he's unhappy with, and not necessarily that the reviewer didn't seem to like his book?

I really like The Green Man Review, though I don't read everything there. I notice David Brin's YA Sky Horizon was reviewed in the same issue as Death of a Ghost, and THAT review was quoted on the home page of Subterranean Press (by them). It doesn't seem fair to state that The Green Man staff treats YA as unimportant. In fact, Miss Owen (the same teenage review-staff member who reviewed Death of a Ghost) gives a good review of Orson Scott Card's Space Boy in the same issue (also a YA?).

Many of us write YA, and I actually think it's interesting (refreshing, even?) that The Green Man has accepted a review staffer who IS from the target audience for many of our works.

Again, I sympathize w/ Mr. Butler. Perhaps several friends who have enjoyed the book might post favourable reviews, instead of getting hung up on this one which didn't work out? It seems that flaming an entire site--which has (from a reader's viewpoint) provided some excellent info over the years on a vast number of great bits of literature and music--isn't good for anybody.

Just my thoughts.
--Ima F.

A perilous shot out of an elder gun...

[steepholm.livejournal.com]

Thanks for stopping by, Ima. I appreciate your taking the time to put an alternative point of view.

It doesn't seem fair to state that The Green Man staff treats YA as unimportant.

Well, it was news to me too. I've always been pleased to think of it as one of the few places that actually reviews YA titles on equal terms with literature and music for adults. But it's hard to know how else to read the response they gave to lady_schrapnell, for the reasons I discussed in my post.

Any journal that takes the books it reviews seriously will try to ensure that they are assigned to competent reviewers. It will realise that, especially in a journal as influential as GMR declares itself to be, what it says will be heard respectfully, and may have a real impact on the careers and incomes of the writers it reviews. Even in the best regulated journals, though, it's always possible that now and then a review will get through that is inaccurate, self-contradictory, that blames a book for belonging to a genre the reviewer happens not to like, contains malapropisms and non sequiturs, scatters major spoilers, and makes snide personal comments about the writer and his other books (while blithely admitting complete ignorance of both). A review of that kind is not just a bad review (like most writers I've had my share of them, and long since learned to take them on the chin) - it's a BAD review. A journal that takes itself seriously (and asks others to do the same), ought not to be surprised if someone points this out, as lady_schrapnell did - politely and in temperate language. If it responds as GMR did, then - well, what should we think? It seemed to me to call for comment, not only because of its personal rudeness (actually I didn't comment on that, because it speaks for itself) but because of what it implied about GMR's attitude to YA books. I'd be delighted if you could show me where my reading of it is wrong.

I've absolutely nothing against any journal asking young adults (or anyone else) to review books, by the way, if they can do it competently. As I mentioned, in my day job I've come across many young adults who are extremely good writers, and whose work it would be a pleasure to read in any forum. On the evidence of this review, Claire Owen simply hasn't mastered the skills necessary for the task, nor does she seem to have brought an appropriate attitude to it. Her age is irrelevant to that.

Don't worry, though, I'm not hung up on this review - though I admit I was fairly flabbergasted by it. In the interstices of this day I've been trying to get on with my life - marking essays (by young adults, yet!), writing fiction, and looking after my children. I've certainly no interest in 'flaming an entire site'! A post in my personal LJ, which is read by maybe a couple of dozen people, hardly compares to the flaming I received at GMR's hands, which may be read (according to them) by anything up to a quarter of a million.

The only good side of it, from my point of view, is that my post was much better written.

[gair.livejournal.com]

I know this has been said already, but this is really a question about the quality of Claire Owen's review(s), not the content. I went off and looked at the Space Boy review you mentioned, and I do think both reviews are pretty shoddy - and both for the same reason: they draw too much attention to themselves and not enough to the books being reviewed. So, in the Orson Scott Card review, after a lengthy summary of the plot, her actual critical response is: I greatly enjoyed this book and had a hard time putting it down. It was ... sort of like eating a peanut butter cup. Okay, that's a nice metaphor, but it doesn't tell me anything about whether I'm going to like the book.

Green Man Review & YA

[materkb.livejournal.com]

I happen to be a reviewer for Green Man Review. I didn't review Death of A Ghost, but have read the comments we've received on this review. While I do understand the distress a bad review can cause, I think a great deal more fuss is being made over this than it deserves.

It's true, Death of a Ghost was reviewed by a teenager. Her age was not something we felt was vital for the readers to know, but it was a consideration in having her review this book: she is in the target audience. She did not like it, and said so. Her review reflects her opinions, her tastes and her skills. We feel they are both mature and appropriate for a reader her age. GMR publishes reviews as critique, after all, not entertainment. While it's unfortunate you found the review unacceptable, it does reflect the reaction of an actual member of the book's intended audience.

GMR stands by its review and reviewers. They are honest. Bad reviews are not removed, although we will correct factual errors when they are pointed out. However, this review is not in error: it's just not favorable. If you will examine the reviewer's other work in this issue, you will see that she reviews quite ably, and gives praise where she thinks it is due.

At GMR, we don't hold YA works in light regard. I've reviewed several of them myself, and happen to think they are an enormously important genre. Readers need to be caught young, and our increasingly-sophisticated children are both discerning and particular about what they read. When a reviewer finds such a book lacking, it needs to be said - and all the more loudly when the reviewer is one the readers for whom the book was intended. We foist far too much nonsense off on our kids, and they have no way to complain about most of it. Writers in this genre have to realize that their audiance is young, volatile, opinionated, often sarcastic and usually much more serious than an adult. This review gave one such reader a voice. It should be taken in context, learned from, and let rest.

