[chessmind] Dennis Monokroussos: In Defense of Negative Book Reviews

[Email subscription to blog articles]

Posted by Dennis Monokroussos:
In Defense of Negative Book Reviews
http://chessmind.powerblogs.com/posts/1167627590.shtml


   In some past issues of Chess Today, GM Mikhail Golubev has expressed a
   disapproving attitude toward negative book reviews. Some excerpts
   follow:

     After becoming a writer yourself, it is not always easy to evaluate
     a work, the preparation of which, as you now know, may require a
     valuable part of not only the author's but even the book editor's
     life. I hold the view that negative opinions about books in most
     cases just do not deserve to be expressed in print (well, unless
     the book under consideration is dangerous for society) - and, as it
     happens, positive opinions are often too personal and insignificant
     for others. (CT-1524)

     I continue now my "favourite" topic of negativism in chess reviews.
     Somehow, the negativism in reviews now disturbs me more than the
     fact of the existence of such books, which are done, say, too
     easily. (The direct computer database printout was a popular kind
     of chess book around 1990). As it happens, I always put myself in
     the author's shoes in such situations.

     ...in case of the author of the book/CD who has spent a lot of time
     on his work, the insulting effect must be multiplied by hundreds if
     not by thousands. Is it normal to tell to someone that he/she spent
     one year of his/her life wrongly? Really: I do not think so.

     ...In fact, the reviewers are, as a rule, lesser experts in the
     narrow specific fields than authors of the relevant books.

     ...the best way to "punish" the "bad" work is to ignore it. So as
     not to cause unnecessary troubles for authors and readers.
     (CT-2133)

   To summarize, we can find three objections to (most) negative book
   reviews in these quotes: (1) they are insensitive to the author, who
   has spent a great deal of time on his work, (2) the reviewers are
   generally relatively unqualified, and (3) those reviews aren't even
   the most effective way to "punish" unworthy books; silence works
   better. Let's consider each in turn. On (1): The suggestion is that
   it's insulting to tell the (conscientious) author who has spent a good
   deal of time producing a book or CD that he has essentially wasted his
   time; that's what a negative review does. To this, I have five
   responses:

   (a) This seems to assume an unqualified bad review. But it might be
   that the work is of value to some readers, even if not the ones (or
   not all the ones) the author had hoped. Thus a book might be a poor
   effort overall, but with some value nonetheless.

   (b) It's not clear that it's better to waste the time of the readers
   who will buy the volume than to make the author feel better about the
   time he spent writing it. (And when one adds up the time of all the
   individuals who buy the book, it will easily exceed the time invested
   by the author.)

   (c) Not only the readers' time, but their money as well ought to be
   protected. The reviewer exists primarily to serve his readers, not
   authors or publishers.

   (d) It's not a waste of time if the author can learn something from
   the review. The reviewer should be as conscientious as the author, not
   only in calling 'em as he sees 'em, but by trying to explain why the
   book falls short, in what areas, and how it could have been improved.
   If reviewers stay silent (objection (3)), how will the author learn?

   (e) Reviewers can write with sensitivity: it's not necessary or
   beneficial to write scathing, excoriating reviews when the work
   reviewed was the product of a genuine effort. (I'm far less
   sympathetic to those who put in half-donkeyed efforts.) If the author
   has something of value to offer his readers, then the reviewer, as the
   audience's advocate, should ideally help the author to ultimately
   better serve that audience. On (2): The objection is that in most
   cases, the reviewer is less of a specialist than the writer, or to
   take a different example not given by Golubev, it's also true that
   reviewers are often weaker than the authors.

   This criticism may be legitimate in some cases, but in others it's
   not. For instance, suppose I'm reviewing an opening book. I might spot
   check some sharp variations of interest with a chess engine. If it
   regularly turns out that the engine busts the author's analysis, isn't
   that relevant? Why do I need to be stronger than the author, or more
   of a specialist, to note that his work was sloppy? Maybe the author
   doesn't want to be told that he has wasted a few months on the book,
   but I don't think the reader will be thrilled to lose a few hundred -
   or a few thousand - dollars losing a big money game following bad
   analysis.

   That's one response; here's another. It might be that the reviewer
   isn't ideally qualified to assess the content. Nevertheless, again,
   the reviewer is there to represent and advocate for the audience, not
   the author and publisher. And if the content is wonderful but the
   presentation awful, prospective readers should know this. The reviewer
   might be the author's inferior when it comes to producing the
   material, but he might have a better understanding of the audience's
   pedagogical needs (in terms of form, not content). This in turn helps
   authors, by helping them understand how to reach their audience. On
   (3): The objection is that silence is a better way to "punish" bad
   work than a negative review. In my view this might be true on
   occasion, but probably not most of the time. Here are some objections
   and considerations to take into account.

   First, by responding with silence rather a review, learning
   opportunities are lost all around. The conscientious writer doesn't
   learn what's wrong with his book, the audience doesn't learn from the
   insightful reviewer what sorts of things he should look for in a good
   chess book, and in case of disagreement about the merits of the
   review, the reviewer doesn't get to learn anything either.

   Second, just because one reviewer is silent doesn't mean everyone will
   be. Assuming a book is borderline-bad, or is more attractive to
   reviewers more inclined to think from certain perspectives and less to
   others, then the upshot of Golubev's policy is that a weak book will
   be helped, not hindered, by having only positive reviews in print!

   Third, the silence of the reviewers doesn't mean the book will die of
   obscurity. If the book comes from a major publishing house, or gets
   good blurbs by the author's friends, or is the umpteenth effort by an
   already successful author, or is promoted by effective supply chains,
   etc., it will find its way into the hands of unwary readers. They will
   waste their time, waste their money, not improve, and then rush out to
   buy the next weakly written but well-marketed work by that author,
   thinking that maybe this next book will push them over the hump.

   In sum, while Golubev's concern for the feelings of chess authors (and
   a concern for their livelihood as well, I'm sure) speaks well of him,
   I think his opposition to negative reviews is misplaced - as long as
   the reviewer is writing conscientiously and to inform, not to "score
   points". The reviewer, even when negative, is performing a useful
   function: protecting the potential buyer's time and money while
   helping teach writer and reader to know what to expect from each
   other.

   (P.S.: I have two of Golubev's books and have seen many of his
   analyses on Chess Today, and I'd like to say that he has always struck
   me as a hard-working analyst who does consistently excellent work.)