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

[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...