Kathleen Bartholomew
materkb@hotmail.com

Re: Green Man Review & YA

[steepholm.livejournal.com]

I happen to be a reviewer for Green Man Review. I didn't review Death of A Ghost, but have read the comments we've received on this review. While I do understand the distress a bad review can cause, I think a great deal more fuss is being made over this than it deserves.

What fuss? My only public comment on the matter has been in this LJ post - unless you count the Spenserian stanzas in my previous one (they were a lot of fun to write, and rather cathartic, but GMR would need to be far more thin-skinned than I believe it to be to feel truly savaged by them). Moreover, even this post was not primarily about the review, but about GMR’s response to lady_schrapnell’s letter. That response is notably absent from your own comment, which I can only assume means you are tacitly disassociating yourself – and possibly the GMR too – from it.

It's true, Death of a Ghost was reviewed by a teenager. Her age was not something we felt was vital for the readers to know, but it was a consideration in having her review this book: she is in the target audience. She did not like it, and said so. Her review reflects her opinions, her tastes and her skills. We feel they are both mature and appropriate for a reader her age.

I’m a little confused here about whether you think her age should be taken into account when assessing the quality of the review or not. At the beginning of your para you seem to agree with me that it shouldn’t (“Her age was not something we felt was vital for the readers to know”), but then you take it all away again by saying that her skills were “appropriate for a reader her age”. This seems a little cake-and-eat-it to me. But that’s a side issue…

GMR stands by its review and reviewers. They are honest. Bad reviews are not removed, although we will correct factual errors when they are pointed out. However, this review is not in error: it's just not favorable.

This is disingenuous. It really would be tedious to rehearse yet again the features that make the review far more than simply unfavourable, but they’ve been detailed both in lady_schrapnell’s original post and in the letter she sent to GMR. No one, as far as I am aware, has challenged any of the points she made. Oh, and in case anyone gets the wrong impression from what you’re saying, I should make it clear that neither I nor she has at any point asked for the review to be removed or altered.

At GMR, we don't hold YA works in light regard. I've reviewed several of them myself, and happen to think they are an enormously important genre.

Absolutely. Glad to hear it. Hopefully the response to lady_schrapnell was an aberration on the part of one of your staff, then.

Writers in this genre have to realize that their audiance is young, volatile, opinionated, often sarcastic and usually much more serious than an adult.

I too had noticed that young people are young (damn their eyes!). Some of them certainly possess the other characteristics you mention, but again I’m far less inclined that GMR seems to be to tar all young people with the same brush. I can only say, for the third time now, that I’m all in favour of YAs being given the chance to write reviews, and can’t quite see how I could be understood to have said otherwise. What I’m not in favour of is incompetent reviewers of any age, or gratuitous rudeness from anybody at any time.

Re: Green Man Review & YA

[lady-schrapnell.livejournal.com]

I have to protest - again - on Charlie's behalf the idea that he's making a fuss (let alone too much of one) simply because he got a negative review. I started 'the fuss', on my LJ, over what I felt to be an incompetent review, and others who have commented here or on my post (including several people who are regular reviewers themselves - one for GMR, among many other publications) were also upset by the quality of the review.

I'm also puzzled by the repeated claims that as the book was given to a teen, it was given to a member of the target audience. As has been pointed out (by another reviewer) there are many types of fantasy for adults and some of them she'd never review because she simply doesn't like them. Owen admits herself that she doesn't like this genre (even calling what she's done 'whining'). Her age no more automatically makes her an appropriate reviewer of this book than does mine make me an appropriate one for literary fiction.

Regarding the question of the skills evident from the review - I simply don't accept that they are adequate to the job. Owen does make several factual errors about the book, for one thing, and shows her lack of knowledge of the genre several times. That teens are capable of unbiased reading and reviewing I know from personal experience, as well as believing in a more general way. I've read many book reports, reviews and essays written by both my daughters and neither of them would confuse personal sniping with appropriate discussion of a book's merits or lack thereof, supported with relevant textual evidence. We have had many interesting discussions about books of many different types and their knowledge of some genres far exceeds mine. (As it happens, Death of a Ghost is one of the books we've discussed and the comments have been both informed and intelligent.) Even when discussing - in private - books which are not the type of book they at all enjoy, they have always been able to distinguish between personal preference and the success or failure of a book in its own light. I would certainly expect no less from anyone reviewing for a publication with the (self-proclaimed) influence of GMR.

Re: Green Man Review & YA

[gair.livejournal.com]

My gf was the regular children's book reviewer for The Age for many years, and she tells me that once she became a professional reviewer she would look back in horror at the some of the hatchet jobs she did in her early days - not at all because she changed her opinions on the books, but because in her early reviews she was so busy 'showing off' about how elegantly she could demolish someone else's work that she didn't realize that reviews actually matter - that they're more than a conduit for the reviewer's wit and malice. The fake-political rhetoric of 'giving just ONE CHILD a VOICE' is absolutely misplaced here, and in fact I think this is at the heart of what's wrong with both Owen's reviews (see my other comment above on the Space Boy review): reviews are a gatekeeping mechanism which mediate between a book and its potential readers, not a method of giving a VOICE to oppressed readers. In this case, sarcasm and volatility isn't the mark of the Authentic Voice Of Kidhood; it's the mark of a new reviewer, who - if my gf's experience is anything to go by - is going, as she gains more experience, to start regretting being let down by her editors, who could have guided her to write better reviews if they weren't objectifying her as the Heroic Voice of Oppressed Child Readers.