![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Green Man's reviewing policy for YA books
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,![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
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 pointslady_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.
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.
Green Man Review & YA
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
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
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
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
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
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