When I review fiction, I do so in two different and distinct
ways:
1. Editorial voice: This voice can sound harsh. It is a strict discussion of things the
writer has done well, and things that seem not to work. This is mainly technical review, though I do
try to ground it in what I think makes a story good.
2. Reader’s voice: This voice might sound harsh, but it’s
more likely to talk about what was enjoyable about the writing. It’s a review of what I loved about a piece,
what inspired me, what’s cool about it. This
is where I will put on my fan hat and just enthuse (or not) as appropriate.
I can usually find something to enthuse about even if I didn’t
like the story or book all that much.
But if I really didn’t like it?
Well, to start I probably wouldn’t review it at all unless I thought
there was a really good reason to point out why I hated it.
In editorial voice reviews, I’ll usually grade writing as
pass/fail in terms of readability and meeting minimum standards to be
considered for nomination for the Hugos (and presumably other awards, though I’m
mainly thinking of the Hugos here). Note
that this doesn’t mean I think the work was “an amazing read!” or that I think
it should win in its Hugo category, just that I think it isn’t automatically
out of the running for not meeting my mental bar for consideration.
My bar for actually winning is, of course, somewhat higher.
On a related note, I will try to determine whether what I’m
reading is eligible for the next round of Hugo nominations, and if so what category
it belongs in. As nomination season
approaches, I will pop these titles into a list and begin discussing what I
liked and hated about the best of them as I work toward my own nominations.
--Smade
No comments:
Post a Comment