Jonathan Crowe

The issue of negative reviews in science fiction and fantasy is coming up again, as it does from time to time. It’s a subject I have talked about before, continue to have a lot of thoughts about, and will have more to say about in the future, but this time I’d like to highlight points made by others in threaded conversations on Twitter.

I want to talk about this, because it bothers me.

I will start by saying I think @jasonsanford does terrific work. I back his Patreon and recommend it.

That said, I've only seen two reviewers criticized for lack of critical reviews: @jasonsanford and @ClowderofTwo. Both men. https://t.co/zUIGNKpPZm

— R. Lemberg (@RoseLemberg) April 11, 2018

First, Rose Lemberg, who notes a disparity in who is expected to provide critical or negative reviews—and, notably, critical authority—and whose reviews are simply ignored. While reviewers from marginalized (e.g. non-cis) groups can and do write good works of criticism, those works are ignored, Rose says; whereas white male reviewers are criticized when they don’t assume the mantle of authority. (I suppose you might call it the Voice of Clute.)

"Why aren't there more critical and/or negative reviews" is usually a demand by white Anglo men. (Several on my timeline today.)

Here is a short thread explaining why.

I have both positive and negative reviews and also a lot of "well I liked this but X aspect was annoying"

— Bogi Takács PERSON, 100% migráncs (@bogiperson) April 11, 2018

One of the reviewers Rose mentions is Bogi Takács, who points to something I worry about but haven’t much experienced: writers who harass reviewers who give them a bad review. Then again, I’m a straight white cis male (and as such, selon Rose, am supposed to be critical); Bogi points out that reviewers from marginalized groups are much more likely to experience harassment from authors, because authors don’t go after reviewers they perceive as having power. As I see it, it’s textbook bullying behaviour—behaviour that, according to Bogi, chases reviewers out of their field, because no one has those reviewers’ back and the work is just not worth the grief.

Not link-tweeting anyone because it's so pervasive, but: when you create a critical culture in which any negative critique is framed as an "attack on authors," you create conditions in which virtually the only people willing to do it are also willing to *actually* attack authors.

— Cecily Kane (@Cecily_Kane) April 11, 2018

Finally, Cecily Kane looks at the unintended consequence of framing negative or critical reviews as toxic or as “attacking authors”: you create a perverse incentive in which the only ones willing to do the necessary work of critical reviews are the toxic assholes who are fully on board for attacking authors. Because you’ve chased out everyone else who would otherwise be willing to do the work.

Or to put it another way: If writing a negative review is going to get the reviewer shat on, you’re going to incentivize the people who enjoy flinging poo.

I honestly think we protest too much: there are still plenty of good, critical reviews out there. It’s just that they’re drowned out by a much greater volume of uncritical squee, unapologetic logrolling and frankly mediocre reviewing work. It’s an extraordinarily incestuous field, and it’s hard to shitcan a bad book written by someone in your social circle. Necessary, but hard. It’s probably better we not leave that work to the sociopaths.