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

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.