How to Decipher a Book Review
Over at the Vox Day website, one Bextor Fenwick asks a really good question:
I was looking to get my hands on a physical book of Wright’s. The only book they do carry is “Count to a Trillion”. But, the average review rating for that book on amazon is not all that great. So, because of that I’ve been holding off on buying it. However, you made some very favorable comments about that book. Why do you think it didn’t fare so well with the reviews on amazon??
Here is my theory, which should surprise no one. The book fared well with those whose tastes, preconceptions, worldview and attitudes it pleased, and fared poorly with those it displeased. That raises a deeper question of how to discover the tastes of the reviewer, what he is looking for in a book.
Please look at what the reviewers, positive and negative, found good and bad in the book, and try to guess whether their tastes and predispositions match yours.
A negative review:
“This is a dreadful book…. It’s bad in so many ways… where to start?
The weird politics? The hero is a 22nd century Texan, which apparently means he talks like the sidekick in a spaghetti Western and has unlimited faith in the Right to Keep and Bear Arms – no fooling, he actually lectures posthumans a couple of centuries later on the necessity of the Second Amendment. This idiot’s name is Menelaus Montrose, but he’s basically Rick Perry minus the Christian accoutrements. … The Europeans are effete, and the villains are all treacherous Hispanics: from Spain, thank God, I was afraid Montrose was going to start calling them ‘wetbacks’.”
Now, what do you think this reviewer’s politics are? Do you think he is Leftwing or Rightwing? Do you think these portrayals of Europeans as effete or Spaniards as wetbacks are actually in the book, or something he brings into the reading out of his own particular bigotries and racial opinions?
A positive review:
“John C Wright did his research for this book, it is not fantasy masquerading as science fiction, nor does it include faster then light travel, everything from the social, the economic, the math, to the physics, the scientific method and the way that science and society actually happen and advance are wholly believable and accurate.”
What do you think the reviewer here was looking for in a book? Is what he looks for what you look for?
Or this:
“There’s something about Wright’s style of prose that reminds me of ancient classics. yes, there’s gee-whiz technology, but the Big Ideas and the heroic epic style come straight from a time when it was a story about some long dead Greek. Who I would particular recommend this to is anyone who finds descriptions of physics and mathematics like a kind of poetry.”
What is this reviewer looking for? What are his standards?
Another way is to discover which authors the reviewer likes, to confirm if his tastes match yours. Note this most flattering discription of my work:
“Wright is Chesterton-infused Melvillean van Vogt birthday cakes with Zelazny sauce on top.”
You know he likes Chesterton, etc. If Chesterton is not to your taste, then you know this book might not be for you.
Another positive review:
“So many great ideas are contained within that they could have been parsed out a basis for a dozen of other SF books…..
“Menelaus is a brilliant polymath who dreams of “shining tomorrows” and the disappointments of actual life and not flying cars and other gee wiz technological developments. His dreams are partially shaped by a comic book series named Asymptote that has many shadows of Star Trek and it’s view of the future of man along with the cornier aspects related to Captain Kirk. As someone whose childhood included the start of the Star Trek series and the race to the moon this young character had many elements I could relate to.
“The book also deals with post humanism and contact with an alien civilization which has left an artifact so dense with information that ultimately it can only be read by someone with post human intelligence. The big ideas surrounding this aspect are also very interesting ….
“The philosophical discussions between the main characters is also interesting…
“Really the dialogue is quite enjoyable and often very funny at times. One description involving hackers and Moby Dick is one of the funniest things I have ever read…”
Now, this reviewer finds appealing the selfsame things other negative reviewers found unappealing: many brilliant ideas (which other reviewers call a slow plot) a likeable main character (which other reviewers called unrealistic — perhaps they know no likeable people in real life) philosophy (tedious to dullards) enjoyable witty dialog (meaningless to those who don’t get the jokes).
Let me make a personal comment: look back at the first review I quoted. Myself, I wonder how portraying the starship captain who saves Montrose from a life of misery as the only man ballsy enough to organize and fund the world’s first international and interstellar manned mission somehow qualifies as ‘effete’. The character is from Monaco, and is the only character whose nation of origin is mentioned in the book, aside from the main villain, who happens to be from Spain.
More to the point, I wonder how portraying Spain as a first-world world-empire with a working space program versus Texas inhabited by Mestizo as a third world hellhole somehow constitutes a racist insult against the Spaniards rather than against the half-Spanish half-Indians living in the Republic of Texas (including my hero).
Before a reviewer plays the race card against me, perhaps he should discover what race the hero of my book is, eh? Bob Heinlein played a similar trick against the bigots of his day by making Mr Rico of STARSHIP TROOPERS Filipino.
Heh-heh. Gotcha, ya bigot.
About John C Wright
John C. Wright is a practicing philosopher, a retired attorney, newspaperman, and newspaper editor, and a published author of science fiction. Once a Houyhnhnm, he was expelled from the august ranks of purely rational beings when he fell in love; but retains an honorary title.
