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.

[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?

[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.

[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...

[sartorias.livejournal.com]

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

[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/

[(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.

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